Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “DOCUMENTATION”

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 631 records · Page 35

The Low-Yield Nuclear Monitoring (LYNM) Experimental Science Plan

The Low-Yield Nuclear Monitoring (LYNM) Program is a long-term NNSA research and development effort designed to improve the United States’ explosion monitoring capabilities, particularly with respect to low-yield and potentially evasive underground nuclear testing. The LYNM Program focuses on researching, discovering, and exploiting unique and useful signatures, from all available technologies and sensors (e.g., seismic, acoustic, electromagnetic, gases, and particulates (both stable and radioactive)). Four Department of Energy laboratories participate in LYNM and together are referred to as the ‘quad-lab’. The R&D program execution is performed under NNSA defined structures known as “ventures”. Four science ventures were established: 1) Explosion Source Functions; 2) Containment of Low-Yield Underground Tests; 3) Local Signatures; 4) Dynamic Monitoring Networks. To organize and execute the large field scale experiment a fifth venture was established: 5) Physics Experiment One (PE-1). As part of the LYNM Program, a series of experiments are planned at various scales and levels of venture involvement. These vary from those that involve a subset of labs and/or LYNM ventures (e.g., small experiments), to full quad-lab LYNM Program field-scale integrated experiments. Such experiments may involve chemical explosions with tracer materials or other means of simulating the expected signals from a nuclear explosion. The LYNM Program does not conduct actual nuclear explosions. Since 1992, the U.S. has observed a moratorium on underground nuclear explosions. This document is intended to provide the underlying scientific basis for the LYNM planned experimental work. Each specific LYNM experiment will develop a goals, objectives, and requirements (GOR) plan following the guidance in this document. The LYNM technical staff will define the numbers and types of experiments required over the course of the Program based on technical needs and within funding constraints. As with any scientific experiment series, the number and types of experiments may change based upon the experimental results obtained. An experiment that agrees with models/codes/software signature predictions may need fewer repetitions/variations, depending upon the level of statistical rigor desired, as compared to one in which the predictions and experimental data do not match. The large LYNM field-scale integrated experiments require the longest lead-time for planning, and these are discussed in more detail near the end of this document.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

Modeling Needs to Support the Reconstruction Strategy of Ukraine

Ukraine has been facing difficult times. Russia started a full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, and has caused huge human and infrastructure losses. As a result of the invasion, more than 8 million people left their homes. The Russian army has targeted Ukrainian energy sources, destroying or damaging over 50% of thermal power generation capacity (coal and gas), 30% of solar generation, and 90% of wind generation. The Russians are also threatening Ukrainian energy security, as they currently control the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant – Europe’s largest. In addition, Russia has destroyed 121,000 buildings, including 5,300 multistory buildings - more buildings than Ukraine built during the past five years. The occupiers destroyed or damaged 343 district heat boiler stations (destroyed 12 / damaged 331) and 8 CHPs (destroyed 4/ damaged 4). There is no doubt that Ukraine will be able to protect its sovereignty and restore its territorial integrity; however, this will be a long process. The Government of Ukraine needs to simultaneously focus on many issues, from waging war to the restoration of electricity, water, and heat supply in the territories close to the front line. In addition to these time-sensitive issues, the government also needs to plan a long term multi-sector strategy for the reconstruction of Ukraine’s economy. Ukraine initiated a broad-based political process for recovery at the International Ukraine Recovery Conference (URC 2022) in Lugano, Switzerland. Prior to URC 2022, Ukraine applied for EU membership on February 28 and was granted the status of candidate country by the European Council on June 23, 2022. More than 40 nations are fully committed to supporting Ukraine throughout its path from early to long-term recovery. In addition, these countries link a successful recovery to Ukraine’s European future (URC, 2022a). The reconstruction process will be long. The government also recognizes that it is not enough to build energy infrastructure back – it should be built back better. The government is committed to building a more sustainable and cleaner energy sector. Energy modeling can provide important insights into paths to decarbonize Ukraine’s economy while rebuilding it after the war. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and the Institute for Economics and Forecasting of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (IEF) work on modeling decarbonization scenarios in the energy sector of Ukraine. The teams focus on the heat sector, which includes district heat, autonomous and individual heating, and energy consumption by final energy consumption sectors, including buildings. Since the teams use world-class integrated assessment models, other sectors will be analyzed as well. The purpose of the document is to describe the needs of key Ukrainian ministries in modeling the reconstruction process. The scope of this document is limited to modeling energy consumption by the power and heat sectors, final energy consumption by buildings, and GHG emissions from these two sectors. The rest of this policy memo is organized as follows. After this introduction, Chapter 2 discusses key provisions of the reconstruction strategy with a focus on energy, buildings, heat supply, environment, and European integration aspirations. Section 3 provides an overview of recent developments and key decisions of the Government of Ukraine in the area of energy efficiency and decarbonization. Finally, Section 4 provides key suggestions on how PNNL and IEF can help the Government of Ukraine in developing strategic documents.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Supplement to M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Performance-Based Contracts Version 4.0

