Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Reporting”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 523 records · Page 29
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2018

BESTEST-GSR (Building Energy Simulation Test - Generation Simulation and Reporting) [SWR 18-23]

Building Energy Simulation Test (BESTEST) is an NREL-developed method to validate the qualitative performance of different whole building simulations engines relative to each other. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/6231.pdf For EnergyPlus® and OpenStudio®, generation of test cases, simulation, and reporting has been a manual or partially automated process that typically took a number of months after a new version of EnergyPlus came out. Building Energy Simulation Test - Generation Simulation and Reporting (BESTEST-GSR) was developed to fully automate this process so it is less error-prone, less time-consuming, and can be quickly run on request for any development branch of EnergyPlus and OpenStudio. The initial use case is to directly support OpenStudio and EnergyPlus development, but the software is configured to support use by external software developers that build tools on top of EnergyPlus and/or OpenStudio. Tools built on top of OpenStudio can leverage the test generation, simulation, and reporting, while tools built on EnergyPlus can leverage the test simulation and reporting. The model generation is accomplished by running OpenStudio measures for envelope, heating, or cooling test cases. At this stage the specified weather file required for a specific test case is assigned to the model. Simulation is enabled using the OpenStudio Command Line Interface (CLI) to run a series of OpenStudio and Reporting measures to a specified seed model. The specified workflow is defined with an OpenStudio OSW file. The first measure generates the test case model, while the second measure is a reporting measure that runs after the simulation to collect necessary simulation results from the EnergyPlus SQL file. The Reporting stage gathers data from individual OpenStudio OSW files and populates a series of BESTEST Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. BESTEST-GSR also gathers zip files from individual simulations for diagnostic purposes.

Goldwasser, David↗
DOE OSTI2020

Using case-level context to classify cancer pathology reports

Individual electronic health records (EHRs) and clinical reports are often part of a larger sequence—for example, a single patient may generate multiple reports over the trajectory of a disease. In applications such as cancer pathology reports, it is necessary not only to extract information from individual reports, but also to capture aggregate information regarding the entire cancer case based off case-level context from all reports in the sequence. In this paper, we introduce a simple modular add-on for capturing case-level context that is designed to be compatible with most existing deep learning architectures for text classification on individual reports. We test our approach on a corpus of 431,433 cancer pathology reports, and we show that incorporating case-level context significantly boosts classification accuracy across six classification tasks—site, subsite, laterality, histology, behavior, and grade. We expect that with minimal modifications, our add-on can be applied towards a wide range of other clinical text-based tasks.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Data from: “Enabling FAIR data in Earth and environmental science with community-centric (meta)data reporting formats”

This dataset contains supplementary information for a manuscript describing the ESS-DIVE (Environmental Systems Science Data Infrastructure for a Virtual Ecosystem) data repository's community data and metadata reporting formats. The purpose of creating the ESS-DIVE reporting formats was to provide guidelines for formatting some of the diverse data types that can be found in the ESS-DIVE repository. The 6 teams of community partners who developed the reporting formats included scientists and engineers from across the Department of Energy National Lab network. Additionally, during the development process, 247 individuals representing 128 institutions provided input on the formats. The primary files in this dataset are 10 data and metadata crosswalk for ESS-DIVE’s reporting formats (all files ending in _crosswalk.csv). The crosswalks compare elements used in each of the reporting formats to other related standards and data resources (e.g., repositories, datasets, data systems). This dataset also contains additional files recommended by ESS-DIVE’s file-level metadata reporting format. Each data file has an associated dictionary (files ending in _dd.csv) which provide a brief description of each standard or data resource consulted in the data reporting format development process. The flmd.csv file describes each file contained within the dataset.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Crowdsourcing Felt Reports Using the MyShake Smartphone App

MyShake is a free citizen science smartphone app that provides a range of features related to earthquakes. Features available globally include rapid postearthquake notifications, live maps of earthquake damage as reported by MyShake users, safety tips, and various educational features. The app also uses the accelerometer in the mobile device to detect earthquake shaking, and to record and submit waveforms to a central archive. In addition, MyShake delivers earthquake early warning alerts in California, Oregon, and Washington. Here, in this study, we compare the felt shaking reports provided by MyShake users in California with the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGSs) “Did You Feel It?” intensity reports. The MyShake app simply asks, “What strength of shaking did you feel?” and users report on a five-level scale. When the MyShake reports are averaged in spatial or time bins, we find strong correlation with the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale values reported by the USGS based on the DYFI surveys. The MyShake felt reports can therefore contribute to the creation of shaking intensity maps.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2014

