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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 487 records · Page 27

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2017

Extraction of Uranium from Seawater: Design and Testing of a Symbiotic System (Final Report)

The U.S. Department of Energy in October 2014 awarded the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) a Nuclear Energy University Program grant (DE-NE0008268) to investigate the design and testing of a symbiotic system to harvest uranium from seawater. As defined in the proposal, the goals for the project are: 1. Address the design of machines for seawater uranium mining. 2. Develop design rules for a uranium harvesting system that would be integrated into an offshore wind power tower. 3. Fabricate a 1/50th size scale prototype for bench and pool-testing to verify initial analysis and theory. 4. Design, build, and test a second 1/10th size scale prototype in the ocean for more comprehensive testing and validation. This report describes work done as part of DE-NE0008268 from 10/01/2014 to 11/30/2017 entitled, “Extraction of Uranium from Seawater: Design and Testing of a Symbiotic System.” This effort is part of the Seawater Uranium Recovery Program. This report details the publications and presentations to date on the project, an introduction to the project’s goals and background research into previous work done to achieve these goals thus far. From there, the report describes an algorithm developed during the project used to optimize the adsorption of uranium by changing mechanical parameters such as immersion time and adsorbent reuses is described. Next, a design tool developed as part of the project to determine the global feasibility of symbiotic uranium harvesting systems. Additionally, the report details work done on shell enclosures for uranium adsorption. Moving on, the results from the design, building, and testing of a 1/50th physical scale prototype of a highly feasible symbiotic uranium harvester is described. Then, the report describes the results from flume experiment used to determine the affect of enclosure shells on the uptake of uranium by the adsorbent they enclose. From there the report details the design of a Symbiotic Machine for Ocean uRanium Extraction (SMORE). Next, the results of the 1/10th scale physical scale prototype of a highly feasible symbiotic uranium harvester are presented. The report then details the design and results of an experiment to examine the hydrodynamic effects of a uranium harvester on the offshore wind turbine it is attached to using a 1/150th Froude scale tow tank test. Finally, the report details the results of an initial cost-analysis for the production of uranium from seawater from such a symbiotic device.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2018

Assessment of NHTSA’s Report “Relationships Between Fatality Risk, Mass, and Footprint in Model Year 2004-2011 Passenger Cars and LTVs” (LBNL Phase 1)