Measurement and verification (M&V) are key to determining and confirming the continued operation of, and savings associated with, performance-based contracts. The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) updates these guidelines to reflect the evolution of M&V to incorporate industry best practices and ensure that savings from these performance-based projects are properly planned, communicated, and realized. FEMP released M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Federal Energy Projects Version 3.0 in 2008. This document was developed with input from industry-government working groups, previous M&V guideline authors, and national laboratory subject matter experts. The document provided the methods and guidelines, with a focus on federal energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs). When FEMP released M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Performance-Based Contracts Version 4.0 in 2015, FEMP expanded the intended audience to include anyone (energy managers, procurement officers, and contractors) involved in implementing performance-based contracts. The streamlined M&V Guidelines Version 4.0 provided the procedures and guidelines needed to quantify savings resulting from installing energy-efficient equipment, water conservation, improved operation and maintenance (O&M), renewable energy, and cogeneration projects with a performance-based contract; however, it removed some of the associated details on topics such as developing regression models and sampling plans. The details and information provided in M&V Guidelines v. 3.0 are still pertinent to M&V for performance-based contracts. The objective is to keep FEMP M&V version 4.0 condensed, providing the reference document for specifying M&V methods and procedures and a resource for developing project-specific M&V plans; this supplement provides additional details. The content of this supplement has been updated to include pertinent revisions between M&V version 3.0 and M&V version 4.0 by providing details and updating the content to ensure relevancy.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Summary of Technical Peer Review on the Risk Assessment Framework proposed in Report INL/RPT-22-68656 for Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems

This report summarizes the peer review activities initiated by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) during fiscal year (FY) 2023 for the evaluation and improvement of the methodology developed under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, Risk Informed Systems Analysis (RISA) Pathway, digital instrumentation and control (DI&C) risk assessment project. In FY 2019, the RISA Pathway initiated a project to develop a risk assessment strategy for delivering a technical basis to support effective and secure DI&C technologies for digital upgrades/designs. A framework was proposed for this strategy, which aims to (1) provide a best-estimate, risk-informed capability to quantitatively and accurately estimate the risk impact of plant modernization, considering the introduction of high safety-significant safety-related (HSSSR) DI&C systems, (2) support and supplement existing risk-informed DI&C design guides by providing quantitative risk information and evidence, (3) offer a capability of design architecture evaluation of various DI&C systems, (4) assure the long-term safety and reliability of HSSSR DI&C systems, and (5) reduce uncertainty in costs and support integration of DI&C systems in the plant. The R&D efforts of this project from FY 2019 through FY 2022 were focused on methodology improvement and demonstration of the proposed framework for the risk assessment and design optimization of safety-critical DI&C systems. Collaborations with the nuclear industry have been initiated to support the reliability and risk assessment of their DI&C systems by using the proposed framework. In FY 2023, the framework has reached to a point for a technical peer review and obtain stakeholder feedback. This peer review activity includes coordination of the reviews performed by a group of industry stakeholders, documentation of the peer review suggestions, providing resolutions and responses to the peer review comments. The objective of this technical peer review is to obtain representative feedback on the proposed framework to improve the technical qualities of its methodology and readiness for deployment to the industry. Feedback may identify potential areas for improvement and further development. The Subject Matter experts were invited to review the latest project report documenting the methodology developed in the project and provide evaluations of the technical qualities of the proposed framework and relevant methods. The reviewed project report is “An Integrated Framework for Risk Assessment of High Safety-significant Safety-related Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants: Methodology and Demonstration” INL/RPT-22-68656 (short as “INL/RPT-22-68656” in this report). This peer review report documents the technical questions provided for technical peer review and introduces the technical peer reviewers from the stakeholders including nuclear utilities, regulators, and universities. Comments from technical peer reviewers and the resolutions and responses to these comments are outlined. Insights and lessons learned from the technical peer review are summarized in conclusions and future work. The primary audience of this report are DI&C designers, engineers, and probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) practitioners. This includes stakeholders, such as the nuclear utilities and regulators who consider the deployment and upgrade of DI&C systems, DI&C software developers and reviewers, and cybersecurity specialists.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

