Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “public operations”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Quantifying Annual Industrial Locomotive Energy Consumption in the United States

While US Class 1 railroad locomotive rosters and annual fuel consumption are well-documented, considerably less is known regarding the overall energy consumption of operations involving industrial locomotives. To determine the energy savings potential of this rail operating sector, the objective of this research is to develop an inventory of US industrial locomotives and a baseline estimate of their annual energy consumption. Creating an industrial locomotives roster from public data is challenging given their diverse ownership by shippers or leasing companies, and operating locales largely out of public view. By cross-referencing public data on locomotive reporting marks, serial numbers, online images and aerial images, the project team confirmed the age, model and horsepower of over one thousand industrial locomotives. Estimating energy consumption is complicated by the variability in industrial locomotive types and power ratings, and extreme differences in duty cycles and utilization. Given these limitations, using quantified case study examples and adjustments to standard EPA line-haul and switching duty cycles, bounds on the magnitude of annual US industrial locomotive energy consumption were estimated.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Automated Electric Vehicle Fleet Operations for On-Demand Service: Challenges and Opportunities

Automated/autonomous vehicle fleet operations within automated mobility districts have been studied over the past five years by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a US Department of Energy federally funded research and development center. This paper extends the analysis in this third phase of research underway to include considerations for electric vehicle operations and charging within a fleet of right-sized automated vehicles providing on-demand public mobility services. The current focus of research is on the operational complexities and associated challenges for automated/autonomous vehicles employing electric drivetrains and the resultant need for an efficient battery charging process while vehicles are operating in an "on-demand" mode of service. The blossoming of microtransit with shared-ride and point-to-point dispatching of each vehicle instills complex operations, with multiple mobility-on-demand transit operating sites being deployed, studied, and analyzed across North America. As a starting point, the authors' experience over the past 20 years with the analysis of automated transit network systems operating on and within dedicated and protected transitways provides initial insights into the system-level operational implications for maintaining a sufficient battery charge for a fleet of automated vehicles. Lessons learned through the prior analyses of automated transit network systems operating in on-demand service are identified, along with the capital cost implications for the requisite operating fleet size and charging station infrastructure for various approaches. These costs are summarized in juxtaposition with the benefits of realizing the higher goals of reducing environmental impacts and energy use within automated mobility districts as automated/autonomous vehicle technology matures. Finally, the discussion addresses key aspects of battery-electric propulsion for managed fleets in fully automated operation that will be studied as the third phase of research continues.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

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↗
DOE OSTI2026

Economic Benefits of Alternative Fuels in Rural Alabama

This fact sheet provides an overview of potential alternative fuel vehicle operational cost savings, opportunities to generate revenue for the state and income for individuals, and several examples of alternative fuels supporting jobs in Alabama. Alternative transportation fuels could potentially provide economic benefits to rural Alabama by lowering operating costs for vehicle owners and creating new revenue streams and job opportunities for fuel providers, technicians, and dealerships. The use of electricity, compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG or propane) could result in reduced fuel costs and maintenance expenses for both public and private fleets, as well as individual consumers. Fleet operators often invest in private fueling infrastructure, while publicly accessible stations could attract traffic and commerce to local businesses and communities. Technicians capable of retrofitting alternative fuels and maintaining the vehicles and fueling infrastructure could develop business opportunities as well, but they require special training and often certifications. These cost savings and increased revenues may be recirculated through the economy and impact more than just the beneficiaries listed above.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Accelerating Transitions to Zero Carbon Power Systems

As power systems evolve, becoming increasingly renewable, distributed, dynamic, and digital, managing them becomes ever more challenging and complex. System operators serve as the "air traffic controllers" for electricity grids, working to balance supply and demand, manage evolving electricity markets, and ensure the safety and reliability of electricity systems. To adapt to the rapidly changing energy landscape and support the transition to modern, zero carbon power systems, system operators must develop and adopt new technologies, approaches, and frameworks. The Global Power System Transformation (G-PST) Consortium is a network of system operators, research institutions, and industry partners working to accelerate and scale the technical solutions required to transform our world's power systems. By developing and sharing robust models and tools, research and demonstration results, knowledge, and innovation, the G-PST Consortium is empowering system operators to transition to 100% renewable energy while ensuring the reliability, safety, and cost-effectiveness of grid operations.

ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY,POWER TRANSMI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Best Practices for Resilience Hub Development and Management

The Carbon League and its community partners in East St. Louis, Illinois, have identified five facilities to serve as resilience hubs. These hubs are intended to support the local community through a range of services and resources during blue-sky (everyday), gray-sky (pre-event), and black-sky (emergency) conditions. Transforming these facilities into fully functional resilience hubs requires a broad operational improvement and programmatic planning roadmap. This memo outlines best practices to guide the development of these resilience hubs in East St. Louis, including recommendations for infrastructure services; safety and physical protection; community services; operational protocols; and a phased implementation strategy aligned with realistic funding and capacity constraints. Infrastructure recommendations include strengthening electric power, communications, water, sanitation, and transportation/logistics capabilities, all of which are essential for hubs that may serve as cooling and warming centers, distribution points, and information hubs during emergencies. Safety recommendations focus on accessibility, emergency action planning, indoor air quality, and secure storage of critical equipment. A phased roadmap provides guidance from immediate, low-cost readiness actions to long-term optimization and community integration. Performance metrics and maintenance protocols ensure continuous improvement and operational readiness. This guidance draws on best practices that can be used to support the development of resilient, community-centered hubs capable of enhancing public safety, health, and well-being during everyday operations and emergencies alike.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Autonomous System Subversion Tactics: Prototypes and Recommended Countermeasures

One of the fielding requirements for Advanced and Small Modular Reactors (AR/SMR) is the ability to support remote and autonomous operations. Autonomous Control Systems (ACS) are found on platforms such as Autonomous Space Vehicles, Cruise Missiles, and advanced driver-assistance systems. Each of these ACS implementations depends upon a set of decision support subsystems responsible for supporting Autonomous Mission Managers (names vary based upon field and author preferences). These Autonomous Mission Managers receive inputs from system sensors (e.g., LIDAR collection from an automobile travelling down a street; transients from a nuclear reactor), and perform a set of classifications (e.g., Red Traffic Light; Small Pedestrian at 10m; Load Rejection; Single Coolant Pump Trip), and then use these classifications in combination with recommendation algorithms to achieve platform goals (e.g., Stop the Vehicle at the Traffic Light, Avoid the Small Pedestrian; Trip the Reactor to prevent a Safety Event). The design, implementation, and fielding of an ACS capability will alter the cyber-attack surface such that existing risk management plans will need to be updated to include how to protect and defend against data-science and decision-support-system attack classes. These attack classes would include protection of the design and training environments where algorithm selection and testing and training data would be obvious attack vectors. These attack classes would also require an informed set of detection and response procedures to identify anomalous behaviors and document best practices for anomaly assessment and vulnerability mitigation and remediation. Last year we published a Cyber Threat Assessment Methodology for Autonomous and Remote Operations for AR/SMRs along with a companion publication on Cyber Attack and Defense Use Cases. The focus of the methodology was on describing and enumerating ACS processes, components, and functions such that security engineers could: evaluate subversion options against the target; identify threat actor attributes and capabilities derived from each subversion option; and identify security controls and response countermeasures. The Use Cases document offered detailed methodology examples including an assessment of a Military Base SMR, an Autonomous System Decision Loop, and implementation of AR/SMR Machine Learning algorithms. Our proposal at the end of last year was to focus on implementation of subversion prototypes related to the last Use Case area: AR/SMR Machine Learning (ML) Algorithms. We included six attack scenarios in our Use Cases paper: a Poisoning Attack against ML functions implemented using an FPGA; a Trojaning Attack against ML classifiers exploiting the excitability of Nuclear Engineers; a Backdooring Attack against ML Training environments to ensure persistence of an attack vector; a False Positive Evasion Attack against multi-factor Access Control Systems using clever inputs; an Inference Attack against ML models by an Insider with access to the Operational environment; and an Adversarial Reprogramming Attack against a Material Access Control Video Surveillance System. At the beginning of this year these six attack scenarios were provided to our research teams at Georgia Tech and Idaho State University and each team successfully implemented a subversion attack against a ML implementation to include transient misclassifications. While this is a notable outcome from this type of research, this paper offers the reader insight into not only how to structure and execute these types of attacks, but into the thought process behind how the researcher investigated the problem space, performed initial algorithm implementation, and the trial-and-error behind arriving at the successful subversion prototypes. We include in this paper a set of associated Scenarios on how these subversion prototypes could be implemented and an initial set of guidance for AR/SMR architects, Nuclear Regulators, and Cyber Defenders to implement awareness and defense capabilities into their current operational portfolios.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Annual Site Environmental Report (2019)

