Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “PUBLIC LAW”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2012

Recertification Project Plan (Rev. 5)

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Recertification Project was established to meet the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) (Public Law 102-579, as amended by Public Law 104-201) (102nd U.S. Congress, 1992) requirement to demonstrate continued compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disposal regulations. This plan sets the overall direction for a complex and interdependent set of tasks that is repeated at five-year intervals and culminates in EPA certification that the WIPP facility demonstrates continued compliance with Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 191, "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes," pursuant to LWA sections 8(d)(1) and 8(f).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

The development and use of decision support framework for informing selection of select agent toxins with modelling studies to inform permissible toxin amounts

Many countries have worked diligently to establish and implement policies and processes to regulate high consequence pathogens and toxins that could have a significant public health impact if misused. In the United States, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-132, 1996), as amended by the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-188, 2002) requires that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) [through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)] establish a list of bacteria, viruses, and toxins that have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety. Currently, this list is reviewed and updated on a biennial basis using input from subject matter experts (SMEs). We have developed decision support framework (DSF) approaches to facilitate selection of select toxins and, where toxicity data are known, conducted modelling studies to inform selection of toxin amounts that should be excluded from select agent regulations. Exclusion limits allow laboratories to possess toxins under an established limit to support their research or teaching activities without the requirement to register with the Federal Select Agent Program. Fact sheets capturing data from a previously vetted SME workshop convened by CDC, literature review and SME input were developed to assist in evaluating toxins using the DSF approach. The output of the DSF analysis agrees with the current select toxin designations, and no other toxins evaluated in this study were recommended for inclusion on the select agent and toxin list. To inform the selection of exclusion limits, attack scenarios were developed to estimate the amount of toxin needed to impact public health. Scenarios consisted of simulated aerosol releases of a toxin in high-population-density public facilities and the introduction of a toxin into a daily consumable product supply chain. Using published inhalation and ingestion median toxic dose (TD 50 ) and median lethal dose (LD 50 ) values, where available, a range of toxin amounts was examined to estimate the number of people exposed to these amounts in these scenarios. Based on data generated by these models, we proposed toxin exclusion values corresponding to levels below those that would trigger a significant public health response (i.e., amounts estimated to expose up to ten people by inhalation or one hundred people by ingestion to LD 50 or TD 50 levels of toxin in the modeled scenarios).

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2018

Integrated CCS for Kansas (ICKan) (Final Technical Report)

The goal of the Phase I activity under CarbonSAFE was to evaluate and develop a plan and strategy to address the challenges and opportunities for commercial-scale Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in Kansas, ICKan (Integrated CCS for Kansas). The objectives of this project included identifying and addressing the major technical and nontechnical challenges of implementing CO 2 capture and transport and establishing secure geologic storage for CO 2 in Kansas capable of storing 50Mt. In order to achieve these objectives, it was necessary to establish CCS Coordination Team that consisted of professionals from multiple technical and nontechnical disciplines such as geoscience, policy and law, public relations, engineering and others. The Team conducted an integrated and multi-disciplinary assessment of CCS in Kansas. The assessment included: (1) high-level technical, sub-basinal evaluations of CO 2 storage; (2) high-level technical examination of three of Kansas' largest CO 2 point sources and considered other alternatives; (3) high-level evaluation of transportation systems required, 4) evaluation of energy, environmental, regulatory, business law, and public policy; (5) public outreach and acceptance; and (6) identification of economic, commercial, and financial challenges for deployment of commercial-scale CCS in Kansas.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2011

Methodology for Developing the REScheckTM Software through Version 4.4.2

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct, Public Law 102-486) establishes the 1992 Model Energy Code (MEC), published by the Council of American Building Officials (CABO), as the target for several energy-related requirements for residential buildings (CABO 1992). The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (via Rural Economic and Community Development [RECD] [formerly Farmers Home Administration]) are required to establish standards for government-assisted housing that 'meet or exceed the requirements of the Council of American Building Officials Model Energy Code, 1992.' CABO issued 1992, 1993, and 1995 editions of the MEC (CABO 1992, 1993, and 1995).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2016

Sampling and Analysis Plan for Assessment of LANL-Derived Residual Radionuclides in Soils within Tract A-16-e for Land Conveyance

Public Law 105-119 directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to convey or transfer parcels of land to the Incorporated County of Los Alamos or their designees and to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, in trust for the Pueblo de San Ildefonso. Los Alamos National Security is tasked to support DOE in conveyance and/or transfer of identified land parcels no later than September 2022. Under DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment (O458.1, 2013), and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) implementing Policy 412 (P412, 2014a), real property with the potential to contain residual radioactive material must meet the criteria for clearance and release to the public. This Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) investigates Tract A-16-e and proposes 50 project-specific soil samples for use in radiological clearance decisions consistent with LANL Procedure ENV-ES-TP-238 (2015a) and guidance in the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM, 2000).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2017

