Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “SERVICE SECTOR”

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.

656 records · Page 37

Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition Program On-ramp #2 Airbus U.S. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Evaluation Report

In 2017, NASA’s Earth Science Division (ESD) launched the Private-Sector Small Constellation Satellite Data Product Pilot, now referred to as the Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition (CSDA) program. The objective of CSDA is to identify, evaluate, and acquire commercial remote sensing data that support NASA’s Earth science research and application activities. The Pilot successfully concluded in early 2020, when CSDA transitioned into a sustained program with on-ramping opportunities for new vendors as the industry emerges with new candidates and capabilities. In October 2019, a Request for Information (RFI) seeking capability statements from parties interested in providing data from spaceborne platforms was released for the CSDA on-ramp #2 evaluations. To be responsive to the RFI, the commercial satellite constellations had to consist of three or more operating spacecraft actively collecting data in a non-geostationary orbit with full latitudinal coverage and be U.S. companies. Two vendors responded to the RFI and were evaluated by a committee composed of NASA ESD leadership, program managers, and scientists. Both vendors satisfied the RFI requirements and were asked to respond to a Request for Proposal (RFP). After review of the proposals, NASA entered into a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) with Airbus Defense and Space GEO, Inc. (Airbus) U.S. in September 2021 and with BlackSky Geospatial Solutions, Inc. (BlackSky) in November 2021. In this report, CSDA provides an evaluation of the usefulness of data provided by the Airbus U.S. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellite constellation, consisting of TerraSAR-X (launched in 2007), TanDEM-X (launched in 2010), and PAZ (launched in 2018), for advancing NASA’s Earth system science research and applications. The evaluation of the BlackSky commercial data will be provided in a separate report. To conduct the Airbus evaluation, NASA’s ESD augmented 13 existing research projects that could potentially benefit from, and had the expertise to evaluate, the commercial data being considered for longer-term purchase. Investigators from NASA’s Research and Analysis Program science focus areas and from NASA’s Applied Sciences Program elements participated in the evaluation. A summary of the research areas evaluated by the Principal Investigator (PI) teams is presented in Figure 3. CSDA also funded a dedicated activity to evaluate the satellite data quality (calibration and geolocation) independently by assessing the accuracy of data from Airbus. Evaluation activities were carried out by the selected PIs from December 7, 2022, to December 7, 2023. Delivery of datasets requested by the researchers began in January 2023. The vendors were evaluated on the accessibility of data, accuracy and completeness of metadata, and promptness and quality of user support services. Datasets purchased during the evaluation have been archived by NASA and will be made available to current and future government-funded researchers in accordance with the End User License Agreement (EULA). This synthesis report distills and integrates the findings of research reports commissioned by NASA for the Airbus evaluation. This report also includes recommendations that inform the way ahead for the program. The scientific results from the evaluations demonstrated that the commercial data from Airbus were able to advance NASA research and applications. However, the PIs encountered limitations that diminished the usefulness of the data due to the amount of effort that was required to access, preprocess, and analyze these data. One significant issue encountered was the limited spatial and temporal coverage of the data in the Airbus archive that could be used to conduct time series analyses or assessments over large spatial scales. Overall, however, the utility and the quality of the evaluated data outweighed the difficulties encountered, and NASA has concluded that the Airbus SAR data would complement NASA’s existing Earth observation capabilities and Airbus U.S. would qualify to participate in the sustained phase of the program.

