Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Assessment”

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 433 records · Page 24
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Remote Home Energy Score Assessments (Feasibility Study)

The delivery of Home Energy Scores (HES) has been significantly impacted over the last year by the recent pandemic and ongoing limitations to person-to-person interactions. There are also historic challenges in providing HES to more remote geographies where assessor infrastructure is not in place. Alternative approaches to in-person, on-site home energy assessments could help address these current restrictions, while also potentially providing opportunities for the efficient delivery of HES in certain use cases after COVID-related restrictions are lifted. From the program administrator’s perspective, there needs to be confidence that the remote scores closely match what they would have been if the assessment had been performed on-site. The recommendations shown on a report generated from a remote score should closely match those of an onsite assessment. A remote assessment should be an option for all HES Partners and have direction on how to deliver those scores. From the HES partner’s and assessor’s perspective, there needs to be understanding of what level of experience is needed, what system infrastructure is required, the time expenditure of the remote assessment process, and the limitations of a remote assessment. From the homeowner’s perspective, there needs to be an awareness and comfort with the time commitment, the level of knowledge of the home, the equipment needed, and any physical requirements of the remote assessment process. During this study, Earth Advantage assessed methods for delivering Home Energy Score assessments remotely through web-based technology platforms and resident interaction in a diverse array of home types in different geographic locations. Earth Advantage developed remote assessment test protocols and integrated those testing protocols into existing Home Energy Score programs being overseen by USDOE Home Energy Score partners New York State Energy Research & Development Authority (NYSERDA), the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE), and the City of Portland (PDX). Earth Advantage staff acted as the Remote assessor and gathered HES data remotely during the video sessions with participants. Authorized Home Energy Score assessors performed the onsite assessments that were then used to compare with the remote assessment data. This allowed the research to effectively test the efficacy of various remote assessment approaches in a diverse array of home-types. Earth advantage identified the key components of a remote assessment infrastructure which included Remote Home Energy Score Assessments Page vi processes, tools, services, methods and mechanisms that would better enable remote assessments. This report details methods, results, and findings of the HES remote assessment research. In addition, the report provides recommendations and best practices that could be used as guidance for the Home Energy Score administrator and the HES partners seeking to effectively conduct remote assessments.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2012

A Retrospective Tiered Environmental Assessment of the Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility, West Virginia, USA

Bird and bat fatalities from wind energy projects are an environmental and public concern, with post-construction fatalities sometimes differing from predictions. Siting facilities in this context can be a challenge. In March 2012 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) released Land-based Wind Energy Guidelines to assess collision fatalities and other potential impacts to species of concern and their habitats to aid in siting and management. The Guidelines recommend a tiered approach for assessing risk to wildlife, including a preliminary site evaluation that may evaluate alternative sites, a site characterization, field studies to document wildlife and habitat and to predict project impacts, post construction studies to estimate impacts, and other post construction studies. We applied the tiered assessment framework to a case study site, the Mount Storm Wind Energy Facility in Grant County, West Virginia, USA, to demonstrate the use of the USFWS assessment approach, to indicate how the use of a tiered assessment framework might have altered outputs of wildlife assessments previously undertaken for the case study site, and to assess benefits of a tiered ecological assessment framework for siting wind energy facilities. The conclusions of this tiered assessment for birds are similar to those of previous environmental assessments for Mount Storm. This assessment found risk to individual migratory tree-roosting bats that was not emphasized in previous preconstruction assessments. Differences compared to previous environmental assessments are more related to knowledge accrued in the past 10 years rather than to the tiered structure of the Guidelines. Benefits of the tiered assessment framework include good communication among stakeholders, clear decision points, a standard assessment trajectory, narrowing the list of species of concern, improving study protocols, promoting consideration of population-level effects, promoting adaptive management through post-construction assessment and mitigation, and sharing information that can be used in other assessments.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Dependability Assessment of Software for Safety Instrumentation and Control Systems