A Multi-TeV Linear Collider Based on CLIC Technology : CLIC Conceptual Design Report

This report describes the accelerator studies for a future multi-TeV e + e - collider based on the Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) technology. The CLIC concept as described in the report is based on high gradient normal-conducting accelerating structures where the RF power for the acceleration of the colliding beams is extracted from a high-current Drive Beam that runs parallel with the main linac. The focus of CLIC R&D over the last years has been on addressing a set of key feasibility issues that are essential for proving the fundamental validity of the CLIC concept. The status of these feasibility studies are described and summarized. The report also includes a technical description of the accelerator components and R&D to develop the most important parts and methods, as well as a description of the civil engineering and technical services associated with the installation. Several larger system tests have been performed to validate the two-beam scheme, and of particular importance are the results from the CLIC test facility at CERN (CTF3). Both the machine and detector/physics studies for CLIC have primarily focused on the 3 TeV implementation of CLIC as a benchmark for the CLIC feasibility. This report also includes specific studies for an initial 500 GeV machine, and some discussion of possible intermediate energy stages. The performance and operation issues related to operation at reduced energy compared to the nominal, and considerations of a staged construction program are included in the final part of the report. The CLIC accelerator study is organized as an international collaboration with 43 partners in 22 countries. An associated report describes the physics potential and experiments at CLIC and a shorter report in preparation will focus on the CLIC implementation strategy, together with a plan for the CLIC R&D studies 2012–2016. Critical and important implementation issues such as cost, power and schedule will be addressed there.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2014

2nd Quarter Transportation Report FY 2014

This report satisfies the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) commitment to prepare a quarterly summary report of radioactive waste shipments to the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) at Area 5. There were no shipments sent for offsite treatment and returned to the NNSS this quarter. This report summarizes the second quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2014 low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed low-level radioactive waste (MLLW) shipments. This report also includes annual summaries for FY 2014 in Tables 4 and 5. Tabular summaries are provided which include the following: Sources of and carriers for LLW and MLLW shipments to and from the NNSS; Number and external volume of LLW and MLLW shipments; Highway routes used by carriers; and Incident/accident data applicable to LLW and MLLW shipments. In this report shipments are accounted for upon arrival at the NNSS, while disposal volumes are accounted for upon waste burial. The disposal volumes presented in this report do not include minor volumes of non-radioactive materials that were approved for disposal. Volume reports showing cubic feet (ft3) generated using the Low-Level Waste Information System may vary slightly due to differing rounding conventions.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2014

3rd Quarter Transportation Report FY 2014: Radioactive Waste Shipments to and from the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS)

This report satisfies the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) commitment to prepare a quarterly summary report of radioactive waste shipments to the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) at Area 5. There were no shipments sent for offsite treatment and returned to the NNSS this quarter. This report summarizes the 3rd quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed low-level radioactive waste (MLLW) shipments. This report also includes annual summaries for FY 2014 in Tables 4 and 5. Tabular summaries are provided which include the following: Sources of and carriers for LLW and MLLW shipments to and from the NNSS; Number and external volume of LLW and MLLW shipments; Highway routes used by carriers; and Incident/accident data applicable to LLW and MLLW shipments. In this report shipments are accounted for upon arrival at the NNSS, while disposal volumes are accounted for upon waste burial. The disposal volumes presented in this report do not include minor volumes of non-radioactive materials that were approved for disposal. Volume reports showing cubic feet generated using the Low-Level Waste Information System may vary slightly due to differing rounding conventions.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2016

Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA) 2016 Self-Assessment Report for Idaho National Laboratory (INL)