Performance Assessment Closure Plan for the Active Low-Level Burial Ground Trenches 31, 34, and 94 at the Hanford Site

This report documents the closure plan for the active trenches within the Low-Level Burial Grounds of the Hanford Site, namely Trenches 31 and 34 in the 200 West Area and Trench 94 in 200 East Area. This closure plan is developed to meet the requirements of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. It is one of the several technical basis documents, along with the performance assessment (DOE/RL-2021-26, Performance Assessment of Active Trenches in 200 East and West Low-Level Burial Grounds at the Hanford Site), which is required for maintaining the Operating Disposal Authorization Statement as described in DOE-STD-5002-2017, Disposal Authorization Statement and Tank Closure Documentation.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Refining Processing Engines from SAPHIRE: Initialization of Fault Tree/Event Tree Solver

SAPHIRE has been extensively employed for over 35 years to model risk-important systems and quantify risk models. As a well-established and thoroughly documented Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) tool, SAPHIRE has continuously tracked computational trends and received regular updates. Despite its ongoing evolution, there remains a need for further enhancements, particularly in dealing with the quantification of exceptionally large models. These improvements could take the form of algorithmic advancements, harnessing the power of parallel computing, and exploring the potential benefits of cloud computing solutions. Considering these aspirations, the notion of a remote solve option was introduced and subsequently evolved into a dedicated project within the SAPHIRE development team. A significant outcome of this initiative is SAPHSOLVE, an engine extracted from the SageRisk API designed specifically for remote solving capabilities. The ongoing project is nearing its culmination, marked by a series of discoveries that have brought undocumented aspects to light. Among these revelations is the intricacy of the input and output format for the SAPHSOLVE engine. This document serves the crucial purpose of meticulously delineating the precise formats for both input and output, as they form an indispensable foundation. The importance of documenting these formats cannot be overstated, as it is a pivotal step in facilitating rigorous testing and comparison. Whether it involves scrutinizing SAPHSOLVE results against those of the internal integrated solver or other external solvers, the ability to construct models or transform existing ones into a compatible SAPHSOLVE format is imperative. Chapter 1 offers a succinct introduction to both SAPHIRE and SAPHSOLVE, followed by Chapter 2 which outlines the roadmap for enhancing SAPHSOLVE. The core of this report is Chapter 3, which intricately elucidates the intricacies of the input and output file formats. To provide a tangible illustration of these formats, a rudimentary example has been compiled and is available in Appendix. SAPHSOLVE represents a novel external solving mechanism developed by the SAPHIRE team, although it has not yet reached the full spectrum of capabilities possessed by SAPHIRE's internal solver. However, the SAPHIRE team has set a comprehensive course for incorporating the functionalities of SAPHSOLVE. A comprehensive outlook on the future of SAPHSOLVE is expounded upon in Chapter 4.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