In its 2012 report NHTSA simulated the effect four fleetwide mass reduction scenarios would have on the change in annual fatalities. NHTSA estimated that the most aggressive of these scenarios (reducing mass 5.2% in heavier light trucks and 2.6% in all other vehicles types except lighter cars) would result in a small reduction in societal fatalities. LBNL replicated the methodology NHTSA used to simulate six mass reduction scenarios, including the mass reductions recommended in the 2015 NRC committee report, and estimated in 2021 and 2025 by EPA in the TAR, using the updated data through 2012. The analysis indicates that the estimated x change in fatalities under each scenario based on the updated analysis is comparable to that in the 2012 analysis, but less beneficial or more detrimental than that in the 2016 analysis. For example, an across the board 100-lb reduction in mass would result in an estimated 157 additional annual fatalities based on the 2012 analysis, but would result in only an estimated 91 additional annual fatalities based on the 2016 analysis, and an additional 87 fatalities based on the current analysis. The mass reductions recommended by the 2015 NRC committee report would result in a 224 increase in annual fatalities in the 2012 analysis, a 344 decrease in annual fatalities in the 2016 analysis, and a 141 increase in fatalities in the current analysis. The mass reductions EPA estimated for 2025 in the TAR would result in a 203 decrease in fatalities based on the 2016 analysis, but an increase of 39 fatalities based on the current analysis. These results support NHTSA’s conclusion from its 2012 study that, when footprint is held fixed, “no judicious combination of mass reductions in the various classes of vehicles results in a statistically significant fatality increase and many potential combinations are safety-neutral as point estimates.”Like the previous NHTSA studies, this updated report concludes that the estimated effect of mass reduction while maintaining footprint on societal U.S. fatality risk is small, and not statistically significant at the 95% or 90% confidence level for all vehicle types based on the jack-knife method NHTSA used. This report also finds that the estimated effects of other control variables, such as vehicle type, specific safety technologies, and crash conditions such as whether the crash occurred at night, in a rural county, or on a high-speed road, on risk are much larger, in some cases two orders of magnitude larger, than the estimated effect of mass or footprint reduction on risk. Finally, this report shows that after accounting for the many vehicle, driver, and crash variables NHTSA used in its regression analyses, there remains a wide variation in risk by vehicle make and model, and this variation is unrelated to vehicle mass. Although the purpose of the NHTSA and LBNL reports is to estimate the effect of vehicle mass reduction on societal risk, this is not exactly what the regression models are estimating. Rather, they are estimating the recent historical relationship between mass and risk, after accounting for most measurable differences between vehicles, drivers, and crash times and locations. In essence, the regression models are comparing the risk of a 2600-lb Dodge Neon with that of a 2500-lb Honda Civic, after attempting to account for all other differences between the two vehicles. The models are not estimating the effect of literally removing 100 pounds from the Neon, leaving everything else unchanged. In addition, the analyses are based on the relationship of vehicle mass and footprint on risk for recent vehicle designs (model year 2004 to 2011). These relationships may or may not continue into the future as manufacturers utilize new vehicle designs and incorporate new technologies, such as more extensive use of strong lightweight materials and specific safety technologies. Therefore, throughout this report we use the phrase “the estimated effect of mass (or footprint) reduction on risk” as shorthand for “the estimated change in risk as a function of its relationship to mass (or footprint) for vehicle models of recent design.”

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2016

Environmental Restoration Operations (Consolidated Quarterly Report, January-March 2015)

This Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico Environmental Restoration Operations (ER) Consolidated Quarterly Report (ER Quarterly Report) fulfills all quarterly reporting requirements set forth in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Operating Permit, and the Compliance Order on Consent. The 13 sites in the corrective action process are listed in Table I-1. This ER Quarterly Report presents activities and data in sections as follows: SECTION I: Environmental Restoration Operations Consolidated Quarterly Report, January – March 2016. Semiannual sampling at the Burn Site Groundwater Area of Concern currently includes perchlorate analyses at one groundwater monitoring well. Due to the semiannual nature of the sampling, no groundwater samples were collected for perchlorate analyses during this reporting period. Therefore, this edition of the ER Quarterly Report does not include Section II “Perchlorate Screening Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report.”

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2019

Production of Salable Rare Earths Products from Coal and Coal Byproducts in the U.S. Using Advanced Separation Processes (Final Technical Report)

