Chaos: A New Scientific Paradigm or Science by Public Relations?: Part 2, (Superceded by SLAC-Reprint-1992-053)
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Source record↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “PUBLIC RELATIONS”
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.
Public Preferences Related to Radioactive Waste Management in the United States: Methodology and Response Reference Report for the 2016 Energy and Environment Survey.
This report presents the questions and responses to a nationwide survey taken June 2016 to track preferences of US residents concerning the environment, energy, and radioactive waste management. A focus of the 2016 survey is public perceptions on different options for managing spent nuclear fuel, including on-site storage, interim storage, deep boreholes, general purpose geologic repositories, and geologic repositories for only defense-related waste. Highlights of the survey results include the following: (1) public attention to the 2011 accident and subsequent cleanup at the Fukushima nuclear facility continues to influence the perceived balance of risk and benefit for nuclear energy; (2) the incident at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in 2014 could influence future public support for nuclear waste management; (3) public knowledge about US nuclear waste management policies has remined higher than seen prior to the Fukushima nuclear accident and submittal of the Yucca Mountain application; (6) support for a mined disposal facility is higher than for deep borehole disposal, building one more interim storage facilities, or continued on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel; (7) support for a repository that comingles commercial and defense related waste is higher than for a repository for only defense related waste; (8) the public’s level of trust accorded to the National Academies, university scientists, and local emergency responders is the highest and the level trust accorded to advocacy organizations, public utilities, and local/national press is the lowest; and (9) the public is willing to serve on citizens panels but, in general, will only modestly engage in issues related to radioactive waste management.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Radiation Therapy Research: A Global Analysis 2001-2015
Radiation therapy is a core modality of cancer treatment; however, concerns have been expressed regarding its underutilization and its lack of prioritization as a research domain relative to other cancer treatment modalities, despite its rapid technical evolution. It is therefore important to understand, from a public policy perspective, the evolution of global radiation therapy research, to identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities. This study used a bibliometric approach to undertake a quantitative analysis of global radiation therapy research published between 2001 and 2015 and available in the Web of Science (Wos) database, with particular focus on the 25 leading research-active countries. A total of 62,550 radiation therapy research articles from 127 countries, published in 2531 international journals, were analyzed. The United States was responsible for 32.3% of these outputs, followed by Japan (8.0%) and Germany (7.7%). Nearly half of all publications related to preparation and delivery of radiation therapy, combined-modality regimens, and dose fractionation studies. Health services research, palliative care, and quality of life studies represented only 2%, 5%, and 4% of all research outputs, respectively. Countries varied significantly in their commitment to different research domains, and trial-related publications represented only 5.1% of total output. Research impact was analyzed according to 3 different citation scores, with research outputs from Denmark, The Netherlands, and the United States consistently the highest ranked. Globally, radiation therapy publication outputs continue to increase but lag behind other spheres of cancer management. The types of radiation therapy research undertaken appear to be regionally patterned, and there is a clear disconcordance between the volume of research output from individual countries and its citation impact. Greater support for radiation therapy research in low- and middle-income countries is required, including international collaboration. The study findings are expected to provide the requisite knowledge to guide future radiation therapy research programs.
