SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “public administration”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 451 records · Page 25

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1981

Technology transfer program: Perspective

Most of NASA's technology transfer activities are in the area of land use (development, suitability, and planning); forestry (including wildlife and range and vegetation inventories) agriculture related activities; and water resources. The technology dissemination function is exercised through three regional applications centers which are involved in 91 applications projects within 22 states. In addition there are approximately eight application system verification transfer (ASVT) projects, 21 university applications branches, institutionalized liason activities with public interest groups, and user requirements activities. As the result of budget cuts, the ASVT and user requirements and awareness programs are to be phased out at the end of FY81. The university applications programs are to be phased down and terminated by 1985. NASA will continue to work with the user more in an R & D and an applications development capacity, and not in a national scale or administrative way.

Toyshov, A. J.↗

NASA NTRS1985

Crop area estimation based on remotely-sensed data with an accurate but costly subsample

Research activities conducted under the auspices of National Aeronautics and Space Administration Cooperative Agreement NCC 9-9 are discussed. During this contract period research efforts are concentrated in two primary areas. The first are is an investigation of the use of measurement error models as alternatives to least squares regression estimators of crop production or timber biomass. The secondary primary area of investigation is on the estimation of the mixing proportion of two-component mixture models. This report lists publications, technical reports, submitted manuscripts, and oral presentation generated by these research efforts. Possible areas of future research are mentioned.

Gunst, R. F.↗

NASA NTRS2000

The ''Rock'': The Role of the Press in Bringing about Change in Aircraft Accident Policy

From 1926 to 1938, the Aeronautics Branch, forerunner of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), had been charged with aircraft accident investigation. While the Branch had been investigating accidents since its inception, it had, early in its tenure, put into place a policy making its findings secret. Media and political pressure began to mount in late 1928 over its policy of nondisclosure and the debate brought pressure to bear on the young Aeronautics Branch to reverse its policy and make its findings public. The focusing event for the Branch's policy reversal was the death of Knute Rockne, the famous Notre Dame football coach, in a Transcontinental and Western Airways (TWA) airliner on March 31, 193 1. This paper will examine the role of print media in bringing about a significant, and lasting, change in aircraft accident public-disclosure policy.

Johnson, Randy↗

DOE OSTI2020

Middlesex South FUSRAP Site: Collaboration Towards Beneficial Reuse - 20338

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) manages DoE's post-closure responsibilities and ensures the future protection of human health and the environment with respect to sites that have no continuing DOE mission after undergoing remediation. LM's beneficial reuse program promotes the LM strategic goal to sustainably manage and optimize use of public lands. The beneficial reuse program aims to repurpose former contaminated sites to restore the environment, protect the public health, revitalize communities, and spur economic growth. Benefits from the reuse of a site may increase the local tax base, facilitate job growth, utilize existing infrastructure, and enhance or protect natural resources. Beneficial reuse also promotes protectiveness by ensuring activities are compatible with long-term maintenance and protection of public health and the environment, as well as by retaining good stewardship of natural resources. LM actively participates in promoting the economic development vision of the surrounding communities by collaborating with local communities to promote regional or municipal initiatives. The Borough of Middlesex, New Jersey, has prepared the Lincoln Boulevard Redevelopment Plan, which will reinvent a once-viable downtown and enhance the quality of life for the community. The Middlesex South, New Jersey, Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site lies within the boundaries of this redevelopment area. In support of this development plan, the Borough is interested in acquiring the site for its Department of Public Works and to increase street access in the future commercial district to be built near adjacent properties. The opportunity to put the FUSRAP site into productive use aligns with LM's mission and strategic goals. In support of beneficial reuse activities, DOE can dispose of excess real property using several mechanisms. The two disposal options applicable to the Middlesex south site include (1) utilizing the US General Services Administration (GSA) or (2) using the Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Section 770, 'Transfer of Real Property at Defense Nuclear Facilities for Economic Development' (known as a '770 transfer') process. Using the 770 transfer requires economic development as the primary driver, and a specific redevelopment proposal must be submitted. If there is no interest in specific economic development, the GSA option becomes the default mechanism for disposal of the property. In the case of the Middlesex south site, the 770 transfer process is being utilized and the Borough has submitted its economic development proposal to LM. Although LM is encouraged by the opportunity to put the site into productive use, the Middlesex south site is currently on the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Priorities List and remediation is being performed by the US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Consequently, any property transfer must meet the requirements under CERCLA Section 120(h), 'Property Transferred by Federal Agencies.' As the groundwater remedy will not be in place for several years, approval would be required from the US EPA administrator and the governor of the state of New Jersey to perform an early transfer of the site (before all response actions have been completed). The time frame for these approvals to occur under the normal process conflicts with the proposed redevelopment schedule; therefore, various options for expedited sale, transfer, or lease of portions of the site to the Borough were evaluated. The subsequent decision on a mutually beneficial path forward was the result of a collaborative effort between LM, USACE, the Borough and its redevelopment team, EPA, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2023

Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR)

From Lisk et al. (in review): "In the arid and semi-arid western U.S., access to water is regulated through a legal system of water rights. Individuals, companies, organizations, municipalities, and tribal entities have documents that declare their water rights. State water regulatory agencies collate and maintain these records, which can be used in legal disputes over access to water. While these records are publicly available data in all western U.S. states, the data have not yet been readily available in digital form from all states. Furthermore, there are many differences in data format, terminology, and definitions between state water regulatory agencies. Here, we have collected water rights data from 11 western U.S. state agencies, harmonized terminology and use definitions, formatted them consistently, and tied them to a western U.S.-wide shapefile of water administrative boundaries. We demonstrate how these data enable consistent regional-scale western U.S. hydrologic and economic modeling."

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2024

Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR)

From Lisk et al. (2024): "In the arid and semi-arid western U.S., access to water is regulated through a legal system of water rights. Individuals, companies, organizations, municipalities, and tribal entities have documents that declare their water rights. State water regulatory agencies collate and maintain these records, which can be used in legal disputes over access to water. While these records are publicly available data in all western U.S. states, the data have not yet been readily available in digital form from all states. Furthermore, there are many differences in data format, terminology, and definitions between state water regulatory agencies. Here, we have collected water rights data from 11 western U.S. state agencies, harmonized terminology and use definitions, formatted them consistently, and tied them to a western U.S.-wide shapefile of water administrative boundaries. We demonstrate how these data enable consistent regional-scale western U.S. hydrologic and economic modeling."

Economics↗

NASA NTRS1988

Development of an Ada programming support environment database SEAD (Software Engineering and Ada Database) administration manual

Software Engineering and Ada Database (SEAD) was developed to provide an information resource to NASA and NASA contractors with respect to Ada-based resources and activities which are available or underway either in NASA or elsewhere in the worldwide Ada community. The sharing of such information will reduce duplication of effort while improving quality in the development of future software systems. SEAD data is organized into five major areas: information regarding education and training resources which are relevant to the life cycle of Ada-based software engineering projects such as those in the Space Station program; research publications relevant to NASA projects such as the Space Station Program and conferences relating to Ada technology; the latest progress reports on Ada projects completed or in progress both within NASA and throughout the free world; Ada compilers and other commercial products that support Ada software development; and reusable Ada components generated both within NASA and from elsewhere in the free world. This classified listing of reusable components shall include descriptions of tools, libraries, and other components of interest to NASA. Sources for the data include technical newletters and periodicals, conference proceedings, the Ada Information Clearinghouse, product vendors, and project sponsors and contractors.

Liaw, Morris↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2024

Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR) v.1

Abstract In the arid and semi-arid Western U.S., access to water is regulated through a legal system of water rights. Individuals, companies, organizations, municipalities, and tribal entities have documents that declare their water rights. State water regulatory agencies collate and maintain these records, which can be used in legal disputes over access to water. While these records are publicly available data in all Western U.S. states, the data have not yet been readily available in digital form from all states. Furthermore, there are many differences in data format, terminology, and definitions between state water regulatory agencies. Here, we have collected water rights data from 11 Western U.S. state agencies, harmonized terminology and use definitions, formatted them for consistency, and tied them to a Western U.S.-wide shapefile of water administrative boundaries.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-11998-DND

By 1971 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was beginning to phase down its Apollo Moon Program in favor of developing a partly reusable Space Shuttle vehicle that could be used to construct and supply a manned, Earth-orbiting Space Station. In 1970 an international report of the Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP) had been issued by the MIT Press. Thus, the Agency began to emphasize its Space Applications programs in response to the growing public concern about Earth?s finite natural resources and the degradation of its environment. Shortly thereafter, a NASA workshop was convened in Norfolk, Virginia, on the topic of the Remote Measurement of Pollution (or RMOP), and its findings can be found in a NASA Special Publication (NASA SP-285, 1971). Its three primary panels and their chairmen were focused on trace gas species (Will Kellogg), atmospheric particulates or aerosols (Verner Suomi), and water pollution (Gifford Ewing). Many of the workshop participants were specialists in the techniques that might be employed for the regional to global-scale, remote measurements of pollution from an Earth-orbiting satellite. In fact, the findings and recommendations of the SCEP and RMOP Reports represent the genesis of and blueprint for the satellite Earth-sensing programs within NASA for the following several decades. This paper is a brief, 40-year retrospective of the instrument developments and demonstrated measurement successes for temperature and gaseous species that were an outgrowth of the RMOP activity.

