Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “reporting”

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 379 records · Page 21

Pilot Critical Incident Reports as a Means to Identify Human Factors of Remotely Piloted Aircraft

It has been estimated that aviation accidents are typically preceded by numerous minor incidents arising from the same causal factors that ultimately produced the accident. Accident databases provide in-depth information on a relatively small number of occurrences, however incident databases have the potential to provide insights into the human factors of Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) operations based on a larger volume of less-detailed reports. Currently, there is a lack of incident data dealing with the human factors of unmanned aircraft systems. An exploratory study is being conducted to examine the feasibility of collecting voluntary critical incident reports from RPAS pilots. Twenty-three experienced RPAS pilots volunteered to participate in focus groups in which they described critical incidents from their own experience. Participants were asked to recall (1) incidents that revealed a system flaw, or (2) highlighted a case where the human operator contributed to system resilience or mission success. Participants were asked to only report incidents that could be included in a public document. During each focus group session, a note taker produced a de-identified written record of the incident narratives. At the end of the session, participants reviewed each written incident report, and made edits and corrections as necessary. The incidents were later analyzed to identify contributing factors, with a focus on design issues that either hindered or assisted the pilot during the events. A total of 90 incidents were reported. Human factor issues included the impact of reduced sensory cues, traffic separation in the absence of an out-the-window view, control latencies, vigilance during monotonous and ultra-long endurance flights, control station design considerations, transfer of control between control stations, the management of lost link procedures, and decision-making during emergencies. Pilots participated willingly and enthusiastically in the study, and generally had little difficulty recalling critical incidents. The results suggest that pilot interviews can be a productive method of gathering information on incidents that might not otherwise be reported. Some of the issues described in the reports have received significant attention in the literature, or are analogous to human factors of manned aircraft. In other cases, incident reports involved human factors that are poorly understood, and have not yet been the subject of extensive study. Although many of the reported incidents were related to pilot error, the participants also provided examples of the positive contribution that humans make to the operation of highly-automated systems.

unmanned aircraft systems↗

Relationship Between Carbon Dioxide Levels and Reported Congestion and Headaches on the International Space Station

Congestion is commonly reported during spaceflight, and most crewmembers have reported using medications for congestion during International Space Station (ISS) missions. Although congestion has been attributed to fluid shifts during spaceflight, fluid status reaches equilibrium during the first week after launch while congestion continues to be reported throughout long duration missions. Congestion complaints have anecdotally been reported in relation to ISS CO2 levels; this evaluation was undertaken to determine whether or not an association exists. METHODS: Reported headaches, congestion symptoms, and CO2 levels were obtained for ISS expeditions 2-31, and time-weighted means and single-point maxima were determined for 24-hour (24hr) and 7-day (7d) periods prior to each weekly private medical conference. Multiple imputation addressed missing data, and logistic regression modeled the relationship between probability of reported event of congestion or headache and CO2 levels, adjusted for possible confounding covariates. The first seven days of spaceflight were not included to control for fluid shifts. Data were evaluated to determine the concentration of CO2 required to maintain the risk of congestion below 1% to allow for direct comparison with a previously published evaluation of CO2 concentrations and headache. RESULTS: This study confirmed a previously identified significant association between CO2 and headache and also found a significant association between CO2 and congestion. For each 1-mm Hg increase in CO2, the odds of a crew member reporting congestion doubled. The average 7-day CO2 would need to be maintained below 1.5 mmHg to keep the risk of congestion below 1%. The predicted probability curves of ISS headache and congestion curves appear parallel when plotted against ppCO2 levels with congestion occurring at approximately 1mmHg lower than a headache would be reported. DISCUSSION: While the cause of congestion is multifactorial, this study showed congestion is associated with CO2 levels on ISS. Data from additional expeditions could be incorporated to further assess this finding. CO2 levels are also associated with reports of headaches on ISS. While it may be expected for astronauts with congestion to also complain of headaches, these two symptoms are commonly mutually exclusive. Furthermore, it is unknown if a temporal CO2 relationship exists between congestion and headache on ISS. CO2 levels were time-weighted for 24hr and 7d, and thus the time course of congestion leading to headache was not assessed; however, congestion could be an early CO2-related symptom when compared to headache. Future studies evaluating the association of CO2-related congestion leading to headache would be difficult due to the relatively stable daily CO2 levels on ISS currently, but a systematic study could be implemented on-orbit if desired.