This report provides Battelle Energy Alliance’s (BEA) self-assessment of performance for the period of October 1, 2015, through September 30, 2016, as evaluated against the goals, performance objectives, and notable outcomes defined in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan (PEMP). BEA took into consideration and consolidated all input provided from internal and external sources (e.g., Contractor Assurance System [CAS], program and customer feedback, external and independent reviews, and Department of Energy [DOE] Idaho Operations Office [ID] quarterly PEMP reports and Quarterly Evaluation Reports). The overall performance of BEA during this rating period was self-assessed as “Excellent,” exceeding expectations of performance in Goal 1.0, “Efficient and Effective Mission Accomplishment”; Goal 2.0, “Efficient and Effective Stewardship and Operation of Research Facilities”; and Goal 3.0, “Sound and Competent Leadership and Stewardship of the Laboratory.” BEA met or exceeded expectations for Mission Support Goals 4.0 through 7.0 assessing a final multiplier of 1.0. Table 1 documents BEA’s assessment of performance to the goals and individual performance objectives. Table 2 documents completion of the notable outcomes. A more-detailed assessment of performance for each individual performance objective is documented in the closeout reports (see the PEMP reporting system). Table 3 includes an update to “Performance Challenges” as reported in the FY 2015 Self-Assessment Report.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory FY 2016 Laboratory Directed Research and Development Annual Report

The LDRD annual report for FY2016 consists of two parts: The Overview. This section contains a broad description of the LDRD Program, highlights of recent accomplishments and awards, Program statistics, and the LDRD portfolio-management processes. Project Reports. Project reports are submitted by all principal investigators at the end of the fiscal year. The length and depth of the report depends on the project’s lifecycle. For projects that will be continuing the following year, the principal investigator submits a continuing project report, which is a brief update containing descriptions of the goals, scope, motivation, relevance (to DOE/NNSA and Livermore mission areas), and technical progress achieved in FY16, as well as a list of selected publications and presentations that resulted from the research. For projects that concluded in FY16, a more detailed final report is provided that is technical in nature and includes the background, objectives, scientific approach, accomplishments, and impacts on the Laboratory missions, as well as a list of publications and presentations that resulted from the research. Project reports are listed under their research topics and organized by year and type, such as exploratory research (ER), feasibility study (FS), laboratory-wide competition (LW), and strategic initiative (SI). Each project is assigned a unique tracking code, an identifier that consists of three elements. The first is the fiscal year in which the project began, the second represents the project type, and the third identifies the serial number of the project for that fiscal year. For example, 16-ERD-100 means the project is an exploratory research project that began in FY16. The three-digit number (100) represents the serial number for the project.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2016

Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Update for LLNL: PSHA Results Report

This report presents the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) performed for Building 332 at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), near Livermore, CA by Fugro Consultants, Inc. (FCL). This report is specific to Building 332 only and not to other portions of the Laboratory. The study performed for the LLNL site includes a comprehensive review of recent information relevant to the LLNL regional tectonic setting and regional seismic sources in the vicinity of the site and development of seismic wave transmission characteristics. The Seismic Source Characterization (SSC), documented in Project Report No. 2259-PR-02 (FCL, 2015a), and Ground Motion Characterization (GMC), documented in Project Report No. 2259-PR-06 (FCL, 2015c) were developed in accordance with ANS/ANSI 2.29-2008 Level 2 PSHA guidelines. The ANS/ANSI 2.29-2008 Level 2 PSHA framework is documented in Project Report No. 2259-PR-05 (FCL, 2016a). The Hazard Input Document (HID) for input into the PSHA developed from the SSC is presented in Project Report No. 2259-PR-04 (FCL, 2016b). The site characterization used as input for development of the idealized site profiles including epistemic uncertainty and aleatory variability is presented in Project Report No. 2259-PR-03 (FCL, 2015b).

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2018

California CO 2 Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (C2SAFE): Final Technical Report