62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
Identification of Critical Switches for Integrating Renewable Distributed Generation by Dynamic Network Reconfiguration
With growing penetration of renewable distributed generations (DGs) in distribution systems, effective integration of DGs has become a major concern. Distribution system dynamic reconfiguration (DSDR), which relies on real-time operations of remote-controlled switches, is potentially an efficient strategy receiving inadequate attention. Moreover, in most DSDR-related publications, normally all switches are assumed remotely controllable, which is not practical. Here we borrow the concept of critical switches to denote the switches that are most effective in accommodating DGs by DSDR. In this regard, the problem of identifying critical switches is not well investigated, although in several related publications, selected switches are assumed remote-controlled based on experience. In this work, we study the application of DSDR for DG integration. Critical switches, which optimally enable intra-day DSDR to minimize DG curtailments, are identified by limiting the number of switches to be operated and the switch-type-dependent operation constraints. Considering uncertainties of loads and DGs, the problem is formulated as a two-stage robust optimization model solved by a nested column-and-constraint generation algorithm. Illustrative cases show that DG curtailments can be significantly reduced by a small number of critical switches that operate only several times in intra-day DSDR. The proposed method can be used to provide insights for switch allocation, maintenance, and operation
Lei, Shunbo (ORCID:0000000181690821)↗
Public Preferences Related to Radioactive Waste Management Nuclear Energy and Environment: Methodology and Response Reference Report for the 2014 Energy and Environment Survey
The results described in this report are from nationwide surveys between 2006 and 2014 on preferences of US residents concerning the environment and energy sources. The most recent 2014 survey was undertaken to determine how consent, in the context of nuclear facility siting, is understood and evaluated by a cross-section of the American public. Continuing attention to the events at the Fukushima nuclear facility, coupled with its negative implications for public support for nuclear energy, has changed the balance of risk and benefit perceptions, and thus the context in which nuclear facility siting efforts will occur. In addition, the portion of the public most concerned about climate change have typically been those most concerned about the environment in general, and in turn, are those that have traditionally been hostile to nuclear energy. The overall survey results show that the broader public is not well informed about the nuclear fuel cycle including energy production from nuclear reactors and current policies for the management of used nuclear fuel. In addition, the surveys find that respondents are reluctant to continue to rely on temporary on-site storage of used nuclear fuel, and that there is moderate support for developing one or more interim storage facilities. The survey responses also suggest that the level of trust accorded a new nuclear waste authority by the public will be sensitive to how it is institutionally defined. For a hypothetical community, which had volunteered to host an interim storage facility within 50 miles of their homes, the majority of respondents indicated that veto authority in the siting process should be limited to (a) majorities of local and statewide voters, (b) state and federal environmental regulatory authorities, and (c) governors. The respondents also indicated that the state and local host community should be permitted to withdraw consent up to the point at which a license to build the facility is submitted, but not after the license is received and facility construction initiated. The 2013 and 2014 surveys posed a set of questions concerning respondents' expectations about engaging in the process for siting an interim storage facility. Roughly half of the respondents said they would likely attend informational meetings, and nearly half said they would likely communicate with elected officials or would likely express their views on the topic via social media. Relatively few -- about one in five -- said they would be likely to actively participate in support for or opposition of an ISF. Finally, the 2014 results suggest that while respondents are more likely to support a citizen-led deliberative panel process than one led by experts, this preference does not seem to influence their opinion about the expected outcome of the siting process.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Insight from Public Surveys Related to Siting of Nuclear Waste Facilities: An Overview of Findings from a 2015 Nationwide Survey of US Residents
