Results for “public sector” — Page 28

DOE OSTI2020

A Systematic Evidence Based Performance Approach to Regulation of Nuclear Sites in England and Wales - 20058

The Environment Agency for England has developed a systematic evidence-based approach to pursue our strategic environmental objectives for the regulation of nuclear sites. We use an annual evidence review process to ensure effective and efficient targeting of limited resources to achieve those objectives. Over the last 8 years, we have been developing and refining this approach to ensure risk-based and value driven regulation. The approach comprises nuclear site and nuclear sector review processes known as Site Environment Review (SER) and Nuclear Environment Review (NER). This approach complements our regulation of nuclear site permit holders under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR). We deliver our regulation of nuclear sites in England and Wales alongside the Office for Nuclear Regulation. The SER process involves the lead regulator for each nuclear site assessing the permit holder's environmental performance across 14 themes, set within the context of the site's main activities and associated waste disposals. Our themes include environmental leadership, resources and climate change, radioactive waste management, facility management and decommissioning, groundwater, and environmental radiological protection. We use evidence from site inspections and working within our subject matter groups to grade current and predicted future environmental performance. We are particularly interested in sustainability and the application of Best Available Techniques (BAT) to prevent the creation, and minimise the disposal, of radioactive wastes. We use risk analysis (strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities) to examine performance against our strategic environmental objectives, which are set out, in our 5-year Nuclear Delivery Plan (NDP). The output supports the targeting of our resources at each nuclear site. We consult the relevant permit holders on the SER priorities and use their feedback to refine our plans. We expect all permit holders to take account of our priorities when considering their own programmes of work, objectives and plans. The NER process brings together what we learn and achieve through regulation across the sector. It provides input to planning priorities, supported by qualitative and semi-quantitative evidence. It covers the 28 nuclear sites in England and Wales and spans the same 14 environmental themes. During the process we collate, compile and summarise evidence from the SERs and other sources such as inspection reports and evidence from our other nuclear work programmes. The output is the NER annual report. This provides a snapshot of the status of the nuclear sector and gives insights to enable us to regulate more efficiently and effectively. It also takes account of cross-cutting issues and risks such as changes in international standards, domestic policy, regulatory framework, domestic standards and guidance, learning from experience such as incidents, events and good practice, and innovation, research and development. It provides graphics that illustrate the grading of environmental performance for the nuclear sector across the fourteen environmental themes. This analysis allows benchmarking of nuclear site's environmental performance and the visualisation provides a convenient comparison of performance across themes, sites, and over time. We use this intelligence to inform our investment in training and development of our staff, and our cross-cutting engagement on strategic issues with government, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and other corporate organisations. Adopting this approach can provide benefits with organisational reputation, stakeholder participation and ensuring value from the public investment. This paper describes the history of the SER/NER process, a selection of outputs from the process and ideas for improvement. The paper will be of interest to other regulators and organisations across the world that are interested in supporting continuous improvement. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management 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. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a collection of objects stored within an RDate file, stateWaterRightsHarmonized.RData. Each object either describes how one should interact with the other objects, or contains the harmonized water rights data. Here is each object described in detail: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. The column headers for each data frame are: waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. allocatedFlow - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. rightsByState_surface: A list of the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, these lists are the merging of rightsByState_ground and rightsByState_surface by state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page.

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management 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. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to included within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state.

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management 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. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.

Economics↗

NASA NTRS1992

Group Task Force on Satellite Rescue and Repair

The Group Task Force was chartered by the Administrator of NASA to recommend 'a policy outlining the criteria, the design standards, and the pricing model to guide NASA in assessing the responsibilities for government and nongovernment Satellite Rescue and Repair Missions.' Criteria for accepting such missions, risks, and benefits to all sectors of our economy involved in satellite services, adequacy of planning and training, and the impact on NASA's primary mission were reviewed. The Group began by asking a more fundamental question; is satellite rescue and repair a logical element of NASA's mission? Factors considered were: (1) the probability of rescue or repair opportunities arising; (2) the economic justification for such attempts; (3) the benefits to NASA, both from such ad hoc learning experiences in space operations and the impact on the public perception of NASA; (4) the effect of such unanticipated missions on NASA's scheduled activities; (5) any potential effect on NASA's technical capability to work in space; and (6) any potential effect on U.S. economic competitiveness.