Ellis Remsberg↗

DOE OSTI1991

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 32, No. 4, October-December 1991]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 477 Report on the International Symposium on the Use of Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Operational Safety—PSA '91, S. Chakraborty and M. Khatib-Rahbar; 488 Good Relationships Are Pivotal in Nuclear Data Bases, A. S. Heger and B. V. Koen; 494 Technical Note: The Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel's Evaluation of the Ulysses Space Mission, J. A. Sholtis, Jr., D. A. Huff, L. B. Gray, N. P. Klug, and R. O. Winchester; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 502 The Severe Accident Analysis Program for the Savannah River Nuclear Production Reactors, M. L. Hyder; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 511 A Framework for Selecting Suitable Control Technologies for Nuclear Power Plant Systems, R. A. Kisner; DESIGN FEATURES: 521 Containments for Gas-Cooled Power Reactors History and Status, P.W. Williams; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 537 Indoor Radon: A Natural Risk, N. H. Harley and J.H. Harley; On the Importance of the Atmospheric Parameters in the Fission Products Distribution of a Severe Reactor Accident, M. C. Barla and A. R. Bayulken; Book Review: Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR V, C. R. Richmond; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 555 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 567 Effects of Component Aging on the Westhinghouse Control Rod Drive System, K. Sullivan and W. Gunther; 577 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher, 580 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 582 Operating U 8 Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver, RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 596 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 610 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 614 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1991; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 520 Workshop on PC PRAISE: A Probabilistic Fracture Mechanics Personal Computer Code for Nuclear Power Plant Piping Reliability Assessment; 536 Fifth Workshop on Nuclear Power Plant Containment Integrity; 624 New OECD "International Information System on Occupational Exposure (ISOE)"; 625 Harvard School of Public Health Announces Short Courses; 625 Eighth Power Plant Dynamics, Control and Testing Symposium; 626 Second Training Course on Off-Site Emergency Planning and Response for Nuclear Accidents; 618 The Authors; 622 Reviewers of Nuclear Safety, Vol 32.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Innovations in Building Energy Modeling: Research and Development Opportunities for Emerging Technologies

Building energy modeling (BEM) is a multipurpose tool for building energy efficiency (EE). The U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Office (BTO) seeks to expand the use and effectiveness of BEM in the design and operation of commercial and residential buildings with the goal of achieving lasting reductions in total and peak energy use. This report identifies gaps and outlines recommended initiatives to achieve this goal, based on a combination of technical analysis and stakeholder input. In addition to BTO, this report can benefit BEM professionals (architects, mechanical engineers, energy consultants, building auditors, equipment manufacturers, and BEM software vendors) and BEM clients (building owners and operators, EE program administrators, EE service providers, policymakers, and policy and code jurisdictions such as states and cities). This report was developed in two phases. In the first, BTO worked with a team from Navigant Consulting (now Guidehouse) to characterize objectives, opportunities, and current activities; identify gaps and barriers; and define initiatives. To collect input, Navigant conducted telephone interviews and workshops with industry experts. The initial phase produced a draft report, which was released for public review in 2016 and yielded over 400 comments. Based on these comments, BTO compiled a second draft report that addressed many of those comments while acknowledging changes that had occurred both at BTO and in the industry. Unlike the first draft report, the second focused much more heavily on BTO’s own role, portfolio, and activities. BTO is a direct player in the BEM field - it funds the development of several significant software packages that are embedded in commercial products - and transparency about its goals and future plans is requisite. BTO recognizes that a great number of other public and private organizations contribute to the BEM enterprise. With the second draft report, BTO did not attempt to produce a blueprint for the industry as a whole, but rather a working document BTO can use to iteratively solicit stakeholder input and synthesize it into a program. BTO released the second draft report for public review in 2019. The second round of review generated 83 pages of feedback and comments - almost exactly the length of the draft report itself - a significant portion of which was collected and synthesized by IBPSA-USA Advocacy Committee. This final report incorporates this feedback. This report does not address the use of BEM in support of building-based grid services, a recent BTO initiative called Grid-interactive Efficient Buildings (GEB). In 2019, BTO published a report that specifically addresses the role of BEM - and other “integration” technologies - in GEB.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2024

