Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “public administration”

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 73 records · Page 4

Analysis of the first ten years of FDA’s rare pediatric disease priority review voucher program: designations, diseases, and drug development

Abstract Background The Rare Pediatric Disease (RPD) Priority Review Voucher (PRV) Program was enacted in 2012 to support the development of new products for children. Prior to requesting a voucher, applicants can request RPD designation, which confirms their product treats or prevents a rare disease in which the serious manifestations primarily affect children. This study describes the trends and characteristics of these designations. Details of RPD designations are not publicly disclosable; this research represents the first analysis of the RPD designation component of the program. Results We used an internal US Food and Drug Administration database to analyze all RPD designations between 2013 and 2022. Multiple characteristics were analyzed, including the diseases targeted by RPD designation, whether the product targeted a neonatal disease, product type (drug/biologic), and the level of evidence (preclinical/clinical) to support designation. There were 569 RPD designations during the study period. The top therapeutic areas were neurology (26%, n = 149), metabolism (23%, n = 131), oncology (18%, n = 105). The top diseases targeted by RPD designation were Duchenne muscular dystrophy, neuroblastoma, and sickle cell disease. Neonatology products represented 6% (n = 33), over half were for drug products and 38% were supported by clinical data. Conclusions The RPD PRV program was created to encourage development of new products for children. The results of this study establish that a wide range of diseases have seen development—from rare pediatric cancers to rare genetic disorders. Continued support of product development for children with rare diseases is needed to find treatments for all children with unmet needs.

Mease, Catherine (ORCID:000900050156198X)↗

Challenges and Opportunities Specific to Microreactors: Compact and Light-Weight Shielding During Operation and Transportation

The problem of designing a shield for a mobile microreactor has been addressed. The principal challenges encountered in this endeavor are the dual goals of increasing radiation protection and decreasing weight. It is recognized that these two goals are contradictory. Increasing shielding naturally increases weight. Conversely, decreasing weight naturally calls for decreasing material inventory, including possibly decreasing shield mass. The operational and regulatory drivers for shielding and transportation constraints are identified and summarized. The main constraints pertain to volume, mass, radiation dose, material feasibility and availability, and decommissioning expectations. The latter are limits on residual contamination and dose rates after the reactor is removed. Progress toward solving the challenge of shielding a transportable microreactor is made by considering a tungsten tetraboride (WB4) shell surrounding the reactor vessel. The shield and a generic microreactor were modeled using the MCNP code. It was determined that the presence of a 16-cm-thick WB4 shield reduces the dose equivalent rate during operations to 3.6 mrem/h just outside of a concrete vault and dome and soil berm surrounding the reactor, which is very near the occupational dose rate limits. Without the WB4 layer, the dose rate at the same location outside the berm would be 120 mrem/h. Most importantly, the presence of the WB4 shield substantially protects the surrounding concrete and soil from activation, thus decreasing the duration of administrative control for the site following removal of the reactor from 16 to 3.4 years. At that point, the site may be decommissioned and returned to unrestricted public access. A limitation on the incorporation of a WB4 shield as an intrinsic component of a microreactor is that it results in a design that is transportable only by using the largest road conveyances and that the load would require special permits for transit through the U.S. highway system. New directions for further improvements and possibly more effective solutions to the shielding problem of a mobile microreactor are discussed in the conclusion section.