Los Alamos National Laboratory’s (the Laboratory’s) annual site environmental reports are prepared by the Laboratory’s environmental organizations, as required by U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B, Administrative Change 1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting, and Order 458.1, Administrative Change 3, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment. The following chapters in this report discuss our success in complying with environmental laws, regulations, and orders (Chapter 2, Compliance Summary); how we manage the Laboratory’s environmental performance (Chapter 3, Environmental Programs); how we monitor for air emissions of radioactive materials and climate conditions (Chapter 4, Air Quality); how we monitor for effects of Laboratory operations on groundwater quality (Chapter 5, Groundwater Protection); how we monitor the movement of chemicals and radionuclides by storm water runoff and the levels of chemicals and radionuclides in deposited sediment (Chapter 6, Watershed Quality); how we monitor for the presence, levels, and effects of chemicals and radionuclides in plants, animals, and soil (Chapter 7, Ecosystem Health); and finally, what radionuclide dose or risk from chemical exposure members of the public may experience as a result of Laboratory operations (Chapter 8, Public Dose and Risk Assessment).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

ASER Annual Site Environmental Report 2020

Los Alamos National Laboratory’s (the Laboratory’s) annual site environmental reports are prepared each year by the Laboratory’s environmental organizations, as required by U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B, Administrative Change 1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting, and Order 458.1, Administrative Change 4, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment. The following chapters in this report discuss our success in complying with environmental laws, regulations, and orders (Chapter 2, Compliance Summary); how we manage the Laboratory’s environmental performance (Chapter 3, Environmental Programs and Analytical Data Quality); how we monitor for air emissions of radioactive materials and climate conditions (Chapter 4, Air Quality); how we monitor for effects of Laboratory operations on groundwater quality (Chapter 5, Groundwater Protection); how we monitor the movement of chemicals and radionuclides by storm water runoff and the levels of chemicals and radionuclides in deposited sediment (Chapter 6, Watershed Quality); how we monitor for the presence, levels, and effects of chemicals and radionuclides in plants, animals, soil, and vegetation (Chapter 7, Ecosystem Health); and finally, what radionuclide dose or risk from chemical exposure members of the public may experience as a result of Laboratory operations (Chapter 8, Public Dose and Risk Assessment).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Los Alamos National Laboratory 2022 Annual Site Environmental Report (Rev. 2)

Los Alamos National Laboratory (Laboratory) annual site environmental reports are prepared each year by the Laboratory’s environmental organizations as required by U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B, Administrative Change 1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting, and Order 458.1, Administrative Change 4, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment. The chapters in this report discuss our compliance with environmental laws, regulations, and orders (Chapter 2, Compliance Summary); how we manage the Laboratory’s environmental performance and assure the quality of data from analysis of environmental samples (Chapter 3, Environmental Programs and Analytical Data Quality); how we monitor for air emissions of radioactive materials and for weather conditions (Chapter 4, Air Quality); how we monitor for effects of Laboratory operations on groundwater quality (Chapter 5, Groundwater Protection); how we monitor the levels of chemicals and radionuclides in storm water runoff and sediment (Chapter 6, Watershed Quality); how we monitor for the levels and effects of chemicals and radionuclides in plants, animals, soil, and vegetation (Chapter 7, Ecosystem Health); and finally, what radioactive dose or risk from chemical exposure that members of the public could experience as a result of Laboratory operations (Chapter 8, Public Dose and Risk Assessment).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Environmental Performance Report 2020 (Annual Site Environmental Report per the U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B Chg 1)