Cole, Robert↗

Addendum 2 to the Closure Report for CAU 577 Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells, NNSS, Nevada

Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 577, “Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells,” includes five low-level waste cells at the Nevada National Security Site Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site where buried waste received from Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., was subsequently determined to contain chromium that exceeded the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure regulatory limit, which would require the waste to carry hazardous waste code D007. CAU 577 was created to satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement (SA) executed between the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) on April 25, 2019 (NDEP 2019). The SA required that the chromium-containing waste received from NFS would be addressed following the closure process laid out in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO). The FFACO process ensures proper closure of the chromium-containing waste and documentation of that closure through FFACO-type documents. The following three Corrective Action Sites (CASs) were closed, and their closure was documented in the Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 577: Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, DOE/EMNV--0030, dated September 2021 (U.S. Department of Energy [DOE] Environmental Management [EM] Nevada Program 2021a): • CAS 05-21-02, Waste Disposal Cell 12 • CAS 05-21-03, Waste Disposal Cell 15 • CAS 05-21-04, Waste Disposal Cell 17 Closure of the following CAS was previously documented in the Addendum to the Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 577: Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, DOE/EMNV--0030-ADD, dated September 2022 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2022): • CAS 05-21-05, Waste Disposal Cell 20 This second addendum to the Closure Report documents the closure activities that have occurred for CAS 05-21-06, Waste Disposal Cell 21. This is the last CAS in CAU 577. The final waste shipment was placed in the waste disposal cell on November 21, 2022. Following this, closure activities began on November 28, 2022, and were conducted according to the Corrective Action Decision Document/Corrective Action Plan (CADD/CAP) for CAU 577 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2021b). The following closure activities were performed: • Constructing an engineered evapotranspiration cover • Installing two subsidence monuments and vadose zone monitoring equipment • Seeding the cover with a mixture of native plant species • Installing four concrete monuments on the corners of the cover and placing two use restriction (UR) warning signs on each monument These activities fulfill applicable federal and state regulations for closure of CAS 05-21-06 and minimize potential future exposure pathways to buried waste. Completed closure activities are also consistent with closure of the nine historical Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) units included in Section 10.2.2 of the RCRA Permit that governs hazardous waste management activities at the Nevada National Security Site (Permit NEV HW0101) (NDEP 2023). UR documentation for this CAS is included in Appendix B of this report. The post-closure plan is presented in detail in the CADD/CAP for CAU 577 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2021b), and the requirements are summarized in Section 5.2 of this document. In accordance with paragraph 5D of the SA, a request to incorporate the requirements for post-closure monitoring of CAU 577 was included with the permit application for RCRA Permit NEV HW0101 that was submitted in January 2022 (NNSA/NFO 2022). The request included the post-closure requirements for the three CASs that had been closed at the time of submittal of the application as well as requirements that would be implemented upon future approval of closure of the remaining two CASs. All CAU 577 post-closure monitoring requirements have been captured in the April 4, 2023, Revision 7 of the RCRA Permit (NDEP 2023). As the RCRA Permit NEV HW0101 has been revised since the submittal of the original CAU 577 Closure Report (DOE EM Nevada Program 2021a) and Addendum 1 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2022), the post-closure requirements in this Addendum 2 report do not align with the previous documents. Specific changes resulting from the issuance of Revision 7 of the RCRA Permit are discussed in Section 5.2 of this report. The requirements in this report are consistent with the current permit (NDEP 2023) and supersede all requirements listed in the CAU 577 Closure Report and Addendum 1. All CAU 577 post-closure requirements should be conducted in accordance with the version of the RCRA Permit that is current at the time of the activities being performed. The DOE EM Nevada Program is requesting a Notice of Completion from NDEP for closure of CAU 577. Although CAU 577 is not a legacy site, the FFACO process is being followed to ensure proper closure of the chromium-containing waste. Therefore, transfer of CAU 577 from Appendix III of the FFACO to Appendix IV, Closed Corrective Action Units, is requested, as all closure activities have been completed.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

