Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “recommendations”

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 OSTI2025

Recommendations to Improve Nuclear Licensing: Update to INL/RPT-23-72206, Recommendations to Improve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reactor Licensing and Approval Process

In 2023, various stakeholders had asked for BEA’s thoughts and recommendations to improve the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) licensing review and approval process. This included an April 14, 2023 request from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on “information and recommendations to improve the licensing review and approval process, . . . as well as the siting, licensing, construction, and oversight of advanced nuclear reactor technologies.” In response to these requests, BEA prepared and published INL/RPT-23-72206, Recommendations to Improve the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reactor Licensing and Approval Process (2023 Report). The 2023 Report included 13 recommendations related to streamlining NRC hearings, expediting NRC safety and environmental reviews, otherwise improving NRC licensing, and providing financial benefits to new reactor projects. Many of these earlier recommendations were addressed through various legislative actions or changes made by the NRC. Section 2 of this report addresses the current status of those earlier recommendations. BEA recently received a new request from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce seeking any suggestions for additional areas to examine or potential reforms “that may assist in modernizing the licensing and regulatory process that affects civil nuclear deployment.” Additionally, the new Secretary of Energy has identified initial DOE actions to support unleashing the golden era of American energy dominance, including “Unleash Commercial Nuclear Power in the United States” and “Streamline Permitting and Identify Undue Burdens on American Energy.” Given these developments, BEA has prepared a new set of updated recommendations in this report. The recommendations include updated versions of recommendations from the 2023 Report which have not been fully adopted, as well as entirely new recommendations. This set of recommendations has a slightly broader focus with some recommendations focused on DOE authorizations and some recommendations related to nuclear licensing beyond new reactors. Each recommendation below also identifies whether the recommendation would require legislative action or could be addressed directly by the respective agency.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2016

Methods to Determine Recommended Feeder-Wide Advanced Inverter Settings for Improving Distribution System Performance

This paper describes methods that a distribution engineer could use to determine advanced inverter settings to improve distribution system performance. These settings are for fixed power factor, volt-var, and volt-watt functionality. Depending on the level of detail that is desired, different methods are proposed to determine single settings applicable for all advanced inverters on a feeder or unique settings for each individual inverter. Seven distinctly different utility distribution feeders are analyzed to simulate the potential benefit in terms of hosting capacity, system losses, and reactive power attained with each method to determine the advanced inverter settings.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Recommended Nuclear Data for the Production of Selected Therapeutic Radionuclides

Increasing interest in the treatment of human disease by means of targeted radionuclide-based therapies requires an accurate understanding of achievable yields and quantification of realisable degrees of purity. Important studies within a more extensive Coordinated Research Project of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA CRP) have included in-depth assessments and evaluations of all available measured cross-section data for ten nuclear reactions leading to the formation of 131 Cs, 131 Ba, 225 Ac, 225 Ra, 227 Th, 227 Ac, 230 U and 230 Pa for various on-going and proposed therapeutic applications in nuclear medicine. Equivalent studies were also undertaken of possible reactions to produce the 178W /low-spin 178m Ta generator system that has been clinically applied in diagnosis by means of SPECT - these particular cross-section studies and recommendations are included in this paper for completeness. All available measured data have been critically reviewed and assessed to produce statistically consistent datasets. Selected datasets have been fitted by a least-squares method with Padé approximations of variable order to evaluate the production cross sections and corresponding uncertainties. New measurements have been made in some instances, and reported data have been adjusted to accommodate new nuclear decay or monitor reaction data which altered the original reported quantities adversely. Insufficient measured data are available in many cases to permit a reliable evaluation of cross sections, and these instances are discussed. Finally, recommended therapeutic radionuclide production reaction data and their uncertainties are available on the Web page of the IAEA Nuclear Data Section at www-nds.iaea.org/radionuclides/ and also at the IAEA medical portal www-nds.iaea.org/medportal/.