Microreactor↗

Sources of Propane Consumed in California

Project Scope: The objective of this study is to specify the sources of propane consumed in California. It answers the questions, where does the propane used in California come from and how was it produced? The results of this study provide comprehensive, transparent, and verifiable estimates, based on the 2018 market. The information provided in this report is suitable for use to assess the life cycle carbon intensity of propane used as a transportation fuel in California. As the 2009 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) aims to reduce California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other smog-forming and toxic air pollutants, the appropriate designation of carbon intensity for propane as a transportation fuel is important for evaluating propane’s potential to contribute to GHG goals and understandings in the context of various actions. This study focuses on estimating the shares of total propane consumed in the state of California produced from petroleum refineries, natural gas plants, and bituminous sands sources inside California and elsewhere. Results: An estimated 590 million gallons of propane were consumed in California in 2018, of which, 59.5% originated from refinery production and 40.5% originated from natural gas plants. The majority of this was sourced from refinery production in California, 334 million gallons. Most of the propane imported to California for consumption was sourced from natural gas plants, 113 million gallons, with over half of the imported volume sourced from Canada. The volume sourced from bituminous sand upgrader and fractionator operations was negligible. Details from this analysis are presented in the table below which provides an overview of the propane flows estimated in this study by region and production method. The shares and volumes presented here represent a snapshot for 2018. A significant increase in propane demand, such as could be caused by increased use of propane as a transportation fuel in the state, would affect California’s propane production, imports, and exports. The method and data sources used for the estimates provided in this report also provide the framework which could be used for future updates. Key Method Considerations: The values presented here are based on a two-step approach where the first step was to determine the flows of propane into and out of California from different regions and the second step was to estimate the propane production methods in each region. A volume balance approach is used as the primary method for tracking the volume of propane in and out of California as propane production and import volumes are available by Petroleum Administration of Defense District (PADD) from EIA and neither inter-PADD propane transfers nor state-specific non-prime supplier consumption are available from a public data source. The volume balance performed for this study covered PADD 5 (the West Coast), which includes Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The volume balance used all available public datasets to determine propane production, imports, exports, and consumption. Volumes unaccounted for by these datasets were estimated using the resulting volume balance by assuming market equilibrium. Consumption within each state in PADD 5 was estimated based on known import, export, and production volumes and this amount was used to develop the volume balance. EIA only tracks consumption at the state level by prime supplier sales. The volume balance approach provides the basis to correct for additional propane consumed in-states where propane is transferred to California. To determine the California propane sources and trade in 2018. volume of propane consumed in California, the volume balance approach is again used where it was estimated all imported volumes not specifically flagged for re-export were consumed, and the remaining consumption was produced in-state. The California Energy Commission (CEC) provided the total volume of propane imported and exported from California in 2018; this volume data set along with commodity tracking from the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) which tracks port of entry and final destination was used to determine where propane originated from and where it was ultimately consumed. For example, the CER tracks propane leaving Canada and entering each state within the U.S. Imported propane from Canada to California – marked for California – is assumed to be consumed in California. When no further data were available, import volumes were assumed to be consumed in California without pass-through (i.e., no propane imported to California was directly sold and exported). In most cases, the production method for each propane source region was applied to the volume of propane transferred to California. In other words, the shares of propane sourced from natural gas and refineries for each production region was assigned to California imports based on their contribution to the total volume flows into California to determine the production method for propane consumed in-state. For volumes imported into California from PADD 4, Washington State, Canada, and the rest of the world (Argentina, Chile, Norway, Peru, South Korea, and Trinidad and Tobago), the volumes sourced from petroleum refineries and natural gas plants reflect the either production ratio for the region or, in cases where the sources specific to the amounts exported to California could be determined, the sources specific to the volumes transferred to California.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

Board on Earth Sciences and Resources and Its Activities

The National Academies’ Board on Earth Sciences and Resources (BESR) and its standing committees provide an ongoing forum for advancing the understanding and communication of Earth sciences and resource topics, including emerging topics and innovative techniques. BESR activities help to provide evidence-based information to members of the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, the private sector, states and tribes, academia, non-governmental organizations, and the public to support decision-making. BESR and its standing Committee on Solid Earth Geophysics (COSEG), also supported by this award, fulfill this role through development and administration of consensus studies, as well as workshops and other convening activities related to the Earth sciences; overseeing selected activities of the Board’s standing committees, such as disciplinary meetings and webinars; and communicating, sharing information, and providing opportunities for interaction and exchange among technical and non-technical stakeholders. The core support received from DOE helps BESR and COSEG maintain a central body of volunteer experts and National Academies staff who can respond to pressing needs and requests from federal sponsors and other members of the Earth science community, to maintain the health and relevance of the Earth sciences discipline, and to provide the Earth science community with a privileged interface to the government to support scientific and engineering advances and decision making related to Earth sciences and engineering. Initiation and oversight of Earth science activities at the National Academies is an enduring function of the BESR and COSG that helps to ensure development and completion of projects and activities that are responsive to the needs of sponsors and the broader Earth science and research enterprise.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

Prizes Power NREL Water Power Innovation

NREL administered and managed several DOE American-Made Challenges prizes in Fiscal Year 2021, which support a number of DOE initiatives and administration goals. NREL's contributions to the success of these prizes included preparing and disseminating communications materials to and between competitors, partners, supporting institutions, sponsors, and the public.

