Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “guidance document”

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 OSTI2019

NETL CO2U LCA Guidance Document

The NETL CO2U LCA Guidance Document is part of the NETL CO2U LCA Guidance Toolkit for Carbon Utilization funding recipients to meet their LCA requirements. The toolkit includes the following files: NETL CO2U LCA Guidance Document, NETL CO2U openLCA LCI Database, NETL CO2U openLCA Results Contribution Tool, NETL CO2U LCA Documentation Spreadsheet, and NETL CO2U LCA Report Template. The NETL CO2U LCA Guidance Document provides guidance to funding recipients on what shall, should, and may be included in their LCA, along with helpful information on completing their LCA.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2024

45Q Addendum to the NETL CO2U LCA Guidance Document (V.2.0)

This document provides additional guidance and changes to the Carbon Dioxide Utilization Life Cycle Analysis Guidance for the U.S. DOE Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, Version 2.0 to make it more applicable to taxpayers preparing life cycle analyses for the 45Q tax credit. This update adds clarity to existing text and includes information on new tools and data available.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Example Alternative Compliance Waiver Application: EPAct State and Alternative Provider Fleet Program Guidance Document

The U.S. Department of Energy developed an electronic planning spreadsheet to facilitate fleets' preparation of a complete Alternative Compliance (AC) waiver application. All fleets that participate in AC are encouraged to use the spreadsheet. The example in this guidance document includes all components that must be included in a fleet’s AC waiver application.

AC waiver↗
NASA NTRS2014

NASA-STD-7009 Guidance Document for Human Health and Performance Models and Simulations

Rigorous verification, validation, and credibility (VVC) processes are imperative to ensure that models and simulations (MS) are sufficiently reliable to address issues within their intended scope. The NASA standard for MS, NASA-STD-7009 (7009) [1] was a resultant outcome of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) to ensure MS are developed, applied, and interpreted appropriately for making decisions that may impact crew or mission safety. Because the 7009 focus is engineering systems, a NASA-STD-7009 Guidance Document is being developed to augment the 7009 and provide information, tools, and techniques applicable to the probabilistic and deterministic biological MS more prevalent in human health and performance (HHP) and space biomedical research and operations.

numerical analysis↗
DOE OSTI2022

Molten Salt Reactor Technical and Safety Considerations Outside of Guidance Documents

This document provides information on distinctive characteristics of liquid salt–fueled molten salt reactors (MSRs) for US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) consideration as it seeks to achieve effective and efficient advanced reactor mission readiness. The NRC has requested that Oak Ridge National Laboratory provide advice regarding technical and safety considerations that might be advantageous to address via policy, rulemaking, or license conditions (i.e., beyond the scope of guidance documents) for accommodating MSRs. It is recognized that MSRs could be regulated based on existing rules, with exceptions, to reflect their distinctive characteristics and technologies. However, directly applying the existing regulatory processes that evolved with the light water reactor fleet to MSRs could be unduly burdensome to the point that their application would inhibit deployment of MSRs in the United States.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
NASA NTRS2022

Directed Acyclic Graph Guidance Documentation

For over a decade, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has tracked and configuration-managed approximately 30 risks to astronaut health and performance that occur before, during and after spaceflight. The Human System Risk Board (HSRB), a Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) Board at NASA Johnson Space Center, is the entity responsible for identifying, assessing, analyzing, and monitoring the official understanding of the risk or risk posture for each of the Human System Risks and determining – based on evaluation of the available evidence – when that risk posture changes. The ultimate purpose of tracking and researching these risks is to find ways to reduce the risk that astronaut crews face during spaceflight. Historically, research, development and operations relevant to one risk have been conducted in isolation from other risks; these individual risk ‘silos’ enabled initial characterization of each specific risk. In spaceflight however, the impact of exposure to risk for astronaut crews is cumulative, and not independent of exposures or other risks, as all the adverse effects of the spaceflight environment begin at launch, continue throughout the duration of the mission and in some cases across the lifetime of the crews. In January of 2020, the HSRB at NASA embarked on a pilot project designed to assess the potential value of causal diagramming as a tool to facilitate understanding these cumulative and interdependent effects as applied within Human System Risk management. This process uses directed acyclic graphs as a means of formalizing a shared mental model of the causal flow of risk among Risk Board stakeholders. Initially this model was to improve communication among those stakeholders, but the potential value exceeds communication alone. Formalization of the process for creating these causal diagrams will enable the creation of a composite risk network that is vetted by members of the NASA community and configuration managed. The causal diagrams are formulated as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to function as a type of knowledge graph for reference for the board and its stakeholders. This document outlines the pilot process, the standardized approaches, and guidance for risk custodian teams when creating and updating DAGs as a part of the NASA Human System Risk Management process.