Source record↗

NASA NTRS2015

Social Network and Content Analysis of the North American Carbon Program as a Scientific Community of Practice

The North American Carbon Program (NACP) was formed to further the scientific understanding of sources, sinks, and stocks of carbon in Earth's environment. Carbon cycle science integrates multidisciplinary research, providing decision-support information for managing climate and carbon-related change across multiple sectors of society. This investigation uses the conceptual framework of com-munities of practice (CoP) to explore the role that the NACP has played in connecting researchers into a carbon cycle knowledge network, and in enabling them to conduct physical science that includes ideas from social science. A CoP describes the communities formed when people consistently engage in shared communication and activities toward a common passion or learning goal. We apply the CoP model by using keyword analysis of abstracts from scientific publications to analyze the research outputs of the NACP in terms of its knowledge domain. We also construct a co-authorship network from the publications of core NACP members, describe the structure and social pathways within the community. Results of the content analysis indicate that the NACP community of practice has substantially expanded its research on human and social impacts on the carbon cycle, contributing to a better understanding of how human and physical processes interact with one another. Results of the co-authorship social network analysis demonstrate that the NACP has formed a tightly connected community with many social pathways through which knowledge may flow, and that it has also expanded its network of institutions involved in carbon cycle research over the past seven years.

Knowledge domain↗

DOE OSTI2022

Grand Challenges in the Science of Making Torque from Wind: Then and Now

Shifting the electricity supply to renewable sources within the next two decades is the first step in decarbonizing the energy sector, and wind energy will play a central role in enabling this rapid energy transition to clean energy. The international wind energy research community - including NREL researchers - has determined that for wind power to fulfill its expected role as a major global supplier of carbon-free energy, critical challenges around the design, development, and deployment of wind energy must be addressed - quickly. Paul Veers and other NREL researchers joined 100 worldwide wind energy experts in writing a series of 10 articles for publication in Wind Energy Science. With the support and guidance of the European Academy of Wind Energy Publications Committee, the articles synthesize and clarify the most critical wind energy science needs. This presentation introduces the concept of the Grand Challenges and its 10 articles.

decarbonization↗

DOE OSTI2024

Thermodynamic Limits of Redox-Based Thermochemical Processes (REDOTHERM)

Solar thermochemical fuel production is a potential pathway for the production of sustain liquid drop-in fuels, which can help decarbonize the aviation and maritime sectors. In an attempt to analyze the commercial viability of this technology, several studies have been conducted, including system and technoeconomic analysis (TEA) modeling. However, most studies to date simply assume a given redox reactor efficiency, which is significantly higher than demonstrated values to date. While it is widely recognized that utilizing a counter-current flow (CF) configuration could increase the redox reactor efficiency, an over-simplification in the thermodynamic modeling may lead to unphysical results which has been included in multiple publications. The fact that the solar redox reactor is the least developed component in the process chain makes it hard to identify technology gaps and evaluate pathways to deployment at scale using this approach. In this work, a thermodynamic model for a moving oxide system has been developed, in a general form that allows to analyze the system for different redox-active materials, under a wide range of operating conditions, for both parallel and countercurrent flows. The model capabilites are demonstrated, and the model's code will be shared as an open-source on GitHub in the next few months.

chemical looping↗

DOE OSTI2022

Forward-Looking State-of-the-Art Review on Earned Value Management Systems: The Disconnect between Academia and Industry

Earned value management (EVM) is a project management approach that can enhance the probability of project success. It is applied widely across different industry sectors (e.g., energy, aerospace, construction, defense, and manufacturing), generally through the use of an earned value management system (EVMS). A holistic and up-to-date literature review on EVM and EVMS does not exist. A literature review can provide a comprehensive perspective on the topic, identifying and summarizing the existing body of knowledge, as a foundation to advance the state of practice of EVM/EVMS. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to investigate the EVM/EVMS state of the art by critically reviewing academic and industry publications, with a specific focus on the maturity of EVMS and the environment surrounding its implementation. By performing a systematic literature review, the authors identified 600 publications since the inception of the EVM concept in 1962, and then narrowed down this list to 160 relevant publications from the last decade for closer review. The findings include the discovery of eight emergent themes. Of these themes, “forecasting/prediction” constitutes the largest portion of the recent literature, followed by “application of EVMS.” One interesting finding is that EVMS maturity, although being a critical topic, is only discussed in one publication. Publications focused on EVM/EVMS have increased in the last decade and significant differences were found between academia and industry literature in terms of the limitations and extensions of EVM/EVMS, EVMS environment, and compliance. A key finding is that designing a reliable EVMS should combine both technical and social aspects of implementation. This forward-looking paper provides a state-of-the-art review while highlighting gaps in the existing EVM/EVMS body of knowledge and introducing new perspectives to support EVMS research and application.