63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTAN↗
DOE OSTI2018

Integration among databases and data sets to support productive nanotechnology: Challenges and recommendations

This work is one of a series of articles by the Nanomaterial Data Curation Initiative. Other articles in this series discuss data curation workflows, data completeness and quality, curator responsibilities, and metadata. Many groups within the broad nanotechnology field are already developing data repositories and tools driven by their individual organizational goals. Integrating these data across disciplines, and with other non-nanotechnology resources, can support multiple objectives by reusing the same information, and can serve as the impetus for novel scientific discoveries through deeper data analyses. Based on the results of a community-based survey of organizations that maintain nanomaterial repositories, this article discusses current data integration practices in nanoinformatics and mature fields such as genomics, as well as nanotechnology-specific challenges impacting data integration. Recommendations for achieving integration of existing operational nanotechnology resources, as based on results from a community-wide survey, are presented herein. Nanotechnology-specific data integration challenges, if effectively resolved, can foster the application and validation of nanotechnology within and across disciplines.

77 NANOSCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

ORNL Peer Review Summary and Recommendations for: Advanced Reactor Designs Security Analysis, Risk, and Recommendations: Risks, Consequences, and Possible Design Mitigation Approaches Associated with Select Advanced Reactors Study

The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the peer review conducted for the "Advanced Reactor Designs Security Analysis, Risk, and Recommendations: Risks, Consequences, and Possible Design Mitigation Approaches Associated with Select Advanced Reactors" study prepared by researchers at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) International Nuclear Security (INS) program team requested that ORNL perform a peer review of the study report prior to publication as a final peer check before distributing the report to a broader audience.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Recommendations for improving rigor and reproducibility in site specific characterization

Heterogeneous catalysis is driven by the interaction of reactant molecules and the catalyst surface. The locus of this interaction as well as the surrounding ensemble of atoms is referred to as the catalyst active site. Active site characterization attempts to distinguish active catalytic sites from inactive surface sites, to elucidate the structural and chemical nature of active sites, and to quantify active site concentration. Numerous techniques have been demonstrated to provide compositional and structural information about the active sites within a catalyst. However, each technique has its own limitations and experimental pitfalls that can lead to data misinterpretation or irreproducible results. Further, this work aims to provide an overview of the types of data that can be collected, to outline common experimental challenges and how to avoid them, and to assemble relevant references for the most used active site characterization techniques. More broadly, we aim to outline best practices for researchers to collect, interpret, and report active site characterization data in a way that provides the most benefit to the broader catalysis community. Increasing the rigor and reproducibility of active site characterization offers a strategy to better link properties with catalytic performance and to enable the community to develop consensus concerning these relationships.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2023

PSTN-055: Survey Cadence Optimization Committee's Phase 2 Recommendations

This document describes the recommendations formulated by the Survey Cadence Optimization Committee (SCOC) of Vera C. Rubin Observatory for the observing strategy of the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST). These "Phase 2" recommendations follow the initial "Phase 1" recommendations released in December 2021 as PSTN-053, and convey the current recommendations for the initial implementation of the LSST. These recommendations are based on the SCOC analysis of LSST simulations generated according to PSTN-053 and the feedback received from the scientific community on those simulations. These recommendations should be considered as the current guidance for implementing the LSST observing survey at the start of the survey, a strategy to be reviewed regularly over the survey lifetime, and are accompanied by a simulation, baseline_v3.0, which represents a specific implementation of these recommendations. While these recommendations dramatically narrow the possible LSST observing parameter choices, we emphasize that at this stage they do not yet represent a final or complete set of recommendations for the survey strategy, and several details are still to be refined. Furthermore, the strategy should be considered "living" and subject to evolution throughout the survey. The SCOC continues to engage with the community to finalize its recommendations. At the time of the release of this document, the final phases of construction of Rubin Observatory are ongoing with an expected first light in mid-2024. We expect the SCOC recommendations to be revised as needed, as knowledge of the system as built and the outcome of commissioning and Science Verification mature. This document describes the Phase 2 SCOC recommendations —highlighting elements that can be considered final and elements that remain to be finalized—, the process through which the SCOC has converged on these recommendations, and the working plan for the SCOC starting in January 2023 through the start of the survey to finalize the initial implementation of the Legacy Survey of Space and Time.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2018

The Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board - How a Recommendation Comes to Life - 18523

The Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board (ORSSAB) is a federally appointed citizens' panel that provides independent advice and recommendations to the DOE's Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM). To provide unbiased evaluation and recommendations on DOE's cleanup efforts related to the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), the board seeks opportunities for input through collaborative dialogue with the communities surrounding the Oak Ridge Reservation, Governmental regulators, and other stakeholders. This paper describes how a recommendation from the ORSSAB comes to life. There are two stages to the board's process, the planning stage and the execution stage. The planning stage begins several months prior to the start of the fiscal year (FY). During this planning stage OREM develops a list of issues that it would like input from the community on. The EPA and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) act as consulting parties and provide their input in the form of letters to the board. ORSSAB holds a planning meeting in August, where DOE EM, EPA and TDEC present their suggestions to the board. The board members have opportunity to ask questions and hold discussions on the issues presented but can also present issues of their own. DOE then takes the input from the meeting and develops the ORSSAB Work Plan for the next FY. The execution stage begins with the ORSSAB Work Plan which sets the issues for each month and the specific dates of the activities associated with each issue. The remaining elements of the execution stage include: presentations by DOE OREM at the monthly ORSSAB Meetings, field trips (as appropriate), and additional discussion at the monthly subcommittee meeting of the EM/Stewardship Committee. Early in the FY, members of the ORSSAB are given the opportunity to sign up to be involved with the potential development of a recommendation for the various issues on the Work Plan that interest them and to provide support as an issue manager. Then at the EM/Stewardship Committee Meeting the issue manager is assigned to lead the issue group and a decision is made as to whether to make a recommendation on the specific issue. The issue group prepares the recommendation for discussion and approval by the EM/Stewardship Committee. Once the EM/Stewardship Committee has reached consensus on the wording for the recommendation, the EM/Stewardship Committee Chair presents the recommendation to the ORSSAB Executive Committee for discussion and approval. The Executive Committee then approves the recommendation for presentation and discussion at the next month's ORSSAB General Meeting, providing opportunity for discussion by the full board. The ORSSAB may approve the recommendation as is, approve it with changes, or it may send the recommendation back to the EM/Stewardship Committee for further consideration. Once approved by the full ORSSAB, the recommendation is sent to DOE OREM for consideration. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Statin Drug‐Drug Interactions: Pharmacokinetic Basis of FDA Labeling Recommendations and Comparison Across Common Tertiary Clinical Resources

Abstract Statins are widely prescribed and highly susceptible to pharmacokinetic (PK)‐based drug–drug interactions (DDIs). To date, there has not been a comprehensive analysis of the basis upon which statin DDI recommendations in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prescribing information (PI) are derived. We have conducted such an analysis. We also assessed the degree of concordance of statin DDI recommendations in FDA PI and those provided in common tertiary clinical resources. We catalogued statin DDI information, including PK data and management recommendations, for statin precipitant drugs approved from 2010 to 2021, available from FDA PI and tertiary clinical resource databases. Recommendations were categorized and mapped with associated PK data to assess consistency in the PK basis for labeling recommendations. From the 80 precipitant drugs evaluated, 180 statin DDIs were identified in FDA PI. Dedicated clinical DDI studies were conducted for 54% (n = 97) of these DDIs and 34% (n = 61) of DDI recommendations were extrapolated from clinical data with other statins. Overall, we found that PK‐based statin recommendations were consistent across PI. These findings highlight regulatory precedence for translating information across statins without conducting dedicated clinical DDI studies, which may support future efforts toward streamlining the approach to investigation and labeling of statin DDIs. In addition, with the exception of some notable discrepancies, general concordance was observed between FDA and tertiary resources regarding “Dose Adjustment” and “Avoid Coadministration” recommendations. However, further analyses are warranted across other DDI pairs to determine whether discordance can routinely lead to different clinical recommendations depending on the drug information resource.

Mease, James↗
DOE OSTI2021

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

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

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

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

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

58 GEOSCIENCES↗