The results described in this report are an analysis of nationwide surveys, administered between 2006 and 2015, which measure preferences of US residents concerning the environment and energy sources. The Energy & Environment (EE) survey series is conducted annually by the Center for Energy, Security & Society (CES&S), a joint research collaboration of the University of Oklahoma and Sandia National Laboratories. The annual EE survey series is designed to track evolving public views on nuclear materials management in the US. The 2015 wave of the Energy and Environment survey (EE15) was implemented using a web-based questionnaire, and was completed by 2,021 respondents using an Internet sample that matches the characteristics of the adult US population as estimated in the US Census. A special focus of the EE15 survey is how survey respondents understand and evaluate “consent” in the context of the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel (SNF). This report presents an overview of key results from analyses of questions related to consent-based siting and other elements of the nuclear energy fuel cycle.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Biological Mechanisms May Contribute to Soil Carbon Saturation Patterns: Modeling Archive
This Modeling Archive is in support of a TES-SFA publication “Biological Mechanisms May Contribute to Soil Carbon Saturation Patterns” (Craig et al., 2021). We ran and evaluated a multi-assumption soil organic carbon (SOC) model to investigate whether alternative assumptions regarding constraints on soil microbial biomass could lead to soil carbon saturation patterns. We developed this model in the Multi-Assumption Architecture and Testbed (MAAT, https://github.com/walkeranthonyp/MAAT, tag: v1.2.1_Craig2021; Walker et al. 2018). Using MAAT, we embedded three alternative hypotheses in a microbially explicit three-pool SOC model: 1) the efficiency of mineral-associated SOC formation decreases as mineral-associated SOC approaches a maximum value (“Mineral saturation”), 2) the microbial biomass turnover rate increases with increasing microbial biomass (“Density-dependent turnover”), and 3) community carbon use efficiency decreases as microbial biomass increases toward an upper limit (“Density-dependent growth”). We ran a factorial combination of these hypotheses resulting in eight models for three different classes of model (linear decay, Michaelis-Menten decay, or reverse Michaelis-Menten decay), resulting in 24 models, 12 of which are presented or discussed in the related publication. Models were parameterized using values from previous studies with similar models (Wang et al. 2013, Wieder et al. 2014, Li et al. 2014, Georgiou et al. 2017, Hassink and Whitmore 1997) and ran to an approximate steady state (200 years) at six (6) different C input rates corresponding to 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 7, and 10 times the default input value. Further model details are available in the related publication. This archive contains output from three MAAT simulations, and scripts to run these simulations and process and plot the data. Simulations are labeled “lin”, “MM_highKm”, and “RMM_highKm” reflecting factorial runs for linear, Michealis-Menten, and reverse Michaelis-Menten models, respectively. This archive contains: • 3 R scripts prepended with “init_MAAT_” to initialize runs (1 for each simulation), • 1 csv file containing years over which to run simulations (“met_year.csv”), • 1 bash script (.bs) to run MAAT, • 6 XML files that are output from MAAT describing a run (2 for each simulation), • 3 model output csv files prepended by “out_” (1 for each simulation), and • 1 analysis R script for reproducing figures 3 and 4 in Craig et al. 2021. See included user guide (Craig_2021_modeling_archive_20210315.pdf) for file organization details.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
CORPSE model with litter decomposition parameters derived from the LIDET dataset
This is a version of the CORPSE model (Carbon, Organisms, Rhizosphere and Protection in the Soil Environment, Sulman et al. 2014) that uses litter decomposition parameters derived from a modified Monte Carlo simulation using the LIDET litter decomposition dataset (Long-term Intersite Decomposition Experiment Team, Harmon 2013). The code also includes the Baseline parameters, and the eight other best parameter sets identified in a modified Monte Carlo simulation. Related publication:Juice, S.M., Ridgeway, J.R., Hartman, M.D., Parton, W.J., Berardi, D.M., Sulman, B.N., Allen, K.E., & Brzostek, E.R. Reparameterizing litter decomposition using a simplified Monte Carlo method improves litter decay simulated by a microbial model and alters bioenergy soil carbon estimates. Description of files:The folder "Input Files" contains one folder for each LIDET site with data necessary to run the model. Note that "(site)" in the filenames below indicates where the LIDET site code appears (see Table 1 for site codes). Data streams include: CORPSE_full_spinup_litter.csv, CORPSE_full_spinup_rhizo.csv, CORPSE_full_spinup_bulk.csv, litterbag_init_100g_6spp.csv: initial C and N (kg C or N/m2) pool values for each soil layer, the litterbag_init_100_6spp.csv file is for the litterbag layer and is the same file for all sites. All initial C and N files have the same columns (Column - Description - Units) uFastC - Unprotected fast decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 uSlowC - Unprotected slow decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 uNecroC - Unprotected necromass carbon - kg carbon/m2 pFastC - Protected fast decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 pSlowC - Protected slow decomposing carbon - kg carbon/m2 pNecroC - Protected necromass