2013 NASA Range Safety Annual Report

Welcome to the 2013 edition of the NASA Range Safety Annual Report. Funded by NASA Headquarters, this report provides an Agency overview for current and potential range users. This report contains articles which cover a variety of subject areas, summaries of various activities performed during the past year, links to past reports, and information on several projects that may have a profound impact on the way business will be conducted in the future. Specific topics discussed in the 2013 NASA Range Safety Annual Report include a program overview and 2013 highlights, Range Safety Training, Independent Assessments, support to Program Operations at all ranges conducting NASA launch/flight operations, a continuing overview of emerging range safety-related technologies, and status reports from all of the NASA Centers that have Range Safety responsibilities. Every effort has been made to include the most current information available. We recommend this report be used only for guidance and that the validity and accuracy of all articles be verified for updates. As is the case each year, we had a wide variety of contributors to this report from across our NASA Centers and the national range safety community at large, and I wish to thank them all. On a sad note, we lost one of our close colleagues, Dr. Jim Simpson, due to his sudden passing in December. His work advancing the envelope of autonomous flight safety systems software/hardware development leaves a lasting impression on our community. Such systems are being flight tested today and may one day be considered routine in the range safety business. The NASA family has lost a pioneer in our field, and he will surely be missed. In conclusion, it has been a very busy and productive year, and I look forward to working with all of you in NASA Centers/Programs/Projects and with the national Range Safety community in making Flight/Space activities as safe as they can be in the upcoming year.

Center Status↗

Fluorescent and Bioluminescent Reporter Mouse-Adapted Ebola Viruses Maintain Pathogenicity and Can Be Visualized in Vivo

Abstract Ebola virus (EBOV) causes lethal disease in humans but not in mice. Here, we generated recombinant mouse-adapted (MA) EBOVs, including 1 based on the previously reported serially adapted strain (rMA-EBOV), along with single-reporter rMA-EBOVs expressing either fluorescent (ZsGreen1 [ZsG]) or bioluminescent (nano-luciferase [nLuc]) reporters, and dual-reporter rMA-EBOVs expressing both ZsG and nLuc. No detriment to viral growth in vitro was seen with inclusion of MA-associated mutations or reporter proteins. In CD-1 mice, infection with MA-EBOV, rMA-EBOV, and single-reporter rMA-EBOVs conferred 100% lethality; infection with dual-reporter rMA-EBOV resulted in 73% lethality. Bioluminescent signal from rMA-EBOV expressing nLuc was detected in vivo and ex vivo using the IVIS Spectrum CT. Fluorescent signal from rMA-EBOV expressing ZsG was detected in situ using handheld blue-light transillumination and ex vivo through epi-illumination with the IVIS Spectrum CT. These data support the use of reporter MA-EBOV for studies of Ebola virus in animal disease models.

Immunology↗

Accuracy of self‐reported weight, height and body mass index among older people in Japan

Aim Weight and height are usually self‐reported in population‐based epidemiological surveys. While the accuracy of self‐reports has been extensively studied in younger populations, less is known in older populations. We investigated the accuracy of self‐reported weight, height and body mass (BMI) in an older cohort in Japan, where overweight/obesity and underweight coexist. Methods We used data from older Japanese adults (≥65 years) participating in the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study in 2016 to 2017 (7357 men and 9271 women). Self‐report data were linked to objective data obtained from clinical examinations. Results The mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 74.5 ± 5.8 years, mean ± SD weight, height and BMI were 55.7 ± 10.1 kg, 156.0 ± 8.9 cm and 22.8 ± 3.1, respectively. Results showed high intraclass correlation coefficients for self‐reported and measured values (0.97 for weight; 0.96 for height). While weight/height were overestimated among men (weight by 0.096 kg; height by 0.27 cm) and women (weight by 0.18 kg; height by 0.27 cm), BMI tended to be slightly underestimated (−0.034 kg/m 2 for men; −0.037 kg/m 2 for women). However, the absolute differences between self‐reported and measured values were not negligible; people had a higher risk for both under‐ and overestimation of their BMI category with increasing age. Lower education predicted BMI overestimation, whereas lower income predicted BMI underestimation. Conclusions Overall accuracy of self‐reported body habitus was higher in this cohort of older Japanese compared with previous reports. Nevertheless, misclassification of BMI due to the misreporting of their weight/height was more common among the oldest‐old, as well as those with lower education and income. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2020; 20: 803–810 .

