SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Environmental Protection”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2016

Environmental Performance Report 2015

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities for 2015, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have affected or could adversely affect the health, safety, and security of the public or workers; the environment; or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report and is prepared in accordance with the DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2017

Environmental Performance Report 2016

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities for 2016, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have affected or could adversely affect the health, safety, and security of the public or workers; the environment; or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report and is prepared in accordance with the DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2017

The attractive concept of simplicity in environmental impact assessment: Perceptions of outcomes in southeastern Brazil

Pressures are mounting for the simplification of environmental impact assessment (EIA). This phenomenon is drawing increasing scholarly attention, but studies have not gone far beyond speculating what could happen as a result of recently implemented or proposed regulatory changes. This paper takes a more longitudinal look at simplified EIAs. The main objective was to analyze the perceived outcomes of a number of simplified EIA processes, using Brazil as the empirical context. More specifically, this paper aimed at understanding: 1) how simplified EIAs have been conceptualized and implemented in southeastern Brazil; and 2) how developers and civil servants in that region perceive the outcomes of simplified EIAs. This study adopted a sequential mixed method research approach. Data was collected through literature reviews, 261 telephone-based interviews and 10 face-to-face interviews. Degrees of EIA simplification can vary significantly within and across jurisdictions. In any case, simplification is often framed as a win-win solution to EIA ineffectiveness, through which regulatory and procedural changes are made to ease the process, while, at the same time, maintaining or providing better environmental protection. This approach is more frequently applied to potentially low-impact processes. Chi-square tests of the data collected through telephone interviews in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais indicated that developers tend to perceive EIA processes as difficult and slow regardless of how simplified it is. Most civil servants, who were directly involved in the implementation of simplified EIAs in state environmental agencies, argued that simplified EIAs are driven mostly by environmental agencies, as these institutions have long been unable to cope with an ever-increasing load of license applications. Policy outcomes of simplified EIAs in the territory are not sufficiently monitored by state agencies. Civil servants revealed concerns about the potential long term effects of EIA simplification on the ground, as they have had limited resources for audits and inspections. - Highlights: •Simplified EIA is conceptualized. •We analyze how simplified EIA is implemented and perceived in Brazil. •Developers perceived EIA as difficult and slow regardless of how simplified it was. •State agencies' low institutional capacity is a key driver of simplification. •Policy outcomes of simplified EIAs in the territory are not monitored.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2018

Greece's reformed EIA system: Evaluating its implementation and potential

Highlights: • Greek nationwide multidimensional EIA System effectiveness evaluation study • Innovation of reform: a central Electronic Environmental Registry (e-ER) • e-ER manages and publish results of the EIA, EMS and Inspection processes. • There is a chasm between new legal provisions and implementation in practice. • Results indicate persistent poor-quality EIA, bureaucracy, lack of transparency. - Abstract: The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by the Greek government and the troika in 2010 contained numerous austerity policies and requirements for administrative reforms, among which is that of the national Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system. Complying with this requirement, Law4014/2011 was passed, aiming at reducing bureaucracy and increasing the country's appeal to investors whilst ensuring environmental protection. The present paper provides the first systematic, multi-scale and multidimensional evaluation of the effectiveness of the new EIA system. The evaluation is based firstly on the results of a Pan-Hellenic survey, involving key EIA consultants and authorities; secondly, on additional, in-depth interviews with EIA specialists, National- Ministry and Regional EIA Authorities; and thirdly, on the content review of 105 Environmental Impact statements. The results highlight the persistence of serious problems despite the reform of the Hellenic EIA System. The data reveal a significant discrepancy between what is set out in law and the actual practice. Although Law 4014/2011 contains progressive and innovative elements (such as adopting a life cycle approach to the EIA process, and mandating the development and use of a central Electronic Environmental Registry (e-ER) to manage and publish results of the EIA process), the recorded failure to implement them in practice results in a non-transparent and ineffective EIA system. Recommendations for improvement are proposed as well as areas for further research.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2019

Recent Regulatory Challenges Associated with Managing NORM and TENORM Waste Streams in the United States - 19609