The California CO 2 Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (C2SAFE) project conducted a preliminary study into the feasibility of a commercial-scale carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) storage complex located in California’s Southern San Joaquin Valley (SSJV). The work represents the first phase of a multi-phased development approach outlined by the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Carbon Storage Assurance and Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) program meant to develop carbon storage sites capable of permanently storing 50 million metric tonnes of CO 2 , or greater, injected over a typical facility life of 20 to 30 years. This report represents the culmination of work performed under C2SAFE and outlines a phased implementation plan for large-scale, industrial carbon capture and permanent storage in California’s SSJV. The report is meant to be a standalone document and as such provides high-level summaries of all tasks of the project, but is also meant to complement the other three topical reports issued by the project – reports referenced herein. The study considered multiple scenarios including an east-side storage facility, a west-side storage facility, and potential multi-site storage facilities. The east-side storage facility is to be located at Clean Energy Systems, Inc.’s Kimberlina Power Plant, or nearby, and the west-side facility will be located at the California Resources Corporation’s (CRC’s) Elk Hills oil field. The majority of carbon emissions are planned to be captured from existing sources and transported to the selected and verified storage site(s). Capture from the single closest source to the eastern storage facility and the sources within the Elk Hills field would meet the CarbonSAFE storage goal of 50 million tonnes. The study has shown there is sufficient storage capacity to meet this requirement and more; thus, capture from any of the numerous additional large nearby sources would substantially leverage the CarbonSAFE investment. A comparison of preliminary CO 2 capture, transportation, and storage costs to economic value and incentives in the state shows current market conditions make it economically feasible to develop large-scale industrial storage sites in California’s SSJV. The business case for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in California’s SSJV appears economically viable today for large CO 2 point sources involved in the production of transportation fuels, such as oilfield cogeneration units and steam boilers. The overall levelized CCS cost is estimated at roughly 125 per tonne of CO 2 , which includes CO 2 amine-solvent post-combustion capture, transportation, and storage. The levelized CO 2 capture cost is based on today’s technology, with no future cost reduction factored in for technology improvement. The sum of the value of incentives and revenue from California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits (discounted roughly 20% from their current transaction value), sale of California cap-and-trade emission allowances, and Section 45Q tax credits—either for saline storage or the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) credit plus CO 2 sales revenue—is about 165/tonne-CO 2 . The economic viability of CCS for Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plants in the SSJV is more site-specific. A plant providing power solely to the electric grid, if it added CCS, should be eligible for Section 45Q tax credits and could sell its excess cap-and-trade emission allowances, but it would not generate LCFS credits. Using the cost and incentive values detailed in this report, it would not be economical for such a plant to add CCS today, barring other considerations. An NGCC plant within an oilfield (e.g., CRC Elk Hills and NRG Sunrise) that provides power to the oilfield as well as to the grid should receive “partial credit” in terms of generating LCFS credits if it added CCS (pro-rated for the fraction of power going to the oilfield). Such a plant should also be eligible for Section 45Q tax credits and garner revenue from selling its excess cap-and-trade emission allowances. Using the cost and incentive values described in this report, the economic viability of adding CCS today would depend on the relative fractions of electricity supplied to the oilfield and the grid. As the value of cap-and-trade emission allowances grows over time (either by market forces or the escalating floor price), the relative fraction of power needing to remain in the oilfield to achieve “breakeven” would diminish. At some point, even plants providing all their power to the grid would be candidates for economical CCS application. The C2SAFE team has proposed to expand upon the knowledge gained during this study by conducting a detailed feasibility assessment under a follow-on phase of the program, Phase II – Feasibility. This would include detailed data collection at the two sites, analysis, reporting, stakeholder outreach, and risk mitigation activities to support the development of a commercial carbon storage complex in the SSJV.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2018

Final Report on Community Solar Design Models for Consumer, Industry, & Utility Success