Risk↗
DOE OSTI2024

Guidance on EPAct section 707 Emergency Repair and Restoration Vehicle Exclusions: EPAct State and Alternative Fuel Provider Fleet Program Guidance Document

Section 707 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) amended section 301(9)(E) of EPAct 1992 by adding to the list of vehicles excluded from the definition of "fleet" a new subcategory of emergency motor vehicles, i.e., "vehicles directly used in the emergency repair of transmission lines and in the restoration of electricity service following power outages, as determined by the Secretary." Like other excluded vehicles, these light-duty vehicles (LDVs) do not count (1) when determining whether a fleet is covered under the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) State and Alternative Fuel Provider Fleet Program (Program), and (2) for fleets that are covered under the Program, when calculating annual alternative fuel vehicle (AFV)-acquisition requirements. If AFV models of excluded vehicles are acquired, however, a fleet may count them toward their acquisition requirement by including them in the calculation of the number of AFVs acquired. Exclusion Process.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS,ENERGY PLANNING, POLIC↗
DOE OSTI2024

Requesting an Exemption from Standard Compliance: EPAct State and Alternative Fuel Provider Fleet Program Guidance Document

The U.S. Department of Energy established the Alternative Fuel Transportation Program (Program) and associated regulatory requirements pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The Program, otherwise known as the State and Alternative Fuel Provider Fleet Program, requires covered state government and alternative fuel provider fleets operating under Standard Compliance to acquire alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) as a specific percentage of their annual non-excluded light-duty vehicle acquisitions. The opportunity for covered fleets operating under Standard Compliance to request exemptions from their AFV-acquisition requirements serves as administrative relief in the unlikely event a fleet is unable to satisfy its requirements through the normally available compliance alternatives. These alternatives include the acquisition of light-duty AFVs, the acquisition of other, creditable vehicles (e.g., gasoline-fueled hybrid electric vehicles), making certain investments, the purchase of biodiesel for use in medium- or heavy-duty vehicles to the maximum extent allowed, and purchasing or trading for banked AFV credits. This document addresses requests for exemptions from the AFV-acquisition requirements to help covered fleets better understand: How to file a request for an exemption, information and documentation DOE needs to process an exemption request, and important policies relevant for filing exemption requests.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS,ENERGY PLANNING, POLIC↗
DOE OSTI2022

Current and future federal and state sampling guidance for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in environmental matrices

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of emerging contaminants composed of an estimated 5000 to 10,000 human-made, fluorinated, organic chemicals. Due to the complexity of PFAS, the need for multiple environmental matrix considerations and the absence of a promulgated federal standard for environmental sampling and analysis, U.S. states have begun developing health-based regulatory and/or guidance values for a limited number of PFAS in environmental matrices. As there is a growing body of science to inform PFAS sampling guidance standard development, it is important to understand which U.S. states are implementing sampling guidelines and how they plan to handle emerging PFAS. This critical review discusses the current and impending federal and state sampling guidelines for PFAS in environmental matrices, the data gaps surrounding PFAS sampling guidance in U.S. states, and the future impacts of impending guidance documents and regulations. Ten federal guidance documents are available for PFAS sampling guidance and analysis. The maximum number of PFAS covered in these guidance documents is 25 analytes spanning across 8 unique media. While the EPA has developed several different sampling and analytical guidelines for PFAS, there is no formal regulation of PFAS or requirements of states to enforce these guidelines. Consequently, only 31 states have informally adopted sampling guidelines, while the other 19 states have no guidance documentation in place for PFAS. The introduction of new PFAS sampling guidelines by the EPA, as well as updated analytical guidelines that target more PFAS or total organofluoride, is expected to continuously shift the landscape of federal and state guidance for PFAS sampling moving forward.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Moving from scientific research to consenting guidance for MRE environmental risk

