Memorandum - Kirk Lundbladekirklundblade.com/documents/mtpc.pdfMemorandum To: Dr. Derek Ross, Dr. Jo Mackiewicz, Dr. Stewart Whittemore From: Kirk Lundblade Date: 2/27/14 Re: Bridging

Memorandum

To: Dr. Derek Ross, Dr. Jo Mackiewicz, Dr. Stewart Whittemore From: Kirk Lundblade Date: 2/27/14 Re: Bridging the Gap in TPC Keywords: Theory/Research (Multicultural, Approaches); Application (Document Design); Theory(Ethics)

Introduction The focus of my portfolio is on the portrayal of expertise through technical communication practices. Though the modern field of technical communication was born under the auspices of the engineering disciplines (Connors, 1982, p.6), in many ways, technical communicators now occupy a sort of interstitial space between this STEM1 culture and humanities. A preexisting phenomenon first articulated by C.P. Snow (1959), these "two cultures" represent the two major poles of the academic and professional communities; though these cultures are often geographically proximate, their often narrow and divergent interests can serve to isolate them from their cultural opposites. Though the lines between Snow's two cultures have begun to blur, his work is still a useful reference point for understanding the cultural (and therefore communicative) differences that exist between members of these groups. Both in academia and industry, technical communicators must negotiate this cultural gap both for themselves and the end-users of their documents. To do so, the technical communicator must articulate their own importance in a rhetorically-savvy manner to these employers—a process that requires an understanding of the underlying theoretical approaches to technical communication as well as knowledge of the actual technical material being communicated. Indeed, most practicing technical communicators are in frequent contact with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in the various technical disciplines they write about; many also possess STEM-related credentials of their own. As such, Technical Communicators tend to exist somewhere between Snow's two cultures, combining elements of both into their daily practice. My portfolio demonstrates my ability to occupy this middle ground between the humanities and the sciences. In my research, I have come to believe that this cross-disciplinary training is critical for the technical communicator who wishes to occupy the rhetorical middle ground between these two cultures; my portfolio demonstrates this cross-disciplinary training and multi-level audience analysis through a number of different documents: an edited municipal recycling guide directed at the entirety of the Auburn populace, lab instructions intended to fill a gap in basic software training for students, a research paper and public comment that distills economic research into an argument aimed at policymakers, a grant proposal for improving water quality in the state of Alabama, and the complete design and test documentation for a computer's Central Processing Unit (CPU). Each of these projects requires negotiating the space between STEM and the humanities as well as an understanding of the expert-public divide.

1 Acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. These disciplines are frequently lumped

together in everything from US labor policy analysis to popular media; they form the modern analogue to Snow's

purely scientific culture

Technical Communication in the Two Cultures Slack, Miller, and Doak (1993) note that the earliest view of communication in technical communication, the transmission model, stems from Claude Shannon's famous piece, A Mathematical Model of Communication (1948). In this piece, Shannon establishes the popular receiver-transmitter model for information transfer as part of his larger effort to mathematically assess information transfer during communication; the goal in Shannon's analysis is the reduction of uncertainty regarding the ultimate content of the message, as well as a speedy transmission of the message itself—a framework in which the meaning of the message is considered to be completely objective and context-free. This research has had tremendous influence on fields such as digital computing, cryptography, biology, and linguistics; its language is the basis by which Snow's scientific culture largely understands communication. Early theories on technical writing shared Shannon's empirical conception of communication. According to the windowpane theory of language articulated by Carolyn Miller (1979), "technical writing is expected to be objective, scientifically impartial, utterly clear, and unemotional" (p. 49). This "windowpane" idea of language, Miller claims, stems from a flawed positivist view of science that privileges sensory data as the basis for knowledge. Language, according to Miller, "is largely a distraction for science; and rhetoric is just irrelevant, because conclusions follow necessarily from the data of observation and the procedure of logic." This philosophy is evident throughout in both early (Sprat, 1667) and more modern (Feynman, 1967) articulations of the philosophy of science. Though this Cartesian empiricist view of science has been challenged by many scholars within the scientific establishment, such as Kuhn (1962) and Medawar (1964), this view is still prominent within the sciences and engineering. Technical Communication as a discipline has largely rejected this view of rhetoric and writing. Slack et al. (1982) argue for an audience-driven approach to technical writing that emphasizes the rhetorical nature of the "struggle to articulate meaning and relations of power" (p. 25); which, according to Miller, is part of the development of understanding and consensus underlying the humanities as a whole. This humanistic shift has popularized Dobrin's (1983) definition of technical writing as "writing that accommodates technology to the user" (p. 118). The portrayal is that of an intermediary, bridging the gap between expert and lay audience through rhetorical savvy. In this, technical writing shares the same philosophy and overall approach as modern scientific writing; authors such as Jeanne Fahnstock (1998) have articulated accommodation as a rhetorical process based on understanding users and their needs and then contextualizing the material involved in a way that makes sense to the reader. This accommodation is a process that is at the heart of both scientific and technical writing. Articulating Worth

Within the context of Snow's cultural divide, technical communicators are placed in a difficult position; they must articulate their worth to the scientific culture using the newfound humanistic framework that the other culture denies all the while accommodating the end user, who is often lacks the expertise of either of these dominant cultures. Articulating worth and demonstrating expertise can be difficult for individuals in avowedly humanistic fields. Scientific experts generally benefit from a perceived higher social standing than their humanist counterparts; Brian Wynne (1992) notes, "the conventional framing of the public understanding of science issue misleadingly reifies scientific knowledge, as if it were objective and context-free" (p. 282). Though, as Wynne explains, scientists often misuse this public goodwill, the legacy of 20th century science still leaves them with a much stronger public ethos. Scholars like Eisenheart (2006) demonstrate how those in

the humanities can demonstrate their own expertise; this requires an understanding of kairos as well as properly articulated appeals to both other experts and the public. Eisenhart's example scholar moves between roles as a scholar, advocate, and expert in order to properly persuade the academic community, public audience, and decision-making entities, allowing his expertise to eventually be recognized by the involved parties; similarly, the technical communicator must advocate for their worth within their places of employment. Building Expertise

After being recognized as experts in the craft of writing and having articulated its importance, technical communicators must also contend with the technical materiel being communicated and the culture of those generating the material. Individuals seeking to join an established workplace culture, such as the engineering interns in Dorothy Winsor's (2003) workplace study, increasingly adopt the specialized language of the existing expert community; this knowledge often contradicts or goes outside of both standard English and existing disciplinary conventions; critically, this identity shift involves new rhetorical conventions that are often opaque to non-experts. Spinuzzi (2008) describes this development as the creation of social languages, which "are not simply lists of terms; they are actually different logics" (p. 26). To communicate the expert's material, it is vital to understand the cultural and genre conventions that create this separate logic. Accommodating the Public

In addition to maintaining this solidarity with the experts, technical communicators must analyze the structure of the expert/public dynamic at work in this process of accommodation. As Simmons (2007) demonstrates, organizations use several different models of interaction when dealing with the public; each model translating to a different power dynamic between the experts and their audience. On one end, the lingering legacy of positivist thought often leads scientific experts to operate under the assumption that "risk issues are complex and technical and should therefore be restricted to individuals trained in risk assessment and risk management" (p. 89). In this "technocratic model," experts make a decision amongst themselves, then present their results with no concern for audience understanding or feedback. On the opposite end of the spectrum is an approach wherein the values and knowledge of all affected groups is considered alongside that of the scientific experts prior to a final policy decision. While not all of a technical communicator's work involves direct interaction between experts and a public audience, the modern definitions of technical writing provided by Dobrin and others place technical communicators in the position to mediate via text the interactions between users and either technology, scientific information, or the experts that produced them. In that sense, a clear knowledge of the structured interactions between these groups can allow for a technical communicator to better accomplish their workplace goals. Two Cultures, One Portfolio

The task facing the technical communicator is a difficult one. Cut adrift from the Cartesian positivism of ages past, a technical communicator must often bridge the cultural gap between the sciences and the humanities while fulfilling their responsibilities to the end users. Bridging this gap requires a knowledge of the textual conventions other experts use to frame knowledge and build their identities, an understanding of the existing participatory dynamics between audience and expert, and a keen understanding of rhetorical timing that allows them to move between and across disciplinary boundaries as the situation allows. It requires the technical communicator to have an intimate understanding of their audience, the experts they work with, and their own role as an accommodator.

Auburn's MTPC program is designed to produce graduates that can accomplish these disparate tasks. Theory-driven courses like Issues & Approaches and Public Policy give us the underlying knowledge that allows us to explicate our design decisions and argue for their importance in the manner of experts. Other classes, such as Document Design and Technical Editing, give us concrete skills as well as experience using those skills in client projects. In addition, taking courses outside of TPC has given me the ability to readily contextualize the work of engineers as writers and experts. The five pieces in this portfolio demonstrate my ability to bridge this cultural gap with a working knowledge of both the underlying theory and actual workplace mechanics involved. City of Auburn Recycling Guide

For my client project in Technical Editing, I worked with group members to edit a recycling guide for the city of Auburn. This guide is intended to motivate community members to recycle and to provide them with the information they need to do so. This project demonstrates my ability to edit existing documentation to better accommodate the key information to the public. Morae Manager Study Configuration Instructions

I completed this project for the Document Design course; it is intended for use in the English department's usability lab. In creating the document, I used the principles of document design to effectively present instructional material to students wishing to learn how to perform certain tasks within the Morae Manager software tool. In addition to demonstrating how sound design principles can improve communication, it represents a brief excursion into a common workplace activity—building expertise with a concept or system and then instructing others in its use. DOE Econometric Modeling Public Comment

The Public Policy course culminated in a final project aimed at arguing for governmental action on a pressing issue. My public comment analyzed a proposal for the Department of Energy (DOE) to switch from using the GREET to NEMS econometric models. This project involved researching esoteric and technical material for the purposes of forming an effective argument directed at policymakers—an example of building expertise for the purpose of persuading a non-expert audience. ACWP Grant Proposal

In Grant and Proposal Writing, I completed a grant proposal as part of a client project with the Alabama Clean Water Partnership (ACWP). The proposal recommended the installation of pet waste disposal stations in parks around the state of Alabama as a way to reduce contaminant levels in local bodies of water. This project also required extensive research into the effects of pet waste on water quality as well as a more practical study of the logistics involved in installing the waste disposal stations. The final proposal, in an interesting reversal, articulated the worth of a scientific project to a humanities-focused organization looking for projects that would impact community development. CPU Design & Test Documentation

Outside of the English department, I also took courses in electrical and computer engineering. One such course, Computer Architecture and Design, had the students iteratively design a Central Processing Unit (CPU) from a conceptual start to actual implementation. This process produced engineering documentation on the design and testing of the device that attempts to justify specific design decisions as well as demonstrate a complete working product. Contextualized within the framework of my MTPC degree, this project allowed me to more closely examine engineering work

as an example of a specialized genre of writing while gaining knowledge of the actual design process for engineering systems. References

Connors, R. J. (1982). The Rise of Technical Writing Instruction in America. Central Works in Technical Communication (pp. 3-19). Jondan Johnson-Eilola, Stuart A. Selber (Eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.

Dobrin, D. N. (1983). What's Technical About Technical Writing? Central Works in Technical

Communication (pp. 107-123). Jondan Johnson-Eilola, Stuart A. Selber (Eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.

Eisenhart, C. (2006). The Humanist Scholar as Public Expert. Written Communication, 23(2), 150-172. Fahnestock, J. (1998). Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts. Written

Communication, 15(3), 330-350. Feynman, R. (2011, January 27). The Character of Physical Laws. [video file] Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd0xTfdt6qw&t=51m40s. Johndan, J. (1996).Relocating the Value of Work: Technical Communication in a Post-Industrial Age. Central

Works in Technical Communication (pp. 175-193). Jondan Johnson-Eilola, Stuart A. Selber (Eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. London: The University of Chicago Press. Medawar, P. B. (1996). Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud? In P. B. Medawar (Ed.), The Strange Case of the

Spotted Mice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Miller, C. R. (1979). A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing. Central Works in Technical

Communication (pp. 47-54). Jondan Johnson-Eilola, Stuart A. Selber (Eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.

Shannon, C. E. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27,

379-423. Slack, J. D., Miller, D. J., & Doak, J. (1982). The Rise of Technical Writing Instruction in America. Central

Works in Technical Communication (pp. 3-19). Jondan Johnson-Eilola, Stuart A. Selber (Eds.), New York: Oxford University Press.

Snow, C. P. (1959). The Two Cultures. Leonardo, 23(2), 169-173. Spinuzzi, C. (2008). Network: Theorizing Knowledge Work in Communications. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press. Sprat, T. (1677). The History of the Royal Society. Part II, section xx.

Winsor, D. (2003). Writing Power: Communication in an Engineering Center. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and the Public Uptake of Science. Public

Understanding of Science, 1, 281-304.

Memorandum

To: Dr. Derek Ross, Dr. Jo Mackiewicz, Dr. Stewart Whittemore From: Kirk Lundblade Date: 3/6/14 Re: ACWP Grant Proposal Keywords: Theory/Research (Approaches); Application (Approaches) Introduction This memo presents my meta-analysis of the grant proposal I prepared for the Alabama Clean Water Partnership (ACWP). This grant proposed installing pet waste disposal stations in Alabama state parks and targeted the Lowe's Community Partners foundation.

Goals and Design Process The goal of this document was to get funding for the ACWP's proposal from the Lowe's foundation. To that end, it must present a logical and effective plan for accomplishing a task, strongly identify that task with the mission of the foundation as a whole, and present the ACWP as the best organization to carry out this effort.

Given the complexity of this task, the document's design process was lengthy and complex. After settling on a client and determining what project they would like to seek funding for, I conducted a search for funders. Meetings with my client helped me determine what the goals of the ACWP as a whole (and this project in particular) were, and Dr. Youngblood guided the class through our analysis of the funders. After settling on the Lowe's Community Partners foundation (the ACWP's initial target for this proposal), I did more extensive research on the foundation and began drafting a needs statement.

The remainder of the project consisted of regular meetings with both my client and Dr. Youngblood, during which I continued developing the grant package and refining previously written material based on their feedback. The final grant proposal was submitted to the ACWP at the end of the semester, with the actual submission for the grant taking place in mid-February of this year.

Design Theories The primary source I used when preparing this document was Mikelonis, Betsinger, and Kampf (2004), whose work covers the entirety of the grant writing process. A critical component of this process is the preparation of the needs statement (p. 36), which describes a problem, explains the solution, and describes how the organization is particularly well-suited to accomplish this task. This source was also very important in developing my proposal narrative and its logical construction (p. 212).