Yazawa, Aki↗

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Annual Environmental Report 2019

The purposes of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Environmental Report 2019 are to record LLNL's compliance with environmental standards and requirements, describe LLNL’s environmental protection and remediation programs, and present the results of environmental monitoring at the two LLNL sites—the Livermore Site and Site 300. The report is prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by LLNL’s Environmental Functional Area. Submittal of the report satisfies requirements under DOE Order 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” and DOE Order 458.1, “Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment.” The report begins with an executive summary, which provides the purpose of the report and an overview of LLNL’s compliance and monitoring results. The first three chapters provide background information: Chapter 1 is an overview of the location, meteorology, and hydrogeology of the two LLNL sites; Chapter 2 is a summary of LLNL’s compliance with environmental regulations; and Chapter 3 is a description of LLNL’s environmental programs with an emphasis on the Environmental Management System including pollution prevention. The majority of the report covers LLNL’s environmental monitoring programs and monitoring data for 2019: effluent and ambient air monitoring and dose assessment (Chapter 4); waters, including wastewater, storm water runoff, surface water, rain, and groundwater (Chapter 5); and terrestrial, including soil, sediment, vegetation, foodstuff, ambient radiation, and special status wildlife and plants (Chapter 6). The remaining two chapters discuss LLNL’s groundwater remediation program (Chapter 7), and quality assurance for the environmental monitoring programs (Chapter 8). Complete monitoring data, which are summarized in the body of the report, are provided in Appendix A.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

U.S. Hydropower Market Report (January 2021 edition)

This is the third complete edition of the U.S. Hydropower Market Report (the first two were the 2014 and 2017 Hydropower Market Report published in 2015 and 2018, respectively). In intervening years between publishing the full report, updated data are also summarized and released, and can be found at the Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) HydroSource website. This report combines data from public and commercial sources as well as research findings from other Department of Energy (DOE) R&D projects in order to provide a comprehensive picture of developments in the U.S. hydropower and PSH fleet and industry trends. Prior to the first Market Report being published, there was a noted lack of publicly available and easily accessible information about hydropower in the United States and other important trends affecting this important sector of the energy industry. New and valuable types of information are constantly being developed in the course of DOE research activities and, in a rapidly evolving energy industry, it is important that these data be made available in a predictable and consistent manner for use by all different types of stakeholders and decision-makers.The report highlights developments in 2017–2019 (the years for which new data has become available since the publication of the 2017 Hydropower Market Report), and contextualizes this information compared to evolving high-level trends over the past 10–20 years. Apart from presenting trends over time, the report discusses differences in those trends by region, plant size, owner type, or other attributes.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

U.S. Hydropower Market Report

The January 2021 edition of the U.S. Hydropower Market Report is the third complete edition of this report (the first two were the 2014 and 2017 Hydropower Market Report published in 2015 and 2018, respectively). In intervening years between publishing the full report, updated data are also summarized and released, and can be found at the Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) HydroSource website. This report combines data from public and commercial sources, as well as research findings from other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) R&D projects to provide a comprehensive picture of developments in the U.S. hydropower and pumped-storage hydropower fleet and industry trends. The report highlights developments in 2017–2019 (the years for which new data has become available since the publication of the 2017 Hydropower Market Report), and contextualizes this information compared to evolving high-level trends over the past 10–20 years. Apart from presenting trends over time, the report discusses differences in those trends by region, plant size, owner type, or other attributes.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

Groundwater Monitoring Report, U.S. Department of Energy Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