42 ENGINEERING↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Interactive Mars: A Direct-Experience Mission

As NASA prepares to explore Mars, we describe an innovative architecture that could be based on public-private partnerships to offset the costs of such a mission, while demonstrating many of the key technologies—propulsion, communications, autonomy, and landing systems—that will be needed for future human exploration. We propose that NASA could use this capability to deliver dozens of small rovers to several sites on Mars to enable the creation of interactive games that would be operated commercially and sponsored privately. NASA would get a reduced cost to demonstrate a portion of the infrastructure needed for human exploration, and the private sector would get access to a new market and sponsorship opportunities for a broadly popular activity. In addition, our proposed architecture could enable a new, intuitive means for scientists to interpret data and conduct ground operations. This proposal is to broadly develop the overall concept, while focusing on the design of the novel communications system, developing requirements for the software architecture needed to control the rovers and implement gaming, and developing gaming concepts.

Carolyn R. Mercer↗

NASA NTRS2024

Tracking Community Building in Open Science

Open Science is enabled by a vibrant community of researchers who regularly engage with the data, from its production to its organization, curation, archiving, dissemination, analysis, and publication. This presentation will examine community building in open science. The NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR) makes data available to the public following the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) principles. OSDR takes open science further with the OS Analysis Working Groups (AWGs) that facilitate community development and promotion. The primary activity of each AWG is to establish and validate analytical processes to generate higher-order data from data housed in OSDR. There are a number of these groups on various topics, including the Animal AWG, Plant AWG, Microbial AWG, Multi-Omics AWG, AI/ML AWG, and the Ames Life Sciences Data Archive (ALSDA) AWG. The international volunteers participating in these AWGs come from academia, citizen science initiatives, industry, and government. They include researchers, principal investigators, professors, trained hobbyists, and students from various domains and disciplines. Anyone may request to join the AWGs, and membership requests are vetted monthly by the group organizers before granting admission. Core to membership is demonstrated expertise through records of training, integrity, work in the professed domain(s), and good community standing. Regular virtual meetings are held for each AWG, with a varying cadence depending on the group's needs and goals. AWG communities share their expertise in research including cutting edge tools, software, frameworks, data formats, and libraries accelerating research collectively. This collaborative approach helps community members cross technology gaps and identify emerging challenges. These diverse communities encompass a wide range of individuals hailing from various sectors within the Science Mission Directorate and beyond. They serve as a means to promote and enhance transparency, accessibility, and inclusion. An annual AWG Symposium brings contributors together in person. Participation in AWGs can be synchronous or asynchronous, with some groups performing most of their work in off hours. Participants gain valuable skills and connections that allow them to add value to their communities and new organizations that they join, resulting in an expanded return on investment for the space life science community. Open science is increasingly a federal mandate and initiatives like NASA's Transform to Open Science and instruments like the Decadal Survey of Biological and Physical Sciences in Space demonstrate the need to carefully consider best practices in this domain. Here, we present greater detail about the makeup and participation metrics of the various AWGs affiliated with OSDR and details of successful peer-reviewed publication campaigns.

Christina M Johnson↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Tracking Community Building in Open Science

Open Science is enabled by a vibrant community of researchers who regularly engage with the data, from its production to its organization, curation, archiving, dissemination, analysis, and publication. This presentation will examine community building in open science. The NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR) makes data available to the public following the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) principles. OSDR takes open science further with the OS Analysis Working Groups (AWGs) that facilitate community development and promotion. The primary activity of each AWG is to establish and validate analytical processes to generate higher-order data from data housed in OSDR. There are a number of these groups on various topics, including the Animal AWG, Plant AWG, Microbial AWG, Multi-Omics AWG, AI/ML AWG, and the Ames Life Sciences Data Archive (ALSDA) AWG. The international volunteers participating in these AWGs come from academia, citizen science initiatives, industry, and government. They include researchers, principal investigators, professors, trained hobbyists, and students from various domains and disciplines. Anyone may request to join the AWGs, and membership requests are vetted monthly by the group organizers before granting admission. Core to membership is demonstrated expertise through records of training, integrity, work in the professed domain(s), and good community standing. Regular virtual meetings are held for each AWG, with a varying cadence depending on the group's needs and goals. AWG communities share their expertise in research including cutting edge tools, software, frameworks, data formats, and libraries accelerating research collectively. This collaborative approach helps community members cross technology gaps and identify emerging challenges. These diverse communities encompass a wide range of individuals hailing from various sectors within the Science Mission Directorate and beyond. They serve as a means to promote and enhance transparency, accessibility, and inclusion. An annual AWG Symposium brings contributors together in person. Participation in AWGs can be synchronous or asynchronous, with some groups performing most of their work in off hours. Participants gain valuable skills and connections that allow them to add value to their communities and new organizations that they join, resulting in an expanded return on investment for the space life science community. Open science is increasingly a federal mandate and initiatives like NASA's Transform to Open Science and instruments like the Decadal Survey of Biological and Physical Sciences in Space demonstrate the need to carefully consider best practices in this domain. Here, we present greater detail about the makeup and participation metrics of the various AWGs affiliated with OSDR and details of successful peer-reviewed publication campaigns.