Since the inception of the first community solar program in 2006, a number of different utility, solar industry and consumer driven community solar program models have emerged across the country with varying regulatory and solar market frameworks behind them. There is little consistency in how programs are administered, participant benefits are assigned, and customers are charged for participation. Further, while it is regularly speculated that community solar programs meet the needs of customers, no such consumer research has been completed against different community solar program models. This collaborative research effort addressed three primary issues: Program design models are numerous and evolving, with varying degrees of applicability across different state policy, utility regulatory, and solar market types. The agents, transaction methods, and accruing costs and benefits are highly variable and largely built on anecdotally successful model evolution. ‘Community solar’ (shared/group solar, solar gardens, etc.) has become a catch-all concept that means different things to different stakeholders, limiting constructive program development and growth. Everything from green pricing programs to remote net metering to metering aggregation has been framed as community solar. Consumer research on individual concepts and program models has been done, but no comprehensive and comparative market research on the broader design models and attributes has been performed. SEPA’s collaborative research effort on Community Solar Design Models for Consumer, Industry, & Utility Success is premised on the principle that greater standardization of community solar models and better understanding of consumer interests are key underpinnings of increased community solar deployment. Utilizing a cross-sectional multi-stakeholder working group, as well as focus groups and surveys, webinars, targeted outreach, and other tools, this project aims to expand the community solar knowledge base, facilitate information exchange, identify opportunities for standardization and improvement, determine what consumers’ interests are and how best to message to them, promote the research results within the solar and utility industries, and advance key opportunities for strategic deployment plans for community solar. A summary of these key takeaways/lessons learned during the grant period include: Siting of system should be evaluated up-front in the process Engage stakeholders collaboratively and early to help ensure the best chance for a successful program IT/billing departments must have a seat at the design table Establish upfront target objectives with respect to residential and commercial program access levels helps ensure program success Balance trade-offs to manage utility and developer risk with customer participation carefully to optimize pricing and sizing the program offering Over the course of the 42 month grant period, SEPA and its project team conducted a series of activities all designed to accelerate the number and size of community solar programs across the country. These activities included: Community Solar Program Design Models (2 reports) – SEPA, in collaboration with its projects team, the Coalition for Community Solar Access, and over 60 administrators of actual community solar programs, developed two reports providing hard data on the developments of community solar. These reports touched on program performance, quantity and type of programs, and program design steps, among other aspects. The reports collectively received over 2000 unique downloads. Market Research Report – SEPA, in collaboration with The Shelton Group, conducted a series of national surveys and focus groups to identify what customers were looking for in a community solar offering. The resulting report, “What the Community Solar Customer Wants”, received over 1,000 unique downloads. Technical Assistance Projects – SEPA supported 8 organizations who were pursuing community solar programs. Based on this support, over 5.7 MWs of new solar capacity have been developed. Technical Assistance Case Studies – SEPA developed two case studies detailing the technical assistance work in Fremont, NE Department of Utilities and the public power arm of Minster Ohio. These two reports have received 1,002 unique downloads. Webinar – SEPA hosted two webinars on community solar which collectively received 743 participants. The webinars focused on disseminating the findings of the research conducted under this project, as well as the research conducted in separate solar market pathways projects. Community Solar Design Workshops – 120 registrants learned about the trends in community solar and participated a business case exercise to design their own programs.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

2017 BEA Self-Assessment Report for Idaho National Laboratory

This report provides Battelle Energy Alliance’s (BEA) self-assessment of performance for the period of October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017, as evaluated against the goals, performance objectives, and notable outcomes defined in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan (PEMP). BEA took into consideration and consolidated all input provided from internal and external sources (e.g., Contractor Assurance System [CAS], program and customer feedback, external and independent reviews, and Department of Energy [DOE] Idaho Operations Office [ID] quarterly PEMP reports and Quarterly Evaluation Reports). After considering the information related to performance during the rating period, including feedback from the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Idaho Operations Office (ID), and other programmatic sponsors, BEA has self-assessed the Laboratory’s performance at a grade of A, an adjectival rating of “Excellent.” Table 1 documents BEA’s assessment of performance to the goals and individual performance Objectives. Table 2 documents completion of the Notable Outcomes. A more-detailed assessment of performance for each individual performance objective is documented in the closeout reports (see the PEMP reporting system). Table 3 includes an update to “Performance Challenges” as reported in the FY 2016 Self-Assessment Report.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Foothill Transit Agency Battery Electric Bus Progress Report, Data Period Focus: Jan. 2018 through Jun. 2018

This report summarizes results of a battery electric bus (BEB) evaluation at Foothill Transit, located in the San Gabriel Valley area of Los Angeles. Foothill Transit is collaborating with the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to evaluate the buses in revenue service. The focus of this evaluation is to compare the performance and the operating costs of the BEBs to that of conventional technology buses and to track progress over time. Previous reports documented results from April 2014 through December 2017. This report extends the data analysis through June 2018. NREL plans to publish progress reports on the Foothill Transit fleet every six months through 2020. performance and the operating costs of the BEBs to that of conventional technology buses and to track progress over time. Previous reports documented results from April 2014 through December 2017. This report extends the data analysis through June 2018. NREL plans to publish progress reports on the Foothill Transit fleet every six months through 2020.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2019

Environmental Restoration Operations Consolidated Quarterly Report (July — September 2018)

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 edition of the ER Quarterly Report does not include Section II "Perchlorate Screening Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report" because no groundwater samples were analyzed for perchlorate during this reporting period. Additionally, Section III is not included in this edition of the ER Quarterly Report because there is no detailed Technical Area-V Groundwater information to present.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2018

Submittal of Solid Waste Management Units and Areas of Concern Annual Long-Term Monitoring and Maintenance Report for Calendar Year 2017