carbon - kg carbon/m2 livingMicrobeC - Carbon in living microbial biomass - kg carbon/m2 uFastN - Unprotected fast decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 uSlowN - Unprotected slow decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 uNecroN - Unprotected necromass nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 pFastN - Protected fast decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 pSlowN - Protected slow decomposing nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 pNecroN - Protected necromass nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 inorganicN - Inorganic nitrogen - kg nitrogen/m2 CO2 - Carbon in carbon dioxide - kg carbon/m2 livingMicrobeN - Nitrogen in living microbial biomass - kg nitrogen/m2 soilT (site) DOY274start.csv: Average daily soil temperature (oC) interpolated from previously calculated monthly values used in DayCent LIDET simulations (Bonan et al., 2013). soilT (site) DOY274start.csv: Average daily soil volumetric water content (VWC) scalar interpolated from previously calculated monthly values used in DayCent LIDET simulations (Bonan et al., 2013). litter production.csv: Average daily litter production values for each site, data sources listed in Table S3 of related publication. litter (site) CN.csv: C:N ratio for each species from LIDET dataset (Table 2, Harmon 2013). (site).csv: Table indicating number of observations for each species decomposed at each site. Instructions: Save the model code ("CORPSE_LIDET.R") and "Input Files" folder in the same folder. Also make a folder for the model output (e.g., "results_Baseline") in the same folder. Set the working directory (setwd) in the model code to the folder with the files saved in step #1. Select the parameter set to use for the litter and litterbag compartments, comment out all other parameter sets. Run code. Output will be saved in the folder made in step 1. Output destination can be changed as necessary in code section called "Running the model." Table 1 LIDET sites and site codes used in model files. Site Code - Site AND - H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest BNZ - Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest BSF - Blodgett Research Forest CDR - Cedar Creek Natural History Area CPR - Central Plains Experimental Range HBR - Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest HFR - Harvard Forest JUN - Juneau KBS - Kellogg Biological Station KNZ - Konza Prairie Research Natural Area NWT - Niwot Ridge/Green Lakes Valley OLY - Olympic National Park OLY Conifer forest SEV - Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge SMR - Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve UFL - University of Florida VCR - Virginia Coast Reserve Table 2 LIDET species and species codes used in model files (6 common species). Species - Species Code Sugar maple (Acer saccharum) - ACSA Drypetes (Drypetes glauca) - DRGL Red pine (Pinus resinosa) - PIRE Chestnut oak (Quercus prinus) - QUPR Western redcedar (Thuja plicata) - THPL Wheat (Triticum aestivum) - TRAE References:Bonan, G. B., Hartman, M. D., Parton, W. J., & Wieder, W. R. (2013). Evaluating litter decomposition in earth system models with long-term litterbag experiments: an example using the Community Land Model version 4 (CLM4). Global Change Biology, 19(3), 957-974. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12031 Harmon, M. (2013). LTER Intersite Fine Litter Decomposition Experiment (LIDET), 1990 to 2002. Long-Term Ecological Research. Forest Science Data Bank, Corvallis, OR. [Data set]. Accessed http://andlter.forestry.oregonstate.edu/data/abstract.aspx?dbcode=TD023. https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/f35f56bea52d78b6a1ecf1952b4889c5. Sulman, B. N., Phillips, R. P., Oishi, A. C., Shevliakova, E., & Pacala, S. W. (2014). Microbe-driven turnover offsets mineral-mediated storage of soil carbon under elevated CO2. Nature Climate Change, 4, 1099 - 1102. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2436
Juice, Stephanie↗
WE-AB-201-00: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA
Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG # 5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
WE-AB-201-01: Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities
Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
WE-AB-201-02: TPS Commissioning and QA: A Process Orientation and Application of Control Charts
Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
WE-AB-201-03: TPS Commissioning and QA: Incorporating the Entire Planning Process
Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
WE-AB-201-04: The Recommendations of MPPG #5 and Practical Implementation Strategies