Batuhan Osmanoglu↗

Pathways for Disposal of Commercially-Generated Tritiated Waste

From a waste disposal standpoint, tritium is a major challenge. Because it behaves like hydrogen, tritium exchanges readily with hydrogen in the ground water and moves easily through the ground. Land disposal sites must control the tritium activity and mobility of incoming wastes to protect human health and the environment. Consequently, disposal of tritiated low-level wastes is highly regulated and disposal options are limited. The United States has had eight operating commercial facilities licensed for low-level radioactive waste disposal, only four of which are currently receiving waste. Each of these is licensed and regulated by its state. Only two of these sites accept waste from states outside of their specified regional compact. For waste streams that cannot be disposed directly at one of the four active commercial low-level waste disposal facilities, processing facilities offer various forms of tritiated low-level waste processing and treatment, and then transport and dispose of the residuals at a disposal facility. These processing facilities may remove and recycle tritium, reduce waste volume, solidify liquid waste, remove hazardous constituents, or perform a number of additional treatments. Waste brokers also offer many low-level and mixed waste management and transportation services. These services can be especially helpful for small-quantity tritiated-waste generators, such as universities, research institutions, medical facilities, and some industries. The information contained in this report covers general capabilities and requirements for the various disposal/processing facilities and brokerage companies, but is not considered exhaustive. Typically, each facility has extensive waste acceptance criteria and will require a generator to thoroughly characterize their wastes. Then a contractual agreement between the waste generator and the disposal/processing/broker entity must be in place before waste is accepted. Costs for tritiated waste transportation, processing and disposal vary based a number of factors. In many cases, wastes with very low radioactivity are priced primarily based on weight or volume. For higher activities, costs are based on both volume and activity, with the activity-based charges usually being much larger than volume-based charges. Other factors affecting cost include location, waste classification and form, other hazards in the waste, etc. Costs may be based on general guidelines used by an individual disposal or processing site, but final costs are established by specific contract with each generator. For this report, seven hypothetical waste streams intended to represent commercially-generated tritiated waste were defined in order to calculate comparative costs. Ballpark costs for disposition of these hypothetical waste streams were calculated. These costs ranged from thousands to millions of dollars. Due to the complexity of the cost-determining factors mentioned above, the costs calculated in this report should be understood to represent very rough cost estimates for the various hypothetical wastes. Actual costs could be higher or could be lower due to quantity discounts or other factors.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

The Evolution of Chemical Waste Treatment in the Nuclear Industry Simple Solutions for Complex Problems - 16694

The U.S. nuclear waste treatment industry was born in the 1980s and early 1990s with the end of the Cold War, the peak of commercial nuclear power, and after implementation of federal regulations that drove new disposal requirements for radioactive waste generators. New regulations resulted in soaring costs for radioactive waste disposal, and thus an industry was born that focused on recycling, volume reduction, and waste form improvement. New treatment facilities and technologies were started that primarily dealt with low-level radioactive wastes; however, there was little to no treatment capacity for wastes commingled with hazardous chemicals. Large volumes of 'mixed wastes', of which many became known as 'orphan wastes', were being stored on U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites with no path for disposal and thus posed a risk to workers, the public, and the environment. Perma-fix Environmental Services, Inc. (Perma-Fix), which started in the hazardous waste industry in 1990 and had developed facilities and technologies to treat hazardous wastes, evolved in the late 90's to meet this mixed waste market opportunity. By adapting our technologies and collaborating with waste generators to understand their needs, we successfully developed treatment and disposition solutions for some of the most challenging mixed wastes in the U.S. By establishing a pathway for treatment and disposal of orphan wastes, Perma-Fix played an important role in the safe treatment and disposition of orphan wastes, which facilitated closure of DOE sites such as Rocky Flats, Mound, and Fernald. We found that understanding chemistry and having experience in managing the hazardous constituents of mixed wastes allowed us to apply solutions that were not overly complex and expensive. Further, by adapting proven hazardous waste treatment solutions to wastes commingled with contaminants such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, and organics we were able to safely manage even more problematic mixed wastes. During the 1980's, commercial low-level radioactive waste treatment and disposal solutions were being developed. At the same time, the federal government began dealing with increasing stakeholder demands for permanent solutions of more complex radioactive wastes such as high-level waste (HLW) and transuranic (TRU) wastes. HLW and TRU waste disposal became a contentious political issue between the federal government, regulatory agencies, and the public. As a result, DOE was mandated to develop treatment and disposal methodologies to address these wastes. DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility solved most issues with disposition of TRU wastes; however, for HLW (for example tank wastes at Hanford, Savannah River, and Idaho) the complexity of the wastes and the fact that government entities were developing political solutions for waste treatment resulted in a variety of complex and expensive solutions. Decades later we still do not have a permanent solution for HLW. Whether some simple commercial approaches are possible, what regulatory changes should occur, and what the implications may be if we do not change our current path, will be discussed. After two decades, we see the low-level nuclear waste industry maturing and replicating the path of the hazardous waste industry. When new hazardous waste federal regulations were enacted in the 1970's and 1980's, the hazardous waste industry began to boom with new company start-ups and construction of numerous treatment and disposal facilities. Initially, this was a good business to be in, managing dangerous wastes in an environmentally safe and responsible manner, and it was profitable. However, over-capacity and fierce competition drove down pricing, and companies failed. This ultimately led to a major consolidation within the hazardous waste industry. Similarly and more recently in the nuclear industry, over-capacity and competition has driven down profitability, companies have failed, and there is a major consolidation occurring within sectors of the industry. For consolidation to be successful and healthy for either industry, a leader must emerge to set the direction for the others and establish a sustainable path that is acceptable for waste generators, stakeholders, and investors. This was the case for the hazardous waste industry. This paper will examine the parallels between the hazardous and nuclear waste industries as they have matured and evolved, and what discuss the long term implications of consolidation within the nuclear industry. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗

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

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

42 ENGINEERING↗

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗

WE-A-16A-01: International Medical Physics Symposium: Increasing Access to Medical Physics Education/Training and Research Excellence

In response to a world in which cancer is a growing global health challenge, there is now a greater need for US Medical Physicists and other Radiation Oncology professionals across institutions to work together and be more globally engaged in the fight against cancer. There are currently many opportunities for Medical Physicists to contribute to alleviating this pressing need, especially in helping enhance access to Medical Physics Education/training and Research Excellence across international boundaries, particularly for low and middle-income countries (LMIC), which suffer from a drastic shortage of accessible knowledge and quality training programs in radiotherapy. Many Medical Physicists are not aware of the range of opportunities that even with small effort could have a high impact. Faculty at the two CAMPEP-accredited Medical Physics Programs in New England: the University of Massachusetts Lowell and Harvard Medical School have developed a growing alliance to increase Access to Medical Physics Education/training and Research Excellence (AMPERE), and facilitate greater active involvement of U.S. Medical Physicists in helping the global fight against cancer and cancer disparities. In this symposium, AMPERE Alliance members and partners from Europe and Africa will present and discuss the growing global cancer challenge, the dearth of knowledge, research, and other barriers to providing life-saving radiotherapy in LMIC, mechanisms for meeting these challenges, the different opportunities for participation by Medical Physicists, including students and residents, and how participation can be facilitated to increase AMPERE for global health. Learning Objectives: To learn about the growing global cancer challenge, areas of greatest need and limitations to accessing knowledge and quality radiotherapy training programs, especially in LMIC; To learn about the range of opportunities for Medical Physicists, including students and residents, to work together in global health to help increase AMPERE and alleviate the growing global burden of cancer; To present and discuss a new model for harmonizing Medical Physics Training across countries and how this model (UMass and Heidelberg) could be extended to LMIC in collaboration with the IAEA; To highlight a new platform and program for facilitating contributions by Medical Physicists to increase AMPERE towards the elimination of global cancer disparities. Challenges in Cancer Control in Africa Twalib A. Ngoma, MD, Professor, Executive Director, Ocean Road Cancer Institute, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania Cancer care in Africa is beset by lack of attention, political will, cancer registries, cancer plans, human resources, financial resources and treatment facilities.. As a result of this, cancer patients in Africa are far more likely to die of their disease than those in developed countries. According to data from the WHO 750,000 new cancer cases occur in Africa every year and this number is predicted to rise by 70% by 2020. To make matters worse, an estimated 75% of cancer patients in Africa have advanced or incurable cancers at diagnosis making palliative care the most realistic approach to their management. Furthermore, Cancer prevention is nearly nonexistent, cancer detection is rare and treatment usually comes too late and is inefficient. The overall mortality-to-incidence ratio for men with cancer in the Africa is 0.75 compared with 0.54 in the developed world while the ratios for women in Africa, is 0.65 compared with 0.45 for women in the developed world. There is also limited access to radiotherapy. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whilst developed countries usually have one radiotherapy machine per 250,000 people, most African nations have only one machine per ten million people. The above numbers are alarming and speak for themselves. The only solution to improve this alarming situation is to address the major challenges which African countries face in provision of cancer services which include but not limited to lack of cancer registries, lack of funding, lack of human resources, lack of radiotherapy machines, lack of cancer drugs and lack of accessible and affordable cancer screening, early diagnosis, treatment or palliative care services. Since there are considerable differences among African countries, in my presentation I will share with the audience how we address cancer control challenges in Tanzania in general and specifically in radiation oncology. The African continent cancer plan 2013 2017 Folakemi Odedina, PhD, Professor and Director of Health Disparities, UF Health Cancer Center, University of Florida The burden of cancer is rising in Africa, in addition to current heavy burden of communicable, and other non-cancer related non—communicable diseases. Conquering cancer in Africa will require a comprehensive collaborative approach with cancer clinicians, scientists, patients, advocates, policy makers and community leaders working hand-in-hand at the local, state, national, and continent levels with the primary mission: To reduce the number of deaths from cancer and improve the quality of life of cancer patients, survivors and caregivers. Unfortunately, less than 40% of African countries have a credible cancer control policy and program. The African Organization for Research and Training in Cancer (AORTIC) decided to create an African Cancer