As part of my work to develop the needs statement, I needed to provide scientific research on canine feces and their effects on water quality. In interpreting the research and weaving it into my grant, I depended on work done regarding the rhetoric of science. Medawar (1996) and Harris (1991) reveals that scientific papers are a rhetorical construction designed to give the impression of purely logos-based argumentation while relying heavily on both ethos and even pathos to argue for their interpretation of scientific results. This understanding allowed me to more readily interpret the texts I was using as justification for this proposal. In addition, Fahnestock's (1998) work on accommodation in scientific writing helped me take the deconstructed arguments from my sources and re-contextualize them in the process of accommodating their technical material to the lay audience my grant proposal addresses.

Works Cited Fahnestock, J. (1998). Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts. Written Communication, 15(3),

330-350.

Harris, R. A. (1991). Rhetoric of Science. College English, 53(3), 282-307.

Medawar, P. B. (1996). Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud? In P. B. Medawar (Ed.), The Strange Case of the Spotted Mice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mikelonis, V. M., Betsinger, S. T., & Kampf, C. (2004). Grant seeking in an electronic age. New York: Pearson/Longman

Clean Water For All

A Proposal for Pet Waste Disposal in Alabama Parks

Submitted to: Lowe's Community Partners

Date: November 1, 2013

Alabama Clean Water Partnership

P.O. Box 3623

Montgomery, AL 36109

Phone: (205) 266-6285

Office/Fax: (334) 514-8326

www.cleanwaterpartnership.org

tel:%28205%29%20266-6285

tel:%28334%29%20514-8326

http://www.cleanwaterpartnership.org/

Clean Water for All: A Proposal for Pet Waste

Disposal in Alabama Parks

Project Abstract

The Alabama Clean Water Partnership is requesting $19,911 from the Lowe’s Charitable and

Educational Foundation to place pet waste disposal stations in municipal parks throughout the

state of Alabama in order to combat the contamination of the state’s waters (e.g. via dog poop)

and to help educate the local populace on the importance of proper pet waste disposal. Because

this disposal is often thought either inconvenient or unnecessary, many pet owners refrain from

cleaning up their pet’s feces. During storms, this waste is washed into nearby bodies of water.

This activity has already rendered many of Alabama’s waters unsafe for drinking, recreational

activity, and wildlife habitation.

Installation of pet waste disposal stations would make fecal cleanup much more convenient for

pet owners, while the planned awareness-raising campaigns (e.g., door hanger distribution) will

help pet owners realize the importance of properly disposing of their pets’ droppings. The

resulting reduction of pet waste in Alabama’s waters will help render them safe for future use.

Statement of Need

Clean water is essential. Human activity, directly and indirectly, depends on reliable access to

clean water: we use it for things as integral as drinking water and as mundane as watering our

lawns. It is an important, yet often neglected, component of both a healthy environment and a

thriving community.

Within the state of Alabama, our water quality is threatened. Many of the state's water bodies are

now contaminated and in danger of becoming unusable because of urban runoff and other human

activities. As a result of this contamination, many of these bodies now reside on the EPA's

303(d) list of impaired waters [1], a list reserved for waters that no longer meet federal water

quality standards. Why is this important? In Alabama, many households still use wells for

drinking water, water which may be contaminated by aboveground rivers and streams. Many

other uses for Alabama's waters—uses such as recreational activity and wildlife preservation—

are threatened by fecal contaminants.

In urban environments, especially parks, pet owners frequently take their dogs out for walks,

letting them relieve themselves without removing the waste, often because proper waste disposal

is unavailable or inconvenient to access. When it rains, the water carries its fecal payload into

nearby streams, contaminating these streams and the bodies of water they flow into. This practice

has contributed to the contamination of many of Alabama's waters, rendering them unsafe for

many of their major uses. This also directly impacts the communities that depend on these waters

for consumption and recreational use.

The Alabama Clean Water Partnership (ACWP) recognizes the importance of protecting

Alabama's waters, and seeks to become part of the solution for long-term water quality. As a

coalition of private-interest groups seeking to coordinate the protection and preservation of

Alabama's waters, the ACWP is uniquely suited to help direct measures that seek to protect these

bodies. The AWCP has noted the prominence of pet waste in the pollution of the state's waters,

and believes there is a need to provide communities with a way to safely and conveniently

dispose of their pet waste and thereby preserve something we all depend on: our water.

We believe the contamination due to pet waste occurs primarily because pet owners are either

unaware of the hazards pet waste poses to the environment or unable to easily access disposal

stations and materials. To address this issue, the ACWP is seeking funding to install pet waste

disposal stations in parks across the state of Alabama and to educate and inform the local

communities of the benefits of properly disposing of their pets' fecal matter. To that end, we

respectfully request either $19,911 in funds from the Lowe's Community Partners grant to

complete this program or an in-kind donation of 33 of Lowes’ pet waste disposal stations plus

$4,925 for educational and other expenses.

Project Description

The primary solution to the pet waste problem is installing the pet waste stations. Each station

consists of a waste receptacle and a bag dispenser attached to a post. Signs indicating the

organizations and community partners responsible for placing and maintaining the stations will

be appended to the post itself (see Appendix 1). To increase community awareness of the new

disposal stations, ACWP will organize community volunteers to distribute door hangers detailing

the benefits of using the new disposal stations. Installation and maintenance of the waste disposal

stations will be handled by local municipalities, who will be able to defray all costs associated

with this maintenance by counting it toward their stormwater protection requirements [2][3].

The schedule of the project is extremely flexible: station installation will be coordinated with the

participating municipalities at a projected rate of two parks per month, with a minimum of three

parks involved in the project. The first part of the month will be spent on raising awareness via

door hanger distribution and other volunteer activities while sites for the pet waste stations are

chosen; the second part of the month will involve coordinating with city employees on the

installation of the stations. This process will continue until all the purchased pet waste stations

have been installed; a procedure that could take 2-5 months, depending on the final number of

parks chosen to place the stations.

Project Timeline (months)

Project Activities 1 2 3 4 5

Parks 1 and 2: Awareness campaign, canvassing,

door hanger distribution, and site choice

Parks 1 and 2: Waste station installation

Parks 3 and 4: Awareness campaign, canvassing,



*Parks 5 and 6: Awareness campaign, canvassing,


*Parks 5 and 6: Waste station installation






*Parks 9 and 10: Waste station installation

*Schedule continues until the number of targeted parks is reached. The final number of parks

that will receive pet waste stations will be decided by negotiations with the various

municipalities involved.

Evaluation

The success of this program can be measured on a yearly basis by calculating the number of

waste disposal bags used. When municipal employees check and refill the stations, which store

bags in rolls of 200, they can note which stations are empty and approximate how many bags

were used in stations that were partially depleted. Each municipality can then report their total

estimated bag usage for the year back to the ACWP. The yearly totals can be compared against

each other to track the increasing or decreasing efficacy of pet waste disposal. This evaluation

method provides the best way to track the efficacy of the program; pet waste is a direct cause of

water contamination, so a reduction in the pet waste entering local watersheds directly affects the

quality of the associated waters.

Sustainability

Each municipality can count money spent on maintenance of the pet waste disposal stations

toward their EPA requirements for stormwater management. The amount of maintenance

required is relatively minimal: park employees should check each station approximately once per

month and restock dwindling bag supplies. The calculations in the budget, which are based on an

approximate bag usage rate of 200 bags per station per month, arrive at a modest sum which

municipalities will be able to pay, counting their expenditures toward their federal stormwater

protection requirements.

The only long-term issue with the sustainability of this project is the lifespan of the pet waste

disposal stations themselves. Each station is installed securely in-ground and features

thermoplastic coating for rust and UV protection, meaning the stations' life spans should be a

decade at the minimum. At this point, the cost-effectiveness of the stations can be compared with

the actual life span to determine if new pet waste stations should be installed to replace failing

old ones.

Budget

Item/Service In-Kind Costs ($) Requested from Sponsor ($)

Nonpersonnel costs

Yearly bag restocking 1,584 -

Pet Waste Station1 - 14,987*

Sign - 3,300

Door Hangers2 - 1,425

Travel (fuel)3 - 200

Subtotal of Nonpersonnel

Costs 1,584 19,911

Personnel Costs

Station install4 132 -

Station maintenance5 528 -

Hanger distribution6 0 -

Subtotal of Personnel Costs 660 -

TOTAL 2,244 19,912

1 Lowe's Ultra Play 15-Gallon Commercial Pet Waste Station with Bag Dispenser: 33 units @ $454.13

per unit 2 Progressive Image Communications, Inc: 2,500 hangers @ $0.57 per hanger

3 Estimated travel allowance (62.5 gallons at $3.20/gal)

4 Installation of the waste stations to be completed by park personnel: 0.5 hr per station × 33 stations ×

$8.00/hr estimated wage 5 Waste stations will be emptied, cleaned, and generally maintained by park staff-estimated yearly cost:

10min/station per month × 12 months × 33 stations × $8.00/hr, plus replacement bags @ estimated usage

of 200bags/station per month: 200 × 12 months × 33 stations × $0.02 per bag 6 Distribution of hangers will be completed by local community volunteers

*Pet waste stations may also be received as an in-kind donation

http://www.lowes.com/pd_375838-93841-PBARK-490_4294753426__?productId=3516454&Ns=p_product_avg_rating%7C1&pl=1&currentURL=%3FNs%3Dp_product_avg_rating%7C1&facetInfo=

Sources

[1] "ADEM 303d List." Internet:

http://adem.alabama.gov/programs/water/wquality/2012AL303dList.pdf, May 21, 2012

[November 8, 2013]

[2] "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)." Internet:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/munic.cfm, July 25, 2013 [November 8, 2013].

[3] "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)." Internet:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm, April 3, 2012 [Number 8, 2013]

Appendix 1: Attached Pet Waste Station Sign (Draft)

Memorandum

To: Dr. Derek Ross, Dr. Jo Mackiewicz, Dr. Stewart Whittemore From: Kirk Lundblade Date: 3/6/14 Re: CPU Design & Test Documentation Keywords: Keywords: Theory/Research (Approaches); Application (Approaches) Introduction This memo presents my meta-analysis of the design & test documentation I created when designing a Central Processing Unit (CPU) for Dr. Nelson's Computer Architecture and Design course. This document's intended audience includes computer engineers and others interested in the technical design of computer components.

Goals and Design Process The goals for this document were straightforward: explain the design decisions behind my CPU and demonstrate that the final CPU was fully and comprehensively tested for errors. To do so, each component of the CPU must be comprehensively documented, and the tests, individually and in the aggregate, must demonstrate how the CPU is free of errors.

The design process for the documentation paralleled the design of the CPU itself. First, Dr. Nelson had the students design the Instruction Set (IS)—the complete list of basic operations the CPU can carry out. Following the design of the IS and a description of the various tradeoffs involved in their creation, we were instructed to design and test the various components of the CPU. Following the physical component test, we were charged with designing the datapath—the mechanism by which the various components are linked—and then testing the CPU as a whole. This final test, which was implemented on an FPGA available in the electronics lab, demonstrated the final CPU's ability to run a complete test program, which demonstrates its theoretical ability to successfully run any other program a user may design. The full documentation for each stage of the CPU's design was placed in a binder and submitted near the end of the course.

Design Theories This test documentation was initially created to match much of traditional engineering documentation. It uses technical jargon that is abstruse and inscrutable to outsiders, both as part of an effort to retain discipline-specific knowledge within its disciplinary community and to identify the author as a member of that group; this behavior was noted in Dorothy Winsor's (2003) study on writing in an engineering center, and was used to build this document's ethos in the eyes of the professionals reviewing it. Though excessive jargon serves to exclude outsiders, when the target audience includes only professionals within the relevant discipline, this ceases to be a problem with the document's design.

The particular jargon employed matches the official IEEE standards for circuit design as best as possible; not only to build the ethos but also to more readily promote understanding of the product the document represents. Bowker and Starr's (200x) work on classification and standardization helped underscore the importance of adherence to standard symbols and terminology in the documentation; where possible, the IEEE standard classification was followed. For more specific symbols and technical terminology, I used the best disciplinary source available to me: Patterson and Hennessy's (2009) text on the design of microprocessor systems; this text represented the nonstandard symbols and terminology Winsor's engineering

groups used to create their identity within their larger disciplinary communities—Patterson and Hennessy's work stands as the most popular book on the subject.

Works Cited Bowker, G. & Starr, S. L. (2000). Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Patterson, D. A. & Hennessy, J. L. (2009). Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware / Software Interface. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

Winsor, D. (2003). Writing Power: Communication in an Engineering Center. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

CPU Design & Test Materials

Kirk Lundblade

CPU Design & Test | 2

Schematic ........................................................................................................................................ 3

16-bit RISC Instruction Set .............................................................................................................. 4

User-Programmable Registers .................................................................................................................. 4

Instruction Formats ................................................................................................................................... 4

Instructions ............................................................................................................................................... 5

Implementation of C constructs ............................................................................................................. 11

Component List ............................................................................................................................. 14

Tradeoffs ................................................................................................................................................. 16

Control Logic Table ....................................................................................................................... 17

Final Test Program ........................................................................................................................ 18

Final results ............................................................................................................................................. 19

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 20

Datapath Code ........................................................................................................................................ 20

Schematic

ALU

00

01

10

11

Program

Counter

Instruction

Memory

Decode /

Execute

Registers

Fetch /

Decode

Registers

Execute /

Memory

Registers

Memory /

Writeback

RegistersLatch File

+

‘1’

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

00

01

10

11

00

01

10

11

1

0

1

0

+

Sign Ext

=

‘1’

‘7’

CTRL

‘1’

CTRL

HDU

Sign Ext

fcn

Forwarding Unit

Data

Memory

dwe

jal

wb

CTRL signals

imm

src

jal

jal

addr

CTRL signals (all)

EN

rwe

RS

RT

RD

R[rs]

R[rt]

addr

data

set EN

Central Processing Unit (CPU)

Designer: Kirk Lundblade

16-bit RISC Instruction Set

User-Programmable Registers

Name Number Use

$zero 0 Constant value 0 $s0–$s3 1–3 General purpose(saved)* $r0–$r3 4–6 General purpose(unsaved)* $ra 7 Return address

* The general purpose registers are divided into saved and unsaved. Those listed as saved are

preserved across function calls, while the contents of unsaved registers are not.

Instruction Formats Instructions follow three basic formats, listed below. Using a small number of instruction

formats limits the flexibility of the overall instruction set, but allows for more efficient

instruction decoding hardware. The three instruction formats parallel the MIPS instruction set

and have a fixed width of 16 bits.