In its 2013 recommendations to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Technical Working Group on Nuclear Power Plant Instrumentation and Control (TWG-NPPIC) identified assessment and evaluation of software dependability as a topic of interest for IAEA Member States. To implement the recommendation of the TWG-NPPIC, the IAEA Scientific Secretary for the TWG initiated a consultancy activity in 2014 to develop a technical report describing a dependability assessment framework suitable for safety instrumentation and control (I and C) systems in nuclear power plants (NPPs). The development of the software dependability assessment report has involved three consultancy meetings at IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria. The conduct of these meetings allowed consultation among subject matter experts to generate consensus technical information that serves as the content of the report. The technical contributors consist of international experts from academia, industry, regulatory bodies and research organizations. In September 2014, a technical meeting was held in Daejeon, Republic of Korea, to present interim findings of the consultancy effort and to solicit input from representatives of IAEA Member States. The information and technical comments contributed during the technical meeting were addressed in subsequent development of the report. This paper gives an overview of key technical elements of the IAEA report. The IAEA report presents a framework by which a dependability assessment of safety software can be performed. The specified guiding principles provide the basis for establishing an assessment strategy and implementing the assessment process. The assessment framework provides a systematic, coherent structure within which to organize technical and process evidence to satisfy arguments in support of claims about software dependability properties. During the consultancy activity, the participating subject matter experts focused on high level principles, a structured approach, and identification of suitable methods and techniques. However, it was recognized that what remains is to concretize the framework through specific examples and usage experience. Thus, following publication of the report, it is recommended that case studies be performed to illustrate and more precisely define specific phases and elements of the assessment framework. For example, current national assessment approaches could be mapped into the assessment framework to serve as case studies and help to identify any aspects of the assessment framework that needs further definition or adjustment. Additionally, a challenge problem could be defined to engage stakeholders to apply the assessment framework with a common focus. This could help to better illustrate strategic options and approaches to the assessment phases. It also could serve to suggest other considerations and potential sources of evidence not fully covered in the report. Based on findings from case studies, challenge problems and country experience, it should be possible to develop generalized templates to support application of the assessment framework. These findings can be collected to serve as the basis for a User's Guide on dependability assessment of safety software. (authors)

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2018

Challenges to Evaluating Ecological Risks in Performance Assessments - 18424

Performance assessments (PAs), whether probabilistic or deterministic, have largely focused on evaluating human health effects of radionuclides. In the past, it was asserted that protecting human health would automatically protect the environment. This blanket assertion has been questioned, so tools and methodologies to directly estimate non-human biota dose have been developed and made available since the early 2000's. For example, the Biota Dose Assessment Committee (BDAC) guidance led to the development of the RESRAD-BIOTA (RESRAD stands for Residual Radioactive materials) software to implement this guidance. The BDAC was a US Department of Energy (DOE) led working group with members from academia and consultancies in addition to DOE technical staff. Parallel efforts have been in place in Europe with the development of the ERICA tool (Environmental Risk from Ionising Contaminants: Assessment and Management). More recently, interpretation of the requirements of US Department of Energy (DOE) Order O458.1 have led some waste management facilities to include ecological risks in addition to human health effects in their PAs. We have recently developed methodologies to assess ecological risks within probabilistic PAs (PPAs) for two Federal facilities. One of the challenges in applying the non-human biota assessment models to PPAs is that ecological risk assessments following US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or DOE guidance start with protective screening assessments before moving into more site-specific ecological risk assessments. Conservative assumptions bias the screening assessments and greatly overestimate the risks posed by contaminants. However, although the screens are biased they can be useful in ruling out model spatial domain areas or types of biota from requiring further assessment. In some cases, the results of the screen could entirely rule out ecological risks from further assessment. For a more refined and unbiased estimate of dose to non-human biota, one would typically conduct site-specific studies to better define exposure through the food web or adverse effects based on eco-toxicity studies of environmental, and generally weathered, contaminant mixtures. However, for PPAs that consider future site conditions after the loss of institutional control, such site-specific studies are not possible. Rather, site-specific future ecological risk models use probabilistic inputs that result in a distribution of population doses or exposures and calculate the distribution of possible adverse effects to ecological populations. This approach considers both radionuclide and chemical inventory. For both Federal facilities, the model spatial domains include riparian and aquatic environments located downstream of the waste management site. These riparian and aquatic environments represent linear exposure elements for some wildlife populations and require special consideration of exposures to individuals and to populations along such spatial domains. At a minimum, wildlife foraging should be focused along the axis of such water bodies. Another challenge is how to incorporate ecologically relevant spatial scales into models that have contaminant transport as the primary focus. Riparian and aquatic environments also have threatened and endangered (T and E) species, which necessitate greater levels of protection given their rarity. A final challenge for conducting ecological risk assessments is how to evaluate T and E species in the future. This might be addressed by evaluating potential for impacts on individuals of feeding guilds with species that are currently threatened or endangered. We also have to consider how ecological populations might change as a result of climate change. It is a more difficult problem to predict what species might become rare in the future, and how to best assess future populations of threatened or endangered species. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2012

