Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “federal regulation”

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 55 records · Page 3

Performance Monitoring Program: Developing Comparative Metrics for Fitness-for-Duty Programs

To comply with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, licensees and entities authorized under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 26 Section 26.3 (§ 26.3) are required to have fitness-for-duty (FFD) programs. Under § 26.3, the expectation of these FFD programs is to provide reasonable assurance that individuals who are granted unescorted access to nuclear power reactor protected areas and Category I fuel cycle facility material control areas are trustworthy, will perform their tasks in a reliable manner, are not under the influence of any substance, legal or illegal, that may impair their ability to perform their duties, and are not mentally or physically impaired from any cause that can adversely affect their ability to safely and competently perform their duties. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) was tasked with developing a performance monitoring program to risk inform NRC inspection and policy regarding quantitative FFD performance data. To meet this need, PNNL developed methodologies that could be implemented within a performance monitoring program. Throughout this report, these methodologies are referred to as comparative metrics. The NRC provided PNNL with 2016–2019 data from annual reporting forms and single positive test forms provided by licensees and other entities. For most of the comparative metrics, the analyses required customized processing, such as creating filtering fields, adding data fields and summaries, and joining datasets. The comparative metrics developed include: random testing rate, random policy violation rate, pre-access policy violation rate, subversion attempt rate, and number of policy violations by labor category. The comparative metrics can be used for parsing and visualizing FFD program data and monitoring FFD performance at the labor category, facility, licensee, and industry levels to risk inform NRC inspection and policy with regard to the FFD data currently collected from licensees and other entities that implement Part 26 requirements. Furthermore, these developed comparative metrics allow a more in-depth look at the FFD programs for the industry to discern trends and patterns that may warrant changes at an industry level and to inform policy decisions. These analyses should be refreshed as new FFD data become available.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

REGULATORY TESTING AND 3D SCANNING METHODOLOGY OF THE DPP-1 TYPE SHIPPING CONTAINER FOR NCT AND HAC TESTS

The safe transportation of radioactive material using appropriately designed and certified transportation packages is important to protect the public and environment. In the United States of America all transportation of radioactive material is regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT) along with input by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). All packages that contain radioactive material requires that it be transported and regulated by the requirements set by the DOT Class 7 hazardous material transportation. Federal regulations place strict administrative controls on the transport of radioactive materials. The two main goals for transporting radioactive materials are 1. Safety should be the primarily focused on the package because it is the first line of defense. 2. Package integrity should be directly related to the degree of the hazard of the radioactive material contents. The two-part goal ensures that the right package is used. Type B packages are designed to transport radioactive materials with the highest level of radioactivity. Examples of material transported in Type B packagings include spent nuclear fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and high concentrations of other radioactive materials. The purpose of this test protocol is to determine the effects of drop and thermal testing on package performance in a Type B shipping package (DPP-1). Required physical tests for the DPP-1 package include free drop, crush, puncture, penetration, compression, vibration, water spray, water immersion, and thermal. The preparation, regulatory testing, and post-test evaluation of a Type B shipping package tested to the 10 CFR 71.71 and 10 CFR 71.73 requirements will be presented. Six packages were tested and the responses when subjected to the HAC sequence of free drop, puncture, and thermal tests according to 10 CFR 71.73(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3) and (c)(4) were measured. The Free Drop, Crush and Puncture tests were performed at the NTRC in Knoxville, TN, and the Thermal tests were performed Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, TX. The test units were subjected to a pre-operational leak testing before the NCT and HAC tests and a post-operational leak test and a helium leak test once regulatory testing was complete. Finally, all test units were scanned with a handheld blue light scanner to capture a 3D CAD geometry of the test units in the deformed shape. The handheld scanner provided the most effective and reliable way to acquire accurate 3D measurements of the test unit. The scanned geometry was sectioned in areas with deformation and the cross-section profile was measured to determine accurate and repeatable results of the deformed shape of the test units.