Potential environmental effects from tidal and wave devices are of concern to regulators, advisors, and other stakeholders in many nations. Monitoring results from early deployments and the first commercial arrays, coupled with targeted research studies, are providing a growing base of knowledge of how components of tidal turbines and wave energy converters might interact with marine animals and habitats. Efforts are underway to organize and direct these findings towards facilitating consenting that allays concerns and allows the marine renewable energy (MRE) industry to move forward. The OES-Environmental international initiative has developed scientific evidence bases for several key interactions from MRE devices, organized around stressors (portions of MRE systems that may cause injury or stress to the marine ecosystem), and receptors (the animals, habitats, and ecosystem processes that may be affected). This paper summarizes the evidence bases for four stressors (underwater noise, electromagnetic fields, habitat change, and changes in oceanographic systems) and presents the process of moving from the scientific knowledge into guidance documents to support the regulatory process. The guidance documents will serve as a broad guide that can be used internationally to look at stressor-receptor interactions of interest within a regulatory context. The evidence bases and guidance documents aim to assist MRE developers, regulators, and advisors with project scoping, consenting, and licensing processes.

Copping, Andrea E.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Demonstrating Assurance of Model-Based Fault Diagnosis Systems on an Operational Mission

Developers of robotic scientific and commercial spacecraft are trending towards use of onboard autonomous capabilities for responding quickly to dynamic environments and rapidly changing situations. These capabilities need to know the state of the spacecraft’s health. Model-based fault diagnosis (MBFD) is an approach to estimating health by continuously verifying accurate behavior and diagnosing off-nominal behavior. Proper functioning of MBFD depends on 1) the quality of the diagnostic system model that is analyzed and compared to commands and onboard measurements to estimate a system’s health state, and 2) the correct functionality of the diagnosis engine interrogating the model and comparing its analyses to observed system behavior. Our goal is to develop Verification and Validation (V&V) techniques for MBFD to provide future missions sufficient confidence in its functionality and performance to deploy it on the systems they develop. Our work has been focused on infusing the techniques we developed earlier to an operational mission. First, we are constructing diagnostic models of a spacecraft attitude control system and updating our diagnostic engine so they can be demonstrated aboard the Arcsecond Space Telescope Enabling Research in Astrophysics (ASTERIA) mission, an operational spacecraft for which experiments in autonomy are being planned and executed, using the V&V techniques we have previously developed to assure they are both correct and complete. Since it is nearing the end of its life, ASTERIA provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate MBFD since the monitored components are expected to fail. Our demonstration will give system developers additional confidence to make timely, informed MBFD deployment decisions. Second, we will be completing performance assessments of the diagnostic engine/diagnostic model ensemble both on the flight system and ground-based testbeds to gain confidence in MBFD’s ability to run successfully in a spacecraft’s resource-constrained environment without adversely affecting other on-board activities. Finally, we are capturing our experience in preparing this demonstration in a set of checklists and guidance documents. Current practice includes high-level institutional guidance documents and standards, but at a high level of abstraction that does not necessarily address specific MBFD concerns. The purpose of the new checklists is to provide future mission developers clear, unambiguous, procedure-oriented guidance on assuring MBFD. This paper describes our work in these areas. For the first area, we describe the diagnostic models and updated diagnostic engine that will be used for the on-board demonstration. We describe how the V&V techniques we developed earlier are used to assure model and engine correctness and completeness. For the second area, we identify the performance measurement and assessment techniques used to characterize the diagnostic engine and diagnostic models, and discuss the effect of measured performance on overall mission operation. Finally, we present the checklist and guidance documents and describe how they meet the goals of providing system developers with clear, unambiguous, procedure-oriented guidance on MBFD assurance. We show how the techniques we have developed map into those artifacts.