R-type:

4 bits 3 bits 3 bits 3 bits 3 bits

Opcode rs rt rd shift amount

I-type:

4 bits 3 bits 3 bits 6 bits

Opcode rs rt Immediate (signed)

J-type:

4 bits 2 bits 10 bits

Opcode=0110 <ignored> Address (signed)


Instructions

Name Mnemonic Format Operation

Add add R R[rd]=R[rs] + R[rt] Add Immediate adi I R[rt]=R[rs]+Immediate And and R R[rd]=R[rs] & R[rt] Branch if Equal beq I If(R[rs]==R[rt]) PC=PC+1+branch address Branch if not Equal bne I If(R[rs]!=R[rt]) PC=PC+1+branch address Jump jmp J PC=jump address Jump and Link jal J R[7]<=PC+2, PC <= jump address Jump Register jre R PC=R[rs] Load Word ldw I R[rt]=M[R[rs]+immediate] Not not R R[rt]=not(R[rs]) Or or R R[rd]=R[rs] | R[rt] Or immediate ori R R[rt]=R[rs] | imm Set less than Slt R R[rd]=(R[rs] < R[rt])? 1 : 0 Shift left logical Sll R R[rt]=R[rs] << shamt Store word Stw I M[R[rs]+immediate]=R[rt] Subtract sub R R[rd]=R[rs] - R[rt]

#1: Add

4 3 3 3 3

Opcode = 0000 rs = 000–111 rt= 000–111 rd= 000–111 <ignored>

Add was included because addition is a key arithmetic operation required for most CPUs

(and a listed requirement).

RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID

C2: R[rs]->ID/EX(RS), R[rt]->ID/EX(RT)

C3: ID/EX(RS) + ID/EX(RT) ->EX/MEM

C4: EXMEM-> MEM/WB

C5: MEM/WB->R[rd]

#2: Add Immediate

4 3 3 6

Opcode=0001 rs=000–111 rt=000–111 Immediate=000000-111111 (signed)

Add Immediate is a variant of add that uses immediate values, a useful CPU function.

RTL:


C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID

C2: R[rs]->ID/EX(RS), signExtImm->ID/EX(imm)

C3: ID/EX(RS) + ID/EX(imm) ->EX/MEM

C4: EXMEM-> MEM/WB

C5: MEM/WB->R[rd]

#3: And

4 3 3 3 3


And is a required logical operation.

RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID


C3: ID/EX(RS) and ID/EX(RT) ->EX/MEM

C4: EXMEM-> MEM/WB

C5: MEM/WB->R[rd]

#4: Branch if Equal

4 3 3 6

Opcode=0011 rs=000–111 rt=000–111 Immediate=000000-111111

Branch if Equal allows the CPU to complete some of the required conditional operation

statements.

RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID


C3: ID/EX(RS) - ID/EX(RT) ->EX/MEM, if(alu result =0) then EX/MEM(zero) = 1 else 0

C4: if (EX/MEM(Zero)=1) then ZeroExtImm->PC else PC+1->PC

#5: Branch if Not Equal

4 3 3 6

Opcode=0100 rs=000–111 rt=000–111 Immediate=000000-111111

Branch if Not Equal allows the CPU to complete some of the required conditional

operation statements.

RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID(pcv)



C3: ID/EX(RS) - ID/EX(RT) ->EX/MEM, if(alu result =0) then EX/MEM(zero) = 1 else 0

C4: if (EX/MEM(Zero)=0) then ZeroExtImm->PC else PC+1->PC

#6: Jump

4 2 10

Opcode=0110 <ignored> address

Points the PC to the address specified by the instruction; allows the CPU to jump

distances in memory greater than the available offset provided by the 6-bit immediate

field of the I-type instructions.

RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID

C2: zeroExt(IF/ID[5:0])->ID/EX(imm)

C3: ID/EX(imm)->EX/MEM(pcv)

C4: EX/MEM(pcv)->PC

#7: Jump and Link

4 2 10

Opcode=0110 <ignored> address

Points the PC to the address specified by the instruction; allows the CPU to jump

distances in memory greater than the available offset provided by the 6-bit immediate

field of the I-type instructions, while also storing the previous PC location in R[ra],

allowing for convenient returns from function calls.

RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID

C2: zeroExt(IF/ID[5:0])->ID/EX(imm)

C3: ID/EX(imm)->EX/MEM(pcv)

C4: EX/MEM(pcv)->MEM/WB(r7wb)

C5: MEM/WB(r7wb)->R[7]

#8: Jump Register

4 3 3 3 3

Opcode = 0111 rs = 000–111 <ignored> <ignored> <ignored>

Jumps to the location stored in R[rs]. Combined with the Jump and Link instruction, this

allows for returns from nested functions.


RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID

C2: R[rs]->ID/EX(rs)

C3: ID/EX(rs)->EX/MEM(pcv)

C4: EX/MEM(pcv)->PC

#9: Load word

4 3 3 6

Opcode=1000 rs=000–111 rt=000–111 Immediate=000000-111111 (sign extended to 16

bits)

Allows for retrieval of data words from memory.

RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID

C2: R[rs]->ID/EX(rs), ZeroExt(imm)->ID/EX(imm)

C3: ID/EX(rs) + ID/EX(imm)->EX/MEM

C4: M[EX/MEM]->MEM/WS

C5: MEM/WS->R[rt]

#10: Not

4 3 3 3 3

Opcode = 1001 rs = 000–111 Rt = 000-111 <ignored> <ignored>

Inverts the bits in R[rs] and stores them in R[rt]. Useful logical operation; combines with

and/or to perform other key logical operations.

RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID

C2: R[rs]->ID/EX(RS),

C3: not(ID/EX(RS)) ->EX/MEM

C4: EXMEM-> MEM/WB

C5: MEM/WB->R[rs]

#11: Or

4 3 3 3 3


Required logical operation.


RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID


C3: ID/EX(RS) or ID/EX(RT) ->EX/MEM

C4: EXMEM-> MEM/WB

C5: MEM/WB->R[rd]

#12: Or Immediate

4 3 3 6

Opcode = 1011 rs = 000–111 rt= 000–111 Immediate (sign ext) 000000-111111

Combined with sll, allows for loading of constants into registers.

RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID

C2: R[rs]->ID/EX(RS), signExtImm->ID/EX(imm)

C3: ID/EX(RS) or ID/EX(imm) ->EX/MEM

C4: EXMEM-> MEM/WB

C5: MEM/WB->R[rd]

#13: Set less than

4 3 3 3 3


Used with branch statements to perform the required conditional operations.

RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID


C3: ID/EX(RS) - ID/EX(RT) ->EX/MEM

C4: if(EX/MEM[31] = '0' then '1'-> MEM/WB else '0'->MEM/WB

C5: MEM/WB->R[rd]

#14: Shift left logical

4 3 3 3 3

Opcode = 1101 rs = 000–111 rt= 000–111 <ignored> Shamt=000-111

Shifting helps support multiplication, a useful (but not required) operation.

RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID


C2: R[rt]->ID/EX(rt), IF/ID[2:0]->ID/EX(shl)

C3: ID/EX(rt) << ID/EX(shl) ->EX/MEM

C4: EX/MEM->MEM/WS

C5: MEM/WS->R[rd]

#15: Store word

4 3 3 6

Opcode=1110 rs=000–111 rt=000–111 Immediate=000000-111111 (sign extended to 16

bits)

Allows the CPU to store values from the registers to memory.

RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID

C2: R[rt]->ID/EX(rt), ZeroExt(imm)->ID/EX(imm), R[rs]->ID/EX(rs)

C3: ID/EX(rs) + ID/EX(imm)->EX/MEM, ID/EX(rt)->EX/MEM(rt)

C4: EX/MEM(rt)->M[EX/MEM]

#16: Subtract

4 3 3 3 3


Required arithmetic operation.

RTL:

C1: IM[PC]->IF/ID


C3: ID/EX(RS) - ID/EX(RT) ->EX/MEM

C4: EXMEM-> MEM/WB

C5: MEM/WB->R[rd]


Implementation of C constructs This section demonstrates how the instruction set can implement various key C constructs. These

constructs are required for the proper execution of higher-level language operations, and their efficient

execution is a key factor in the overall performance of the processor.

#1: Variable = expression

C code: a = (b + c)

The compiler assigns the variables a, b, and c to registers r0-r2, successively, then execute the

below code:

Assembly: add $r0, $r1, $r2

*Note: "add", "subtract", "and", and "or" are supported by their respective instructions. Integer

arrays are supported by the six-bit immediate offset in the load/store instructions.

#2: Control flow structures

In order to instantiate all possible "if-else," "while," and "for" structures, the six relational

operators are needed.

"==" : Supported by the Branch if equal instruction

C code:

if (a==b)

a=a+b

else...

Assembly:

beq $r0, $r1, other

add $r0, $r0, $r1

other: ...

"!=" : Supported by the Branch if not equal instruction

C code:

if (a!=b)

a=a+b

else...

Assembly:

bne $r0, $r1, other

add $r0, $r0, $r1


other: ...

"<" : Supported by the Branch if equal and Set less than instructions

C code:

if (a<b)

a=a+b

else...

Assembly:

slt $s0, $r0, $r1

bne $s0, $zero

add $r0, $r0, $r1

other: ...

">=" : Supported by the Branch if equal and Set less than instructions

C code:

if (a>=b)

a=a+b

else...

Assembly:

slt $s0, $r0, $r1

beq $s0, $zero

add $r0, $r0, $r1

other: ...

">" : Supported by the Branch if equal and subtract instructions plus ALU flags

C code:

if (a>b)

a=a+b

else...

Assembly:

sub $s0, $r0, $r1


bne $s0, $zero //also check Negative flag from ALU; branch only if result is not negative

add $r0, $r0, $r1

other: ...

"<=" : Supported by the Branch if equal and subtract instructions plus ALU flags

C code:

if (a<=b)

a=a+b

else...

Assembly:

sub $s0, $r0, $r1

beq $s0, $zero //also check Negative flag from ALU; also branch if negative flag is high

add $r0, $r0, $r1

other: ...

#3: Function call and return

Standard assembly function call/return (s0 has a stored variable that needs to be saved, r2 is

the stack pointer)

addi $r2, $r2, -4

sw $s0, 0(r2)

jal Function

lw $s0, 0(r2)

addi $r2, $r2, 4


Component List

This section details the specific components on the CPU schematic; their inputs, outputs, and function

are described below.

Address Multiplexer (Addrmux): In: Add[10], EX/MEM[10], CTRL_addr

Out: INSTRMEM[10] and Add[10]

Function: Selects jump address or next instr

Program Counter (PC): In: Addrmux[10], clk

Out: INSTRMEM[10] and Add[10]

Function: Simple register to store the PC with the addr of the next instruction.

Instruction Memory (INSTRMEM): In: PC[10], clk

Out: IF/ID[16]

Function: Memory in which the instructions are stored

Address Adder (AddrAdd): In: PC[10], '1'

Out: IF/ID[10], Addrmux[10]

Function: Increments the PC.

Pipeline Stage 1 Registers (IF/ID): In: INSTRMEM[16], Add[10], clk

Out: REGFILE[16], ID/EX[16], ID/EX(shl)[3], ID/EX(imm)[16]

Function: Register block that stores the results of stage 1 and "clocks" them to stage 2.

Register File (REGFILE): In: IF/ID[16], WBmux[16], clk

Out: ID/EX(rs, rt)

Function: Programmable registers 1-8 are located here.

Sign Extension Logic (SignExt): In: IF/ID[5:0]

Out: ExtMux[16]

Function: Sign extends the immediate value from the instruction


Zero Extension Logic (ZeroExt): In: IF/ID[5:0]

Out: ExtMux[16]

Function: Zero extends the immediate value from the instruction

Extension Logic Mux (ExtMux): In: signExtImm[16], zeroExtImm[16], CTRL_ext

Out: ID/EX(imm)[16]

Function: Sign extends the immediate value from the instruction

Pipeline Stage 2 Registers (ID/EX): In: REGFILE[16], ExtMux[16], IF/ID[2:0], clk

Out: Addr[10],


Address Adder 1(add1): In: ID/EX(pcv)[16], ID/EX(imm)[16]

Out: BrMux[16]

Function: Does address addition

Branch Mux(BrMux): In: CTRL_br, add1[16], ID/EX(imm)[16], ID/EX(rs)[16]

Out: EX/MEM(pcv) [16]

Function: chooses source for next PC address

Immediate Mux(ImmMux): In: CTRL_imm, ID/EX(rt) [16], ID/EX(imm) [16]

Out: ALU[16]

Function: chooses source for second operand for ALU

Arithmetic Logic Unit (ALU): In: ID/EX(rs) [16], ImmMux[16], fcn[3]

Out: ShiftMux[16], EX/MEM(zero) [16]

Function: Performs ALU operations (add, sub, addi, or, ori, and)

Shift Mux(ShiftMux): In: CTRL_s, shiftlogic, ALU[16]

Out: EX/MEM

Function: chooses to use shift value or ALU output


Pipeline Stage 3 Registers (EX/MEM): In: clk, BrMux[16], ALU[16], ShiftMux[16], ID/EX(rt) [16]

Out: AddrMux[16], MEM/WB(pcv) [16], MEM/WB(alu) [16], DM[16]


Data Memory(DM): In: EX/MEM[16], EX/MEM(rt) [16], CTRL_dwe

Out: MEM/WB[16]

Function: Data memory for computer

Pipeline Stage 4 Registers (MEM/WB): In: EX/MEM(pcv)[10], DM[16], EX/MEM[16], EX/MEM(wb)[16]

Out: WBmux


WriteBack Mux(WBmux): In: MEM/WB(r7wb) [16], MEM/WB[16], MEM/WB(alu) [16], CTRL_wb

Out: Regfile[16]

Function: writes selected data back to chosen register

Tradeoffs Pipelining was chosen for the potential "1 instruction per cycle" completion rate. The addition of a few

additional registers, multiplexers, and adders was deemed not as important as the potential execution

time improvement offered by pipelining. All registers are edge-triggered, as the pipeline simply ignores

unused values and uses the various stages to pass along data (as opposed to keeping values latched into

a register). The one key instance where shared components could be used, the adder and ALU in stage

3, were not combined so as to make branch and jump calculations easily concurrent with other

operations. Two separate memories were also used to help avoid the VN bottleneck.