Martinez, Oscar↗

Flange Tritium Waste Containers Operational Concerns: How to Address the Issues Through the Venting Design

As a part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or Laboratory) must comply with regulations in the Clean Air Act (CAA) put forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61, Subpart H “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities.” The standard states, “Emissions of radionuclides to the ambient air from Department of Energy facilities shall not exceed those amounts that would cause any member of the public to receive in any year an effective dose equivalent of 10 mrem/yr [millirem per year] [1].” This regulation is referred to as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Radionuclides (Radionuclide NESHAP or Rad-NESHAP).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Federal Home-to-Work Electric Vehicle Program Guide

This document serves as a comprehensive resource for Federal agencies in developing their own program resources that promote the efficient and effective use of electric vehicles (EVs) for home-to-work travel while ensuring compliance with Federal regulations and sustainability objectives. One mission of the U.S. Department of Energy's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) Fleet program is to help federal fleet managers meet or exceed statutory requirements related to energy and environmental performance while improving overall fleet efficiency, reducing costs, and meeting mission requirements. To further this mission, FEMP provides resources to support Federal agencies with increasing alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) acquisitions and reducing petroleum use. EVs are AFVs and help agencies meet federal fleet requirements. Federal fleets include government-owned EVs used for home-to-work travel. The purpose of this document is to serve as a guide for Federal agencies in developing their own internal program documents to manage government-owned EVs used for home-to-work travel. Federal agencies should consult their counsel and consider their own policies and authorities in the implementation of any policies or best practices regarding government-owned EVs used for home-to-work travel. The guide provides key considerations for agencies, including launching a pilot program to fine-tune best practices, conducting a cost-benefit analysis to compare home versus public charging, and exploring cost-effective solutions, such as installing standard outlets instead of dedicated charging stations. The guide underscores the importance of legal and financial considerations, such as verifying agency authority to install home charging infrastructure at an employee's home, ensuring the availability and appropriateness of using agency funds for home charging infrastructure, and understanding the tax implications of reimbursements.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

INL High-Performance and Sustainable Building Strategy

High-performance buildings are reliable, cost effective, and sustainable structures that minimize energy and water use, reduce solid waste and pollutant emissions, and limit the depletion of natural resources. High-performance buildings also provide a thermally and visually comfortable working environment that increases productivity for building occupants. As Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is the nation’s premier nuclear energy research laboratory, the physical infrastructure requires continual updating and repurposing to help accomplish that mission. INL’s infrastructure must incorporate high-performance sustainable design features to be fiscally responsible and reflect an image of innovation to the public and prospective employees. INL is a large consumer of energy with annual energy costs exceeding $16M. This High-Performance and Sustainable Building Strategy will help engineering and construction project teams design sustainable facilities, reduce life cycle operating costs, and support the INL net-zero plan while providing INL employees with a safe and healthy working environment. With these goals in mind, the recommendations described in this document are intended to form INL’s foundation for sustainable and high-performance building standards. This strategy incorporates the latest federal and Department of Energy (DOE) orders and directives, including DOE Order 436.1A, “Departmental Sustainability,” the DOE Sustainability Plan (SP), the INL Site Sustainability Plan (SSP), and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). This document identifies the requirements of the “Guiding Principles for Sustainable Federal Buildings” (Guiding Principles) and briefly highlights the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certification. LEED Gold certification can be used to meet many of the requirements of the Guiding Principles.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Compliance with High-Intensity Radiated Fields Regulations - Emitter's Perspective

