SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
This poster presents a high-level review of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Advanced Distribution Management System Program and test bed development.
In this paper, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) outlines key tools, strategies and lessons learned from development of their Asset Management Program. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is a 60-year old site in the midst of a C$1.2B redevelopment that includes construction of six new facilities and demolition of over 120 buildings and structures. The presentation outlines CNL's progress in creating an efficient and effective asset management program that leverages and optimizes current good practices while creating a consistent, disciplined and information-based approach for the maintenance and management of assets. (authors)
Annual reports on Federal energy management respond to section 548 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA, Pub. L. No. 95-619), as amended, and provide information on energy consumption in Federal buildings, operations, and vehicles. Compiled by the Federal Energy Management Program, these reports document activities conducted by Federal agencies under the: Energy management and energy consumption requirements of section 543 of NECPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 8253); Energy savings performance contract authority of section 801 of NECPA, Pub. L. No. 95-619, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 8287-8287d); Renewable energy purchase goal of section 203 of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 15852); Federal building performance standard requirements under Section 109 of EPAct 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 6834(a)); Requirements on the procurement and identification of energy efficient products under section 161 of EPAct 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 8262g); Sections 431, 432, and 434 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Pub. L. No. 110-140 (42 U.S.C. § 8253) and section 527 of EISA (42 U.S.C. § 17143); Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, 72 Fed. Reg. 3,919 (Jan. 26, 2007); Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, 74 Fed. Reg. 52,117 (Oct. 5, 2009).
Annual reports on Federal energy management respond to section 548 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA, Pub. L. No. 95-619), as amended, and provide information on energy consumption in Federal buildings, operations, and vehicles. Compiled by the Federal Energy Management Program, these reports document activities conducted by Federal agencies under the: Energy management and energy consumption requirements of section 543 of NECPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 8253); Energy savings performance contract authority of section 801 of NECPA, Pub. L. No. 95-619, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 8287-8287d); Renewable energy purchase goal of section 203 of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 15852); Federal building performance standard requirements under Section 109 of EPAct 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 6834(a)); Requirements on the procurement and identification of energy efficient products under section 161 of EPAct 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 8262g); Sections 431, 432, and 434 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Pub. L. No. 110-140 (42 U.S.C. § 8253) and section 527 of EISA (42 U.S.C. § 17143); Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, 72 Fed. Reg. 3,919 (Jan. 26, 2007); Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, 74 Fed. Reg. 52,117 (Oct. 5, 2009).
Annual reports on Federal energy management respond to section 548 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA, Pub. L. No. 95-619), as amended, and provide information on energy consumption in Federal buildings, operations, and vehicles. Compiled by the Federal Energy Management Program, these reports document activities conducted by Federal agencies under the: Energy management and energy consumption requirements of section 543 of NECPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 8253); Energy savings performance contract authority of section 801 of NECPA, Pub. L. No. 95-619, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 8287-8287d); Renewable energy purchase goal of section 203 of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 15852); Federal building performance standard requirements under Section 109 of EPAct 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 6834(a)); Requirements on the procurement and identification of energy efficient products under section 161 of EPAct 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 8262g); Sections 431, 432, and 434 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Pub. L. No. 110-140 (42 U.S.C. § 8253) and section 527 of EISA (42 U.S.C. § 17143); Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, 72 Fed. Reg. 3,919 (Jan. 26, 2007); Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, 74 Fed. Reg. 52,117 (Oct. 5, 2009).
Annual reports on Federal energy management respond to section 548 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA, Pub. L. No. 95-619), as amended, and provide information on energy consumption in Federal buildings, operations, and vehicles. Compiled by the Federal Energy Management Program, these reports document activities conducted by Federal agencies under the: Energy management and energy consumption requirements of section 543 of NECPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 8253); Energy savings performance contract authority of section 801 of NECPA, Pub. L. No. 95-619, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 8287-8287d); Renewable energy purchase goal of section 203 of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 15852); Federal building performance standard requirements under Section 109 of EPAct 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 6834(a)); Requirements on the procurement and identification of energy efficient products under section 161 of EPAct 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 8262g); Sections 431, 432, and 434 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Pub. L. No. 110-140 (42 U.S.C. § 8253) and section 527 of EISA (42 U.S.C. § 17143); Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, 72 Fed. Reg. 3,919 (Jan. 26, 2007); Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, 74 Fed. Reg. 52,117 (Oct. 5, 2009).