Practitioners, professional cultures, and perceptions of impact assessment

The very nature of impact assessment (IA) means that it often involves practitioners from a very wide range of disciplinary and professional backgrounds, which open the possibility that how IA is perceived and practised may vary according to the professional background of the practitioner. The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which a practitioner's professional background influences their perceptions of the adequacy of impact assessment in New Zealand under the Resource Management Act (RMA). Information gathered concerned professional affiliations, training, understanding of impact assessment practise, and perceptions of adequacy in relation to impact assessment. The results showed a dominance of a legalistic, operational perspective of impact assessment under the Resource Management Act, across all the main professions represented in the study. However, among preparers of impact assessments there was clear evidence of differences between the four main professional groups - surveyors, planners, engineers and natural scientists - in the way they see the nature and purpose of impact assessment, the practical steps involved, and what constitutes adequacy. Similarly, impact assessment reviewers - predominantly planners and lawyers - showed variations in their expectations of impact assessment depending on their respective professional affiliation. Although in many cases the differences seem to be more of a matter of emphasis, rather than major disputes on what constitutes a good process, even those differences can add up to rather distinct professional cultures of impact assessment. The following factors are seen as leading to the emergence of such professional cultures: different professions often contribute in different ways to an impact assessment, affecting their perception of the nature and purpose of the process; impact assessment training will usually be a secondary concern, compared with the core professional training, which will be reflected in the depth and length of such training; and any impact assessment training provided within a profession will often have the 'cultural' imprint of that profession.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2014

Self-assessed performance improves statistical fusion of image labels

Purpose: Expert manual labeling is the gold standard for image segmentation, but this process is difficult, time-consuming, and prone to inter-individual differences. While fully automated methods have successfully targeted many anatomies, automated methods have not yet been developed for numerous essential structures (e.g., the internal structure of the spinal cord as seen on magnetic resonance imaging). Collaborative labeling is a new paradigm that offers a robust alternative that may realize both the throughput of automation and the guidance of experts. Yet, distributing manual labeling expertise across individuals and sites introduces potential human factors concerns (e.g., training, software usability) and statistical considerations (e.g., fusion of information, assessment of confidence, bias) that must be further explored. During the labeling process, it is simple to ask raters to self-assess the confidence of their labels, but this is rarely done and has not been previously quantitatively studied. Herein, the authors explore the utility of self-assessment in relation to automated assessment of rater performance in the context of statistical fusion. Methods: The authors conducted a study of 66 volumes manually labeled by 75 minimally trained human raters recruited from the university undergraduate population. Raters were given 15 min of training during which they were shown examples of correct segmentation, and the online segmentation tool was demonstrated. The volumes were labeled 2D slice-wise, and the slices were unordered. A self-assessed quality metric was produced by raters for each slice by marking a confidence bar superimposed on the slice. Volumes produced by both voting and statistical fusion algorithms were compared against a set of expert segmentations of the same volumes. Results: Labels for 8825 distinct slices were obtained. Simple majority voting resulted in statistically poorer performance than voting weighted by self-assessed performance. Statistical fusion resulted in statistically indistinguishable performance from self-assessed weighted voting. The authors developed a new theoretical basis for using self-assessed performance in the framework of statistical fusion and demonstrated that the combined sources of information (both statistical assessment and self-assessment) yielded statistically significant improvement over the methods considered separately. Conclusions: The authors present the first systematic characterization of self-assessed performance in manual labeling. The authors demonstrate that self-assessment and statistical fusion yield similar, but complementary, benefits for label fusion. Finally, the authors present a new theoretical basis for combining self-assessments with statistical label fusion.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2014