Bias Corrected NOAA HRRR Wind Resource Data for Grid Integration Applications

To address the need for regularly updated wind resource data, NREL has processed the High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) outputs for use in grid integration modeling. The HRRR is an hourly-updated operational forecast product produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Dowell et al., 2022). Several barriers have prevented the HRRR's widespread proliferation in the wind energy industry: missing timesteps (prior to 2019), challenging file format for wind energy analysis, limited vertical height resolution, and negative bias versus legacy WIND Toolkit data (2007-2013). NREL has applied re-gridding, interpolation, and bias-correction to the native HRRR data to overcome these limitations. This results in the now-publicly-available bias corrected and interpolated HRRR (BC-HRRR) dataset for weather years 2015 to 2023. Bias correction is necessary for wind resource consistency across weather years to be used simultaneously in planning-focused grid integration studies alongside the original WIND Toolkit data. We show that quantile mapping with the WIND Toolkit as a historical baseline is an effective method for bias correcting the interpolated HRRR data: the BC-HRRR has reduced mean bias versus comparable gridded wind resource datasets (+0.12 m/s versus Vortex) and has very low mean bias versus ground measurement stations (+0.01 m/s) (Buster et al., 2024). BC-HRRR's consistency with the legacy WIND Toolkit allows NREL to extend grid integration analysis to 15+ weather years of wind data with low-overhead extensibility to future years as they are made available by NOAA. As with historical datasets like the WIND Toolkit, BC-HRRR is intended for use in grid integration modeling (e.g., capacity expansion, production cost, and resource adequacy modeling) both independently and alongside the legacy WIND Toolkit.

Array↗

NASA NTRS1991

The 1991 International Conference on Aging Aircraft and Structural Airworthiness

Civil aviation serves a strategic interest to the United States. Thus, the need to maintain a high standard of aviation safety is axiomatic. While the industry has witnessed phenomenal growth in the past two decades, the proportion of aging aircraft in air carrier fleets has been ever increasing-a trend that is projected to continue. Certain events which occurred in 1988 and previous years and public concern about the safety of the high time aircraft led to an International Conference on Aging Aircraft in Washington, D.C., during which a number of aviation safety related issues applicable to aging aircraft were raised and discussed among the conference participants. Various groups that have a vital stake in commercial aviation made certain recommendations which led to the formation of a task force and a broad undertaking involving the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), industry and international organizations to insure continued airworthiness of aging airplanes. At the same time, significant research and development programs were initiated by the FAA and NASA to complement the broader effort. In view of the success of the 1988 conference, the FAA desired that conferences be held annually to disseminate information on the status of the task force's activities on aircraft certification and airline maintenance related issues and to offer a forum for participation by all interested parties. Thus, the 2nd International Conference was held in 1989 in Baltimore and the third in the series in 1990 in Bordeaux, France. Both of them, like the first conference, attracted rousing attendance and interest. Thus, the stage was set for organizing the 4th International Conference in 1991. By 1991, the FAA and NASA research programs were yielding significant results, a consideration that led to a larger segment of the 4th International Conference Program being devoted to presentations about the impact of the research on the other activities of the task group. Agreement had also been reached between the FAA and NASA to coordinate and integrate their respective program activities. Hence, NASA was co-opted as a sponsor of the conference. A group consisting of Mr. Stephen Erickson of the Air Transport Association of America, Mr. Jesse Lewis and Mr. Richard Johnson of the FAA, and Mr. Thomas Crooker of NASA was formed to organize the conference. The members of the group are owed special thanks for their efforts that ensured the success of the conference.

Aging Aircraft↗

NASA NTRS2014

A Flight Research Overview of WSPR, a Pilot Project for Sonic Boom Community Response