Annual reports on Federal energy management respond to section 548 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA, Pub. L. No. 95-619), as amended, and provide information on energy consumption in Federal buildings, operations, and vehicles. Compiled by the Federal Energy Management Program, these reports document activities conducted by Federal agencies under the: Energy management and energy consumption requirements of section 543 of NECPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 8253); Energy savings performance contract authority of section 801 of NECPA, Pub. L. No. 95-619, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 8287-8287d); Renewable energy purchase goal of section 203 of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 15852); Federal building performance standard requirements under Section 109 of EPAct 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 6834(a)); Requirements on the procurement and identification of energy efficient products under section 161 of EPAct 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 8262g); Sections 431, 432, and 434 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Pub. L. No. 110-140 (42 U.S.C. § 8253) and section 527 of EISA (42 U.S.C. § 17143); Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, 72 Fed. Reg. 3,919 (Jan. 26, 2007); Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, 74 Fed. Reg. 52,117 (Oct. 5, 2009).
Concerns over the mixing performance of the planned pulse-jet mixed (PJM) vessels for high solids applications in the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Pretreatment (PT) Facility, led to the development of a standard high-solids vessel (SHSV) design and full-scale vessel testing. The SHSV is intended as a potential replacement for several high-level waste feed receipt and lag storage vessels, ultrafiltration feed preparation vessels, and plant wash vessels. The SHSV design concept uses multiple smaller vessels (60 500 to 79 500 liters nominal batch size) to replace larger vessels, providing redundancy, improved mixing (PJM design and spargers), monitoring (multi-level bubblers), reduced material at risk, and improved structural features. The SHSV also requires qualification of a single vessel design for high solids Newtonian and non-Newtonian slurry processing, rather than earlier multiple vessel designs. Qualification of the SHSV design for mixing will be achieved through full-scale vessel testing (FSVT) with a prototypic SHSV under a set of most adverse design conditions in conjunction with additional engineering analyses. An Integrated Technical Team consisting of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI), and independent experts was established to accelerate and provide oversight and direction to the test program and SHSV qualification. This paper will present an overview of the SHSV, full-scale vessel test and qualification program, and the management program to achieve closure of technical issues associated with PJM vessel mixing and control systems. (authors)
A new Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) document for implementing new requirements in the WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) titled Basis of Knowledge for Evaluating Oxidizing Chemicals in the TRU waste was issued in July, 2017 and has now been implemented on several waste streams. The February 14, 2014, airborne radiation release in Room 7 of the WIPP underground disposal unit 7 was caused by an exothermic chemical reaction of nitrate oxidizing chemicals and organic materials in a single 55-gallon container. That event exposed hazards not previously evaluated in the WIPP safety basis. A new WIPP Documented Safety Analysis (DSA), Revision 5b, was developed that addressed potential hazards related to the airborne radiation release and evaluated and addressed new fire hazard scenarios. The revised hazards analysis within the DSA specifically included potential chemical exothermic reactions in waste containers and propagating fires. Compliance with WAC was credited as initial conditions to the hazards analysis, and Chapter 18 was added making the WIPP WAC compliance program a safety management program within the DSA. The WIPP DSA, Revision 5b, Chapter 18, and the WIPP WAC require the use of this document when performing the enhanced acceptable knowledge (AK) process on transuranic (TRU) waste determined to contain oxidizing chemicals. The WIPP WAC was revised to address the conditions and requirements of DSA Revision 5b. The use of this Basis of Knowledge (BoK) by WIPP Certified Programs is specified in the WIPP WAC, Appendix H, Enhanced Acceptable Knowledge. This document establishes criteria that must be used by the WIPP Certified Programs to evaluate TRU waste containing one or more oxidizing chemicals to determine acceptability at the WIPP as-is and to identify when additional evaluation or treatment is required. This BoK also includes options and requirements to be used by TRU waste sites when further evaluation, testing, and/or treatment are required. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) will review requests, plans, and technical justifications and provide written decisions prior to implementation by the TRU waste sites. (authors)
Annual reports on Federal energy management respond to section 548 of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA, Pub. L. No. 95-619), as amended, and provide information on energy consumption in Federal buildings, operations, and vehicles. Compiled by the Federal Energy Management Program, these reports document activities conducted by Federal agencies under the: Energy management and energy consumption requirements of section 543 of NECPA, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 8253); Energy savings performance contract authority of section 801 of NECPA, Pub. L. No. 95-619, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§ 8287-8287d); Renewable energy purchase goal of section 203 of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 15852); Federal building performance standard requirements under Section 109 of EPAct 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 6834(a)); Requirements on the procurement and identification of energy efficient products under section 161 of EPAct 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 8262g); Sections 431, 432, and 434 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Pub. L. No. 110-140 (42 U.S.C. § 8253) and section 527 of EISA (42 U.S.C. § 17143); Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management, 72 Fed. Reg. 3,919 (Jan. 26, 2007); Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, 74 Fed. Reg. 52,117 (Oct. 5, 2009).