Sampling and Analysis Plan for Verification Sampling of LANL-Derived Residual Radionuclides in Soils within Tract A-18-2 for Land Conveyance

Public Law 105-119 directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to convey or transfer parcels of land to the Incorporated County of Los Alamos or their designees and to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, in trust for the Pueblo de San Ildefonso. Los Alamos National Security is tasked to support DOE in conveyance and/or transfer of identified land parcels no later than September 2022. Under DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment (O458.1, 2013) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Laboratory) implementing Policy 412 (P412, 2014), real property with the potential to contain residual radioactive material must meet the criteria for clearance and release to the public. This Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) is a second investigation of Tract A-18-2 for the purpose of verifying the previous sampling results (LANL 2017). This sample plan requires 18 projectspecific soil samples for use in radiological clearance decisions consistent with LANL Procedure ENV-ES-TP-238 (2015a) and guidance in the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM, 2000). The sampling work will be conducted by LANL, and samples will be evaluated by a LANL-contracted independent lab. However, there will be federal review (verification) of all steps of the sampling process.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2012

Annual Energy Review 2011

The Annual Energy Review (AER) is the U.S. Energy Information Administration's (EIA) primary report of annual historical energy statistics. For many series, data begin with the year 1949. Included are statistics on total energy production, consumption, trade, and energy prices; overviews of petroleum, natural gas, coal, electricity, nuclear energy, and renewable energy; financial and environment indicators; and data unit conversions. Publication of this report is required under Public Law 95–91 (Department of Energy Organization Act), Section 205(c), and is in keeping with responsibilities given to the EIA under Section 205(a)(2), which states: “The Administrator shall be responsible for carrying out a central, comprehensive, and unified energy data and information program which will collect, evaluate, assemble, analyze, and disseminate data and information....” The AER is intended for use by Members of Congress, Federal and State agencies, energy analysts, and the general public. EIA welcomes suggestions from readers regarding the content of the AER and other EIA publications.

Fichman, Barbara T.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Technical Evaluation of the Department of Energy Research and Development Activities in Underground Research Laboratories - 20287

Congress created the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) in the 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act (Public Law 100-203) to evaluate the technical and scientific validity of activities undertaken by the Secretary of Energy to implement the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Since 2012, DOE has collaborated in research conducted in several underground research laboratories (URLs) located in Europe and Asia. According to DOE, these international collaborations have been beneficial to its spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level waste radioactive (HLW) disposal research program, particularly after the termination of the Yucca Mountain repository program when DOE began generic research on alternative host rocks (crystalline, clay, and salt) and repository environments very different from those at Yucca Mountain. In accordance with its mandate, the NWTRB is reviewing the DOE research and development (R and D) activities related to URLs. The NWTRB's review is documented in a report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy that will be released in January 2020, and this paper summarizes the NWTRB review and findings. The NWTRB held a fact-finding meeting with DOE and subsequently held a workshop on international URL collaborations in April of 2019. Based on the presentations and discussions at the workshop and at the fact-finding meeting, as well as information from reports published by DOE and others, there are four principal findings related to DoE's URL-related R and D activities. First, DOE participation in URL-related international research greatly benefits the U.S. geologic disposal R and D program by furthering its understanding of generic and site-specific disposal issues relevant to alternative repository host rocks and environments. DOE-funded R and D activities also are benefiting the URL-related research of other countries, especially in the area of complex analytical and numerical model/software development. Second, the more developed repository programs in other countries have focused on creating and strengthening their safety cases and making them transparent to the public. Repository programs in other countries use URLs to explain the technical bases underlying their safety cases, periodically reassess knowledge gaps and define new activities to strengthen the technical bases, and demonstrate the technology that will allow implementation of the proposed safety concept. Third, countries with more developed geologic disposal programs have found domestic URLs essential to their repository programs. DOE needs domestic URLs to advance geologic disposal efforts over the next decades and further its ability to train the next generation of scientists, engineers, and skilled technical workers. Fourth, DoE's international URL collaborations have advanced its generic disposal R and D program, including development of modeling capabilities recognized internationally as state-of-the-art, but further work on its coupled thermal-hydrological-mechanical-chemical models and URL- and laboratory-based research can strengthen its program. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2012

Methodology for Developing the REScheckTM Software through Version 4.4.3

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct, Public Law 102-486) establishes the 1992 Model Energy Code (MEC), published by the Council of American Building Officials (CABO), as the target for several energy-related requirements for residential buildings (CABO 1992). The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (via Rural Economic and Community Development [RECD] [formerly Farmers Home Administration]) are required to establish standards for government-assisted housing that “meet or exceed the requirements of the Council of American Building Officials Model Energy Code, 1992.” CABO issued 1992, 1993, and 1995 editions of the MEC (CABO 1992, 1993, and 1995).