In support of NASAs ongoing effort to bring supersonic commercial travel to the public, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and NASA Langley Research Center, in cooperation with other industry organizations, conducted a flight research experiment to identify the methods, tools, and best practices for a large-scale quiet (or low) sonic boom community human response test. The name of the effort was Waveforms and Sonic boom Perception and Response. Such tests will go towards building a dataset that governing agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration and International Civil Aviation Organization will use to establish regulations for acceptable sound levels of overland sonic booms. Until WSPR, there had never been an effort that studied the response of people in their own homes and performing daily activities to non-traditional, low sonic booms.WSPR was a NASA collaborative effort with several industry partners, in response to a NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate Research Opportunities in Aeronautics. The primary contractor was Wyle. Other partners included Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Pennsylvania State University, Tetra Tech, and Fidell Associates, Inc.A major objective of the effort included exposing a community with the sonic boom magnitudes and occurrences expected in high-air traffic regions with a network of supersonic commercial aircraft in place. Low-level sonic booms designed to simulate those produced by the next generation of commercial supersonic aircraft were generated over a small residential community. The sonic boom footprint was recorded with an autonomous wireless microphone array that spanned the entire community. Human response data was collected using multiple survey methods. The research focused on essential elements of community response testing including subject recruitment, survey methods, instrumentation systems, flight planning and operations, and data analysis methods.This paper focuses on NASAs role in the efforts logistics and operations including human response subject recruitment, the operational processes involved in implementing the surveys throughout the community, instrumentation systems, logistics, flight planning, and flight operations. Findings discussed in this paper include critical lessons learned in all of those areas. The paper also discusses flight operations results. Analysis of the accuracy and repeatability of planning and executing the unique aircraft maneuver used to generate low sonic booms concluded that the sonic booms had overpressures within 0.15 pounds-per-square-feet of the planned values for 76 of t he attempts. Similarly, 90 of the attempts to generate low sonic booms within the community were successful.

sonic booms↗

DOE OSTI1991

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 32, No. 4, October-December 1991]

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technology has significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the impact of climate change, particularly in hard to decarbonize industrial and commercial sectors. CCUS involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) from industrial processes or power generation and utilizing it for other purposes, such as enhanced oil recovery (EOR), or storing the captured CO 2 underground. CCUS technology can reduce the environmental impact of continued fossil fuel use while smoothing the transition to a low-carbon economy. CCUS can create new economic opportunities, such as the development of new industries and job creation, and can enhance energy security by diversifying energy sources. For these reasons, enabling CCUS has become a key objective of the Biden-Harris administration’s clean energy policy and has received bipartisan support. Despite its environmental and economic potential, CCUS faces multiple barriers to widespread deployment. One of the main challenges is the high cost and technical difficulty of implementing and operating large-scale CCUS infrastructure. CCUS remains a relatively expensive way to reduce carbon emissions (e.g., compared to solar photovoltaic technology’s displacement of coal generation). Additionally, financial incentives and supportive policies like those enacted to support solar photovoltaic development, especially at the state level, are inconsistent or nonexistent, which can discourage investment in CCUS projects. There are also technical challenges associated with safe and secure underground CO 2 storage and the development of new carbon utilization technologies. Public opposition to various aspects of CCUS technologies, ranging from concerns that CCUS will extend reliance on fossil fuels to CCUS infrastructure being sited in disadvantaged communities, is a growing challenge. This paper focuses on another significant barrier to broad CCUS deployment: the need for considerable expansion of the dedicated land-based CO 2 pipeline network in the United States to meet CCUS goals and the unique regulatory challenges to its development. To reach carbon emissions targets in the United States by 2050, CCUS technology will need to be supported by tens of thousands of miles of CO 2 pipelines. Estimates range from a minimum of roughly 29,000 pipeline miles (according to a 2020 Great Plains Institute study) to 66,000 pipeline miles (as per a 2021 Princeton University–led study). As of October 2022, however, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) reports fewer than 5,400 miles of U.S. pipelines carrying CO 2 . This deficit—and what it means for the prospect of moving substantially larger quantities of CO 2 from source to use or storage—threatens to stifle the development of CCUS projects and technologies identified as an important tool to meet emissions targets. The current regulatory landscape facing CO 2 pipeline development can best be described as uncertain. At the federal level, the U.S. DOT Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) oversees safety regulation of pipelines transporting hazardous materials, including CO 2 upon commencement of operation. However, PHMSA’s definition of CO 2 as “a fluid consisting of more than 90 percent CO 2 molecules compressed to a supercritical state” has not been updated since its 1991 addition to the Federal Register. Because CO 2 can be transported in a gaseous, liquid, or supercritical state (indeed, the physical state of CO 2 can fluctuate within a single pipeline due to environmental changes), doubts persist about the extent of PHMSA’s purview—and raise questions about what, if anything, states should do to address this apparent gap. PHMSA has begun a major revision of its existing rules, but the agency does not expect a first draft before 2024. Economic oversight of CO 2 pipelines is even less clear. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and Surface Transportation Board (STB)—which regulate the rates of interstate oil/natural gas and non-energy pipelines, respectively—have both declined jurisdiction over interstate CO 2 pipelines. This presumably leaves economic regulation to state and/or local governments, but few if any states have the laws or resources in place to oversee just and reasonable rates. Further, the interstate nature of CO 2 pipeline development creates questions around how different states should align their rate-making decisions. Onshore U.S. Carbon Pipeline Deployment: Siting, Safety, and Regulation Currently, regulatory responsibilities regarding CO 2 pipeline siting and permitting fall to state and local governments. The variety of laws and regulations across the country, however, creates a maze of requirements for pipeline developers to navigate. To secure necessary permits, most states require pipeline companies to be “common carriers” that provide transport service to the public at uniform rates. However, the specific definition of that term varies. Some states require clear evidence that a pipeline services the public, while others automatically deem any pipeline company transporting energy products or hazardous materials to be a “common carrier”—with little consideration for accessibility to third parties. Other states have eschewed common-carrier terminology entirely, placing private and publicly accessible pipelines on equal footing. Much like the variation in common-carrier requirements, laws governing eminent domain authority to secure rights-of-way (ROW) to commence construction on a planned pipeline route differ by state. Several states have no laws or rules governing CO 2 pipelines. In addition to creating questions about whether long-standing rules for other pipelines (e.g., natural gas or petroleum products) apply to CO 2 , this policy vacuum leaves local governments as the sole authority over sections of pipe within their boundaries. With dozens of counties along a given route, the probability of inconsistent regulation of the same pipeline is significant. Even in states with CO 2 pipeline laws in place, local regulatory attempts to address rising concerns over pipeline routing and safety have triggered lawsuits by pipeline companies seeking to delimit areas of federal, state, and local government responsibility. Meanwhile, legislators across the country have introduced bills to restrict the application of eminent domain to CO 2 pipeline projects, which could threaten a key means of securing ROW that companies cannot secure through negotiation with landowners. Taken separately, any of these regulatory issues—the narrow federal definition of CO 2 , FERC’s and STB’s decisions that CO 2 pipelines are not within their jurisdiction, and the considerable variation in state and local governments’ laws regulating CO 2 pipeline technologies—are extremely difficult to resolve. Adding the required scale of CO 2 pipeline expansion and the currently identified narrow window of time in which to reach climate target goals, the task becomes even more difficult—and raises a host of urgent questions for regulators. How should CO 2 be defined in federal regulations to ensure consistent safety standards across the country? What is the potential impact radius of a CO 2 pipeline rupture, and how should that inform local emergency response? In the absence of centralized federal oversight, what should state legislatures do to increase alignment for interstate CO 2 pipeline projects? This paper intends to serve as a primer for regulators and stakeholders who seek to better understand the regulatory challenges and opportunities facing this critical infrastructure.