HYDRO ENERGY,TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

Standardized Protocol for Real-Time APIs as Required by Title 23 CFR 680.116(c)

Improving the ability of drivers to easily locate working and available chargers is key to improving the public charging experience. Electric vehicle charging providers who are recipients of federal funds through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program, Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Discretionary Grant Program, and other funding programs as identified under Title 23 of the U.S. Code must deploy and maintain an application programming interface (API) to access information about charging stations they operate.1 This includes information about individual charging ports, pricing, and availability in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements, 23 CFR 680.116(c), herein referred to as the minimum standards (Federal Highway Administration 2023). Specifically outlined in the minimum standards, states and other designated recipients are required to ensure that charging station information including location, connector type, power level, real-time status, and real-time price to charge are available free of charge to third-party software developers through an API. These requirements are intended to enable effective communication with consumers about available charging stations and help consumers make informed decisions about trip planning, including when and where to charge. This document provides a standardized protocol for how to structure data, data update frequency, and practices for making the data required to be shared via API usable for improving public transparency and the customer experience. These are recommendations only and do not modify the Federal Highway Administration’s minimum standards in any way.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

Data-Driven Buy Clean: Decarbonization and Beyond

This report was compiled to provide recommendations on the availability of public background data from the U.S. Federal life cycle assessment (LCA) Data Commons to be conformant with the Association for Life Cycle Assessment (ACLCA) 2022 Product Category Rule (PCR) Open Standard to build technical tools that can assist industry in creating more comparable Type II Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for Federal Buy Clean and sustainability initiatives. The Federal LCA Commons is not only a public data source but also a consistently structured, self-referencing mega-repository for data developed by federal agency experts (in agency repositories) and by academia, nonprofit organizations, and industry (via the US Life Cycle Inventory Database). The Federal LCA Commons Technical Working Group is continuously improving the standardization of data documentation, formatting, and nomenclature to ensure lossless data loading and accurate data representation. This report and appendixes include the following: 1) An introduction to data-driven Buy Clean and decarbonization initiatives at the federal level; 2) The current status and associated challenges with LCA data and EPD standards and comparability; 3) Opportunities for the Federal LCA Commons to support conformance with the ACLCA 2022 PCR Open Standard and provide resources to implement the Federal Sustainability Plan, Buy Clean Program, and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) sustainability goals and objectives. To date, the Federal LCA Commons is the result of coordinated work by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Department of Defense (DoD) and the National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST). The Federal LCA Commons will continue to combine databases from the collaborating agencies while remaining a public resource. There are several initiatives among the collaborating agencies to expand the Federal LCA Commons and dedicated federal funding and resources could accelerate and strengthen these initiatives.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Dishwashers in the Residential Sector: A Survey of Product Characteristics, Usage, and Consumer Preferences

Data on consumer purchasing decisions, usage, and behaviors relating to residential appliances help to inform technical and economic analyses related to the energy and water used by those appliances, including dishwashers. Existing publicly available data for dishwashers include two regularly conducted national surveys that describe dishwasher ownership and usage. The United States (US) Department of Energy’s (DOE) Energy Information Administration’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) records the presence of a dishwasher in the home, the numbers of times per week the dishwasher is operated, and the dishwasher age, along with household demographic characteristics. The US Census Bureau’s American Housing Survey (AHS) also records the presence of a dishwasher in the home along with household demographic characteristics.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

LCOC (Levelized Cost of Light-Duty EV Charging Calculator)