The entirety of the report that follows this brief Executive Summary Chapter is the product of a Funding Announcement by the US Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fossil Energy, originally issued 09/28/2016, otherwise known as Funding Opportunity Number: DE-FOA-0001627, under the title of “Production of Rare Earth Elements from Domestic U.S. Coal and Coal By-Products” The solicitation was subsequently amended several times ending in amendment 000005. Ultimately a consortium designated “Minerals Refining and Rare Earth Consortium” (to which many of the remaining participants recited in this report joined) filed a proposal on December 8, 2016. On June 9, 2017, the contracting office of the US DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), alerted Dr. Keim, the Authorized Representative of the December 08, 2016, proposal, that the consortium proposal had been selected. In summary, this report presents the results of the efforts in meeting the stated project objectives as outlined in DE-FOA-0001627 to wit: “The main objective of the proposed work is to design and construct a demonstration plant that can extract rare earth elements (REEs) from domestic U.S. coal and coal by-products. The plant will produce salable rare earth elements and intermediates, including at a minimum three individual REEs (preferably heavy rare earths) at 90-99% purities, with output capacities in excess of 10 pounds per day of composite rare earth products (reported as oxides). In addition, the plant will produce high value premium solid fuels, magnetite and other materials to increase the economic viability of the plant and to create jobs. If successful, the proposed work will help develop a domestic supply chain of the critical materials that are essential for the development of renewable energy resources, high-tech industries and a strong national defense.” The principal investigators immediately launched the tasks outlined in the Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) in accordance to its Project Management Plan (PMP) based on their collective knowledge of the subject matter and the expectations generated by preliminary laboratory results. Events and circumstances related in part to the vagaries of the coal mining, processing, and marketing industry triggered a series of carefully deliberated step-wise transitions from the original Lower Kittanning coal source in West Virginia to an ultimate stopping point with the Fire Clay Seam (Hazard No. 4) rejects from Blue Diamond Coal Company in Kentucky (Operated by Blackhawk Mining LLC). These transitional steps are discussed in substantial detail in the body of this report. Notably, substantial data of potential future significance, both in terms of sample collection, processing, and testing, were collected in the process. Unfortunately, as reported in the Techno-Economic Chapter of this report, none of these efforts resulted in an anticipated economically viable venture. Thus, the principals associated with this project elected not to transition into a “Pilot Plant” operation. A proposal for funding that pilot plant was therefore not requested. The outcome of this initiative under DE-FOA-0001627 notwithstanding, the following portions of this Executive Summary outline the activities of the investigators. That said, the reader is encouraged to examine the main body of this report in which each chapter is assembled as a free-standing product, complete with Table of Contents, for practical and easy reference purposes.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2020

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↗

DOE OSTI2019

Environmental Restoration Operations, Consolidated Quarterly Report, January - March 2019

This Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico Environmental Restoration Operations (ER) Consolidated Quarterly Report (ER Quarterly Report) fulfills all quarterly reporting requirements set forth in the Compliance Order on Consent. Table I-1 lists the six sites remaining in the corrective action process. This ER Quarterly Report presents activities and data as follows: SECTION I: Environmental Restoration Operations Consolidated Quarterly Report, January — March 2019 SECTION II: Because there is no perchlorate sampling collection to report this quarter, this edition of the ER Quarterly Report does not include any analysis of data in Section II "Perchlorate Screening Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report." SECTION III: Technical Area-V In-Situ Bioremediation Treatability Study Full-Scale Operation, January — March 2019.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

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↗

DOE OSTI2021

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↗

DOE OSTI2020

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↗

DOE OSTI2021

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↗

DOE OSTI2022

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

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↗

DOE OSTI2021

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↗

DOE OSTI2023

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↗

DOE OSTI2025

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↗

NASA NTRS1975

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.↗

NASA NTRS1981

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.↗

NASA NTRS1982

Survey of reader preferences concerning the format of NASA technical reports

A survey was conducted to determine the opinions of readers concerning the format (organization) of NASA technical reports and usage of technical report components. A survey questionnaire was sent to 513 LaRC engineers and scientists and 600 engineers and scientists from three (3) professional/technical societies. The response rates were 74 and 85 percent, respectively. The questionnaire included the order in which users read report components, the components reviewed or read to determine whether to read a report, report components which could be deleted, the desirability of a table of contents, the desirability of both a summary and abstract, the location of the symbols list and glossary, the integration of illustrative material, the preferred format for reference citations, column layout and right margin treatment, and person/voice. The results of the reader preference survey indicated that the conclusion was the component most often ready by survey respondents. The summary, conclusion, abstract, title page, and introduction were the components used most frequently to determine if a report would actually be read. Respondents indicated that a summary as well as an abstract should be included, that the definition of symbols and glossary of terms should be located in the front of the report, and that illustrative material should be integrated with the text rather than grouped at the end of the report. Citation by number was the preferred format for references. A one-column, ragged right margin was preferred. Third person, passive voice was the style of writing preferred by the respondents.

Pinelli, T. E.↗