Treatment planning systems (TPS) are a cornerstone of modern radiation therapy. Errors in their commissioning or use can have a devastating impact on many patients. To support safe and high quality care, medical physicists must conduct efficient and proper commissioning, good clinical integration, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) of the TPS. AAPM Task Group 53 and related publications have served as seminal benchmarks for TPS commissioning and QA over the past two decades. Over the same time, continuing innovations have made the TPS even more complex and more central to the clinical process. Medical goals are now expressed in terms of the dose and margins around organs and tissues that are delineated from multiple imaging modalities (CT, MR and PET); and even temporally resolved (i.e., 4D) imaging. This information is passed on to optimization algorithms to establish accelerator movements that are programmed directly for IMRT, VMAT and stereotactic treatments. These advances have made commissioning and QA of the TPS much more challenging. This education session reviews up-to-date experience and guidance on this subject; including the recently published AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline (MPPG) #5 “Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams”. Treatment Planning System Commissioning and QA: Challenges and Opportunities (Greg Salomons) This session will provide some key background and review publications describing prominent incidents relating to TPS commissioning and QA. Traditional approaches have been hardware and feature oriented. They aim to establish a functional configuration and establish specifications for regular testing of features (like dose calculation) to assure stable operation and detect failures. With the advent of more complex systems, more patient-specific testing has also been adopted. A number of actual TPS defects will be presented along with heuristics for identifying similar defects in the future. Finally, the Gamma test has become a popular metric for reporting TPS Commissioning and QA results. It simplifies complex testing into a numerical index, but noisy data and casual application can make it misleading. A brief review of the issues around the use of the Gamma test will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: A process orientation and application of control charts (Michael Sharpe) A framework for commissioning a treatment planning system will be presented, focusing on preparations, practical aspects of configuration, priorities, specifications, and establishing performance. The complexity of the modern TPS make modular testing of features inadequate, and modern QA tools can provide “too much information” about the performance of techniques like IMRT and VMAT. We have adopted a process orientation and quality tools, like control charts, for ongoing TPS QA and assessment of patient-specific tests. The trending nature of these tools reveals the overall performance of the TPS system, and quantifies the variations that arise from individual plans, discrete calculations, and experimentation based on discrete measurements. Examples demonstrating application of these tools to TPS QA will be presented. TPS commissioning and QA: Incorporating the entire planning process (Sasa Mutic) The TPS and its features do not perform in isolation. Instead, the features and modules are key components in a complex process that begins with CT Simulation and extends to treatment delivery, along with image guidance and verification. Most importantly, the TPS is used by people working in a multi-disciplinary environment. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of human interactions with software. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach to training, commissioning and QA will be presented, along with an approach to the physics chart check and end-to-end testing as a tool for TPS QA. The role of standardization and automation in QA will also be discussed. The recommendations of MPPG #5 and practical implementation strategies (Jennifer Smilowitz) The recently published recommendations from Task Group No. 244, Medical Physics Practice Guideline on Commissioning and QA of Treatment Planning Dose Calculations: Megavoltage Photon and Electron Beams will be presented. The recommendations focus on the validation of commissioning data and dose calculations. Tolerance values for non-IMRT beam configurations are summarized based on established criteria and data collected by the IROC. More stringent evaluation criteria for IMRT dose calculations are suggested to test the limitations of the TPS dose algorithms for advanced delivery conditions. The MPPG encourages users to create a suite of validation tests for dose calculation for various conditions for static photon beams, heterogeneities, IMRT/VMAT and electron beams. This test suite is intended to be used for subsequent testing, including TPS software upgrades. In the past, the recommendations of some reports have not been widely implemented due to practical limitations. Implementation strategies, tools and processes developed by multiple centers for efficient and “do-able” MPPG #5 testing will be presented, as well as a discussion on the overall validation experience. Learning Objectives: Identify some of the key documents relevant for TPS commissioning and QA Understand strategies for testing TPS software Gain a practical knowledge of the Gamma test criteria Increase familiarity with the process of commissioning a TPS Learn about the use of Control Charts for TPS QA Review the role of the TPS in the overall planning process Increase awareness of the link between TPS QA and chart checking Gain an increased appreciation for the importance of interdisciplinary communication Understand the new recommendations from MPPG #5 on TPS Dose Algorithm Commissioning and QC/QA Learn practical implementation processes and tools for MPPG #5 validation recommendations.