NASA's Deep Space Network (DSN) uses high-power transmitters on its large antennas to communicate with spacecraft of NASA and its partner agencies. The prime reflectors of the DSN antennas are parabolic, at 34m and 70m in diameter. The DSN transmitters radiate Continuous Wave (CW) signals at 20 kW - 500 kW at X-band and S-band frequencies. The combination of antenna reflector size and high frequency results in a very narrow beam with extensive oscillating near-field pattern. Another unique feature of the DSN antennas is that they (and the radiated beam) move mostly at very slow sidereal rate, essentially identical in magnitude and at the opposite direction of Earth rotation.The DSN is in the process of revamping its documentation to provide analysis of the High Intensity Radiation Fields (HIRF) environment resulting from radio frequency radiation from DSN antennas for comparison to FAA regulations regarding certification of HIRF protection as outlined in the FAA regulations on HIRF protection for aircraft electrical and electronic systems (Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) [section sign][section sign] 23.1308, 25.1317, 27.1317, and 29.1317).This paper presents work done at JPL, in consultation with the FAA. The work includes analysis of the radiated field structure created by the unique DSN emitters (combination of transmitters and antennas) and comparing it to the fields defined in the environments in the FAA regulations. The paper identifies areas that required special attention, including the implications of the very narrow beam of the DSN emitters and the sidereal rate motion. The paper derives the maximum emitter power allowed without mitigation and the mitigation zones, where required.Finally, the paper presents summary of the results of the analyses of the DSN emitters and the resulting DSN process documentation.

DSN emitters↗

Geothermal Hydraulic Stimulation: Overview of Methods and Best Practices

This paper outlines important information related to the hydraulic stimulation of geothermal wells and considerations for regulators responsible for evaluating applications to conduct these operations. Hydraulic stimulation applied to geothermal wells is an evolving technology that is different from the hydraulic fracturing process widely used to complete unconventional oil and gas wells. Important differences relate to operating pressures, variations in rock and fracture processes, and characteristics and disposal of hydraulic fracture fluids. Hydraulic stimulation is not widely used in the geothermal industry; however, future development of enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) will require hydraulic stimulation in order to enhance and create fracture permeability to allow wells to deliver sufficient heat and fluid to power plants. Gigawatts of EGS potential have been identified (U.S. Department of Energy 2019), so it is expected that the use of hydraulic stimulation of geothermal wells will be more common in the future. At present, there are no formal regulations guiding drilling programs or sundry notices that propose hydraulic stimulation of geothermal wells. On federal lands, important constraints and oversight are embedded in the process for obtaining Geothermal Drilling Permits outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR Section 3262.11); in Geothermal Resource Order 2 (GRO 2) guidance for assessment and mitigation of impacts of geothermal operations as well as construction and testing of geothermal wells; and in a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Induced Seismicity Instruction Memorandum (BLM 2018). Additionally, local knowledge from BLM field offices and expertise of BLM engineers, or that of state regulators for operations on private and state lands, will be applied to fully assess operator applications to conduct geothermal hydraulic stimulation activities. Significant research effort has been directed toward EGS, so geothermal hydraulic stimulation techniques, impacts, and results are evolving and becoming better understood, including adaptation of decades of oil and gas industry experience with hydraulic fracturing of unconventional reservoirs. Recent EGS activities in the United States provide details about hydraulic stimulation with respect to oversight, stimulation design, execution, and results. Based on experience to date, the important issues to address when hydraulically stimulating a geothermal well include the following: 1. Wellbore construction and integrity must be appropriate to protect groundwater and manage stimulation pressures. 2. Understanding of lithology, faults, fractures, and subsurface stress state is necessary to design stimulation plans and predict results. 3. Seismic monitoring allows for observation and mitigation of induced seismicity.