Plan to provide cost-effective strategies that can be employed throughout the continent to fight cancer. Based on the African proverb that “It takes a village to raise a child”, the Cancer Plan provides specific strategies that can be used by individuals, employers, organizations and policy-makers to fight cancer. In addition, we have provided overarching strategies to address cancer in Africa and targeted 5-year plan for prostate, breast, cervix, lung and liver cancers. In developing this Cancer Plan, our primary goal is to decrease cancer incidence and mortality in Africa. This goal can only be achieved by stakeholders and dedicated individuals to lead and implement the strategies outlined in this plan. If you are interested in partnering with AORTIC to reduce the burden of cancer in Africa, please send an email to info@aortic-africa.org. Synergies in research and clinical care through international collaboration Thomas Bortfeld and David Gierga, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, MA Medical Physics relies on high technology that is not distributed equally. The whole spectrum of Medical Physics technologies is not available at every hospital or research institute, and not even in every high income country. One example is heavy ion therapy equipment which is currently only available in Japan, Germany and Italy. There is also a large global variation in terms of research infrastructure and focus. A student of Medical physics cannot gain broad experience, certainly not hands-on experience, by staying at one place only. While it is debatable what a good trade-off between breadth and depth in Medical Physics education is, it is generally agreed upon that some breadth is necessary. Researchers in Medical Physics have to cross borders if they need specific technologies for their projects. Therefore it is self-evident that international programs in Medical Physics education and research make sense. Yet, very few programs of this type exist. In this presentation we will report on our own experience of pursuing an international career in Medical Physics, with international student programs, and with the international exchange of researchers. We will present new or planned opportunities such as the medical beamline at CERN in Geneva. We will also report on the synergies in clinical care through international collaborations between partners in high and low income countries. One example is the partnership of the MGH/Harvard Medical School community with the oncology community and government of Botswana to form the BOTSOGO (BOTSwana Oncology Global Outreach) initiative. This collaborative effort in oncology care was spurred by existing relationships in HIV/AIDS research and care delivery developed within the Botswana-Harvard AIDS Institute Partnership (BHP). The initial efforts of the BOTSOGO initiative have been organized as follows: 1) on-site visits to share expertise in clinical cancer care for capacity building purposes (e.g. cervical brachytherapy), 2) developing a forum for multi-disciplinary case discussions and education and 3) relationship building with local stakeholders for long-term sustainability and growth. An international system for the certification of medical physicists Raymond K. Wu, Chairman, IOMP Professional Relations Committee; Chairman, AAPM Exchange Scientist Program Subcommittee An international system for the certification of medical physicists is an important issue. The International Organization for Medical Physicists (IOMP) has in collaboration with a number of member countries established the International Medical Physics Certification Board (IMPCB) to address this issue, and to provide a mechanism to mark the milestone for the professional development of clinical medical physicists. Raymond Wu, PhD, is the CEO of IMPCB and the Chairman of the IOMP Professional Relations Committee. He is the invited speaker recommended by IOMP to give a talk on this important subject. He will give the latest update of the work of IMPCB, its near term goals, and pathways to the goals. He will also discuss the importance of such an International System of certification in the training/education of next generation Medical Physicists, including those in low and middle income countries (LMIC) where such training is crucial in the fight against cancer. Learning Objectives: Understand the certification program as described in the IOMP Policy Statements. Understand the plan of the IMPCB to establish the accreditation process of national certification programs. Understand the goals of this international collaborative effort and the potential impacts to the quality of clinical medical physics practice. Medical Physics Education Across Continents: The UMass Lowell and Heidelberg University Joint Coordination Effort Erno Sajo, Director of Medical Physics, University of Massachusetts at Lowell Medical Physics education has unique flavors across institutions within the US and shows significant differences across continents. In the latter, even the definition of Medical Physics may differ. Not only is there a difference in topical coverage, but often what is considered a cohesive topic in one institution, and taught as a single course, is fragmented among several other courses in the other institution due to a different philosophy. Because of the regulatory and certification requirements, these differences impact the mobility of medical physicists across continents. As a result, physicists who wish to practice in the US or Canada but have completed their education elsewhere often find that they have to take remedial courses or even obtain a new degree in Medical Physics despite the fact that they already have one. Outreach to developing