MARVEL 90% Final Design Report

This document provides documentation of the Microreactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation Project’s (MARVEL) 90% Final Design, as required by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Standard-1189, “Integration of Safety into the Design Process." Per DOE-STD-1189-2016, the 90% Final Design documentation focuses on design completion, at a level capable of supporting procurement, construction, testing, and operation. At this phase, the design organization finalizes the hazards and accident analyses, Fire Hazard Analysis (FHA), security vulnerability assessments, and other supporting analyses for design completion. The objective of this report is to provide a high-level summary of the design thus far and provide references including, but not limited to, the following design deliverables: • Complete final drawings, specifications and commercial grade dedications that may be released for bid and/or construction. • Clearly defined testing plans for the safety and functionality of all subsystems. • Quality Assurance Program for Design, Testing and Procurement. • Software Quality Assurance Plan. • Code of Record (COR), applicable design requirements including codes and standards. • Final design that meets all the requirements stipulated in the COR. • Final design review, consisting of final validation of comment resolution from previous reviews, and a review of any additional developments since the last review. • Updated Safety Design Strategy. • Hazard Analysis. • Fire Hazard Analysis. • Accident analysis. • Security vulnerability assessment. • Current and detailed cost estimate. • Current construction schedule, and • Risk & Opportunities Assessment.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

Renewable Energy Guidance for Industry

This document is intended to help Better Plants partners navigate the renewable energy market by providing background on renewable technologies and their benefits as well as a wide range of purchasing options available to organizations. This guidance provides helpful information on adopting renewables by highlighting tools and resources for evaluating renewable energy projects. It also provides information on how renewable energy resources are accounted for by Better Plants reporting requirements. A separate supplemental document to this guidance is available that provides more in-depth information about renewable technologies. This guidance document is applicable to Better Plants partners participating at either the program or challenge level. Although the guidance is primarily intended to assist companies participating in Better Plants, the methodologies and information within are applicable to any organization interested in exploring and adopting renewable energy.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Module D1-1: Uranium-based Ceramic LWR Fuel Fabrication (Rev.2)

Cost module on LWR fuel fabrication to accompany the Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report. In this update, we are adding detailed life cycle cost data and a calculated, levelized fabrication cost derived from a non-proprietary bottom-up estimate prepared in 1978 by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) (Judkins and Olsen 1978a). In 2018, the 1978 ORNL estimate was escalated by SA&I authors to 2017 USD using factors that represent inflation, escalation above inflation typical of nuclear projects, and the effects of more stringent safety and environmental regulations. In this FY-21 document, the $/kgU results in 2017 USD from the unpublished 2018 interim study (Williams and Ganda 2018) can be escalated to 2020 USD using a factor of 1.052. The literature-based unit cost (or price) data from previous (2004–2017) AFC-CBRs are escalated to 2020 USD using factors from Chapter 8 of the main FY-21 AFC-CBR document. This data, in addition to the results of the updated bottom-up estimate, are used to define the “what-it-takes” (WIT) range for the unit fabrication costs for conventional ceramic UOX light-water reactor (LWR) fuel. This FY-23 document also includes calculated unit costs for accident-tolerant LWR fuels (ATFs) of three different types. Some of these fuels constitute a ceramic pelletized form with fuel meat uranium compounds other than UO2 (a.k.a.,. UOX), thus the change in the title of this module in which the word “UO2” is changed to “Uranium-based Ceramic.”

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

L4-3 Developing DOE M441.1-1 Compliant Container Components: Filter Cup Experimental Fixture Test Data Verification

This document serves to provide technical documentation and justification for using the Filter Cup Experimental Fixture (FCEP) for filter efficiency and pressure drop testing in the Enhanced Filter Test System (EFTS). This document assumes that the reader has prior knowledge related to both of these systems, as well as the SAVY-4000® nuclear material container series filter technology.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Annual Transuranic Waste Inventory Report – 2020 (Data Cutoff Date 12/31/2019)