This code was developed to calculate the levelized cost of light-duty electric vehicle (EV) charging (LCOC) for the paper "Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles in the United States" by Borlaug et al.(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.05.013). The calculation takes inputs from a variety of publicly available data sources (e.g., utility tariffs from the Utility Rate Database; EV charging station locations from the Alternative Fuels Data Center; energy price forecasts from the Energy Information Administration) and produces the current LCOC, considering when, where, and how light-duty EVs are recharged. In addition, the lifetime fuel cost savings (LFCS) calculation estimates the discounted fuel cost savings for a new battery EV (BEV) or plug-in hybrid EV (PHEV) over a 15-year time horizon using state-level gasoline price and LCOC projections.

Borlaug, Brennan↗

PNNL Sequim Campus Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2020

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC) Pacific Northwest Site Office has oversight and stewardship duties associated with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Sequim Campus. Some research projects have the potential to emit low levels of radioactive materials. This report is prepared to document compliance with the Code of Federal Regulation, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities” and Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246-247, "Radiation Protection–Air Emissions." Compliance is indicated by comparing the estimated effective dose equivalent (EDE) to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) member of the public with the 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard. The PNNL Sequim Campus has only fugitive emissions sources. Despite the fact that the regulations are intended for application to point source emissions, fugitive emissions are included with regard to complying with the EPA standard. The EDE to the Campus MEI due to routine operations in 2020 was 3.5E-05 mrem (3.5E-07 mSv). No non-routine emissions occurred in 2020. The Sequim Campus is in compliance with the federal and state 10 mrem/yr standard.

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗

PNNL Sequim Campus Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC) Pacific Northwest Site Office has oversight and stewardship duties associated with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Sequim Campus. Some research projects have the potential to emit low levels of radioactive materials. This report is prepared to document compliance with the Code of Federal Regulation, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities” and Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246-247, "Radiation Protection–Air Emissions." Compliance is indicated by comparing the estimated effective dose equivalent (EDE) to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) member of the public with the 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard. The PNNL Sequim Campus has only fugitive emissions sources. Despite the fact that the regulations are intended for application to point source emissions, fugitive emissions are included with regard to complying with the EPA standard. The EDE to the Campus MEI due to routine operations in 2021 was 5.4E-05 mrem (5.4E-07 mSv). No non-routine emissions occurred in 2021. The Sequim Campus is in compliance with the federal and state 10 mrem/yr standard.

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗

PNNL-Sequim Campus Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2022

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC) Pacific Northwest Site Office has oversight and stewardship duties associated with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Sequim Campus. Some research projects have the potential to emit low levels of radioactive materials. This report is prepared to document compliance with the Code of Federal Regulation, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities” and Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246-247, "Radiation Protection–Air Emissions." Compliance is indicated by comparing the estimated effective dose equivalent (EDE) to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) member of the public with the 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard. The PNNL-Sequim Campus has only fugitive emissions sources. Despite the fact that the regulations are intended for application to point source emissions, fugitive emissions are included with regard to complying with the EPA standard. The EDE to the Campus MEI due to routine operations in 2022 was 7.5E-07 mrem (7.5E-09 mSv). No non-routine emissions occurred in 2022. The PNNL-Sequim Campus is in compliance with the federal and state 10 mrem/yr standard.

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗

PNNL-Sequim Campus Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2023

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC) Pacific Northwest Site Office has oversight and stewardship duties associated with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Sequim campus. Some research projects have the potential to emit low levels of radioactive materials. This report is prepared to document compliance with the Code of Federal Regulation, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities” and Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246-247, "Radiation Protection–Air Emissions." Compliance is indicated by comparing the estimated effective dose equivalent (EDE) to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) member of the public with the 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard. The PNNL-Sequim campus has only fugitive emissions sources.