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities in 2020, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have positively affected or could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or workers, the environment, or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the DOE requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) and has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B Chg 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Recommended Practices for Managing Induced Seismicity Risk Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method to help reduce or eliminate atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The sequestered CO 2 is originally captured from the atmosphere or from a stationary industrial source and subsequently injected into a deep subsurface porous rock formation. To facilitate the successful deployment of field scale carbon storage projects, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing tools and protocols for defensible, science-based frameworks to quantify and mitigate risks associated with the long-term storage of CO 2 . This protocol specifically addresses the risk of induced seismicity due to injection in a geologic carbon storage (GCS) site. This integrated and risk-based protocol is a product of the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), a multi-year collaborative research effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). These recommended practices describe a set of 7 steps to evaluate, manage, communicate, and mitigate the risk of induced seismicity at GCS sites. The base methodology of the recommended practices follows a framework similar to the Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems (Majer et al., 2012), developed for the Geothermal Technology Office of the U.S. DOE. These recommended practices present a framework to systematically assess the induced seismicity risk and quantify the associated uncertainties. These recommendations are based on current research and are sufficiently general to allow for modification and application to a variety of different types of sites. The substance of the recommended practices contained herein includes both technical and non-technical issues, and covers all operational stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They start at the preliminary risk assessment phase, continue through site assessment and characterization, include best practice communication and seismic monitoring plan methodologies, discuss the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard and risk, and closes with an exploration of operational management plans, which conclude when the induced seismicity risk abates back to background level. The focus of these recommendations is on actively managing the risks associated with induced seismicity by developing an actionable risk management plan that starts at the project proposal stage and continues through site closure through an iterative assessment and improvement process. The audience of this document is expected to include all interested stakeholders (e.g., operators, project developers, regulators, and the general public) and is expressly written to be accessible to this broad range of partners. This document is intended to disseminate knowledge gained through recent advances in the science of induced seismicity hazard and risk assessments, to provide updates based on recent experience gained by similar corollary injection-induced seismicity cases, and most importantly to establish a uniform framework to carry out a successful induced seismicity risk management plan for carbon storage projects in the future. These recommendations do not directly address any domestic or international regulations or standards. A complementary NRAP report makes recommendations for the assessment and management of environmental subsurface risks associated with unwanted fluid migration at GCS sites (Thomas et al., 2021) and should be referred to in order to address those additional GCS site risks.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Recommended Practices for Managing Induced Seismicity Risk Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method to help reduce or eliminate atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The sequestered CO 2 is originally captured from the atmosphere or from a stationary industrial source and subsequently injected into a deep subsurface porous rock formation. To facilitate the successful deployment of field scale carbon storage projects, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing tools and protocols for defensible, science-based frameworks to quantify and mitigate risks associated with the long-term storage of CO 2 . This protocol specifically addresses the risk of induced seismicity due to injection in a geologic carbon storage (GCS) site. This integrated and risk-based protocol is a product of the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), a multi-year collaborative research effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). These recommended practices describe a set of 7 steps to evaluate, manage, communicate, and mitigate the risk of induced seismicity at GCS sites. The base methodology of the recommended practices follows a framework similar to the $\textit{Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems}$ (Majer et al., 2012), developed for the Geothermal Technology Office of the U.S. DOE. These recommended practices present a framework to systematically assess the induced seismicity risk and quantify the associated uncertainties. These recommendations are based on current research and are sufficiently general to allow for modification and application to a variety of different types of sites. The substance of the recommended practices contained herein includes both technical and non-technical issues, and covers all operational stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They start at the preliminary risk assessment phase, continue through site assessment and characterization, include best practice communication and seismic monitoring plan methodologies, discuss the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard and risk, and closes with an exploration of operational management plans, which conclude when the induced seismicity risk abates back to background level. The focus of these recommendations is on actively managing the risks associated with induced seismicity by developing an actionable risk management plan that starts at the project proposal stage and continues through site closure through an iterative assessment and improvement process. The audience of this document is expected to include all interested stakeholders (e.g., operators, project developers, regulators, and the general public) and is expressly written to be accessible to this broad range of partners. This document is intended to disseminate knowledge gained through recent advances in the science of induced seismicity hazard and risk assessments, to provide updates based on recent experience gained by similar corollary injection-induced seismicity cases, and most importantly to establish a uniform framework to carry out a successful induced seismicity risk management plan for carbon storage projects in the future. These recommendations do not directly address any domestic or international regulations or standards. A complementary NRAP report makes recommendations for the assessment and management of environmental subsurface risks associated with unwanted fluid migration at GCS sites (Thomas et al., 2021) and should be referred to in order to address those additional GCS site risks