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
Media Relations Strategies in a Post-Information Age - 18452
Many organizations that deal with radioactive materials reluctantly engage in media relations and social media. This paper explores the drivers behind the dramatic coverage of clean-up activities nearest to large media markets. Interviews and media analysis reveal how companies and government actors responded to aggressive media investigations. Insights from professional journalists demonstrate the significance of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and computer assisted reporting on past and future coverage. Coverage of Hanford and Santa Susana Field Laboratory set the stage for creative engagement strategies developed to support public interest in clean-up efforts. Industrial and engineering firms, particularly small to mid-sized subcontractors, often place less priority on media and public relations. However, recent examples demonstrate that organizations that deal with scientific risk must evolve. Firms that acknowledge changing media trends update their communication strategies in ways that improve public trust and understanding. It's easy to understand why many organizations resist communicating when public concerns arise. Legal issues and contract restrictions may limit communications. The return on investment may seem low. Understanding exposure and hazard requires perspective, context and accuracy. Reporters and citizens also have better access to primary sources. Computer assisted reporting (CAR) and the dramatic rise of requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lay bare details of the inner workings of complex situations, often without context. Examples from FOIA requests and challenges filed in the U.S. district courts, are described to help project administrators understand the points of view that can take shape on government projects from filings and disclosures. The range of benefits and risks of ongoing interaction with reporters provides a framework for assessing the right level of effort. For remediation efforts near large media markets, the influence of effective communication is magnified. (authors)
96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
Large-Scale Carbon Removal Will Create Public Health, Economic, and Climate Tradeoffs
Economy-wide efforts to achieve net-zero emissions offer both climate and air quality-related public health benefits from reducing fossil fuel combustion. We explore the expected costs and benefits if carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is deployed at scale in support of these efforts. Six leading forms of CDR at two levels of deployment are compared to a scenario with no U.S. climate action. We find that heavy reliance on CDR avoids a $2.5-5.8 trillion USD2020 in climate damages, provides $2.8-6.5 trillion USD2020 public health benefits, returns $5-6 trillion USD2020 in CDR revenues, but requires $11-13 trillion USD2020 CO2 mitigation cost, cumulatively by 2050 in the U.S. In contrast, lower reliance on CDR requires much deeper near-term fossil-fuel reductions, which increases mitigation costs by 52% but also creates 26% higher public health benefits from reductions in particulate matter- and ozone-related mortality and morbidity, preventing about 12,600 premature deaths by mid-century in the U.S.