The purpose of this Annual Transuranic Waste Inventory Report (ATWIR) – 2020 is to document the inventory estimate of transuranic (TRU) waste reported by the TRU waste generator sites as of December 31, 2019. This report also notes major changes to the inventory used for the ATWIR-2019 that had a data cutoff date of December 31, 2018. This updated inventory information is available to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) TRU waste complex, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) stakeholders, and regulators. The TRU waste inventory information is used for strategic planning, and supports the DOE Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) input into documents (e.g., WIPP Documented Safety Analysis and National Environmental Policy Act analyses), planned changes, and other design changes as needed for the WIPP project.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Annual Transuranic Waste Inventory Report – 2021 (Data Cutoff Date 12/31/2020)

The purpose of this Annual Transuranic Waste Inventory Report (ATWIR) – 2021 is to document the inventory estimate of transuranic (TRU) waste reported by the TRU waste generator sites as of December 31, 2020. This report also notes major changes to the inventory used for the ATWIR-2020 that had a data cutoff date of December 31, 2019. This updated inventory information is available to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) TRU waste complex, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) stakeholders, and regulators. The TRU waste inventory information is used for strategic planning, and supports the DOE Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) input into documents (e.g., WIPP Documented Safety Analysis and National Environmental Policy Act analyses), planned changes, and other design changes as needed for the WIPP project.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Annual Transuranic Waste Inventory Report – 2022 (Data Cutoff Date 12/31/2021)

The purpose of this Annual Transuranic Waste Inventory Report (ATWIR) – 2022 is to document the inventory estimate of transuranic (TRU) waste reported by the TRU waste generator sites as of December 31, 2021. This report also notes major changes to the inventory since the ATWIR-2021, which had a data cutoff date of December 31, 2020. This updated inventory information is available to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) TRU waste complex, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) stakeholders, and regulators. The TRU waste inventory information is used for strategic planning, and supports the DOE Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) input into documents (e.g., WIPP Documented Safety Analysis and National Environmental Policy Act evaluations), performance assessments, planned changes, and other design changes as needed for the WIPP project.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

FAST-1.1: A Computer Code for Thermal-Mechanical Nuclear Fuel Analysis under Steady-state and Transients (Developed under NQA-1-2017)

Fuel Analysis under Steady-state and Transients (FAST) is the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)’s computer code that calculates the steady-state and transient response of nuclear reactor fuel rods during long-term in-reactor burnup, anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs), design basis accidents (DBAs), and dry storage conditions. The code calculates the temperature, pressure, and deformation of a fuel rod as functions of time-dependent fuel rod power and coolant boundary conditions. The phenomena modeled by the code include: * heat conduction through the fuel and other materials * heat transfer from the cladding-to-coolant * cladding elastic and plastic deformation, including creep * fuel-cladding mechanical interaction * fission gas release from the fuel * rod internal pressure and void volume * cladding oxidation The code contains necessary material and coolant properties, as well as clad-to-coolant heat transfer correlations, for normal operation through postulated accidents and AOOs for today’s U.S.-based light water reactor (LWR) fuel designs. FAST-1.1 also contains preliminary materials and models for new LWR fuel concepts, such as accident tolerant fuel (ATF), and non-LWR fuel concepts such as metallic fuels for sodium fast reactors (SFRs). FAST has been developed for use on Windows and Linux operating systems. This document describes FAST-1.1 and is one of a series of documents on the code; the other documents detail the material properties used by FAST as well as its integral assessment to experiments and commercial data.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

FECM/NETL Hydrogen Pipeline Cost Model (2024): Description and User’s Manual

The FECM/NETL Hydrogen Pipeline Cost Model (H2_P_COM) estimates costs for transporting gaseous hydrogen in a pipeline from a source, such as a hydrogen production facility, to a final destination which may be a user of the hydrogen or a distribution center where hydrogen in the pipeline is diverted to multiple end users. This document provides two main functions. First, the document describes the equations and algorithms that are used by the model to calculate technical quantities (such as the minimum inner pipe diameter needed to transport a user-specified H 2 mass flow rate a specified distance) and engineering-economic quantities (such as capital costs, operating costs, and cash flows). Second, the document is a user’s manual for the model that describes the procedures the user must follow to run the model. The model can be accessed at this URL: https://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analysis/details?id=db897190-8e26-40b1-9535-ee78ac934193