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2014

The Cost of Enforcing Building Energy Codes: Phase 2

The purpose of this study is to present key findings regarding costs associated with enforcing building energy code compliance–primarily focusing on costs borne by local government. Building codes, if complied with, have the ability to save a significant amount of energy. However, energy code compliance rates have been significantly lower than 100%. Renewed interest in building energy codes has focused efforts on increasing compliance, particularly as a result of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) requirement that in order for states to receive additional energy grants, they must have “a plan for the jurisdiction achieving compliance with the building energy code…in at least 90 percent of new and renovated residential and commercial building space” by 2017 (Public Law 111-5, Section 410(2)(C)). One study by the Institute for Market Transformation (IMT) estimated the costs associated with reaching 90% compliance to be $810 million, or $610 million in additional funding over existing expenditures, a non-trivial value. [Majersik & Stellberg 2010] In this context, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) conducted a study to better pinpoint the costs of enforcement through a two-phase process.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2012

Assessment of the Effects of Climate Change on Federal Hydropower

As directed by Congress in Section 9505 of the SECURE Water Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11), the US Department of Energy (DOE), in consultation with the federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) and other federal agencies, including federal dam owners, has prepared a comprehensive assessment examining the effects of climate change on water available for hydropower at federal facilities and on the marketing of power from these federal facilities. This Oak Ridge National Laboratory report, referred to as the “9505 Assessment,” describes the technical basis for the report to Congress that was called for in the SECURE Water Act.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Effects of Climate Change on Federal Hydropower: Report to Congress

This is a formal Department of Energy report to Congress. It outlines the findings of an assessment directed by Congress in Section 9505 of the SECURE Water Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11), the US Department of Energy (DOE), in consultation with the federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) and other federal agencies, including federal dam owners, has prepared a comprehensive assessment examining the effects of climate change on water available for hydropower at federal facilities and on the marketing of power from these federal facilities.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2016

International Energy Outlook 2016 With Projections to 2040

The International Energy Outlook 2016 (IEO2016) presents an assessment by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the outlook for international energy markets through 2040. U.S. projections appearing in IEO2016 are consistent with those published in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2015 (AEO2015). IEO2016 is provided as a service to energy managers and analysts, both in government and in the private sector. The projections are used by international agencies, federal and state governments, trade associations, and other planners and decisionmakers. They are published pursuant to the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-91), Section 205(c). The IEO2016 energy consumption projections are divided according to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development members (OECD) and nonmembers (non-OECD). OECD members are divided into three basic country groupings: OECD Americas (United States, Canada, and Mexico/Chile), OECD Europe, and OECD Asia (Japan, South Korea, and Australia/New Zealand). Non-OECD countries are divided into five separate regional subgroups: non-OECD Europe and Eurasia (which includes Russia); non-OECD Asia (which includes China and India); Middle East; Africa; and non-OECD Americas (which includes Brazil). In some instances, the IEO2016 energy production models have different regional aggregations to reflect important production sources (for example, Middle East OPEC is a key region in the projections for liquids production). Complete regional definitions are listed in Appendix M. IEO2016 focuses exclusively on marketed energy. Nonmarketed energy sources, which continue to play an important role in some developing countries, are not included in the estimates. The IEO2016 projections are based on existing U.S. and foreign government laws and regulations. In general, IEO2016 reflects the effects of current policies—often stated through regulations—within the projections. EIA analysts attempt to interpret the likely effects of announced country targets when the implementation of those targets will require new policies that have not been formulated or announced.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2016