To successfully support the U.S. DOE Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM) in its cleanup at the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), URS - CH2M Oak Ridge LLC (UCOR) recognized the need for the timely disposition of large amounts of waste. To achieve cleanup goals, UCOR implemented the 'Waste Factory' concept. The Waste Factory requires a centralized waste management program, waste management-deployed staff, and numerous outlets for the various waste streams that move the waste from generation to disposition in a timely, compliant manner. Because no waste can be double handled or stored, characterization has to be sound, the disposition path selected based on the characterization, packaging determined, the Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) evaluated for the selected repository, and the waste shipped immediately upon generation. Since inception of the UCOR contract, a total of 509,703.24 m{sup 3} (18 million ft{sup 3}) have been dispositioned, totaling more than 60,000 waste loads and 6.5 million safe kilometers (4 million safe miles) driven. The generated waste has been dispositioned onsite and offsite based on the waste characterization and the UCOR waste management hierarchy. Without the timely disposition of the large amounts of waste generated from a massive cleanup project like ETTP, the project could not have achieved the aggressive schedule and performance that has been accomplished to date. The Waste Factory concept can serve as a model for waste management operations across the DOE complex and in other industries where significant quantities of waste must be disposed of. Without the availability of secure, onsite disposal, UCOR would have been forced to send hundreds of millions of pounds of waste by truck to repositories around the country, increasing risks and costs and slowing the overall progress of cleanup. (authors)
In 2017, the National Institute of Public Health in Cambodia collaborated with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide management and leadership training for 20 managers and senior staff from 10 health centers. We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of the program's outcomes and impact on the graduates and health centers. From June 2018 (baseline) to January 2019 (endpoint), we collected data from a competency assessment, observational visits, and interviews. From baseline to endpoint, all 20 participants reported increased competence in seven management areas. Comparing baseline and endpoint observational visits, we found improvements in leadership and governance, health workforce, water, sanitation, and hygiene, and health centers' use of medical products and technologies. When evaluating the improvements made by participants against the World Health Organization's key components of a well-functioning health system, the program positively contributed toward building four of the six components—leadership and governance, health information systems, human resources for health, and service delivery. While these findings are specific to the context of Cambodian health centers, we hope this evaluation adds to the growing body of research around the impact of skilled public health management on health systems.
With almost 15 years of successful and safe operations, the WIPP facility was suddenly shutdown in February 2014 due to two unrelated accidents underground. A fire burned the front tires and engine of a salt haul truck, creating significant soot and forced evacuation of the mine. A second unrelated incident occurred 9 days later when at least one drum of non-compliant waste from Los Alamos National Laboratory burst, introducing airborne radioactivity into the underground ventilation air. Some radioactivity was released to the atmosphere at the surface. Bioassay showed that 22 workers received low internal doses, with no long-term adverse health effects expected for these employees. Independent environmental monitoring indicated very low levels off-site and dose reconstruction modeling indicated no members of the public were exposed. Comprehensive accident investigations resulted in significant planned changes to enhance safety management programs at WIPP, and a recovery plan was developed. In addition to safety management program augmentation, recovery involves new and enhanced underground ventilation systems and decontamination of affected areas underground. Resumption of initial waste disposal operations is scheduled for early in FY16, with a return to normal operations (17 shipments per week) within about three years. (authors)
As Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) program policies and management practices are revised over time, it might be useful to periodically reflect on the DOE EM program's past to identify practices that have worked and those that might be appropriate for possible reuse in the future. An added impetus to examine alternative approaches is the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled 'Nuclear Waste Cleanup - DOE Could Improve Program and Project Management by Better Classifying Work and Following Leading Practices.' The February 2019 GAO report states that EM categorizes most of its work in a way that does not adequately involve independent experts and DOE senior leadership. It also noted that EM has not followed leading practices for program and project management that could help keep the cleanup efforts on schedule and control costs. The GAO report recommended that EM, working with DOE Office of Project Management (PM): - Establish requirements and then assess EM's ongoing operations activities to determine if some activities should be reclassified as capital asset projects based on these newly established requirements. - Review and revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to include program management leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews. - Update the cleanup policy to require that earned value management (EVM) systems be maintained and used in a way that follows EVM best practices. - Develop a policy to ensure that work is categorized as level of effort (LOE) only in appropriate, specified circumstances, such as when work is not measurable or when measurement is impractical. - Integrate