08 HYDROGEN↗

Regulations, Codes, and Standards Review for Underground Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen continues to show promise as a viable contributor to achieving energy storage goals such as energy security and decarbonization in the United States. However, many new and expanded hydrogen use applications will require identifying methods of larger-scale storage than the solutions that currently exist for smaller storage applications. One possibility is to store large quantities of gaseous hydrogen below ground level. Underground storage of other fuels such as natural gas is already currently utilized, so much of the infrastructure and basic technologies can be used as a basis for underground hydrogen storage (UHS). A few commercial UHS facilities currently exist in the United States, including salt caverns owned and operated by Air Liquide, Linde, and Conoco Philips, but UHS is still a relatively new concept that has not been widely deployed. It is necessary to understand the safety risks and hazards associated with UHS before its use can be expanded and accepted more broadly. Many of these risks are addressed through regulations, codes, and standards (RCS) issued by governing bodies and organizations with expertise in certain hazards. This report is a review of RCS documents relevant to UHS, with a particular lens on potential technical gaps in existing guidance. These gaps may be specific to the physical properties of hydrogen or due to the different technologies relevant for hydrogen vs. natural gas storage. This is meant to be a high-level review to identify relevant documents and potential gaps. Formally addressing the individual gaps identified here within the codes and standards themselves would involve a more intensive analysis and differ based on the code or standard revision processes of the various publishing organizations. Therefore, presenting specific recommendations for revising the verbiage of the documents for UHS applications is left for future work and other publications.

08 HYDROGEN↗

Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order: Nevada National Security Site Use Restriction Management Plan with ROTC 1

This Use Restriction Management Plan (URMP) provides the information needed to create, modify, and manage use restrictions (URs) for sites on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), and sites accessed through the NNSS main gate, that were closed using the corrective action alternative (CAA) of closure in place under the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) (1996, as amended). (Note: This pertains to those FFACO sites not managed by the U.S. Department of Energy [DOE], Legacy Management.) The closure in place alternative is used for sites closed with residual contamination at levels requiring corrective action as determined using the FFACO process. The URs contain and control all requirements for long-term monitoring. This URMP also serves as the single repository of the URs implemented under the FFACO that identify use restricted areas and contain the current requirements for inspections, maintenance, and monitoring of the UR. The requirements in these URs replace all requirements listed in previous documentation. This consolidates post-closure monitoring requirements into a single source that ensures completeness and consistency of UR requirements and information. Standardized UR forms were developed to clearly document post-closure requirements that are consistent with current protocols and to ensure consistent information is contained in the URs. Standard notification, summary, and site controls statements were developed for all URs with provisions to insert site-specific options in the text. Current protocols for Industrial Sites and Soils URs are defined in this document and in the Soils Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) Evaluation Process (DOE/EMNV, 2018). The standardized UR forms that have been approved to date are listed in Appendix A. Additional UR forms will be added once the review and approval process has been completed.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Community Planning for Solar: Compiling a Community Solar Action Plan

This document provides an annotated outline for a Community Solar Action Plan. This document is designed to assist community officials, volunteers, and regional planning agency staff in preparing a draft Community Solar Action Plan for a municipality, community, or other jurisdiction. Preparing a Community Solar Action Plan is the fifth step in the Community Planning for Solar process (ag.umass.edu/solarplanning). The plan is intended to be the culmination of the planning process. The contents of the plan will include summaries of information gathered as part of foregoing steps in the process, including completion of a Solar Resource and Infrastructure Assessment, administering of a Community Solar Survey, interpretation of survey results, and review of Solar Financing and Ownership Options and tools. Once the Community Solar Action Plan has been drafted, it should be reviewed by municipal board and commission members and presented at an open community forum. Any important comments or revisions can be incorporated before the final Community Solar Action Plan is approved and implemented. The approved Community Solar Action Plan is a living document that guides community solar planning action over time. As conditions change, new information becomes available, or actions progress over the life of the plan, adjustments may be necessary to maintain the plan's relevance. The Monitoring, Evaluating, and Updating Your Community Solar Action Plan fact sheet (Step 6, Item a) describes some things to consider when updating the Community Solar Action Plan over time.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