Javadi, Parisa↗
NFPA Distributed Energy Resources Safety Training (DERST) For Emergency Responders
The National Fire Protection Association, with support from the Department of Energy, executed a multi-year initiative to develop, enhance, and disseminate Distributed Energy Resources Safety Training (DERST) tools for U.S. emergency responders. As Distributed Energy Resources (DER)—such as solar photovoltaics, battery energy storage systems (ESS), electric vehicles (EVs), and associated infrastructure—become increasingly prevalent, the NFPA identified a critical need for up-to-date standardized, accessible, and effective safety training tailored for the fire service and related public safety professionals. The project delivered a comprehensive suite of educational resources to improve responders’ abilities to safely manage DER-related incidents. This included: • Revised Modular Training Courses: Updated classroom-based DER safety courses, now modular and accessible nationwide through fire academies and the North American Fire Training Directors (NAFTD) network. • Live Burn Testing & Research: A full-scale controlled burn of a DER-equipped residential structure provided real-world data and insights, forming the basis for updated best practices. • A Gamified Simulation Tool – Firefighters Incident Response Simulation Tool (FIRST): A first-of-its-kind, multiplayer, scenario-based simulation using the Unreal Engine 5.0 to train responders in a realistic virtual, multi-DER incident environment. • Field Familiarization Software Tools & Prop Guide: Digital DER field familiarization evolutions software guide and a prop development manual to support field-based DER training exercises, enhancing responders' hands-on familiarity with DER infrastructure and collaboration on virtual incident responses. • National Dissemination Strategy: Strategic partnerships with NAFTD, Vector Solutions, and others enabled wide-scale distribution, with over 5,000 departments accessing resources and 1,100+ departments adopting the simulator in the first seven months. Also provided a web portal for easy access to all training and simulation programs developed under this grant for the U.S. responder community. Key findings from the project—particularly from the burn test—led to paradigm shifts in fire response tactics. For example, traditional approaches to garage fires may be hazardous if DERs are present, due to explosive off gassing and thermal runaway risks. The new training emphasizes scene assessment, stand-off approaches, thermal imaging verification, and careful post-incident cooling of DER components to prevent reignition. This initiative has had a significant national impact, raising awareness, enhancing preparedness, and supporting safer DER incident response practices. Significant engagement from the media, public safety organizations, and PBS coverage has further amplified the reach and adoption of NFPA’s DER safety training, tools, and simulations.
14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
Guest Editorial: Planning and operation of resilient distribution system for integrated multi-energy
Resilience is the ability of power systems to prepare for and adapt to low-probability, high-impact incidents and withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions. With the ageing of electricity distribution infrastructure and increasing threats of weather-related incidents and natural disasters, the need to effectively enhance the resilience of the electricity distribution system has become urgent and has attracted worldwide attention. Although there are an increasing number of publications related to enhancing resilience strategies, resilience is an emerging concept in power systems. Existing practices are mostly focused on deploying distributed energy resources (DERs) and microgrids, hardening the existing infrastructures and building redundant capacities. However, from a broader perspective, resilience enhancement of power distribution system is a systematic engineering, involving long-term system planning and upgrading (e.g., deployment of smart grid technologies and intelligent switches), short-term proactive scheduling, real-time robust and resilient control of DERs, and post-event restoration and recovery strategies. Based on this point, this Special Issue in IET Energy System Integration focuses on soliciting the most recent and original technologies, scheduling and control strategies for improving the resilience of power distribution system. Eight papers are presented in this Special Issue, covering various aspects related to resilience enhancement of power distribution system, including fault-tolerant frequency measurement, robust scheduling of integrated electricity and district heating systems, robust control of DERs, efficient methods for safety verification as well as novel graph theory-based approach to restore the distribution systems after multiple simultaneous faults. A brief introduction of these 8 papers is provided below.
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
Molecular Models and Wave Function Definitions for Models A-G of the [2Fe]F Cluster in FeFe-hydrogenase Maturase Enzyme HydF
The dataset contains all relevant atomic positional coordinates for 2Fe-cluster models, and electronic wave function data (using formatted Gaussian checkpoint files) as described in the related publication (see citation below). The version 2.0 contains additional models for [2Fe-2S] cluster linked [2Fe]F constructs. The top folder contains "analysis.xlsx" electronic spreadsheet that summarizes all the numerical results for absolute and relative electronic energy values, internal coordinates, calculated and scaled vibrational frequencies for diatomic stretching modes. The details of developing scaled quantum forcefields as a function of level of theory and model composition are also given. The schematic structural definitions are given in the "models.pdf" file and keys for abbreviations are provided in "symbols.txt" file.
carbonyl stretching frequencies↗