geothermal↗

Drones for Decommissioning

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has responsibility for regulating the safe decommissioning of facilities and sites to meet the License Termination Rule in 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation, Subpart E “Radiological Criteria for License Termination.” Decommissioning is performed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, as part of license termination (§50.82) and release of the facility or site for unrestricted use (§50.83). The guidance currently demonstrates the minimum requirements and necessary conditions for conducting radiological surveys by a person carrying a radiation detector(s). The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) evaluated the use of an unoccupied aerial vehicle (UAV) to conduct radiological surveys that could be used in decommissioning to potentially reduce time, cost, and worker safety compared to current survey methods. The objective of this project was to evaluate the performance and limitations of a UAV to support a decommissioning radiological survey and compare it to a radiological survey conducted by a human. The primary research questions of interest evaluated were: 1. Did observed UAV paths differ from human paths and, if so, how much? 2. Did survey path deviation affect survey results and, if so, how? 3. Were radiological measurements from human and UAV surveys significantly different? To answer these research questions, an experimental field was set up at PNNL’s 3440 test track, and it included radiological sources commonly surveyed during decommissioning: cobalt-60 (Co-60), cesium-137 (Cs-137), and americium-241 (Am-241). Nine check sources (three each of Am-241, Cs-137, and Co-60) with activities ranging from 3.54 µCi to 39.34 µCi were set over a path that also included an area for measuring background radiation. An Aurelia X6 UAV coupled with a GPS and lidar unit was used to conduct the radiological surveys. UAV and human surveys were conducted using two different NaI(Tl) scintillation radiation detectors (2 in. × 2 in. Ludlum, Inc. and 2 in. × 0.04 in. Alpha Spectra, Inc.) at a travel velocity of approximately 0.2 m/s at a low (15–40 cm median altitude) or high (87–105 cm median altitude) survey altitude. Since the survey velocity and altitude parameters were atypical for normal UAV operations, testing was done prior to conducting the radiological surveys to establish airworthiness, evaluate the navigation system, and establish flight control. Human and UAV surveys were paired according to the detector type and altitude regime to compare the survey data. The results of this proof-of-concept research determined that the UAV and human surveys followed similar survey paths and detected the radiological sources with no significant statistical difference (in 33 out of 36 surveys). However, further research is needed prior to deploying UAVs for decommissioning surveys.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗

Safety Analysis Report For Packaging, Y-12 National Security Complex, Model ES-3100 Package with Bulk HEU Contents

This safety analysis report for packaging (SARP) presents the results of the safety analysis prepared in support of the Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC (CNS) request for licensing of the Model ES-3100 package with bulk highly enriched uranium (HEU) contents and issuance of a Type B(U) Fissile Material Certificate of Compliance. This SARP, published in the format specified in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide 7.9 and using information provided in UCID-21218 and NRC Regulatory Guide 7.10, demonstrates that the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) ES-3100 package with bulk HEU contents meets the established NRC regulations for packaging, preparation for shipment, and transportation of radioactive materials given in Title 10, Part 71, of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) [10 CFR 71] as well as U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations for packaging and shipment of hazardous materials given in Title 49 CFR.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Validation of Minimum Display Requirements for a UAS Detect and Avoid System

The full integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS), a prerequisite for enabling a broad range of public and commercial UAS operations, presents several technical challenges to UAS developers, operators and regulators. A primary barrier is the inability for UAS pilots (situated at a ground control station, or GCS) to comply with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations sections 91.111 and 91.113, which require pilots to see and avoid other aircraft in order to maintain well clear. The present study is the final in a series of human-in-the-loop experiments designed to explore and test the various display and alerting requirements being incorporated into the minimum operational performance standards (MOPS) for a UAS-specific detect and avoid system that would replace the see and avoid function required of manned aircraft. Two display configurations were tested - an integrated display and a standalone display - and their impact on pilot response times and ability to maintain DAA well clear were compared. Results indicated that the current draft of the MOPS result in high-level performance and did not meaningfully differ by display configuration.