This SWMU and AOC Annual Long-Term Monitoring and Maintenance (LTMM) Report for Calendar Year 2017 (Annual LTMM Report) details the measures performed for 21 Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) and Areas of Concern (AOCs) at Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico (SNL/NM) in accordance with the requirements of the “Long-Term Monitoring and Maintenance [LTMM] Plan for SWMUs and AOCs Granted Corrective Action Complete with Controls” in Attachment M of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Operating Permit (Permit), which took effect February 26, 2015. This Annual LTMM Report does not present the measures for SWMU 76, Mixed Waste Landfill (MWL), as the applicable MWL reporting adheres to the approved MWL LTMM Plan, Section 4.8.1 and requires a separate annual report which will be submitted to the New Mexico Environment Department by June 30, 2018. Measures at these SWMUs and AOCs include surveillance of site conditions and maintenance of institutional controls. Conditions requiring maintenance or repair activities were identified at three of the inspected SWMUs and AOCs (SWMUs 45, 46, and 87) during the Permit-required annual site inspections. One SWMU identification sign located at SWMU 46 and two identification signs located at SWMU 87 were replaced due to weathered lettering. Evidence of erosion was observed at SWMU 45 during the annual site inspection; erosion controls will be implemented as needed to prevent the inadvertent exposure of hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents. SWMU 45 is located on the sloped border of Tijeras Arroyo south of Technical Area-IV. The erosion controls planned for the Tijeras Arroyo Escarpment will address not only SWMU 45, but also SWMUs 46 and 229 as a best management practice. SNL/NM personnel plan to complete this work in calendar year 2018. The status and progress of this project will be reported in the 2018 Annual SWMUs and AOCs Annual LTMM Report for Calendar Year 2018 to be submitted to the New Mexico Environment Department on March 31, 2019, as required by the Permit. Based upon the inspections performed and site conditions observed, the administrative and physical institutional controls in place at the SWMUs and AOCs are effectively providing continued protection of human health and the environment.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Post-Closure Report for Closed Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Units, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada: For Calendar Year 2018 (Revision 0)

This report serves as the combined annual report for post-closure activities for the following closed corrective action units (CAUs): CAU 90, Area 2 Bitcutter Containment; CAU 91, Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well; CAU 92, Area 6 Decon Pond Facility; CAU 110, Area 3 WMD U-3ax/bl Crater; CAU 111, Area 5 WMD Retired Mixed Waste Pits; and CAU 112, Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches. The locations of the sites are shown in Figure ES-1. This report covers calender year 2018. The post-closure requirements for these sites are described in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit Number 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 Permit NEV HW0101 was issued effective December 10, 2015, and remains in effect until December 10, 2020.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

NCSP FY 2015 AMPX Annual Report

The objective of the Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) Analytical Methods program element is to sustain state-of-the-art radiation transport modeling capabilities and the expertise necessary to develop, maintain, and disseminate the analytical tools and data libraries in a manner that is responsive to the needs of those responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining criticality safety. To this end, the objective of the AMPX Development and Maintenance Subtask is to ensure that the AMPX cross-section processing system is available to prepare cross-section and covariance libraries that are needed by SCALE and other radiation transport packages to support criticality safety analyses of systems with fissionable material. Moreover, the task ensures that the cross-section processing software is current and up-to-date with the Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF/B) formats and procedures for disseminating evaluated cross-section data provided through new measurement and evaluation work efforts. The AMPX subtask provides for the production of data libraries needed for criticality safety analyses. As such, the task provides the “bridge” between the nuclear data evaluations and the radiation transport software. In the absence of the AMPX cross-section processing task, the ability to maintain and update the SCALE nuclear data libraries (cross-section and covariance data) would be hindered. Therefore, the AMPX Development and Maintenance Subtask ensures that SCALE is up-to-date with the latest cross-section data for supporting criticality safety analyses. This letter report provides a summary of the FY 2015 AMPX development and maintenance activities that have been performed in support of the NCSP. Specifically, the report summarizes the AMPX code system updates and modernization accomplishments that have been made to the software package. Also, the report documents the cross-section library updates that have been made for the SCALE radiation transport package. In addition, the report documents testing activities that have been performed to process available cross-section and covariance data files to ensure the latest ENDF/B data files can be processed properly. This report satisfies the following reporting milestone in the NCSP FY16-20 Five Year Plan: Document AMPX modernization and technical support for SCALE continuous energy (CE), multigroup (MG), and covariance libraries and report status annually to the NCSP Manager (AM3: Q2)

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