Control Logic Table

ADD SUB AND OR NOT ADI ORI SLL SLT BEQ BNE JMP JRE JAL STW LDW

addr 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00/01 01/00 10 11 10 00 00

Jal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X X 0 1 0 0

Src 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 X X X X X 1 1

Imm 0 0 0 0 X 1 1 X 0 X X X X X 1 1

Wb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X X X 0 0 1

Fcn 000 001 010 011 101 000 011 110 100 X X X X X 000 000

Rwe 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Dwe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Final Test Program Assembly Hex RTN (result of operation)

LDW r1, 0(r0) 8040 R1 <= M[0] = 7 LDW r2, 1(r0) 8081 R2 <= M[1] = 6 LDW r3, 2(r0) 80C2 R3 <= M[2] = 0x0FF0 LDW r4, 3(r0) 8103 R4 <= M[3] = 0x00FF LDW r5, 4(r0) 8144 R5 <= M[4] = 0xFFFF LDW r6, 5(r0) 8185 R6 <= M[5] = 0xFF00 LDW r7, 6(r0) 81C6 R7 <= M[6] = 1 ADI r2, r1, -2 12BE R2 <= 7-2=5 ADD r1, r1, r7 03C8 R1 <=7+1=8 BEQ r3, r4, -2 373E PC <=PC+1 (no br) SLT r7, r3, r4 C738 R7 <=0 SLL r6, r6, 4 DD84 R6 <=0xF000 AND r5, r5, r4 2B28 R5 <=0x00FF ORI r1, r1, 7 B247 R1 <=0xF OR r3, r3, r2 A698 R3 <=0x0FF5 NOT r4, r4 9900 R4 <=0xFF00 JAL 50 6032 R7 <= PC+2 = 0x12, PC<= 0x32 SUB r2, r0, r2 F090 R2 <= -5 JMP 80 5050 PC <= 0x50 ADD r0, r1, r2 0280 Check registers r1 and r2 ADD r0, r3, r4 0700 Check registers r3 and r4 ADD r0, r5, r6 0B80 Check registers r5 and r6 ADD f0, r7, r7 0FC0 Check registers r7 and r7 STW r1, 8(r0) E048 M[8] <= r1 = F STW r2, 9(r0) E089 M[9] <= r2 = -5 STW r3, 10(r0) E0CA M[10] <= r3 = 0FF5 STW r4, 11(r0) E10B M[11] <= r4 = FF00 STW r5, 12(r0) E14C M[12] <= r5 = 00FF STW r6, 13(r0) E18D M[13] <= r6 = F000 STW r7, 14(r0) E1CE M[14] <= r7 = 0x12 BNE r6, r3, 20 4CC4 PC<=PC+1+4= 0x60 JMP 5060 PC <= 60 (infinite loop)


Final results

Register File Data Memory

R1 = F M[8]= F R2 = -5 M[9]= -5 R3 = 0FF5 M[10]= 0x0FF5 R4 = FF00 M[11]= 0xFF00 R5 = 00FF M[12]= 0x00FF R6 = F000 M[13]= 0xF000 R7 = 11 M[14]= 0x12


Appendix

Datapath Code The code below matches the datapath for the CPU; the file that connects all the CPU components and is

the major determinant of architecture and performance.

library IEEE;

use IEEE.STD_LOGIC_1164.ALL;

use IEEE.NUMERIC_STD.all;

entity datapath is

port (clk, set : in std_logic; --set for PC and regfile,

clk for registers/latches/etc

inr : in std_logic_vector(3 downto 0); --debug input for ALTERA board

--IMdata, DMdata : in std_logic_vector(15 downto 0); --receives the data from memories

--IMaddr, DMaddr : out std_logic_vector(9 downto 0); --outputs the addresses to be

written/read to/from

--DMwritedata : out std_logic_vector(15 downto 0); --outputs the values to be written to the

data memory

outvalue : out std_logic_vector(15 downto 0)); --debug output for ALTERA board

end datapath;

architecture behavioral of datapath is

component zeroExtender is

generic (IN_WIDTH : INTEGER := 5;

OUT_WIDTH : INTEGER := 10);

port (input : in std_logic_vector(IN_WIDTH-1 downto 0);

output : out std_logic_vector(OUT_WIDTH-1 downto 0));

end component;

component signExtender is

generic (IN_WIDTH : INTEGER := 5;

OUT_WIDTH : INTEGER := 16);

port (input : in std_logic_vector(IN_WIDTH-1 downto 0);

output : out std_logic_vector(OUT_WIDTH-1 downto 0));

end component;


component reg

generic (BIT_WIDTH : INTEGER := 16;

ENABLE : INTEGER := 1;

SET : INTEGER := 1);

port (CLK, EN, S : in std_logic;

D : in std_logic_vector(BIT_WIDTH-1 downto 0);

Q : out std_logic_vector(BIT_WIDTH-1 downto 0));

end component;

component mux2

generic (BIT_WIDTH : INTEGER := 16);

port (SEL : in std_logic;

A,B : in std_logic_vector(BIT_WIDTH-1 downto 0);

Y : out std_logic_vector(BIT_WIDTH-1 downto 0));

end component;

component mux4


port (SEL : in std_logic_vector(1 downto 0);

A,B,C,D : in std_logic_vector(BIT_WIDTH-1 downto 0);


end component;

component adder


port (A,B : in std_logic_vector(BIT_WIDTH-1 downto 0);


end component;

component alu

port (fcn, shamt : in std_logic_vector(2 downto 0);

A,B : in std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);

Y : out std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);

oflow : out std_logic);

end component;

component PC

port (PCin : in std_logic_vector(9 downto 0);

clk, EN, set : std_logic;

PCout : out std_logic_vector(9 downto 0));

end component;


component comparator

port (RS,RT : in std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);

CMP : out std_logic);

end component;

component control

port (opcode : in std_logic_vector(3 downto 0);

comp : in std_logic;

CTRL_rwe, CTRL_dwe, CTRL_jal, CTRL_src, CTRL_imm, CTRL_wb : out std_logic;

CTRL_addr : out std_logic_vector(1 downto 0);

CTRL_fcn : out std_logic_vector(2 downto 0));

end component;

component regfile

port (clk, set, CTRL_rwe : in std_logic;

rd1, rd2, wr1 : in std_logic_vector(2 downto 0);

RD : in std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);

RS, RT : out std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);

or0, or1, or2, or3, or4, or5, or6, or7 : out std_logic_vector(15 downto 0));

end component;

component forwardingUnit

port (CTRL_rweMEM, CTRL_rweWB : in std_logic;

wbsrcMEM, wbsrcWB, rsEX, rtEX : in std_logic_vector(2 downto 0);

FU_rs, FU_rt : out std_logic_vector(1 downto 0));

end component;

component HDU is

port (instr : in std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);

MEM_instr : in std_logic_vector(15 downto 12);

RT_EX : in std_logic_vector(2 downto 0);

CTRL_addr : in std_logic_vector(1 downto 0);

HAZ_flushIF, HAZ_PCen, HAZ_enIF, HAZ_ctrlClear : out std_logic);

end component;

COMPONENT instrROM IS

PORT

(

address : IN STD_LOGIC_VECTOR (9 DOWNTO 0);

clock : IN STD_LOGIC := '1';

q : OUT STD_LOGIC_VECTOR (15 DOWNTO 0)


);

END COMPONENT;

COMPONENT dataRAM IS

PORT

(

address : IN STD_LOGIC_VECTOR (9 DOWNTO 0);

clock : IN STD_LOGIC := '1';

data : IN STD_LOGIC_VECTOR (15 DOWNTO 0);

wren : IN STD_LOGIC ;

q : OUT STD_LOGIC_VECTOR (15 DOWNTO 0)

);

END COMPONENT;

signal memclk : std_logic;

signal reset : std_logic;

signal or0, or1, or2, or3, or4, or5, or6, or7 : std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);

--Fetch stage signals

signal IMorNOP, IMdata : std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);

signal PCin, PCout, addout : std_logic_vector(9 downto 0);

--Decode stage signals

signal instr, RS, RT, imm : std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);

signal PCplus1, PCimm, zExtImm, jaladd : std_logic_vector(9 downto 0);

signal wbfinal, wbsrc0 : std_logic_vector(2 downto 0);

signal cmp, HAZ_flushIF, HAZ_PCen, HAZ_enIF, HAZ_ctrlClear : std_logic;

signal CTRL_fcn : std_logic_vector(2 downto 0);

signal CTRL_addr : std_logic_vector(1 downto 0);

signal CTRL_wb, CTRL_rwe, CTRL_dwe, CTRL_jal, CTRL_src, CTRL_imm : std_logic;

signal CTRL_bussed, CTRL_bussedHAZ : std_logic_vector(4 downto 0);

--Execute stage signals

signal RS1, RT1, RS1F, RT1F, imm1, PCext, ALUinB, ALUout : std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);

signal PCimm1 : std_logic_vector(9 downto 0);

signal EX_instr : std_logic_vector(3 downto 0);

signal wbsrc1, shamt, RSsrc, RTsrc : std_logic_vector(2 downto 0);

signal FU_rs, FU_rt : std_logic_vector(1 downto 0);

signal oflow, Zero : std_logic;


signal CTRL_fcn1: std_logic_vector(2 downto 0);

signal CTRL_bussed1 : std_logic_vector(4 downto 0);

--Memory stage signals

signal ALUout1, RT2, PCext1, DMdata : std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);

signal MEM_instr : std_logic_vector(3 downto 0);

signal wbsrc2 : std_logic_vector(2 downto 0);


--Writeback stage signals

signal RD, DMdata1, ALUout2, PCext2, PCorALU : std_logic_vector(15 downto 0);

signal wbaddr : std_logic_vector(2 downto 0);


begin

memclk <= not(clk);

reset <= not(set);

with inr(2 downto 0) select

outvalue <= or0 when "000",

or1 when "001",

or2 when "010",

or3 when "011",

or4 when "100",

or5 when "101",

or6 when "110",

or7 when "111",

x"0000" when others;

--Stage 1: Instruction Fetch

IF0: PC port map (PCin, clk, HAZ_PCen, reset, PCout); --Program Counter

IF1: adder generic map (BIT_WIDTH => 10) port map (PCout, "0000000001", addout); --PC+1

adder

IF2: mux4 generic map (BIT_WIDTH => 10) port map (CTRL_addr, addout, PCimm, instr(9

downto 0), RS(9 downto 0), PCin); --Address selection (PC+1, PC+imm, jmp address, R[rs])

IF3: instrROM port map (PCout, memclk, IMdata);


--Stage 1 Pipeline registers

IFID0: reg generic map (ENABLE => 1, SET => 1, BIT_WIDTH => 10) port map (clk, HAZ_enIF,

HAZ_flushIF, addout, PCplus1);

IFID1: reg generic map (ENABLE => 1, SET => 1, BIT_WIDTH => 16) port map (clk, HAZ_enIF,

HAZ_flushIF, IMdata, instr);

--Stage 2: Instruction Decode

CTRL_bussed <= CTRL_imm & CTRL_dwe & CTRL_rwe & CTRL_wb & CTRL_jal;

ID0: mux2 generic map (BIT_WIDTH => 10) port map (CTRL_jal, imm(9 downto 0),

"0000000001", jaladd); --selects immediate or +1 (for jal)

ID1: adder generic map (BIT_WIDTH => 10) port map (PCplus1, jaladd, PCimm); --PC+1+imm

adder

ID2: regfile port map (clk, reset, CTRL_bussed3(2), instr(11 downto 9), instr(8 downto 6),

wbfinal, RD, RS, RT, or0, or1, or2, or3, or4, or5, or6, or7); --Register File

ID3: mux2 generic map (BIT_WIDTH => 3) port map (CTRL_bussed3(0), wbaddr, "111", wbfinal);

--mux for writeback register for JAL

ID4: comparator port map (RS, RT, cmp); --comparator for branch instrs

ID5: signExtender generic map (IN_WIDTH => 6, OUT_WIDTH => 16) port map (instr(5 downto

0), imm); --Sign Extension for Immediate

ID6: mux2 generic map (BIT_WIDTH => 3) port map (CTRL_src, instr(5 downto 3), instr(8 downto

6), wbsrc0); --mux chooses RT or RD for wb destination

ID7: control port map (instr(15 downto 12), cmp, CTRL_rwe, CTRL_dwe, CTRL_jal, CTRL_src,

CTRL_imm, CTRL_wb, CTRL_addr, CTRL_fcn); --Control logic generator

ID8: HDU port map (instr, MEM_instr, RTsrc, CTRL_addr, HAZ_flushIF, HAZ_PCen, HAZ_enIF,

HAZ_ctrlClear); --Hazard Detection Unit

ID9: mux2 generic map (BIT_WIDTH => 5) port map (HAZ_ctrlClear, CTRL_bussed, "00000",

CTRL_bussedHAZ); --clears CTRL signals to allow pipeline stalls


IDEX0: reg generic map (ENABLE => 0, SET => 0, BIT_WIDTH => 16) port map (clk, '0', '0', RS,

RS1);

IDEX1: reg generic map (ENABLE => 0, SET => 0, BIT_WIDTH => 16) port map (clk, '0', '0', RT,

RT1);

IDEX2: reg generic map (ENABLE => 0, SET => 0, BIT_WIDTH => 16) port map (clk, '0', '0', imm,

imm1);

IDEX3: reg generic map (ENABLE => 0, SET => 0, BIT_WIDTH => 3) port map (clk, '0', '0', instr(2

downto 0), shamt);


IDEX4: reg generic map (ENABLE => 0, SET => 0, BIT_WIDTH => 3) port map (clk, '0', '0', wbsrc0,

wbsrc1);

IDEX5: reg generic map (ENABLE => 0, SET => 0, BIT_WIDTH => 10) port map (clk, '0', '0', PCimm,

PCimm1);


downto 9), RSsrc);


downto 6), RTsrc);


downto 12), EX_instr);

IDEX9: reg generic map (ENABLE => 0, SET => 0, BIT_WIDTH => 5) port map (clk, '0', '0',

CTRL_bussedHAZ, CTRL_bussed1);

IDEX10: reg generic map (ENABLE => 0, SET => 0, BIT_WIDTH => 3) port map (clk, '0', '0',

CTRL_fcn, CTRL_fcn1);

--Stage 3: Execute

EX0: zeroExtender generic map (IN_WIDTH => 10, OUT_WIDTH => 16) port map (PCimm1,

PCext); --Zero extends PC value

EX1: mux4 generic map (BIT_WIDTH => 16) port map (FU_rs, RS1, ALUout1, RD, x"0000", RS1F); -

-selects forwarded RS values

EX2: mux4 generic map (BIT_WIDTH => 16) port map (FU_rt, RT1, ALUout1, RD, x"0000", RT1F); -

-selects forwarded RT values

EX3: mux2 generic map (BIT_WIDTH => 16) port map (CTRL_bussed1(4), RT1F, imm1, ALUinB); --

selects Immediate or RT values

EX4: ALU port map (CTRL_fcn1, shamt, RS1F, ALUinB, ALUout, oflow); --ALU

EX5: forwardingUnit port map (CTRL_bussed2(2), CTRL_bussed3(2), wbsrc2, wbfinal, RSsrc,

RTsrc, FU_rs, FU_rt); --forwards data to the ALU


EXMEM0: reg generic map (ENABLE => 0, SET => 0, BIT_WIDTH => 16) port map (clk, '0', '0',

ALUout, ALUout1);

EXMEM1: reg generic map (ENABLE => 0, SET => 0, BIT_WIDTH => 16) port map (clk, '0', '0', RT1,

RT2);


wbsrc1, wbsrc2);


PCext, PCext1);


EX_instr, MEM_instr);


EMMEM4: reg generic map (ENABLE => 0, SET => 0, BIT_WIDTH => 4) port map (clk, '0', '0',

CTRL_bussed1(3 downto 0), CTRL_bussed2);

--Stage 4: Memory

MEM0: dataRAM port map (ALUout1(9 downto 0), memclk, RT2, CTRL_dwe, DMdata); --DATA

memory

--DMaddr <= ALUout1(9 downto 0); --stand-in for Data Memory

--DMwritedata <= RT2; --stand-im for Data Memory


MEMWB0: reg generic map (ENABLE => 0, SET => 0, BIT_WIDTH => 16) port map (clk, '0', '0',

DMdata, DMdata1);


ALUout1, ALUout2);


wbsrc2, wbaddr);


PCext1, PCext2);


CTRL_bussed2(2 downto 0), CTRL_bussed3);

--Stage 5: Writeback

WB0: mux2 generic map (BIT_WIDTH => 16) port map (CTRL_bussed3(0), ALUout2, PCext2,

PCorALU); --selects ALU or zExt PC value

WB1: mux2 generic map (BIT_WIDTH => 16) port map (CTRL_bussed3(1), PCorALU, DMdata1,

RD); --selects above mux output or Data from DM

end;

Memorandum

To: Dr. Derek Ross, Dr. Jo Mackiewicz, Dr. Stewart Whittemore From: Kirk Lundblade Date: 3/6/14 Re: Auburn Community Recycling guide meta-analysis Keywords: Theory/Research (Editing); Application (Editing) Introduction This memo presents my meta-analysis of the community recycling guide that was created to inform Auburn residents about the benefits of recycling and the many different ways they can participate in the city's recycling programs. This guide was edited and redesigned by a team comprised of myself, Aubrey Wood, and Russell Norris. Our final deliverable was a single, cohesive PDF that the city could post on their website or distribute in print form.