EVM data into EM's performance metrics for operations activities. To assist with improving program performance and implementing audit recommendations, this paper reviewed past successful cleanups such as Weldon Springs, Rocky Flats, Fernald, Ashtabula, Battelle Columbus (abs, and other historical resources and people with experience during the early years of EM program. As such, there are several past practices which may well be suited for reuse today. Some of these practices include: - In 1990's, as the DOE EM cleanup program, known as Environmental Restoration came into effect, the known cleanup scope at each geographic location or site was organized into four levels ranging from overall site-wide cleanup effort to the individual 'release sites', providing high granularity to the program. - The cleanup program was organized by geography (Northwest, Southwest, Eastern Area Programs, etc.). These 'sub-program' managers provided a degree of Headquarters oversight and management allowing upper management (EM-1, 2, and 3) to focus on major decisions and issues. - Budget levels at selected cleanup sites were funded above 'minimum-safety' levels to accelerate actual cleanup work. - Past practice utilized EVM techniques and uniform EM oversight over all discrete project-like activities, providing for a coordinated cleanup effort. - EM managed LOE activities using benchmarking and best in class management practice techniques to help manage costs. - EM managed and reviewed entire site cleanup baselines, not only individual projects, focusing on a successful overall outcome. - Sites had a 'Road map' or 'Management Action Plan' that provided the overall strategy or plan for that site's cleanup - this helped with understanding and coordination of efforts. - EM had a robust lessons-learned program and database to capture and transmit worthy ideas. - EM had well-structured cleanup baseline change control policies to control cost and schedule changes, at the contractor and higher Headquarters levels. Finally, some of the GAO observations may be valid, however it is not clear as to their extent. For example, for some operation types of work, the use of the Level of Effort (LOE) earned value method to track progress may be appropriate. Also, to ensure independence of thought, and to obtain useful insight on past practices, it may be suitable to have former EM employees to assist with understanding past practices or to verify that activities have been properly identified. (authors)
Several federal- and state-sponsored programs, including cost-sharing arrangements, tax incentives, and technical assistance programs, are available to forestland owners, aiming to encourage desired forest management practices and outcomes. However, enrollment rates in such programs are low, and trends of forestland parcelization hint at an even smaller enrollment rate in the future. Therefore, it is important to understand how socioeconomic attributes of forestland owners and past experience with such programs affect the likelihood of enrollment in public incentive programs. Among others, this will help us provide tailored information to forestland owners who are less likely to use these opportunities through extension and outreach programs. Towards this end, we conducted a survey of 1800 forestland owners in Virginia and Texas. Our recursive partitioning, logistic regression, and Cochran–Armitage trend test results suggest that forestland owners who are less likely to enroll in such programs have relatively smaller forestland acreage, a lower level of education, and shorter land ownership tenure. We also find that forestland owners with experience in public incentive programs tend to attach higher importance to potential programs, including those that do not directly benefit them. Furthermore, we also identify threshold values for explanatory variables such as acreage and tenure length.
This document is a resource to be used in concert with FEMP Audit Definitions, FEMP Consolidated Facility Management Guidance, and agency best practices and expert judgment—for agencies to use to determine the best approaches to evaluate their facilities. It features a decision tree that provides a framework for agencies to interpret gathered facility data to understand the existing conditions; benchmark the facility against others in the portfolio to determine whether an on-site or remote audit is appropriate for a facility; determine the best remote or on-site audit level of detail to meet agency facility auditing goals, such as meeting Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requirements and developing projects; and improve their energy and water management programs.
This Data Management Plan (DMP) describes the processes in place to ensure the integrity of groundwater monitoring information collected by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12), Groundwater Protection Program (GWPP). This information includes program plans, reports, and computer systems used to capture monitoring station information and analytical data. The primary computer system used by the GWPP is the Groundwater Information Management System (GIMS). Procedures used to ensure the integrity of the data are included in this document by reference.
Cable insulation polymers are among the more susceptible materials to age-related degradation within a nuclear power plant. This is recognized by both regulators and utilities, so all plants have developed cable aging management programs to detect damage before critical component failure in compliance with regulatory guidelines. Although a wide range of tools are available to evaluate cables and cable systems, cable aging management programs vary in how condition monitoring and NDE is conducted as utilities search for the most reliable and cost-effective ways to assess cable system condition. Frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) is emerging as one valuable tool to locate and assess damaged portions of a cable system with minimal cost and only requires access in most cases to one of the cable terminal ends. This work examines a physics-based model of a cable system and relates it to FDR measurements for a better understanding of specific damage influences on defect detectability.