countries, therefore, is even more difficult. The University of Massachusetts Lowell and Heidelberg University recently completed a joint coordination effort, in which they identified topics that are common versus complementary in their medical physics curricula. A student exchange program was developed that permits students to take any of the common topics at the other institution while taking complementary courses as electives, which count towards their degree requirements at their home institution. Thesis research is also mutually accepted. When properly documented, in this way CAMPEP recommendations can be met across the institutions. Therefore, students participating in this program satisfy both the American Board of Radiology (ABR) requirements and the European regulatory requirements. The framework on which this collaboration rests and the cross-comparison methods developed therein may be implemented in other exchange programs and thus a similar approach can be adopted in outreach programs with developing countries. IAEA PACT Program and opportunities for support and collaboration Susan Morgan, Program Coordinator, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria In response to the developing world's cancer crisis, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) established the Program of Action for Cancer Therapy (PACT) in 2004 to fully realize the public health impact obtained through global partnerships in cancer control and technology transfer in radiation medicine. PACT's vision strives for global partnerships to confront the cancer crisis in developing countries, notably with our sister United Nations agency, the World Health Organization (WHO), and our Joint Programme on Cancer Control established in 2009. The IAEA, through PACT, the WHO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and other cancer-related organizations work together to make a coordinated global response in supporting low and middle income (LMI) IAEA Member States in the implementation of comprehensive national cancer control programmes. PACT's goals are: To build global partnerships of cancer-related organizations committed to addressing the challenge of cancer in LMI Member States in all its aspects; To mobilize resources from charitable trusts, foundations, and others in public and private sectors sources to assist LMI Member States to develop and implement their radiation medicine capacities within a national cancer control programme (NCCP); and, To ensure the effective and sustainable transfer of radiation medicine technologies or knowledge to all LMI Member States where unmet needs exist. PACT work focuses on: imPACT: Assessing Cancer Burden PMDS: Developing Global Partnerships VUCCnet: Promoting Cancer Control Training AGaRT: Making Radiotherapy Accessible Facilitating increased participation and professional development of Medical Physicists and other Radiation Oncology professionals in global health Wilfred Ngwa, Harvard Medical School, University of Massachusetts Lowell, MA The 2014 World Health Organization (WHO) Cancer report highlights an alarming increase in the global burden of cancer. It also highlights what it terms “the cancer divide”, or disparities, evinced by a substantially higher cancer burden in low and middle income countries (LMIC) in Asia, Central/South America and Africa. The WHO even predicts a potential African cancer epidemic by 2020 if significant progress is not made in global cancer control efforts. Evidence that collaborative global health approaches have led to major progress in controlling infectious diseases including in LMIC suggests that similar approaches will be useful for non-communicable diseases like cancer. In consonance with this, leaders in cancer policy from the USA and 14 economically diverse countries recently concluded that successful campaigns to control cancers with existing methods and to improve current strategies will increasingly depend onconcerted multinational collaborations (Sci Transl Med 5, p. 175, 2013). Hence there is growing urgency for increasing collaborative global cancer Care Research and Education (CaRE), as well as support for greater effectiveness of already existing initiatives involving partners from different nations, diverse economic and cultural backgrounds. The good news is that there is a growing awareness of the importance of global health and growing interest including amongst Medical Physicists and other Radiation oncology (RadOnc) professionals to participate in global health. However, many are unaware of currently existing opportunities for participation that even with small effort could have a high impact. Over 50% of cancer patients in the developed world depend on RadOnc professionals for their treatment, and hence participation of RadOnc professionals in global health efforts in the global fight against cancer is crucial. It is also important that the next generation of RadOnc professionals (students, and residents) be trained with a global perspective, to be global health leaders in cancer CaRE. This presentation will highlight a novel platform for enhancing participation and professional development of Medical Physicists and other RadOnc professionals in global health. Ways in which this platform can facilitate contributions by Medical Physicists and other RadOnc Professionals, students and residents in global health towards the elimination of global cancer disparities will be discussed. This will be followed by a panel discussion by some of the pioneers/leaders in collaborative global cancer CaRE on the growing cancer burden, challenges and opportunities for greater active involvement and professional development.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