Goals and Design Process Our client requested a redesign of the document that would make it more accessible to the Auburn community. We decided the final document needed to be available in a format that was both web- and print-friendly; for that purpose, we settled on a PDF that could be hosted on the city's website. The final document should also be one that can be read and understood by the entire Auburn community, which includes individuals with widely varying reading levels. Finally, as the document is also intended to motivate citizens to recycle, the document needed a professional appearance that would help build its ethos and the ethos of the city as a whole.

After analyzing the existing document with the client's request in mind, we noticed that, aside from numerous readability and consistency errors, the document's overall design was ineffective at addressing its audience. We then decided that the document needed what Van Buren and Buehler (1980) referred to as a level one edit. This is the most comprehensive level of edit, and includes substantive editing to the actual content of the document as well editing for integrity (e.g., matching figures, page numbers) , spelling/grammar, formatting, style, and language parallelism.

My role in this design process focused on the redesign of the tabular information in the guide. Several key sets of information were in a difficult-to-read list form; I placed this information into two large tables (one for hazardous materials and one for more mundane reusable items). As Hakos (1994) notes, one of the primary ways to distinguish a high-quality publication from a lower-quality one is through the use of style standards and information control. To that end, my team members and I managed our separate sections we were responsible for editing through the use of a style guide which included information on our use of acronyms, abbreviations, spelling of project-specific terms, and other key pieces of information. After our individual sections were complete, we assembled the document and each made additional editing checks.

Design Theories Our redesign focused on what Saul Carliner's (2000) text, A Three-Part Framework for Information Design refers to as the physical and cognitive aspects of the design; that is, helping users find and then understand the information. A key concern for helping users find information was the inclusion of retrievability aids, which was improved by the addition of more descriptive headings, a table of contents, and tabular data placed in tables instead of difficult-to-parse lists. The cognitive level requires us to assess the needs of the underlying users and to "shape instructions around the problems that people actually experience in work contexts" (p.

566) and to rewrite the language of the document to include more plain language, which, as defined by Beth Mazur (1999), has been shown to help readers understand documents better and locate information faster. This led us to organize our document around the various services that Auburn residents could use to accomplish recycling-based tasks. The individual sections also had the complexity of their sentence structure and vocabulary reduced.

Works Cited Hakos, J. T. (1994). Managing Your Documentation Projects. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Van Buren, R. & Buehler, M. F. (1980). The Levels of Edit. Pasadena: Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Mazur, B. (1999). Revisiting Plain Language. Technical Communication, 47(2), 205-211.

Carliner, S. (2000). Physical, Cognitive, and Affective: A Three-part Framework for Information Design. Technical Communication, 47(4), 561-575.

Community Reuser Resource Guide

City of Auburn

For additional information concerning recycling or composting, contact the City of Auburn Environmental

Services Department at 334-501-3080 or www.auburnalabama.org

http://www.auburnalabama.org/

1

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 2 The RecycleAuburn Drop Off Center ...................................................................... 3

Auburn Curbside Recycling Program ...................................................................... 4

Composting ............................................................................................................ 5

Trash Pickup ........................................................................................................... 5

Excess Yard Waste and Discarded Items ................................................................ 6

Recyclable Material Drop-off Directory .................................................................. 7

What Is Hazardous Waste? .................................................................................... 9

Hazardous Household Materials Safety Tips .......................................................... 9

Household Hazardous Wastes ............................................................................. 10

Donation Directory .............................................................................................. 15

2

Municipal Solid Waste Mission Statement “Administering an integrated solid waste management system that focuses on the utilization of the best practices and standards of the profession.” Auburn is committed to the sustainability of providing viable recycling and waste reduction programs for the public as well as managing its own daily collection and disposal processes.

Do You RecycleAuburn? According to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, the average Alabama recycling participation rate is less than 15%. The statewide goal is 25%, and the Environmental Protection Agency estimates the national average participation rate is 34%. The City of Auburn is working to help our community reach that statewide goal, and your participation makes a difference! Consider recycling, composting, and using the RecycleAuburn Drop Off Center.

About the City of Auburn’s Recycling Program The City of Auburn’s curbside recycling program began in 1987 and is Alabama’s first municipally operated curbside collection program. The RecycleAuburn Drop Off Center has been at its current location since 1999 and is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In addition to curbside and drop off collections, the City collects recycling at City facilities, schools, and from several small businesses throughout the community. The City has hosted an annual Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day event each spring for the last ten years. The City also holds an annual Electronics Recycling and Secure Document Shredding event each fall. You can recycle your unwanted electronics at both of these events, which are fun ways to get involved with your community and learn more about green living. At the City’s satellite fire station and soccer fields on Shug Jordan Parkway, we have established a mobile recycling drop-off station. We also are working to establish at least one more mobile recycling drop-off station at a large apartment complex in Auburn. Please check out this guide to learn about recycling in your community.

To Be a Conscious Consumer, Try To: Avoid buying disposable items

Maintain and repair the products and equipment you own

Consider what would be useful to friends and family members when gift giving

Purchase containers and packaging that are recyclable

Avoid purchasing harmful chemicals by reading product labels

Use reusable containers for food storage instead of plastic bags or wrap

Think about whether you really need a product before purchasing it

Use both sides and the entire sheet of paper

Save and reuse packaging materials when mailing parcels

3

The RecycleAuburn Drop Off Center Using the drop off center is an easy and convenient way to recycle. About 150 people use the center every day, and it has bright lights so you can recycle safely at any hour that fits your schedule.

Where Address: 365-A N. Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL Phone: (334) 501-3080 Directions: North of Auburn University between Bragg and West Drake Avenue

When 24 hours a day, 7 days a week

Acceptable Items Please categorize your recycling based on the following chart, then place it into the designated roll-off container at the center.

Aluminum: soda/drink/beer cans, foil, pie tins

Batteries: AA, AAA, C, D, cell phone, hearing aid; dry cell only—must not contain liquid acid

Cardboard: corrugated boxes and brown paper bags; flatten

Cartridges: ink jet, laser jet; excludes Epson brand

Computers: contact the office Monday through Friday to schedule an appointment

Glass: clear, brown, green; separated by color

Magazines: magazines and telephone books

Mixed paper: computer, office, notebook, shredded

Newspaper: newsprint only

Plastics: soda, milk, ketchup, shampoo, detergent, bleach, water, juice; #1 and #2 only (see bottom of item to find number)

Steel/Tin Cans: metal and food cans; no scrap metal

4

Non-Acceptable Items Please do not bring items that are not listed in the Acceptable Items list. These include:

Garbage

Yard waste

Furniture

Appliances

Scrap metals

Wire

Car parts

Windshields

Mirrors

Hangers with plastic or cardboard attached

PVC pipes

Large plastic items

Test Tubes

Glass with plastic or metal lids/tops

Pyrex brand cookware

Light bulbs

Fluorescent lights

Hazardous waste containers*

*See the Household Hazardous Wastes section for more information

Auburn Curbside Recycling Program If you subscribe to city garbage service, you’re also eligible to participate in the City of Auburn Environmental Services Department’s weekly curbside recycling program. Collection takes place on the same day for both garbage and recycling; to recycle, simply place your recycling next to your garbage and ensure both are within three feet of the roadway. Recycling is easy—just empty the containers, rinse them, then remove all tops or lids. You do not need to remove labels from cans or jars, but make sure to flatten all boxes, stack newspapers, and separate items into the seven categories listed in the chart below. The small act of recycling is an easy way to make a real difference.

Acceptable Curbside Items Aluminum: soda cans, foil, pie tins; make sure to

separate from steel cans

Brown Glass: separate from clear glass

Cardboard: boxes and paper bags; flatten

Clear Glass: separate from brown glass

Newspapers: stack neatly or bundle

Steel and Tin: cans; separate from aluminum

Plastic: plastic bottles; #1 PET, PETE, and #2 HDPE (see bottom of item to find #)

Separate, clean, and place curbside all recyclable items prior to 6:00 a.m. on your scheduled collection day. Please do not place items curbside earlier than the evening before collection day, and make sure to remove all bins from the city right of way after collection. For more information on recycling, please contact us at (334) 501-3080. Our office hours are Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m.–4:30 p.m.

5

Composting Have you ever considered composting? Much of what you throw away is actually compostable. And adding compost to your yard enriches the soil and gives you healthier plants.

How to Compost 1. Gather your grass clippings and fallen leaves into a pile or home composting container. 2. Add your fruit and vegetable peels, scraps, and leftovers to the compost pile, and then cover them with the grass or leaves. 3. Turn the contents of the pile over occasionally with a shovel or other tool. 4. After a few weeks or months (depending on the season), you will have dark brown, crumbly material—compost.

Compostable Items Grass clippings, leaves, eggshells, fruit and vegetable scraps

Non-Compostable Items Dairy products, meat scraps, bones, anything with far or oil in it (e.g., peanut butter, mayonnaise, salad dressing, butter, etc.)

To learn more about composting, contact your County Extension Agent at (334) 749-3353.

Trash Pickup For those things that can’t be reused, recycled, or composted, the City of Auburn offers curbside trash collection for residents. This service covers trash placed within 3 feet. of the street at one central location and of quantities less than five cubic yards.

When Place trash curbside before 6:00 a.m. on the day of collection, but no sooner than evening of the day prior.

Volume Limitations Please contact the Environmental Services Department for timely collection when trash volume exceeds 5 cubic yards. Also, please note that this amount does not carry over to subsequent weeks if not used in full each week. An assessed fee applies if you place more than the 5 allotted cubic yards curbside. Please also note that we do not accept large tree stumps, community piles, or windrow piles in this service.

Separating Materials In one central location, please separate your trash into two distinct piles. One of these piles should include leaves, grass clippings, and straw, while the other should consist of tree limbs and other acceptable discarded household items that are 6 feet or less in length and stacked within 3 feet of the roadway. Make sure trash is not in the street; this can obstruct drainage and create roadway safety problems. Please note: we do not separate 5 cubic yards of debris from large piles, so make sure your pile is appropriately sized.

6

Leaves Whether you bag your leaves is up to you, as we have a leaf loader to collect large piles of leaves. Place large leaf piles close to the roadway but not in the street, and these piles should consist only of leaves, grass clippings, and straw. Please do not include tree limbs and other such items, as they will damage the equipment.

Appliances We charge a $28.00 per item fee for disposal of all appliances (e.g., freezers, air conditioning units, refrigerators) that contain Freon (also known as R-12 and/or R-34). Federal government regulations require the extraction of all coolants by certified personnel. For all other appliances, the cost of the white goods tag is $5.00 per item. Purchase a white goods tag at 171 N. Ross Street at the Water Board Window. Place the entire tag on the appliance where it is clearly visible; we will not collect an appliance unless it has a tag. Purchase and affix a tag to an appliance within one week of curbside placement—otherwise, the appliance will be collected and you will be billed accordingly.

Excess Yard Waste and Disregarded Items You have the option to either have excess materials removed by a private hauler, or you may contact the Environmental Services Department to schedule a review of the materials prior to collection. Please make sure your trash is in accordance with our standard collection process:

Cut all materials to be shorter than 6 feet

Stack all materials in the same direction

Do not place trash in the street or on other people’s properties

Trash Removal Costs 5 to 11 cubic yards—$50.00 11 to 22 cubic yards—$100.00

Prohibited Actions Placing trash in the street, on vacant lots, or where it will be blocking the sidewalks

Placing computers out at curbside; contact our office for information regarding computer and ink jet cartridge recycling

Placing out more than two piles of trash

Placing out tree limbs or other material larger than 6 ft. long and 4 in. wide

Placing trash at or near an intersection, sign, post, utility box, utility pole, water meter, hydrant, guy wire, fence, parked vehicle, or over a sprinkler head

Placing trash under low hanging utility lines, power lines, or tree branches

Clearing a lot and placing the debris on City right of ways for removal without prior collection arrangements from the City

Placing food, dirt, rock, sand, tires, hazardous waste, concrete, brick, roofing, or sheetrock in a trash pile for collection by the City

Placing garbage, trash, or recycling out on a date when trash collection is not scheduled

Leaving containers at curbside once they are empty

Placing your trash on another person’s property

Placing broken glass, sharp objects, or hypodermic needles out for collection

7

Note Tree surgeons are solely responsible for the removal of all residuals resulting from their work, including tree tops and cuttings. Contractors are responsible for removal of debris resulting from their work.