This report contains the groundwater and surface water monitoring data obtained during calendar year (CY) 2019 at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) on the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The monitoring data were obtained from wells, springs, and surface water sampling locations in three hydrogeologic regimes at Y-12. The Bear Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (Bear Creek Regime) encompasses a section of Bear Creek Valley (BCV) between the west end of Y-12 and the west end of the Bear Creek Watershed (directions are in reference to the Y-12 grid system, shown as Plant North. The Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (East Fork Regime) encompasses the Y-12 industrial facilities and support structures in BCV. The Chestnut Ridge Hydrogeologic Regime (Chestnut Ridge Regime) encompasses a section of Chestnut Ridge directly south of Y-12. Background information in Section 2 of this report outlines the hydrogeologic framework for groundwater and surface water quality monitoring at Y-12 and includes an overview of the groundwater contamination in each hydrogeologic regime. Section 3 provides details regarding the groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis activities implemented under the Y-12 GWPP, including sampling locations and frequency, sample collection and handling, field measurements and laboratory analytes, quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) sampling, data management, and data quality assessment (DQA). However, the equivalent QA/QC or DQA information for the groundwater and surface water data associated with the monitoring programs implemented by UCOR are not included in this report and instead are deferred to referenced programmatic plans and reports issued by OREM and UCOR. Section 4 of this report presents a summary evaluation of the CY 2019 monitoring data with regard to the respective objectives of surveillance monitoring and exit pathway/perimeter monitoring. The evaluation is based primarily on the analytical results for the following principal groundwater contaminants at Y-12: nitrate, uranium, gross alpha activity, gross beta activity, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Section 5 summarizes the most significant findings with respect to the principal contaminants along with recommendations for any proposed changes to the ongoing groundwater and surface water quality monitoring performed under the Y-12 GWPP. Technical reports and plans cited in the narrative sections of the report are listed in Section 6. Narrative sections of this report reference several appendices. Figures (maps and diagrams) and data tables (excluding data summary tables incorporated in the narrative sections) are in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. Appendix C contains construction details for each well sampled during CY 2019 by either the Y-12 GWPP or UCOR, along with schematic diagrams for wells equipped with Westbay™ multiport sampling equipment or Barcad® pump systems. Appendix D supports the background summary discussion in Section 2 and provides more detailed information about the hydrogeologic framework for groundwater and surface water monitoring at Y-12, including the primary sources of groundwater contamination in each hydrogeologic regime. Results for all field measurements and laboratory analyses obtained by the Y-12 GWPP and UCOR are presented in Appendix E, which also includes the sample numbers for the QA/QC samples associated with groundwater and surface water monitoring performed by the Y-12 GWPP.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Software-defined Networking for Energy Delivery Systems (SDN4EDS): An Architectural Blueprint (Final Summary Report)

This is the initial version of a reference for suppliers and energy companies of all sizes to deploy networks based on software-defined networking technology (SDN) to improve reliability, reduce cyber security attack surface, and facilitate mitigation of adversarial behavior. It is a living document and will progress over the life cycle of the Software-Defined Networking for Energy Delivery Systems (SDN4EDS) project. Version 2 of this report provides information on the Red Team tabletop assessment performed against the initial reference architecture. Version 3 of this report updates the reference architecture with lessons learned from the Red Team tabletop assessment, as well as provides additional details for the use cases. It also provides information on the decision process that could be used by an organization when considering deploying SDN in their environment. The final version of this report consolidates all the interim reports generated by the project into a final report. It also draws from PNNL’s experience in deploying SDN to make recommendations on how SDN could be deployed in a utility environment, and provides rationale for those decisions allowing individual utilities to make risk-based and knowledge-based decisions on how to best deploy SDN in their own environment. This summary report provides a higher-level overview of the project reports. Readers interested in additional detail, including results of the Red Team assessments and the final configuration, are encouraged to read the full final report.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Post-Closure Report for Closed Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Units, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada (CY2021)

This report serves as the combined annual report for post-closure activities in compliance with the requirements listed in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Permit Number NEV HW0101 associated with the following closed corrective action units (CAUs): CAU 90, Area 2 Bitcutter Containment, CAU 91, Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well, CAU 92, Area 6 Decon Pond Facility, CAU 110, Area 3 WMD U-3ax/bl Crater, CAU 111, Area 5 WMD Retired Mixed Waste Pits, and CAU 112, Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches. This report covers calendar year 2021. The post-closure requirements for these sites are described in RCRA Permit NEV HW0101 and are summarized in each CAU-specific section of this report. The results of the inspections, a summary of maintenance activities, and an evaluation of monitoring data are presented in this report. This report will address all monitoring requirements noted in the RCRA Permit NEV HW0101, except groundwater monitoring. Groundwater monitoring is documented in the Nevada National Security Site Data Report: Groundwater Monitoring Program Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site. All required inspections, maintenance, and monitoring were conducted in accordance with the post-closure requirements of the permit. Revision 6 of RCRA Permit NEV HW0101 was issued effective December 10, 2015, and remained in effect until December 10, 2020. At the time of this report submittal, the new RCRA permit application was in review.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Ames National Laboratory Annual Site Environmental Report for CY2021