Innovating the next generation of commercial smart building software

Nearly 30% of commercial building energy use is wasted due to equipment faults and HVAC controls problems. The result is increased emissions, compromised comfort and productivity, and less reliable coordination of building power needs with a clean grid. The energy impact alone represents $17 billion in potential savings. Today’s smart building software provides a robust solution to address these operational deficiencies. Energy management and information systems (EMIS) are saving up to 9% on average, with two-year paybacks. They are being incorporated into energy management processes, commissioning services, and utility programs. As effective as they are, two barriers prevent even deeper benefits; limited personnel to fix problems once they are identified, and the expense and time to manually implement changes in control systems. In partnership with the research community, the EMIS industry is developing new capabilities to overcome these barriers. Moving beyond siloed products for either fault detection and diagnostics, or optimal control, these new capabilities empower users to not only automatically identify faults, but also to push corrective action, and control improvements to their buildings. In this paper, several areas for enhancements are documented: ‘one-time’ correction of faults such as setpoints, schedules, and economizer lockouts; short-term active testing for automated proportional integral derivative (PID) loop tuning and functional testing; and continuous supervisory control for demand flexibility and year-round efficiency. Results are presented from a pair of partner implementations out of a dozen providers integrating these enhancements into their products, including field tests from across the country, and insights into operator acceptance and integration into operations and maintenance practices.

Casillas, Armando↗