Assessing corporate project impacts in changeable contexts: A human rights perspective

Project-level impact assessment was originally conceived as a snapshot taken in advance of project implementation, contrasting current conditions with a likely future scenario involving a variety of predicted impacts. Current best practice guidance has encouraged a shift towards longitudinal assessments from the pre-project stage through the implementation and operating phases. Experience and study show, however, that assessment of infrastructure-intensive projects rarely endures past the project's construction phase. Negative consequences for environmental, social and health outcomes have been documented. Such consequences clarify the pressing need for longitudinal assessment in each of these domains, with human rights impact assessment (HRIA) as an umbrella over, and critical augmentation of, environmental, social and health assessments. Project impacts on human rights are more closely linked to political, economic and other factors beyond immediate effects of a company's policy and action throughout the project lifecycle. Delineating these processes requires an adequate framework, with strategies for collecting longitudinal data, protocols that provide core information for impact assessment and guidance for adaptive mitigation strategies as project-related effects change over time. This article presents general principles for the design and implementation of sustained, longitudinal HRIA, based on experience assessing and responding to human rights impact in a uranium mining project in Malawi. The case study demonstrates the value of longitudinal assessment both for limiting corporate risk and improving human welfare. - Graphical abstract: Assessing changes in human rights condition as affected by both project and context, over time. - Highlights: • Corporate capital projects affect human rights in myriad ways. • Ongoing, longitudinal impact assessment techniques are needed. • We present an approach for conducting longitudinal human rights impact assessment. • Our methodology allows distinguishing corporate impacts from contextual changes. • Promptly observing context changes and impacts enables companies to react nimbly.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2013

A quantitative method to analyze the quality of EIA information in wind energy development and avian/bat assessments

The environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been a tool for decision makers since the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since that time, few analyses have been performed to verify the quality of information and content within EIAs. High quality information within assessments is vital in order for decision makers, stake holders, and the public to understand the potential impact of proposed actions on the ecosystem and wildlife species. Low quality information has been a major cause for litigation and economic loss. Since 1999, wind energy development has seen an exponential growth with unknown levels of impact on wildlife species, in particular bird and bat species. The purpose of this article is to: (1) develop, validate, and apply a quantitative index to review avian/bat assessment quality for wind energy EIAs; and (2) assess the trends and status of avian/bat assessment quality in a sample of wind energy EIAs. This research presents the development and testing of the Avian and Bat Assessment Quality Index (ABAQI), a new approach to quantify information quality of ecological assessments within wind energy development EIAs in relation to avian and bat species based on review areas and factors derived from 23 state wind/wildlife siting guidance documents. The ABAQI was tested through a review of 49 publicly available EIA documents and validated by identifying high variation in avian and bat assessments quality for wind energy developments. Of all the reviewed EIAs, 66% failed to provide high levels of preconstruction avian and bat survey information, compared to recommended factors from state guidelines. This suggests the need for greater consistency from recommended guidelines by state, and mandatory compliance by EIA preparers to avoid possible habitat and species loss, wind energy development shut down, and future lawsuits. - Highlights: Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer We developed, validated, and applied a quantitative index to review avian/bat assessment quality for wind energy EIAs. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer We assessed the trends and status of avian/bat assessment quality in a sample of wind energy EIAs. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Applied index to 49 EIA documents and identified high variation in assessment quality for wind energy developments. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer For the reviewed EIAs, 66% provided inadequate preconstruction avian and bat survey information.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