Christina M Johnson↗

DOE OSTI2022

GCAM-USA v5.3_water_dispatch: integrated modeling of subnational US energy, water, and land systems within a global framework

Abstract. This paper describes GCAM-USA v5.3_water_dispatch, an open-source model that represents key interactions across economic, energy, water, and land systems in a consistent global framework with subnational detail in the United States. GCAM-USA divides the world into 31 geopolitical regions outside the United States (US) and represents the US economy and energy systems in 51 state-level regions (50 states plus the District of Columbia). The model also includes 235 water basins and 384 land use regions, and 23 of each fall at least partially within the United States. GCAM-USA offers a level of process and temporal resolution rare for models of its class and scope, including detailed subnational representation of US water demands and supplies and sub-annual operations (day and night for each month) in the US electric power sector. GCAM-USA can be used to explore how changes in socioeconomic drivers, technological progress, or policy impact demands for (and production of) energy, water, and crops at a subnational level in the United States while maintaining consistency with broader national and international conditions. This paper describes GCAM-USA's structure, inputs, and outputs, with emphasis on new model features. Four illustrative scenarios encompassing varying socioeconomic and energy system futures are used to explore subnational changes in energy, water, and land use outcomes. We conclude with information about how public users can access the model.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2021

Characterizing manufacturing wastewater in the United States for the purpose of analyzing energy requirements for reuse

This paper seeks to inform an improved understanding of the energy tradeoff associated with on-site manufacturing water reuse in the United States from a lifecycle perspective, in part by developing an analytical framework for understanding when this tradeoff for reuse is beneficial. We survey the literature to assess the current state of reuse and its motives and barriers in the United States, before synthesizing information from publicly available EPA data on contaminants in US manufacturing wastewaters and technologies for treating them. Using the available data, we derive a set of “ubiquitous contaminants” among the top ten in terms of mass discharged in more than half of US manufacturing subsectors (NAICS 31–33) according to EPA permit data. We also present information on proven treatment trains and their energy requirements. We then compare water quality requirements for specific contaminants in reclaimed water to those characteristic of wastewater streams currently being discharged from manufacturing plants into surface waters to highlight sectors with reuse opportunities that could require little cost to realize, such as primary metals and, to a lesser extent, petroleum and coal products. We conclude by highlighting data limitations that need to be rectified before applying the framework more broadly and discussing how these data gaps could be filled. Better understanding the relationship between energy and water in the context of on-site manufacturing water reuse would allow manufacturers to improve resiliency by reducing regulatory, physical, and reputational risks while lessening their footprint on local watersheds.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2026

Taming the Wild West: Assessing Impacts-Relevant Climate Data Products (Abbreviated Report)

Impacts-relevant Earth system data refers to observational and ESM data that are downscaled, debiased, validated, and provisioned for use by decision-makers. Impacts-relevant Earth system data is essential for mitigation and adaptation planning across a variety of regions and sectors. A vast number of these data products have emerged in recent years, which has led to confusion among stakeholders and scientists as to the best product to use. With no standard evaluation protocol available for these products, the decision on which product to use was sometimes made because it was pragmatic rather than the best product to use. This project sought to develop foundational capabilities around impacts-relevant data products that would support more informed selection and application of these products. This work has been immensely successful, driving several academic publications and supported the development of a community of practice around impacts-relevant data products. Over the project’s three years we have addressed six tasks: First, the development of standard evaluation metrics for impacts-relevant climate data; second, the development of a novel suite of atmospheric river metrics; third, the development of novel metrics for precipitation feature analysis; fourth, the development of novel metrics for assessing co-variances between temperature and precipitation; fifth, the development of a dashboard for interactive examination of impacts-relevant climate data; and sixth, the establishment of a community of practice around impacts-relevant climate data that will continue beyond the conclusion of this project.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