Recyclable Material Drop-Off Addresses Auburn Tire Service: call first / 459 Opelika Road, Auburn, AL / 7:00 a.m.–5:30 p.m. M–F / (334) 887-8558 City of Auburn Curbside Recycling Program: on your regular garbage collection day / 6:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. M–Th / (334) 501-3080 Eagle Tire: 1851 Hillbrook Circle, Auburn, AL / 7:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m. / M–F / (334) 887-9876 Franklin Tire & Auto: 1975 University Drive / 7:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m. M–F, 7:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Sa / (334) 821-4572 Opelika Scrap Inc.: 2000 Steel Street, Opelika, AL / 7:00 a.m.–3:30 p.m. M–F / (334) 745-2622 RecycleAuburn Drop Off Center: Environmental Services Department 365-A North Donahue Drive / Open 24-7 / (334) 501-3080 / 7:30 a.m.– 4:30 p.m. M–F Waste Recycling: 2000 Steel Street, Opelika, AL / 7:00 a.m.–3:30 p.m. M–F / (334) 745-2921

Material Location Notes

Appliances (nonfunctional) City of Auburn Curbside Recycling

You must purchase a white goods tag from the Auburn Water Works Board at 1501 W. Samford Avenue or City Hall at 144 Tichenor Avenue. The appliance must have a white goods tag affixed by 6:00 a.m. on your regular collection day. Call the Environmental Services Department at (334) 501-3080 for details.

Aluminum City of Auburn Curbside Recycling RecycleAuburn Drop Off Center Waste Recycling

Empty and clean cans prior to recycling. Keep aluminum cans separate from steel cans. Aluminum items such as cans, pie tins, and foil accepted.

Aluminum scrap Opelika Scrap Inc. —

Batteries (lead-acid) Eagle Tire Franklin Tire & Auto

Automotive, boat, and other lead-acid batteries accepted.

Batteries (dry-cell) RecycleAuburn Drop Off Center AA, AAA, C, D, hearing aid, cell phone, and other dry-cell batteries accepted.

Cardboard and brown paper bags

City of Auburn Curbside Recycling No soiled pizza boxes. Boxes must be flattened.

8

Material Location Notes

Cartridges (laser and inkjet) RecycleAuburn Drop Off Center No Epson brand products and plastics. Bring cartridges without boxes.

Glass (clear, brown, and green)

City of Auburn Curbside Recycling RecycleAuburn Drop Off Center

Clean and separate by colors. No mirrors, windshields, lights, ceramics, crystal, beakers, or microwave oven glass.

Home furnishings (broken) City of Auburn Curbside Recycling —

Lead Tire Weights Eagle Tire —

Magazines RecycleAuburn Drop Off Center —

Newspapers City of Auburn Curbside Recycling RecycleAuburn Drop Off Center

Clean newsprint only. No magazines, glossy ads, books, junk mail, notebook paper, etc.

Paper RecycleAuburn Drop Off Center Waste Recycling

Clean mixed, white, shredded, junk mail, and single-ply paper accepted. No glossy or computer paper.

Plastics City of Auburn Curbside Recycling RecycleAuburn Drop Off Center

#1 and #2 plastic drink containers with necks, milk jugs, soda, liquor, juice, and water bottles accepted. No plastic bags, hangers, PVC pipes, toys, etc.

Steel cans (tin)

City of Auburn Curbside Recycling RecycleAuburn Drop Off Center Waste Recycling Opelika Scrap Inc.

Empty steel cans and rinse clean. No scrap metal, wire, pipes, etc.

Used Tires Auburn Tire Service Disposal fee charged according to size.

9

What Is Hazardous Waste? Substances are considered hazardous if they are ignitable, corrosive, or toxic. Substances that react or explode when mixed with other substances are also considered hazardous. At this very minute, you probably have many hazardous things in your kitchen, bathroom, basement, or garage. The average household contains between three and ten gallons of materials that are hazardous to human health, wildlife, or the environment. Hazardous materials must be stored carefully and disposed of properly.

Hazardous Household Materials Safety Tips

Buy only what you need.

Read all labels and follow directions for use and storage.

Consider alternatives if the labels mention any of the following words: caution, warning, danger, poisonous, flammable, volatile, caustic, or corrosive.

Share leftover materials with neighbors and friends when possible.

Keep materials in their original, labeled containers.

Mix only what you need of any homemade mixtures.

Label containers of homemade mixtures properly for storage.

Don’t store any homemade mixtures in containers that may be mistaken for food.

Don’t mix chlorine (bleach) with anything that has ammonia in it. When combined, the two chemicals create a deadly gas.

Household Hazardous Waste Day For More Information Call the Environmental Services

Department: (334) 501-3080

City of Auburn

Visit us at www.AuburnAlabama.org

10

Household Hazardous Wastes Each spring, the City of Auburn hosts a Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection event to provide the residents the opportunity to dispose of unwanted HHW in an environmentally friendly manner.

What to Bring Oil and latex paints Hobby supplies, art supplies

Stains, thinners, and strippers Photo chemicals

Solvents and varnishes Swimming pool chemicals

Adhesives, glues, and resins Dry-cell batteries (e.g., car batteries)

Waste fuels (kerosene, gasoline) Nickel cadmium batteries

Engine degreaser, brake fluid Hearing aid batteries

Poisons, insecticides, and weed killers Wood preservatives

What Not to Bring Unknown compressed gas cylinders Radioactive waste

Prescription medicines or syringes Infectious and biological waste

Ammunition, fireworks, or explosives

Considerations for the Safety of Yourself and Others Place the following HHW in sealed containers.

Tighten caps and lids and leave materials in original labeled containers.

Pack containers in sturdy upright boxes and pad with newspaper.

Sort and pack paint, pesticides, and household cleaners separately.

Pack your vehicle and go directly to the site.

Never smoke while handling hazardous materials.

Never mix chemicals.

11

If you use any of these hazardous household products...

Dispose of them by doing this...

Even better, next time do this...

Automotive Products

Antifreeze, automatic transmission fluid, brake fluid, car wax with solvent

Use up completely or give to someone who will. When the container is empty, follow directions on package for safe disposal if there are any. Otherwise, wrap it in newspaper and a plastic bag and place in the trash.

—

Car battery Take your used battery to a local recycler that accepts car batteries. Don’t throw it in the trash.

—

Diesel fuel, fuel oil, gasoline, kerosene

Take your used fuel to a service station that accepts it for recycling. Don’t throw it onto the ground or any place where it will get into a sewage system, creek, or lake.

—

Motor oil

Take your used motor oil to a service station that accepts it for recycling. Keep the carrying container until your next oil change or wrap it in newspaper and a plastic bag and place it in the trash. Don’t dump your used motor oil onto the ground or any place where it will get into a sewage system, creek, or lake.

—

Cleaners

Drain opener Pour down the drain with plenty of water.

Use a plunger. Pour in ½ cup vinegar with 1 cup baking soda, cover tightly for 1 minute, and flush with boiling water.

Furniture polish


Use mineral oil. Use a mixture of 2 parts olive/vegetable oil with 1 part reconstituted lemon juice. Heat mixture and cool before using.

12




Cleaners (cont.)

General cleaners and disinfectants

Pour down the drain with plenty of water.

Use a water-dampened cloth. Mix ½ cup borax with 1 gal. hot water for bathrooms and kitchens. Cool before using.

Glass cleaner


Use a mixture of 2 tsp. white distilled vinegar and 1 cup warm water.

Metal polishes for copper Same as above. Rub with a paste of equal parts flour, salt, or white vinegar/lemon juice. Rinse.

Metal polishes for copper and silver

Same as above. Polish with non-gel toothpaste. Rub with a paste of equal parts baking soda, soap, and water.

Oven cleaner Pour down the drain with plenty of water.

Place water in a shallow, oven-proof pan and heat oven. The steam will help loosen the grime. Warm the oven. Moisten and sprinkle spills with baking soda, salt, or a non-toxic abrasive (if the oven is not the self-cleaning or continuous-cleaning kind). Scrub.

Rug/upholstery cleaner


Sprinkle stain with dry cornstarch or baking soda and vacuum. Use a soap-based, non-aerosol cleaner.

Tub and tile cleaner Pour down the drain with plenty of water.

Scrub with baking soda or a combination of cream of tartar and a 3%, non-bleaching peroxide.

13




Miscellaneous Items

Medicine (Expired) Pour down the drain with plenty of water

—

Permanent lotions or hair relaxers

Pour down the drain with plenty of water

—

Nail polish remover

Use up completely or pass it on to someone who can. When the container is empty, follow directions on package for safe disposal if there are any. If not, wrap it in newspaper and a plastic bag and place in trash.

—

Paints or Solvents

Enamel or oil-based paints

Let empty paint cans and lids dry completely and then place in trash. Never pour the paint down the drain or onto the ground.

Use mercury-free or latex paints. Donate your leftover paints to a community service organization.

Paint brush cleaner with trisodium phosphate

Pour down the drain with plenty of water.

—

Paint stripper

Use up completely or give to someone who will. When the container is empty, follow directions on package for safe disposal if there are any. Otherwise, wrap it in newspaper and a plastic bag and place in the trash. If the stripper is lye based, flush it down the drain with plenty of water.

—

Paint thinners

Buy only what you need. Cover used turpentine or thinner tightly in a jar. When it settles, pour the clear turpentine back into the original container and throw out only the sediment at the bottom. Follow directions on package for safe disposal.

Use latex and water-based paints instead.

14




Pesticides or Herbicides

Ant repellant

Use up completely or pass it on to someone who can. When the container is empty, follow directions on package for safe disposal if there are any. Otherwise, wrap it in newspaper and a plastic bag and place in trash.

Wash counters with a mixture of equal parts vinegar and water. Place mint around your home. Scatter coffee grounds around the outside of the house. Bait ant hills with corn meal. Use boric acid for ants, roaches, and other crawling insects.

Aphid control Same as above.

Use a few drops of liquid dishwashing soap in a quart of water and spray on plants. Add ladybugs to your garden.

Flea and tick control

Use up completely or pass it on to someone who can. When the container is empty, follow directions on package for safe disposal if there are any. Otherwise, wrap it in newspaper and a plastic bag and place in trash.

Contact your local veterinarian for environmentally-friendly flea and tick medications. Add 1 tsp. vinegar to 1 qt. water per 40 lb. pet weight and use as a dip. Spread diatomaceous earth moistened with water on the yard (1 lb./1,000 sq. ft.). Avoid inhaling the dust.

Roach control Same as above.

Mix 1 part borax/boric acid, 1 part flour, and 1 part sugar then distribute mixture in warm, dry places. Replace periodically. Seal all cracks and crevices.

Houseplant insecticide Same as above. Wash leaves with soapy water, then rinse.

Moth balls Same as above. Use fresh cedar chips, cedar balls, or lavender flowers.

Rat poison Same as above. Use traps.

Weed killer Same as above.

Dig or pull the weeds out when the soil is wet. Use organic weed control products.

15

Donation Directory

Name Address and Hours Notes

Appliances (Good Working Condition)

AIDS Outreach of Lee County

8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. M–F (334) 887-5244

Alabama Council on Human Relations

319 W. Glenn Avenue, Box 409, Auburn, AL 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. M–F

(334) 821-8336, pickup available if needed (AC units also accepted)

Bargain Box Thrift Store Boykin Community Center 9:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. Tu–F

(334) 821-1014, call first

Employer’s Child Care Alliance (Bridges)

510 S. 7th Street, Opelika, AL 7:00 a.m.–5:30 p.m. M–F

(334) 749-8400, call first

Southeastern Raptor Rehabilitation Center (SERRC)

Auburn University 8:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. M–F

(334) 844-6025

Yard Sale Store 909 S. Railroad Avenue, Opelika, AL 10:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. M–Sa

(334) 749-9449, call first

Arts and Crafts Supplies



(334) 887-7656, call first, primary color items



(334) 749-8400, call first, non-primary color items

Bibles (Large Print)

Lee County Literacy Coalition

418 Dumas Drive, Auburn, AL 9:00 a.m.–4:00 p.m. M–F

(334) 705-0001 or (334) 826-3600

16


Books, Educational Materials, Videos, and Tapes (Preschool to Age 18)



(334) 821-8336, ask for Andrea Williams

Auburn Day Care Centers, Inc.

721 Slaughter Avenue, Auburn, AL 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. M–F

(334) 821-4060


(334) 821-1014, call first

Boys & Girls Club of Greater Lee County

— (334) 745-2582

Child Care Resources Center

8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. M–F (334) 749-8400, items for preschoolers

Children First 120 S. Ross Street, Auburn, AL 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. M–F

(334) 502-7008, items for children ages 2–7



(334) 749-8400, call first

Holy Trinity Day School 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. M–F

(334) 821-9838, items for children ages 4–6 years, open September through May, call first

Learning Zone 1221 Commerce Drive, Auburn, AL (334) 821-1127, items for infants thru 12-year-olds, call first

Bookshelves



(334) 705-0001 or (334) 826-3600

17


Carpet (Good Condition)


319 W. Glenn Avenue, Box 409, Auburn, AL, 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. M–F

(334) 821-8316, ask for Andrea Williams


(334) 749-9449

Cleaning Supplies

East Alabama AIDS Outreach Inc.