The primary purpose of this report is to summarize the performance of Ames National Laboratory’s environmental programs, present highlights of significant environmental activities, and confirm compliance with environmental regulations and requirements for calendar year 2021. This report is a working requirement of Department of Energy Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting. It includes descriptions of the Laboratory’s site, mission, the status of its compliance with applicable environmental regulations, its planning and activities to maintain compliance, and a comprehensive review of its environmental protection, surveillance and monitoring activities. Ames National Laboratory is located on the campus of Iowa State University (ISU) and occupies 13 buildings owned by the Department of Energy (DOE). See the Laboratory’s Web page for location and Laboratory overview. The Laboratory also leases space in ISU owned buildings. In 2021, the Laboratory accumulated and disposed of hazardous waste under a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued generator number. All waste was handled according to applicable EPA, State, and local regulations and DOE Orders. The Laboratory operates as a Small Quantity Generator (SQG) of hazardous waste. There were no radiological air emissions or exposures to the general public due to Laboratory activities in 2021 (See U.S. Department of Energy Air Emissions Annual Report in Appendix A.) The Laboratory has an established Environmental Radiological Protection Program (Plan 10200.041) per DOE Order 458.1 requirements. Plans, policies, and procedures are in place to protect the public and the environment against undue risk from radiation associated with DOE radiological activities. As indicated in prior Site Environmental Reports, formal pollution prevention awareness, waste minimization and recycling programs have been in practice since 1990, with improvements implemented most recently in 2017 with Iowa State University’s shift toward single-stream recycling. Included in recycling efforts are items such as batteries, monitors, corrugated cardboard, lamps, miscellaneous electronic office equipment, mixed paper, newsprint, food/beverage containers, and laboratory glassware. Ames National Laboratory also recycles/reuses salvageable metal, used oil, and foamed polystyrene peanuts, and encourages chemical redistribution and sharing among research groups. Ames National Laboratory reported its contractual performance to DOE-Ames Site Office (AMSO) through the Laboratory’s Performance Evaluation Measurement Plan (PEMP), and a performance level of “B+” was achieved in 2021 for Sustain Excellence and Enhance Effectiveness of Integrated Safety, Health, and Environmental Protection As reported in Site Environmental Reports for prior years, the Laboratory’s Environmental Management System (EMS) has been integrated into the Laboratory’s Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) since 2005. The integration of EMS into Laboratory business practices allows the Laboratory to systematically review, address and respond to environmental impacts. In addition to DOE-identified objectives and targets, the EMS Steering Committee recommends annual environmental goals for the Laboratory. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and limited onsite work staff, goals of reducing water usage and travel/commuting to promote the reduction of scope 3 greenhouse gases were achieved. All contract deliverables and environmental compliance activities were still met during this time.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Post-Closure Report for Closed Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Units, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada: For Calendar Year 2020 (Rev. 2)