Taming the Wild West: Assessing Impacts-Relevant Climate Data Products (Final Report)

Impacts-relevant Earth system data refers to observational and ESM data that are downscaled, debiased, validated, and provisioned for use by decision-makers. Impacts-relevant Earth system data is essential for mitigation and adaptation planning across a variety of regions and sectors. A vast number of these data products have emerged in recent years, which has led to confusion among stakeholders and scientists as to the best product to use. With no standard evaluation protocol available for these products, the decision on which product to use was sometimes made because it was pragmatic rather than the best product to use. This project sought to develop foundational capabilities around impacts-relevant data products that would support more informed selection and application of these products. This work has been immensely successful, driving several academic publications and supported the development of a community of practice around impacts-relevant data products.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

MIXv2: a long-term mosaic emission inventory for Asia (2010–2017)

The MIXv2 Asian emission inventory is developed under the framework of the Model Inter-Comparison Study for Asia (MICS-Asia) Phase IV and produced from a mosaic of up-to-date regional emission inventories. We estimated the emissions for anthropogenic and biomass burning sources covering 23 countries and regions in East, Southeast and South Asia and aggregated emissions to a uniform spatial and temporal resolution for seven sectors: power, industry, residential, transportation, agriculture, open biomass burning and shipping. Compared to MIXv1, we extended the dataset to 2010–2017, included emissions of open biomass burning and shipping, and provided model-ready emissions of SAPRC99, SAPRC07, and CB05. A series of unit-based point source information was incorporated covering power plants in China and India. A consistent speciation framework for non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) was applied to develop emissions by three chemical mechanisms. The total Asian emissions for anthropogenic/open biomass sectors in 2017 are estimated as follows: 41.6/1.1 Tg NO x , 33.2/0.1 Tg SO 2 , 258.2/20.6 Tg CO, 61.8/8.2 Tg NMVOC, 28.3/0.3 Tg NH 3 , 24.0/2.6 Tg PM 10 , 16.7/2.0 Tg PM 2.5 , 2.7/0.1 Tg BC (black carbon), 5.3/0.9 Tg OC (organic carbon), and 18.0/0.4 Pg CO 2 . The contributions of India and Southeast Asia were emerging in Asia during 2010–2017, especially for SO 2 , NH 3 and particulate matter. Gridded emissions at a spatial resolution of 0.1° with monthly variations are now publicly available. This updated long-term emission mosaic inventory is ready to facilitate air quality and climate model simulations, as well as policymaking and associated analyses.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2003

The Conference Proceedings of the 2003 Air Transport Research Society (ATRS) World Conference, Volume 5

The UNO Aviation Institute Monograph Series began in 1994 as a key component of the education outreach and information transfer missions of the Aviation Institute and the NASA Nebraska Space Grant & EPSCoR Programs. The series is an outlet for aviation materials to be indexed and disseminated through an efficient medium. Publications are welcome in all aspects of aviation. Publication formats may include, but are not limited to, conference proceedings, bibliographies, research reports, manuals, technical reports, and other documents that should be archived and indexed for future reference by the aviation and world wide communities. The Conference proceedings of the 2003 Air Transport Research Society (ATRS) world conference, volume 5 is presented. The topics include: 1) The Temporal Configuration of Airline Networks in Europe; 2) Determination and Applications of Environmental Costs at Different Sized Airports-Aircraft Noise and Engine Emissions; 3) Cost Effective Measures to Reduce CO2 Emissions in the Air Freight Sector; 4) An Assessment of the Sustainability of Air Transport System: Quantification of Indicators; 5) Regulation, Competition and Network Evolution in Aviation; 6) Regulation in the Air: Price and Frequency Cap; 7) Industry Consolidation and Future Airline Network Structures in Europe; 8) Application of Core Theory to the U.S. Airline Industry; 9) Air Freight Transshipment Route Choice Analysis; 10) A Fuzzy Approach of the Competition on Air Transport Market; and 11) Developing Passenger Demand Models for International Aviation from/to Egypt: A Case Study of Cairo Airport and Egyptair.

Bowen, Brent↗