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗

Defining and Measuring Forest Dependence in the United States: Operationalization and Sensitivity Analysis

This manuscript helps bridge a gap between theoretical work that advocates for a broad view of forest dependence, and empirical work that has focused narrowly on economic measures. Background: Forest dependence has been widely recognized as a valuable concept for understanding human communities’ well-being and vulnerability to shocks and changes. Past theoretical literature has highlighted the importance of recognizing various types of dependence—environmental, economic, and social—yet past empirical literature on the topic in the United States has almost exclusively relied on measures of economic dependence such as employment and earnings from the traditional forest products sector. Objective and Methods: As a first step to bridge the gap between the theoretical and empirical, we reviewed the existing, publicly available, reliable, wall-to-wall data sources to identify alternate proxy measures for forest dependence. Data availability made the analysis feasible only at the county level—the administrative subdivisions of the state—or higher. Results and Conclusions: We created environmental, economic, and social criteria based on threshold levels of the following proxy variables: forest area, earnings, employment, and indigenous population. Using these criteria, we identified 524 counties to be potentially forest-dependent of 3140 total counties in the United States. The largest concentration was in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast regions, and a higher proportion were non-metro counties than metro. Varying the threshold levels significantly changes the number of counties identified but does not alter the overall geographic trends.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Occupational Radiation Exposure Report for Calendar Year 2023

The U.S. Department of Energy Occupational Radiation Exposure Report for Calendar 2023 presents the results of analyses of occupational radiation exposures at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), including the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) operations, during calendar year 2023. This report includes occupational radiation exposure data for over 80,000 DOE Federal employees, contractors, and subcontractors as well as members of the public who have worked in or entered controlled areas monitored for exposure to radiation. DOE publishes this annual report to provide DOE Management, Program Offices, workers, health physicists, and other stakeholders an evaluation of DOE-wide performance regarding compliance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection (10 CFR 835) radiation exposure limits and adherence to as low as reasonably achievable principles. This report provides a discussion regarding radiation protection and exposure reporting requirements. It also includes calendar year (CY) 2023 information and analyses regarding aggregate, individual, site, DOE Program, transient individuals’ dose, as well as a historical review of DOE exposure data. DOE continues to be diligent in protecting its workers and the public from exposure to radiation from DOE operations as illustrated by the results contained in this report.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

Database of pharmacokinetic time-series data and parameters for 144 environmental chemicals

Time courses of compound concentrations in plasma are used in chemical safety analysis to evaluate the relationship between external administered doses and internal tissue exposures. This type of experimental data is rarely available for the thousands of non-pharmaceutical chemicals to which people may potentially be unknowingly exposed but is necessary to properly assess the risk of such exposures. In vitro assays and in silico models are often used to craft an understanding of a chemical’s pharmacokinetics; however, the certainty of the quantitative application of these estimates for chemical safety evaluations cannot be determined without in vivo data for external validation. To address this need, we present a public database of chemical time-series concentration data from 567 studies in humans or test animals for 144 environmentally-relevant chemicals and their metabolites (187 analytes total). All major administration routes are incorporated, with concentrations measured in blood/plasma, tissues, and excreta. We also include calculated pharmacokinetic parameters for some studies, and a bibliography of additional source documents to support future extraction of time-series. In addition to pharmacokinetic model calibration and validation, these data may be used for analyses of diferential chemical distribution across chemicals, species, doses, or routes, and for meta-analyses on pharmacokinetic studies.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

2020 Annual Site Environmental Report for Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico

Sandia National Laboratories, hereinafter referred to as Sandia, is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. This Annual Site Environmental Report was prepared in accordance with and as required by DOE O 231.1B, Admin Change 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting , and is approved for public release. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its management and operating contractor for Sandia are committed to safeguarding the environment, continually assessing sustainability practices, and ensuring the validity and accuracy of the monitoring data presented here. This report summarizes the environmental protection, restoration, and monitoring programs in place for Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico (SNL/NM), during calendar year 2020.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Operational and Mission Highlights (A Monthly Summary of Top Achievements, November 2022)

On November 16, Los Alamos National Laboratory Director Thom Mason answered questions from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) at a public hearing in Santa Fe about the safety of operations at the Laboratory’s plutonium facility and the pit production mission. Mason participated on a panel along with National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) Administrator Jill Hruby, Deputy NNSA Administrator James McConnell, and NNSA Los Alamos Field Office Manager Ted Wyka.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