Nikora, Allen↗
DOE OSTI2024

Better Climate Challenge: Greenhouse Gas Reporting Guidance

Better Climate Challenge Greenhouse Gas Reporting Guidance document can help you define the scope of your commitment, set your goal and base year, and annually report progress toward your goal for Better Climate Challenge Program. You will share GHG emissions and energy data across your building/plant portfolio with DOE, including owned and operated fleets. This document provides instructional guidance on how to quantify GHG emissions across your organization. Establishing an accurate GHG inventory is a critical first step to developing a plan to reduce emissions across your organization.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Assessment of Survey Results from Advanced Reactor Industry Domain Experts on Nonlinear Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Software Verification and Validation

The seismic load case has a significant impact on the design and cost of nuclear power plants. Given the need to substantially reduce cost, advanced reactor designers are looking to leverage numerical tools that enable seismic analysis of an integrated vessel/support/structure/soil system. Modern nonlinear analysis tools provide a solution, capturing dynamic coupling between components (including soil-structure interaction (SSI)) concurrent with nonlinear behavior in one or more parts of the system. Although these methods have a rich history of technical development and implementation, software quality assurance (SQA) following nuclear industry standards remains a significant burden for those wishing to adopt such methods for advanced reactor design and licensing. To reduce the SQA burden, this project will develop the guidance for SQA verification and validation (V&V) of coupled nonlinear SSI analysis tools, to include a test matrix of software features and test problems to support commercial grade dedication (CGD). The guidance is intended to be technology-neutral: supporting designers of all advanced reactors. To maximize the value of the project to reactor designers, the project team performed focused surveys of and interviews with advanced reactor designers. Additionally, the project surveyed members of the broader industry involved in reactor design and licensing. The aggregated industry feedback consists of written survey responses, live polling responses, focused interviews, and informal feedback provided after outreach presentations, collectively referred to as “survey results”. Herein, the survey results are reported, reviewed, and assessed to inform follow-on project activities. The survey results confirmed the familiarity of the industry with the coupled nonlinear SSI analysis. They also affirm the project need based upon the expressed intent to (1) incorporate nonlinear features and (2) pursue the coupled nonlinear SSI analysis to reduce seismic demands and construction costs. All reactor designers indicated their intent to incorporate two or more nonlinear features, and all reactor designer respondents opined that the coupled nonlinear SSI analysis would allow for the optimization of the reactor design and construction. However, the programmatic challenges, whether real or perceived, present a significant barrier to reactor designers. The barrier most commonly identified by the reactor designer population was regulatory risk, with 70% citing this as a reason not to pursue the approach. The perceived regulatory risk identified by the reactor designers underscores the importance of regulator engagement and dialogue in this project. Additionally, half of the reactor designers identified cost and lack of guidance as a deterrent. The survey results also provide insights to tailor specific aspects of the guidance document and test matrix. The project plans to prepare both a formal referenceable guidance document and a collaborative, web-based test matrix and problem set. The project will focus on more complete test problem definitions for the prioritized nonlinear features over shallower problem descriptions for a larger set of features. The nonlinearities prioritized as high based upon survey feedback include fluid-structure interaction and seismic isolation and energy dissipation devices. The nonlinearities prioritized as intermediate include nonlinear geomaterials, nonlinear concrete, nonlinear steel, and interface/contact nonlinearity. Deep embedment and the associated nonlinear phenomena are assigned the lowest priority based upon survey feedback.

42 ENGINEERING↗