unmanned aircraft systems↗

Validation of Minimum Display Requirements for a UAS Detect and Avoid System

The full integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into the National Airspace System (NAS), a prerequisite for enabling a broad range of public and commercial UAS operations, presents several technical challenges to UAS developers, operators and regulators. A primary barrier is the inability for UAS pilots (situated at a ground control station, or GCS) to comply with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations sections 91.111 and 91.113, which require pilots to “see and avoid” other aircraft in order to maintain well clear. UAS pilots’ removal from the flight deck of the aircraft necessitates the development of a UAS-specific system for detecting nearby traffic and displaying traffic information to the pilot to support their ability to maintain an objectively defined “DAA well clear” threshold from other aircraft. This new UAS-specific function of remaining DAA well clear is called traffic avoidance. The resulting Detect and Avoid (DAA) system, however, will be subject to a collection of requirements that manufacturers will be obligated to meet in order to certify their equipment. RTCA Special Committee 228 (SC-228), a consortium of representatives from government, industry and academia, is responsible for developing and documenting the Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for UAS DAA systems. The present study is the final in a series of human-in-the-loop (HITL) experiments designed to explore and test the various display and alerting requirements being incorporated into the DAA MOPS. Whereas the prior DAA HITLs examined a wide variety of DAA display features and concepts, the current experiment aims to validate the latest minimum display requirements for Phase 1 of the DAA MOPS. Rather than test different display concepts, this study tests two configurations of a MOPS-compatible DAA display: a version that is integrated into the primary navigation and control display of the GCS and a version that is physically separated from the primary display. This manipulation tests the draft minimum requirement that allows the DAA traffic display to be a separate, or standalone, configuration. This type of configuration is a more achievable near-term technology solution since it does not stipulate additional certification or integration requirements on UAS manufacturers. However, a standalone display configuration has the potential to result in pilot performance issues resulting from the cognitive costs of switching between the primary DAA display and the primary navigation and control display. This configuration is also particularly susceptible to errors if the displays are in different orientations (e.g., north-up versus track-up). Both the integrated and standalone display configurations were presented to 16 active UAS pilots in a medium-fidelity simulation, which included confederate air traffic controllers and pseudo pilots operating simulated manned traffic. Pilots were tasked with navigating two different mission routes while maintaining DAA well clear with scripted conflicts. Pilot response times (i.e., measured response) and ability to remain DAA well clear are reported. Primary results indicate that both display configurations resulted in favorable response times and well clear rates. While there were clear trends of pilots objectively performing better in the integrated display condition, with several measured response metrics reaching statistical significance, the differences between the two displays were typically moderate. While the primary variable of DAA display location did not have an especially large impact on pilot performance on its own, when examined alongside the type of DAA threat the pilot was facing (a caution-level versus a warning-level alert), the response time benefits associated with the integrated display were amplified. The implications of these American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 2 results on the Phase 1 DAA MOPS and the connection of this data to previous studies is also discussed.

detect and avoid↗

A Study of Emerging Ancillary Service Markets in Non-Restricted Regions of the Western Power Grid (CRADA Final Report)

Rising penetrations of renewable energy generation in the Western United States pose new requirements for ancillary services, which are the services required, in addition to energy service, in order to maintain the system reliability. This project combines the research capabilities of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU-Boulder) to provide more accurate information to market participants and regulators about the present and future size and composition of ancillary service markets in the non-restructured regions of the West. This information would provide market participants and state and federal regulators with a more transparent view of future ancillary service markets, and allow for more efficient system planning in both the private and public sectors of the electricity market.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