1701 Catherine Court, Auburn, AL

(334) 887-5244, call first, contact Sharon Freeman



(334) 749-8400, call first

Goodwill Industries 701 Avenue B, Opelika, AL (334) 745-6029, contact Carmen or Roni Harmon

Lee County Humane Society

1140 Ware Drive, Auburn, AL (334) 821-3222



(334) 844-6025

Clothes Hangers

Fifth Avenue Cleaners 1642 S. College Street, Auburn, AL 7:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m. M–F 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Sa

(334) 826-1944 or (334) 887-1094

Four Seasons Cleaners 187 S. Gay Street, Auburn, AL 7:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m. M–F 7:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Sa

(334) 887-9668

18


Mr. Hem 233 N. Gay Street, Auburn, AL 8:00 a.m.–5:30 p.m. M–F

(334) 826-0089

Penny Profit Cleaners 953 Opelika Road, Auburn, AL (334) 502-1235

Clothing (Good Condition)


8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. M–F (334) 887-5244



(334) 821-8336



(334) 821-4060


(334) 821-1014, call first

Goodwill Industries 701 Avenue B, Opelika, AL (334) 745-6029

Salvation Army 1038 Opelika Road, Auburn, AL (334) 826-0073

United Way — (334) 745-5540

Computers (Good Working Condition)



(334) 705-0001 or (334) 826-3600

19


Construction and Landscaping Supplies



(334) 821-8336, pickup available if needed



(334) 844-6025

Yard Sale Store 909 S. Railroad Avenue, Opelika, A 10:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. M–Sa

(334) 749-9449

Electronics (Good Working Condition)


— (334) 745-2582, call first

Goodwill Industries 701 Avenue B, Opelika, AL (334) 745-6029, contact Carmen or Roni Harmon

Life Savers Mission Thrift Store

2051 E. University Drive, Auburn, AL (334) 887-5433

Yard Sale Store 909 S. Railroad Avenue, Opelika, AL 10:00 a.m.– 5:00 p.m. M–Sa

(334) 749-9449

Furniture (Good Condition)


— (334) 745-2582



(334) 844-6025

20


Games and Toys for All Ages (Good Condition)


319 W Glenn Avenue, Box 409, Auburn, AL 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. M–F

(334) 821-8336, pickup available if needed



(334) 821-4060


(334) 821-1014, call first


— (334) 745-2582, items for kids ages 6–18

Child Care Resources Center

8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. M–F (334) 749-8400, items for preschoolers



(334) 749-8400, call first

Life Savers Mission Thrift Store

2051 E. University Drive, Auburn, AL (334) 887-5433


(334) 749-9449

Garden Equipment, Tools, and Supplies (Good Condition)

Blooming Colors 1192 S. Donahue Dr., Auburn, AL 8:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m. M-Sa 1:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m. Su

(334) 821-7929

Plant World Nursery, LLC 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. (334) 745-0459

21




(334) 844-6025

Home Furnishings (Good Condition)


8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. M–F (334) 887-5244


319 W Glenn Ave, Box 409, Auburn, AL 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. M–F

(334) 821-8336


(334) 821-1014, call first


— (334) 745-2582

Domestic Violence Intervention Center

8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. (334) 749-1515

Goodwill Industries 701 Avenue B, Opelika, AL (334) 745-6029



Red Cross 206 26th Street, Opelika, AL 9:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. M–F 1:00 p.m.–4:00 p.m. Sa

(334) 749-9981

Salvation Army 1038 Opelika Road, Auburn, AL (334) 826-0073


(334) 749-9449

22


Newspapers (Clean Newsprint)

AutoZone 1054 Opelika Road, Auburn, AL 8:00 a.m.–9:00 p.m. M–Sa 9:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m. Su

(334) 826-8014, call first, http://autozone.com

Express Oil Change 1855 Opelika Road, Auburn, AL 8:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m. M–F 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Sa

(334) 821-3100, call first, htt://www.expressoil.com

Wal-Mart Tire and Lube Express

1717 S. College Street, Auburn, AL 7:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. M-F 7:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Su

(334) 821-9644, call first

Whitt’s Auto Service Center

461 Opelika Road, Auburn, AL (334) 502-8848

Styrofoam

Pak Mail N. Dean Road, Auburn, AL 9:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m. M-Th 10:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m. Sa

(334) 821-0629

Towels (Good Condition)

Auburn Veterinary Hospital

716 N. Dean Road, Auburn, AL 7:00 a.m.–5:30 p.m. M-F

(334) 821-7810



North Gay Veterinary Clinic

438 North Gay Street, Auburn, AL 7:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m. M, F 8:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Sa

(334) 887-5020

Pet Vet Animal Hospital 2514 South College Street, Auburn, AL 7:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m. M-F 9:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Sa

(334) 826-5100

23


South College Veterinary Clinic

1946 South College Street, Auburn, AL 7:30 a.m.–6:00 p.m. M–F 9:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Sa

(334) 821-3647

Village Veterinary Clinic 403 Opelika Road, Auburn, AL 7:30 a.m.–6:00 p.m. M–F 9:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Sa

(334) 821-7730

Vehicles (In Good Working Condition)



(334) 821-8336

Yard Sale Items


8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. M–F (334) 887-5244

Civitan Club of Auburn — (334) 501-3198, yard sale in spring

Kiwanis Club of Greater Auburn

— (334) 887-9611, yard sale in spring


(334) 749-9449

Memorandum

To: Dr. Derek Ross, Dr. Jo Mackiewicz, Dr. Stewart Whittemore From: Kirk Lundblade Date: 3/6/14 Re: DOE policy memo meta-analysis Keywords: Theory/Research (Approaches); Application (Approaches)

Introduction This memo presents my meta-analysis of the public comment I submitted to regulations.gov regarding the proposed change in econometric modeling tools for fuel cycle analysis, as well as the research report I used to generate the public comment. The target audience for this piece includes government policymakers who will likely have varying levels of technical expertise regarding these models.

Goals and Design Process The goal for this document was fairly straightforward: support the proposed policy amendment. Given the requirements for commenting, the public comment must be extremely concise, yet with sufficient research to provide weight to its argument.

The final comment was generated using a two-step process. As per Dr. Ross' directions, I first generated a research paper on the proposed policy change. The research involved familiarizing myself with the various econometric models that government agencies use to track energy expenditures, then assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each model. The resulting report presents that information without advocating for any particular course of action.

Following the report's assessment by Dr. Ross, I then distilled its contents into a much shorter piece, then advocated for what I perceived to be the correct course of action, which was to enact the policy change. The final comment was submitted to regulations.gov, as well as to Dr. Ross. After the report's submission, I was contacted by Dr. Stephen Myers from Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, a researcher who works on energy policy and modeling, who commented on the quality of the final comment.

Design Theories My design choices in this document stem from many of the texts we read regarding the rhetoric of policy writing. First and foremost, the language of the final comment should follow Beth Mazur's (1999) guidelines on plain language. Her argument for a more comprehensive approach to plain language highlights its effectiveness in improving reader understanding and allowing readers to locate key information quicker; both qualities that are highly desired in any document that is likely to be reviewed by government policymakers. Given that the likely participatory dynamic in this expert-public interaction is Michelle Simmons' (2007) Pseudoparticipation model, wherein experts only seek public opinion at the end of the policymaking cycle (just prior to implementation), any document that is to be reviewed by these already invested policymakers must be concise and with readily available research. In addition, as Williams (2009) indicates, "regulation on an e-rulemaking Web site is the focus of stakeholders—government agency, regulated entities, advocacy groups, and the rest of the public—with different facilities in reading, critiquing, and interacting with regulatory text" (p. 459). To that end, my comment must also be written with a broad audience in mind. To build the ethos of my comment, I relied on Catherine Smith's method for writing a public comment: build a comment based on my "authority to respond, whether based on personal experience, organizational

advocacy, vocational or professional background, or specialized knowledge" (p. 193). My comment rested on my professional background (undergraduate studies in economics and mathematics) as well as the specialized knowledge gleaned from my research. Finally, my public comment had two main components: an informative research section coupled with my advocacy in favor of the policy. To move between advocacy and scholarship, I modeled my approach after Eisenhart's (2006) example scholar who moves between roles as a scholar, advocate, and expert in order to properly persuade the academic community, public audience, and decision-making entities, allowing his expertise to eventually be recognized by the involved parties. Works Cited Eisenhart, C. (2006). The Humanist Scholar as Public Expert. Written Communication, 150-172. Mazur, B. (2000). Revisiting plain language. Technical Communication 2, 47(2), 205-211. Smith, C. (2005). Writing public policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Simmons, W. M. (2007). Participation and power: Civic discourse in environmental policy decisions. Albany,

NY: SUNY Press.

Williams, M. F. (2009). Understanding Public Policy Development as a Technological Process. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23(4), 448-462.

Public Comment #EERE-2010-BT-NOA-0028-0047 This November, the most pivotal issue for US presidential candidates Barak Obama and Mitt Romney was the state of the economy. With incredibly high levels of unemployment, a rapidly increasing national debt and trade deficit, and environmental economic concerns coming to the fore, the economic policy of the US government is more important now than ever. And ever since the Arab oil crisis of the 1970's, economic and energy policy has been driven by the predictions of modern econometrics models. Once small in number and fairly similar to each other, there now exist a vast array of economic models, each model differing in its market expectations, temporal and geographic scope, and scores of other relevant minutiae. The proposed amendment regarding Full-Fuel-Cycle (FFC) analysis will change the energy sector modeling process for the Department of Energy from an approach that combines Argonne National Labs' Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model with the energy sector predictions derived from the Department of Energy's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), to a system that depends solely on NEMS modeling. The change will also incorporate a powerful mathematical tool used in GREET, Full-Fuel-Cycle analysis, into the NEMS modeling process. This shift will change the DOE's energy sector predictions and evaluations, and therefore will change the way economic and environmental policy in this country is formulated. The proposed change is a good one, as it accomplishes a number of key tasks. It shifts to a model with a broader focus on the US economy as a whole, reduces the error inherent in differing expectations, and streamlines DOE forecasting by shifting reliance on outside economic modeling to an entirely "in-house" modeling process. Both the GREET and NEMS models have valuable characteristics for potential policymaking. However, there are notable differences between the two models that make choosing between the two an important consideration. One area in which the two models differ is focus. Where NEMS models all demand sectors of the US economy tied to the energy supply sources, GREET models only vehicle lifecycle and fuel-cycles effectively. This means that while GREET is a powerful tool for modeling those key systems, it could not be used for modeling different energy sector systems, a task that NEMS excels at. As scholarly assessments of GREET and NEMS have pointed out, the choice of model has to address the question of scope; models that have a broad scope are often less effective in dealing with minutiae that specialist and narrowly-focused models can account for easily. For an institution that make country-wide policy decisions relating to the entire energy sector, the broad approach offered by NEMS is more advantageous than the specificity offered by GREET. Aside from the issue of scope, the issue of projections and expectations in accepted data sets is important. GREET uses its own projections of the energy production system, projections that are based off of assumptions and analyses conducted by Argonne researchers. NEMS, on the other hand, pulls data from various US services and departments, such as the Census Bureau . In the current policy approach, NEMS is used to generate the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), and the projections in the AEO are then run through the GREET model to generate the FFC multipliers necessary for FFC analysis. As the policy change indicates, this is problematic. The assumptions made by GREET's designers in its input equations may not match the assumptions of the NEMS researchers who publish the AEO. This potential difference in assumptions, which could involve anything from differing levels of optimism regarding fossil fuel reserves, technological availability, and vagaries of international economics, has the potential for introducing a great deal of error into the final data. Using the NEMS projections to generate the FFC multipliers for FFC analysis directly would circumvent this particular source of error. In addition, the switch from using NEMS and GREET to just NEMS would eliminate DOE's reliance on outside agencies for its modeling tools. Though GREET was originally developed at Argonne National Labs (AGL) at DOE's request, AGL alone is responsible for maintaining and updating their model. Current projections that use both NEMS and GREET have to take into account the continual development cycles of both models, each with their own set of experts in charge of improving these key tools. Switching to using NEMS alone will allow DOE to account for the vagaries of the model improvement process.

I believe the proposed amendment regarding FFC analysis is an excellent idea: it will improve the scope of DOE projections, eliminate error from varying projections and estimations, and reduce inefficiency in generating this critical economic data. If you have any questions or wish to see my extensive research on the matter, please email me at [email protected].

Memorandum

To: Dr. Derek Ross From: Kirk Lundblade Date: 11/2/12 Re: Full Fuel Cycle Informational Report Introduction This November, the most pivotal issue for US presidential candidates Barak Obama and Mitt Romney was the state of the economy. With incredibly high levels of unemployment, a rapidly increasing national debt and trade deficit, and environmental economic concerns coming to the fore, the economic policy of the US government is more important now than ever. And ever since the Arab oil crisis of the 1970's, economic and energy policy has been driven by the predictions of modern econometrics models. Once small in number and fairly similar to each other, there now exist a vast array of economic models, each model differing in its market expectations, temporal and geographic scope, and scores of other relevant minutiae. The proposed amendment regarding Full-Fuel-Cycle (FFC) analysis will change the energy sector modeling process for the Department of Energy from an approach that combines Argonne National Labs' Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model with the energy sector predictions derived from the Department of Energy's National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), to a system that depends solely on NEMS modeling. The change will also incorporate a powerful mathematical tool used in GREET, Full-Fuel-Cycle analysis, into the NEMS modeling process. This shift will change the DOE's energy sector predictions and evaluations, and therefore will change the way economic and environmental policy in this country is formulated. This report briefly describes the history of FFC analysis its mathematical framework, and then discusses each of the models the Department of Energy (DOE) considered in its 2011 analysis of FFC models (Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment, 2011, 2012) and presents the key differences between them. Full-Fuel-Cycle Overview Full-Fuel-Cycle Analysis has its origins in the 1970's, when interest in energy modeling for policy purposes exploded following the Arab oil embargo of 1973 (Hogan, 2002). Following a brief period of intensive econometric research, the DOE's Project Independence group produced the first major energy analysis model, called Project Independence Evaluation System (PIES); over subsequent years, the national labs and other policymaking institutions produced additional models. According to Hogan (2002), these models included "explicit interactions in a detailed sectoral representation of endogenous input-output coefficients for the economy, and provided intertemporal equilibrium through dynamic investment and the price of capital...[and were] also married to a detailed engineering model of the energy sector to perform technology evaluations" (p. 94)—simply put, these models were highly sophisticated efforts to capture regionally-specific economic variations and time-dependent economic factors in order to help policymakers produce energy forecasting data for long-term analysis. As Hogan indicates, this represented a powerful policy tool not just for energy economics, but for "everything from tax policy reform to analysis of the impacts of policies to control climate change" (p. 94). Over time, these models became increasingly sophisticated, leading up to the modern FFC framework—a group of models all based on a similar mathematical methodology. FFC models differentiate themselves from their predecessors with an additional layer of complexity. Focused around Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA) over Site-Analysis (SA), FFC modeling systems are built around a feedback system: to produce the energy that the country uses, the energy sector must consume some smaller amount of energy. For example, power plants than run on natural gas rely on a steady supply of gas from extraction facilities; these facilities also use energy to power the extraction process. Of course, the energy used to run the natural gas extraction process has its own source—this iterative analysis calculates the costs involved in this