This report serves as the combined annual report for post-closure activities in compliance with the requirements listed in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Permit Number NEV HW0101 associated with the following closed corrective action units (CAUs): 1) CAU 90, Area 2 Bitcutter Containment; 2) CAU 91, Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well; 3) CAU 92, Area 6 Decon Pond Facility; 4) CAU 110, Area 3 WMD U-3ax/bl Crater; 5) CAU 111, Area 5 WMD Retired Mixed Waste Pits; 6) CAU 112, Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches The locations of the sites are shown in Figure ES-1. This report covers calendar year 2020. The post-closure requirements for these sites are described in RCRA Permit NEV HW0101 and are summarized in each CAU-specific section of this report. The results of the inspections, a summary of maintenance activities, and an evaluation of monitoring data are presented in this report. Site inspections are conducted annually at CAUs 90, 91, and 112; semiannually at CAUs 92 and 110; and quarterly at CAU 111. Additional inspections are conducted at CAUs 92 and 111 if precipitation occurs in excess of 1.0 inch in a 24-hour period. Inspections include an evaluation of the condition of the units, including covers, fences, signs, gates, and locks. At CAUs 110 and 111, soil moisture monitoring and subsidence surveys are conducted in addition to the visual inspections. At CAU 110, the site fence, gate, lock, and use restriction signs are evaluated. At CAU 111, an ecological survey, direct radiation monitoring, air monitoring, radon flux monitoring, and groundwater monitoring are also conducted. This report will address all monitoring item notes above except groundwater monitoring. Groundwater monitoring is documented in the Nevada National Security Site Data Report: Groundwater Monitoring Program Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site. All required inspections, maintenance, and monitoring were conducted in accordance with the post-closure requirements of the permit. Revision 6 of RCRA Permit NEV HW0101 was issued effective December 10, 2015, and remained in effect until December 10, 2020. At the time of this report submittal, the new RCRA permit application was in review.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

2022 Site Environmental Report: Idaho National Laboratory

The INL Site’s operations, as well as the ongoing cleanup mission involve a commitment to environmental stewardship and full compliance with environmental protection laws. As part of this commitment, the INL Site Environmental Report is prepared annually to inform the public, regulators, stakeholders, and other interested parties of the INL Site’s environmental performance during the year. This report is published for U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) in compliance with DOE O 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.” The purpose of the report is to provide the following: (1) Present the INL Site, mission, and programs, (2) Report compliance status with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, (3) Describe the INL Site environmental programs and activities, (4) Summarize results of environmental monitoring, (5) Discuss potential radiation doses to the public residing in the vicinity of the INL Site, (6) Report on ecological monitoring and research conducted by contractors and affiliated agencies and by independent researchers through the Idaho National Environmental Research Park, (7) Describe quality assurance methods used to ensure confidence in monitoring data, and (8) Provide supplemental technical data and reports that support the INL Site Environmental Report (https://idahoeser.inl.gov/publications.html).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Reported Energy and Cost Savings from the DOE ESPC IDIQ Program: FY 2024

Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs) are a contractual mechanism that allow a federal agency to procure energy savings and facility improvements without upfront capital costs to reduce costs and enhance mission resiliency. ESPCs are covered under FAR Part 23.2, and 42 USC § 8287. Section 8287(a)(2)(A) of Title 42 of the U.S. Code requires that each energy savings performance contract (ESPC) undergo an annual energy audit, resulting in a separate audit report for every project. The objective of the present report is to compile and analyze all annual ESPC audit reports issued between October 1, 2023, and September 30, 2024, for projects awarded under Generations 1, 2, and 3 of DOE’s ESPC IDIQ contracts. During this period, 205 measurement and verification (M&V) reports were produced for 200 projects; the total number of reports exceeds the number of projects because some projects generated more than one report (for example, a few projects measure savings twice per year and produce two audit reports annually, each covering a different six-month period). By aggregating the results from these individual audits, the report determines the portfolio-wide realization rate of energy and cost savings for all active ESPC projects awarded under DOE’s IDIQ program.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Apollo experience report: Mission evaluation team postflight documentation

The various postflight reports prepared by the mission evaluation team, including the final mission evaluation report, report supplements, anomaly reports, and the 5-day mission report, are described. The procedures for preparing each report from the inputs of the various disciplines are explained, and the general method of reporting postflight results is discussed. Recommendations for postflight documentation in future space programs are included. The official requirements for postflight documentation and a typical example of an anomaly report are provided as appendixes.

Dodson, J. W.↗

Marketing information: The technical report as product

Technical reports constitute a product, the primary means for communicating the results of research to the user. The Langley scientific and technical information (STI) review and evaluation project undertook a review of the technical report as an effective product for information communication. Style manuals describing theory and practice in technical report preparation; publication manuals covering such factors as design, layout, and type style; and copies of technical reports were obtained from industrial, academic, governmental, and research organizations. Based on an analysis of this material, criteria will be established for the report components, for the relationship of the components within the report context, and for the overall report organization. The criteria will be used as bench marks and compared with the publication standards currently used to prepare NASA technical reports.

Stoher, F. F.↗