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Computed Tomography Scanning and Geophysical Measurements of UW Enterprises LP 1-250512-129 Well in Southwestern Indiana

The computed tomography (CT) facilities and the Multi-Sensor Core Logger (MSCL) at the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in Morgantown, West Virginia, were used to characterize Illinois Basin core of the Upper Devonian-Early Mississippian New Albany Shale Formation from Posey County, Indiana. The primary impetus of this work is a collaboration between Indiana Geological and Water Survey at Indiana University Bloomington, NETL, and Woolsey Operating Company LLC to characterize and make publicly available core information from the New Albany Shale of the Illinois Basin. Core characterization of this unconventional oil/gas well will aid in understanding the lithology changes and the fracture complexity of the New Albany Shale. There is a potential for this formation to be developed in the future for critical mineral and rare earth element (CM/REE) extraction. The resultant datasets are presented in this report and can be accessed from NETL's Energy Data eXchange (EDX) online system using the following link: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/uw-enterprises. All equipment and techniques used were non-destructive, enabling future examinations and analyses to be performed on this core. None of the equipment used was suitable for direct visualization of the pore space in the fine-grained structures studied; however, fractures, discontinuities, and millimeter-scale features were readily detectable with the methods tested. Imaging with the NETL medical CT scanner was performed on the entire core. Targeted higher resolution CT scanning of select sections was performed with NETL’s industrial and micro-CT scanner. Qualitative analysis of the medical CT images, coupled with X-ray fluorescence (XRF), P-wave, and magnetic susceptibility measurements from the MSCL were useful in identifying zones of interest for more detailed analysis. The ability to quickly identify key areas for more detailed study with higher resolution will save time and resources in future studies. The combination of methods used provides a multi-scale analysis of the core; the resulting macro and micro descriptions are relevant to many subsurface energy related examinations traditionally performed at NETL.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Environmental Performance Report 2023: Annual Site Environmental Report per the U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B Chg 1

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities in calendar year 2023, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have positively affected or could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or workers, the environment, or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the DOE requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) and has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B Chg 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Environmental Performance Report 2024: Annual Site Environmental Report per the U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B Chg 1

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities in calendar year 2024, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have positively affected or could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or workers, the environment, or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the DOE requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) and has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B Chg 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Environmental Performance Report 2025: Annual Site Environmental Report per the U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B Chg 1

The National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities in calendar year 2025, including information on environmental performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have positively affected or could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or workers, the environment, or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the DOE requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) and has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B Chg 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Environmental Performance Report 2019: Annual Site Environmental Report per the U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B Chg 1

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities in 2019, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have positively affected or could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or workers, the environment, or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the DOE requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) and has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B Chg 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