The Second Assessment of the Effects of Climate Change on Federal Hydropower

Hydropower is a key contributor to the US renewable energy portfolio due to its established development history and the diverse benefits it provides to the electric power system. Ensuring the sustainable operation of existing hydropower facilities is of great importance to the US renewable energy portfolio and the reliability of electricity grid. As directed by Congress in Section 9505 of the SECURE Water Act (SWA) of 2009 (Public Law 111-11), the US Department of Energy (DOE), in consultation with the federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) and other federal agencies, has prepared a second quinquennial report on examining the potential effects of climate change on water available for hydropower at federal facilities and on the marketing of power from these federal facilities. This Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Technical Memorandum, referred to as the 9505 assessment, describes the technical basis for the report to Congress that was called for in the SWA. To evaluate the potential climate change effects on 132 federal hydropower plants across the entire US, a spatially consistent assessment approach is designed to enable an interregional comparison. This assessment uses a series of models and methods with different spatial resolutions to gradually downscale the global climate change signals into watershed-scale hydrologic projections to support hydropower impact assessment. A variety of historic meteorological and hydrologic observations, hydropower facility characteristics, and geospatial datasets is collected to support model development, calibration, and verification. Among most of the federal hydropower plants throughout the US, the most important climate change effect on hydrology is likely to be the trend toward earlier snowmelt and change of runoff seasonality. Under the projections of increasing winter/spring runoff and decreasing summer/fall runoff, water resource managers may need to consider different water use allocations. With the relatively large storage capacity in the most of the US federal hydropower reservoirs, the system is likely to be able to absorb part of the runoff variability and hence may continue to provide stable annual hydropower generation in the projected near-term and midterm future periods. Nevertheless, the findings are based on the assumption that there is no significant change in the future installed capacity and operation. The issues of aging infrastructures, competing water demand, and environmental requirements may reduce the system s ability to mitigate runoff variability and increase the difficulty of future operation. These issues are not quantitatively analyzed in this study. This study presents a regional assessment at each of the eighteen PMA study areas. This generalized approach allows for spatial consistency throughout all study areas, enabling policymakers to evaluate potential climate change impacts across the entire federal hydropower fleet. This effort is expected to promote better understanding of the sensitivity of federal power plants to water availability and provides a basis for planning future actions that will enable adaptation to climate variability and change.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Environmental Assessment for the Above Ground Storage Capability at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Draft

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is the nation’s only approved repository for the disposal of defense related/defense generated transuranic (TRU) and mixed hazardous TRU waste (henceforth called TRU waste). The mission of the WIPP Project is to realize the safe disposal of TRU waste from TRU waste generator sites in the Department of Energy waste complex. The WIPP Project was authorized by Title II, Section 213(a) of Public Law 96-164 (U. S. Congress 1979). Congress designated the WIPP facility “for the express purpose of providing a research and development facility to demonstrate the safe disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from the defense activities and programs of the United States exempted from regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).” The WIPP facility is operated by the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE). Transuranic waste that is disposed in the WIPP facility is defined by Section 2(18) the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act of 1992 (LWA) (U. S. Congress, 1992) as: “waste containing more than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes per gram of waste, with half-lives greater than 20 years, except for: (A) high-level radioactive waste; (B) waste that the Secretary has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator, does not need the degree of isolation required by the disposal regulations; or (C) waste that the NRC has approved for disposal on a case-by-case basis in accordance with part 61 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2018

DOE/LANL Land Conveyances and Transfers - Progress Over 20 Years

Before any transfer or conveyance actions, DOE owned approximately 45 square miles (28,800 acres) and most of this comprised Los Alamos National Laboratory. Since 1999, under Public Law 105-119, DOE/LANL has conveyed 4.8 square miles (3072 acres) of property to Los Alamos County and 6 acres to the Los Alamos School District. In addition, 3.2 square miles (2,048 acres) and has been transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to be held in trust for the Pueblo de San Ildefonso.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Pre-Event Recovery Sampling and Analysis Framework for Blue Grass CSEPP Community

Congress created the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP) in 1985 (U.S. Department of Defense [DOD] Authorization Act, 1986, Public Law 99-145) to provide emergency preparedness assistance and resources to communities surrounding Army chemical warfare agent stockpiles. CSEPP is a partnership between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Department of the Army (Army), and includes elements of the federal, state, and local government at each of the stockpile sites.

63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTAN↗
DOE OSTI2013

National Cost-Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 Compared to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007

The purpose of this analysis is to examine the cost-effectiveness of the 2010 edition of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES1 Standard 90.1. Standard 90.1 is the model energy standard for commercial and multifamily residential buildings over three floors (ECPA, Public Law 94-385). PNNL analyzed the cost-effectiveness of changes in Standard 90.1 from 90.1-2007 to 90.1-2010, as applied in the United States. During the development of new editions of Standard 90.1, the cost-effectiveness of individual changes (addenda) is often calculated to support the deliberations of Standard Standing Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1. The process does not include analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the entire package of addenda from one version of the standard to the next. Providing states with an analysis of cost-effectiveness may encourage more rapid adoption of newer editions of energy codes based on Standard 90.1. This information may also inform the development of future editions of Standard 90.1.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