full lifecycle of fuel production (hence the name Full Fuel Cycle). Indeed, each method of energy production has its own cost, not only in raw energy input and financial cost, but also in environmental impact. The FFC models generate multipliers that are a simple output/input ratio: the amount fuel of a certain type consumed in the production of some arbitrary amount of energy; these multipliers are produced for each type of fuel (e.g., ethanol, natural gas, oil, coal), then the multipliers are applied those to existing statistics regarding energy production to determine the full cost of our economy's energy production. While FFC analysis has been criticized on a number of different levels, including improper boundary analysis, lack of weighting for energy quality, and lack of a system for including labor intensity as a relevant factor (Chwalowski, 1996, p. 1262), many of its key criticisms are being addressed in successive iterations of FFC models, and overall FFC remains a key tool for policy analysis. The GREET Model The Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model was released by Argonne National Laboratory in 1996 and was sponsored by the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) (Argonne 2012); it was designed to produce detailed models of the transportation sector's energy usage. GREET consists of two primary frameworks, the first is a "well-to-pump" fuel cycle analysis that accounts for each stage of energy extraction prior to vehicular use. For example, this stage GREET analyzes gasoline by calculating the total energy and emissions costs of the extraction, separation, refining, and distribution of the base ingredients. The second stage of GREET consists of a "recycling of materials" vehicle cycle that tallies the costs of the materials included in the production of the vehicles themselves over their respective lifetimes, taking into account the costs involved with disposal or recycling of vehicular components. Each ingredient in this process is tracked through its potential "fuel pathways," a term for the different forms a given fuel can take during its life cycle. These two stages combine to "[estimate] energy use and emission rates in Btu/mi and g/mi by various combinations of fuels and vehicle technologies" (Argonne 2012). Over the years since its original release, GREET has been continually revised, with GREET 1.6 and 1.7 adding numerous additional fuel pathways, better simulations for fuel transportation, and enhanced stochastic simulations for analysis of uncertainties (Wang 2001, 2008). As a FFC model, GREET has numerous attractive features. GREET includes "a substantial combination of vehicle technologies and fuel types...[it] contains more than 85 fuel production pathways and more than 75 vehicle/fuel combinations" (Chien 2009, p. 50). GREET excels at calculating FFC vehicular emissions and is a powerful tool for energy policy analysis. GREET has been used for a number of key studies, including a Californian case study on meeting targeted greenhouse gas emissions reductions from transportation which used GREET to model the LCA of the carbon-content of fuels, leveraging GREET's strengths in fuel pathways and well-to-wheels analysis (Yang 2009). GREET is noted for its comprehensive coverage of fuel pathways, public availability, and relative transparency (McCollum 2009). For all its benefits, GREET has several notable flaws and limitations. A report by the UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies showed that GREET, compared to the Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM) exhibited serious deficiencies in analysis of cultivation and land-use change and its use of secondary sources instead of primary data for fuel cycle stage calculations (Delucchi 2003). Another paper from the Journal of Industrial Ecology that compares GREET to the Biofuel Energy Systems Simulator (BESS) and attempts to reconcile their different projects concludes that GREET has subpar corn ethanol modeling, and could be much improved by "endogenous calculation of on-farm energy use; explicit modeling of denaturant, especially natural gasoline; and better treatment of K2O and P2O5 fertilizer usage and lime production energy" (Plevin 2009, p. 504–505). These papers comparing GREET to more discipline-focused modeling systems conclude that GREET lacks modeling information for the minutiae of each respective field, and is generally inferior to the specialist variants. The NEMS Model The National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) is an economic model of US energy markets that was created by the DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) and was first used in 1993. It was designed "to

produce regular forecasts of energy production, consumption, imports/exports, and prices" (Lent 2010, p. 22). Its projections run through the year 2030, a time period in which experts are confident that "technology, demographics, and economic conditions are sufficiently understood in order to represent energy markets with a reasonable degree of confidence" (EIA 2009). NEMS projections are published annually in the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), a publicly available set of energy economy projections. NEMS is also used for numerous special analyses conducted at the request of the Administration, Congress, and other governmental agencies, analyses that vary from an analysis of crude oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to an assessment of the impacts of a 25 % renewable electricity standard (EIA 2009). NEMS has a large number of very beneficial mechanisms. Since energy demand and availability varies regionally, NEMS is a regionally-based model. To more reliably aggregate data for its projections, demand analysis modules are divided into regions coterminous with the nine US census divisions. The supply modules use differing regional divisions relevant to each resource, for example, the Electricity Market Module uses 15 supply regions based off of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) regions (EIA 2009). These divisions not only make it easier to effectively model energy markets (because relevant differences within regional boundaries are minimal), but makes it easier to gather data for projections by leveraging data aggregation from regionally-coterminous institutions. It is such a standard and accepted tool that many other models are calibrated to its forecasts (Wilkerson 2010). As Morrow et al. (2010) points out, this model also "enjoys a high degree of credibility among members of Congress when it comes to assessing energy policy options" (p. 1310). The authors also indicate that its popularity with governmental policymaking institutions make it an attractive choice for corporations and academia as well; many academic researchers also work with the national labs and policymaking agencies, and corporations whose activities are affected by policymaker projections often conduct their own independent assessments using the models they know policymakers favor. Nonetheless, NEMS has several key flaws. Morrow et al. point out that NEMS "could use more refinement include the modeling of feedbacks between transportation demand and oil prices, modeling more rapid technological change, modeling the impact of policies that explicitly required a lifecycle analysis of biofuels or regional electricity grids, integrating the influence of market-based incentives with technology adoption in conventional vehicles, and modeling the impact of volatility in energy markets on energy producer and consumer behavior" (p. 1317). Most of the above complaints involve the nature of NEMS' long-run projections that may fail to accurately describe short-run market phenomena, an issue for a modeling and forecasting tool that is often used to assess short-run energy economy behaviors. Comparison Both the GREET and NEMS models have valuable characteristics for potential policymaking. However, there are notable differences between the two models that make choosing between the two an important consideration. One area in which the two models differ is focus. Where NEMS models all demand sectors of the US economy tied to the energy supply sources, GREET models only vehicle lifecycle and fuel-cycles effectively (Chien, 2005).This means that while GREET is a powerful tool for modeling those key systems, it could not be used for modeling different energy sector systems, a task that NEMS excels at. Any choice of model has to address the question of scope; models that have a broad scope are often less effective in dealing with minutiae that specialist and narrowly-focused models can account for easily. Aside from the issue of scope, the issue of projections and expectations in accepted data sets is important. GREET uses its own projections of the energy production system, projections that are based off of assumptions and analyses conducted by Argonne researchers (Argonne 2007). NEMS, on the other hand, pulls data from various US services and departments, such as the Census Bureau (Chien 2005). In the current policy approach, NEMS is used to generate the AEO, and the projections in the AEO are then run through the GREET model to generate the FFC multipliers necessary for FFC analysis. As the proposed policy indicates, this is problematic. The assumptions made by GREET's designers in its input equations may not match the assumptions of the NEMS researchers who publish the AEO. This potential difference in

assumptions, which could involve anything from differing levels of optimism regarding fossil fuel reserves, technological availability, and vagaries of international economics, has the potential for introducing a great deal of error into the final data. Using the NEMS projections to generate the FFC multipliers for FFC analysis directly would circumvent this particular source of error. Both of the above models are well-regarded, and both have been used extensively in US energy policy analyses. The current proposed rule would remove GREET usage as a step in FFC analysis, replacing it with FFC multipliers derived solely from NEMS. While this swap would reduce the complexity of the modeling process and remove potential error caused by differing expectations, it would also change the focus and efficacy of modeling efforts as a whole. GREET excels at fuel cycle analysis and projections regarding the transportation sector, an important area to consider when formulating energy and emissions policies. A choice between NEMS and GREET is a choice between differing scopes (in terms of economic area, regional area, and temporal analysis), projections, and overall levels of complexity in economic analysis. References Argonne National Labs (2012). The GREET model. Retrieved from http://greet.es.anl.gov/ Argonne National Labs (2007). Operating manual for GREET: version 1.7. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/353.pdf Chien, D. (2005). U.S. transportation models forecasting greenhouse gas emissions: an evaluation from a user's perspective. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 8(2), 43-58. Coughlin, Katie (2012). A mathematical analysis of full fuel cycle energy use. Energy, 37(1), 698-708. Chwaowski, M. (1996). Critical questions about the full fuel cycle analysis. Journal of Energy Conversion and Management, 37, 1259-1263. Delucchi, M. (2003). A Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels, motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials. Retrieved from http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/9vr8s1bb Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Statement of Policy for Adopting Full-Fuel-Cycle Analyses Into Energy Conservation Standards Program, 77 Fed. Reg. 51281 (2011) (to be codified at 10 C.F.R. pt. 431). Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Notice of Policy Amendment Regarding Full-Fuel-Cycle Analyses, 77 Fed. Reg. 49701(2012) (to be codified at 10 C.F.R. pts. 430,431) Hogan, W. (2002). Energy modeling for policy studies. Journal of Operations Research, 50(1), 89-95. Lent, J. (2010). Statistics in a dynamic energy environment. Chance, 23(4), 22-28. McCollum, D., Yang, C. (2009). Achieving deep reductions in US transport greenhouse gas emissions: scenario analysis and policy implications. Journal of Energy Policy, 37, 5580-5596. Morrow, W. R. et al (2010). Analysis of policies to reduce oil consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions from the US transportation sector. Journal of Energy Policy, 38, 1305-1320. Plevin, R. (2009). Modeling corn ethanol and climate: a critical comparison of the BESS and GREET models. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(4), 495-507.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (2009). The national energy modeling system: an overview. Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/index.html Wang, M. Q. (2001). Operating development and use of GREET 1.6 fuel-cycle model for transportation fuels and vehicle technologies. Retrieved from http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/153.pdf Wang, M. Q. (2008). Publications of the GREET Model Development and Applications Center for Transportation Research Argonne National Laboratory. Retrieved from http://fgamedia.org/faculty/afirouzi/ENGR600/lesson08/reading/Argonne%20National%20Lab%20-%20GREET%20Model%20Development%20-%202008.pdf

Wilkerson, J. T. et al (2010). End use technology choice in the national energy modeling system (NEMS): an analysis of the residential and commercial buildings sectors. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/~wilkejt1/Documents/End%20Use%20Technology%20Choice%20in%20NEMS.pdf

Yang et al. (2009). Meeting an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 2050: A case study in California. Journal of Energy Policy, 14D, 147-156.

Memorandum

To: Dr. Derek Ross, Dr. Jo Mackiewicz, Dr. Stewart Whittemore From: Kirk Lundblade Date: 3/6/14 Re: Morae Manager instruction meta-analysis Keywords: Theory/Research (Document Design); Application (Document Design)

Introduction This memo presents my meta-analysis of the instructions I created to explain the process of creating study configurations using the Morae Manager software tool. The target audience for this set of instructions includes Auburn English students, and are in use in the Auburn English Department's IDEA Lab.

Goals and Design Process I had a number of different goals for this document; first and foremost, it is intended to join the existing IDEA Lab Morae guide. To that end, it must explain to Auburn English students how to perform a basic task in that particular piece of software. It must also be similar in overall design and syntactic structure to the existing instructions.

This document was designed using a multi-step process. First, I consulted with Dr. Whittemore on what kind of instructions he would like to see included in the lab manual. Next, I analyzed the existing instructions in the IDEA Lab manual. After completing these steps, I drafted an initial copy of my instructions, which were tested in-class using a paired testing think-aloud protocol. After Joel Kobzeff and Victoria Mayhall reviewed my instructions and provided feedback, I redesigned the instructions and submitted the final design to Dr. Ross.

Design Theories These instructions were created using basic principles of document design, one important step in this process involves building proper proximity into the document's various elements. This proximity guideline means that "elements that are intellectually connected, those that have some sort of communication relationship, should also be visually connected" (Williams, 2008, p. 21). This document uses white space between instructions to ensure that each step remains visually (and therefore intellectually) removed from the previous step, making moving from step to step a much more deliberate process. In addition, the color and distinct side bar also uses proximity to group ancillary information about the software and keep it separate from the actual procedure, a design idea that Kimball and Hawkins (2008) call enclosure (p. 35). The orange color for the sidebar was chosen because it matches the primary color of Auburn University, the organization that should be associated with this set of instructions and the lab it will be used in. In addition, according to Richards and David (2005), warm colors create action, which is definitely what this document wants to inspire in its readers (p. 39). The document uses three different typefaces, chosen according to principles from Eva Brumberger's The Rhetoric of Typography (2002). Arial is used for the sidebar text, and standard Times New Roman for the main instruction text. Both were chosen from the typeface sets Brumberger noted as being associated with directness, a key quality for instructions (p. 214). The third typeface is OCR A Extended, chosen to represent text elements from the program itself. Finally, this instruction design uses graphics the reader can associate with various steps in the process. In Markel's (2010) chapter on instruction design, he notes that it is important to clearly relate the graphics to the text with a design that helps the reader identify which graphic goes with which step. In this set of instructions, each figure is captioned, numbered, and referenced in bold within the relevant instruction step.

Works Cited Williams, R. (2008). The Non-Designer's Design Book. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press Hawkins, J. R. & Kimball, M. A. (2008). Document Design: A guide for technical communications. Boston,

MA: Bedford/St. Martin's Richards, A. R. & David, C. (2005). Decorative Color as a Rhetorical Enhancement on the World Wide Web,

14(1), 31-48. Brumberger, E. R. (2002). The Rhetoric of Typography : The Persona of Typeface and Text. Technical

Communication , 50(2), 206-2236. Markel, M. (2010). Technical Communication (9th ed.). New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martin's.

How to Create Study Configurations Using

Morae Manager Software

1. Choose Create a new

study configuration

from the pop-up menu or go

to File -> New ->

Study Configuration

when starting Morae

recorder. (Fig. 1)

2. Choose Modify Study

Details in the Default

Study pop-up. (Fig. 2) The

Study Details pop-up will

then appear.

3. Edit the Study Name, Study

Description, and Study

Details in the Study Details

pop-up (located under the

Description tab) by

clicking on the respective text

fields and typing in the

relevant information.

4. Click on the Task

Definitions tab to

modify Morae Manager's

tasks. You can then modify

tasks by clicking the Edit or

Add buttons on the right-

hand side of the pop-up. (Fig.

3)

Why would I create

custom studies in

Morae Manager?

Creating a custom

study allows you to

adapt the program to

your specific test by

specifying the survey

questions, tasks, and

other relevant

mechanisms prior to

actual testing. In

surveys with large

numbers of

participants, custom

study configurations

can save the test

designer considerable

time.

What are study

configurations?

In Manager, users

can edit or create

customized studies

with special markers,

tasks, and surveys.

These customized

studies are saved as

Study Configurations

(with the .mrcfg file

extension). These

files are then opened

when beginning a

study in Morae

Recorder.

Fig. 1 Creating a new study

Fig. 2 The Study Details pop-up

Fig. 3 Task Definitions

5. Edit the Name, Description, and Instructions

text fields for your custom task in the Task

Details pop-up. Repeat steps 4 and 5 until all

of your custom tasks have been entered and

defined.

6. Click on the Marker Definitions

tab to edit the markers. On this tab, you can

edit each marker's color, associated letter,

and definition by clicking on each item in

the marker table. (Fig. 4)

7. Click on the Survey Definitions tab

to add a survey, then click the Add button to

add a new survey. (Fig. 5)

8. Select whether the participant will be

prompted to take the survey at the beginning

of the test, after a specific task, or at the end

of the test from the drop-down Associate

with menu. (Fig. 6)

9. Click the Add button next to the survey

questions panel to add survey questions. The

Survey Question pop-up will appear.

Fig. 4 Marker Definitions

Fig. 5 Survey Definitions

Fig. 6 Creating a survey

10. Select the question type desired for your survey

in the survey question pop-up and follow the

example in the top-right to fill in the fields

required for your custom question. (Fig. 7)

11. Click OK on the Modify Study Details pop-up

when you are finished adding questions,

surveys, tasks, and markers. The Modify Study

Details pop-up will then close. Next, click Done

on the New Study pop-up, which will then close.

12. Name the study and save it to the Shared_IDEA

LAB directory after being prompted to save the

study configuration.

13. Open Morae Recorder and choose your study

configuration from the pop-up window if you

want to use your new study configuration.

14. You have now created your own custom study

configuration for your usability test!

Fig. 7 Survey Questions