UAM Vision Concept of Operations (ConOps) UAM Maturity Level (UML) 4

This Vision ConOps is intended as a foundation to engage members of the UAM community and provide a consensus on the future vision of UAM operations. It provides a concept for more detailed discussion and a basis for the exploration of ideas using a common framework to inform the continued development and integration of UAM as part of the broader transportation system. Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) encompasses a range of innovative aviation technologies (small drones, electric aircraft, automated air traffic management, etc.) that are transforming aviation’s role in everyday life, including the movement of goods and people. Urban Air Mobility (UAM) represents one of the most exciting and complex AAM concepts with highly automated aircraft, providing commercial services to the public over densely populated cities. This concept has generated tremendous interest and industry investment. UAM envisages a future in which advanced technologies and new operational procedures enable practical, cost-effective air travel as an integral mode of transportation in metropolitan areas. It represents one of the most exciting and complex AAM concepts with highly automated aircraft providing commercial services to the public over densely populated cities. For this reason, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) selected UAM as the initial goal of its AAM efforts and the focus of this Vision Concept of Operations (ConOps) document. UAM Community Vision ConOps: This Vision ConOps effort was led by experts from NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) in collaboration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Deloitte’s Ecosystem Advisory Group (a cohort of advisers with aviation, aerospace, and regulatory expertise). To develop this Vision ConOps, NASA, FAA, and Deloitte built upon the current body of aeronautical research and consulted with more than 100 stakeholder organizations. This UAM community includes entities ranging from legacy aviation leaders to innovators and new market entrants. Stakeholders consulted included the federal government, state and local government, aerospace original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), local transportation organizations, prospective UAM operators, academia, industry standards-setting bodies, airports, service suppliers, and others (as described in Appendix G). This input was captured through the following methods: • A series of more than two dozen interviews with industry experts, federal regulators, state and local governments, and industry trade groups provided insight into the challenges of UAM integration into the National Airspace System (NAS), as well as technology developments and a variety of perspectives as to how UAM systems will integrate. • A series of two-day community workshops enabling active, detailed engagement of nearly 100 industry, academic, federal, and state stakeholder individuals. These workshops, hosted by NASA and Deloitte, explored UAM concepts in detail, and stakeholders were invited to collaboratively analyze and propose solutions to some of the greatest conceptual challenges behind UAM at an intermediate state. • A review of more than 160 sources of UAM literature from across government, industry, and academia, which are listed in Appendix H. • The public sharing of workshop input and document drafts for review and input across the UAM community. Feedback in the form of more than 1,000 comments and inputs on the document was received from industry groups, individual companies, academia, and government (federal, state, and local), among others. Although effort was made to incorporate inputs from across the UAM stakeholder group, not all comments could ultimately be incorporated in this version. The team resolved conflicting comments or ideas while maintaining consistency with the known direction of regulators and ensuring the document was coherent and consistent. It is recognized that this is a rapidly evolving area and that concepts will likely change over time; as such, this Vision ConOps is a living document and is expected to evolve as concepts mature. The ConOps does, however, provide a vision of UAM concepts and solutions based on the broad insights from across the UAM stakeholder community at the time of its publication and is intended to serve as a UAM North Star for continued research and development of UAM. As a broad Vision ConOps, is not a detailed engineering document; rather, it focuses primarily on outlining a broad, high-level vision across all aspects of a UAM transportation system.

Urban Air Mobility↗

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↗

Review of Life Cycle Cost Analysis Tools

Life cycle costing (LCC) is a vital aspect of decision-making in building retrofitting. It allows stakeholders to thoroughly assess all expenses involved throughout the lifespan of these retrofits, covering initial costs; ongoing operation, maintenance, and repair costs; and disposal costs of the system. The Federal Energy Management Program of the US Department of Energy has established clear guidelines for conducting LCC analysis, particularly for investments aimed at energy and water conservation, as well as renewable energy projects. These guidelines are detailed in the Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 436, Subpart A, which outlines the methodology and procedure for LCC analysis (Department of Energy 1990). The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed the NIST Handbook 135 (Joshua Kneifel 2022) to standardize the process of LCC analysis within the building industry. Whereas the handbook is tailored to the needs of federal agencies, its principles and methodologies can be valuable for other organizations and industries interested in conducting life cycle costing analyses for their building projects.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Rationale for reconsidering current regulations restricting use of hybrids in orange juice

Huanglongbing (HLB) is a disease that has devastated the Florida citrus industry, threatens the entire U.S. citrus industry, and globally is rapidly spreading. Florida’s citrus production is 90% sweet orange, which is quite sensitive to HLB. The heavy reliance on sweet orange for Florida citrus production makes the industry especially vulnerable to diseases that are damaging to this type of citrus. Furthermore, 90% of Florida oranges are used in producing orange juice that is defined by a federal regulation known as the “orange juice standard”, specifying that at least 90% of “orange juice” must be derived from Citrus sinensis. Genomic analyses definitively reveal that sweet orange is not a true species, but just one of many introgression hybrids of C. reticulata and C. maxima, with phenotypic diversity resulting from accumulated mutations in this single hybrid, the “sweet orange”. No other fruit industry is limited by law to such a narrow genetic base. Fortunately, there are new citrus hybrids displaying reduced sensitivity to HLB, and in some cases they produce juice, alone or in blends, that consumers would recognize as “orange juice”. Reconsidering current regulations on orange juice standards may permit use of such hybrids in “orange juice”, providing greater latitude for commercialization of these hybrids, leading to higher-quality orange juice and a more sustainable Florida orange juice industry.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