42 ENGINEERING↗

NASA NTRS2012

The International Space Station (ISS) Education Accomplishments and Opportunities

The International Space Station (ISS) has the unique ability to capture the imaginations of both students and teachers worldwide and thus stands as an invaluable learning platform for the advancement of proficiency in research and development and education. The presence of humans on board ISS for the past ten years has provided a foundation for numerous educational activities aimed at capturing that interest and motivating study in the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines which will lead to an increase in quality of teachers, advancements in research and development, an increase in the global reputation for intellectual achievement, and an expanded ability to pursue unchartered avenues towards a brighter future. Over 41 million students around the world have participated in ISS-related activities since the year 2000. Projects such as the Amateur Radio on International Space Station (ARISS) and Earth Knowledge Acquired by Middle School Students (EarthKAM), among others, have allowed for global student, teacher, and public access to space through radio contacts with crewmembers and student image acquisition respectively. . With planned ISS operations at least until 2020, projects like the aforementioned and their accompanying educational materials will be available to enable increased STEM literacy around the world. Since the launch of the first ISS element, a wide range of student experiments and educational activities have been performed by each of the international partner agencies: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Canadian Space Agency (CSA), European Space Agency (ESA), Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos). Additionally, a number of non-participating countries, some under commercial agreements, have also participated in Station-related activities. Many of these programs still continue while others are being developed and added to the station crewmembers tasks on a regular basis. These diverse student experiments and programs fall into one of the following categories: student-developed experiments; students performing classroom versions of ISS experiments; students participating in ISS investigator experiments; students participating in ISS engineering education; education demonstrations and cultural activities. This paper summarizes some of the main student experiments and educational activities that have been conducted on the ISS. It also highlights some upcoming projects.

Alleyne, Camille W.↗