Recent regulatory changes in several states in the United States (U.S.) have introduced new challenges to industries impacted with naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) and/or technologically enhanced NORM (TENORM) requiring innovative solutions. Because NORM and TENORM are specifically exempt from U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, the onus falls on the 50 states to regulate their use and disposal. Over the past 10 years, regulations applying to NORM and TENORM have been drafted, passed, or updated in multiple states, including North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and West Virginia to name a few. Solutions and lessons learned before and during the recent regulatory changes for a variety of clients, including specialty metals, mining, and oil and gas (O and G), are presented. In addition, the design and implementation of the comprehensive study of NORM/TENORM associated with conventional and unconventional O and G production activities in Pennsylvania on behalf of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is presented, and the development of analytical solutions and waste processes designed to minimize the impact of the new regulations while maintaining compliance is discussed. (author)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Conventional and Next Generation Treatment Technologies for PFAS - 20067

In 2016, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established a Health Advisory Limit (HAL) for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) (individually and the summation) of 70 nanograms per liter (ng/L) based on developing toxicological information. These two compounds are among several thousand per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Due to a multitude of commercially beneficial physical and chemical properties, the availability of PFAS-relevant and practical water treatment technologies is limited. The use of conventional adsorbents, such as activated carbon (AC) and anion exchange (AIX) resins, have become a 'de facto' interim measure to immediately address drinking water above this criterion. However, these adsorbents can have marginal long-term efficiency and are relatively unproven against the diversity of polyfluorinated compounds. Additionally, geochemical and/or co-contaminant competition can significantly impede adsorption based PFAS removal. These challenges may be addressed using engineered filtration, such as reverse osmosis or nanofiltration (RO/NF); however, for larger flow systems RO/NF may have unacceptable reject ratios as high as 35% and the capital cost may preclude these technologies. Extending these technologies to natural waters, which have various degrees of geochemical and co-contaminant competition, often requires a treatment train, combining conventional adsorbents or engineered filtration with pretreatment and more innovative and emerging remediation solutions for PFAS. Conventional and Next Generation water treatment technologies for PFAS generally employ one of three mechanisms (adsorption, separation, or destruction). These mechanisms include many types of technologies for both municipal drinking water and extracted natural water applications. The previously mentioned AC, AIX, and RO/NF are commercially available technologies that are actively being deployed for PFAS treatment. Research and development around these technologies is focused on optimization, and ultimate destruction of PFAS is achieved through incineration. Next Generation water treatment technologies include PFAS-specific flocculants, foam fractionation, novel AIX resins, new engineered adsorptive media, electrochemical treatment, sonolysis, and photolysis, radiation, and plasma (forms of advanced reductive processes [ARP]). Research and development around these technologies is focused on proof of concept and assimilation to real world applications. As the PFAS-relevant destructive technologies (such as incineration, electrochemical treatment, sonolysis, and ARP) are energy intensive, the state of the practice for PFAS water treatment is to focus adsorption/separation based technologies on reducing and concentrating the volume of water requiring destructive treatment. This enables more flexibility with respect to circulation frequency, residence time, and more control over energy usage. Water treatment for PFAS presently requires multiple technologies (i.e. a treatment train) to protect human health in a cost-conscious manner. An investment in research and development to explore new technologies is part of a key initiative for efficient protection of human health. This presentation attempts to review PFAS-relevant water treatment technologies and provide perspective as to their status with respect to applicability and commercial relevance. (authors)

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗

DOE OSTI2018

2017 Site Annual Environmental Report

The purposes of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Report 2017 are to record Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL’s) compliance with environmental standards and requirements, describe LLNL’s environmental protection and remediation programs, and present the results of environmental monitoring at the two LLNL sites— the Livermore Site and Site 300. The report is prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by LLNL’s Environmental Functional Area. Submittal of the report satisfies requirements under DOE Order 231.1B, “ Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” and DOE Order 458.1, “Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment.”

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2017

NESHAP Dose-Release Factor Isopleths for Five Source-to-Receptor Distances from the Center of Site and H-Area for all Compass Sectors at SRS using CAP88-PC Version 4.0

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2017

NESHAP Area-Specific Dose-Release Factors for Potential Onsite Member-of-the-Public Locations at SRS using CAP88-PC Version 4.0

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires the use of the computer model CAP88-PC to estimate the total effective doses (TED) for demonstrating compliance with 40 CFR 61, Subpart H (EPA 2006), the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations. As such, CAP88 Version 4.0 was used to calculate the receptor dose due to routine atmospheric releases at the Savannah River Site (SRS). For estimation, NESHAP dose-release factors (DRFs) have been supplied to Environmental Compliance and Area Closure Projects (EC&ACP) for many years. DRFs represent the dose to a maximum receptor exposed to 1 Ci of a specified radionuclide being released into the atmosphere. They are periodically updated to include changes in the CAP88 version, input parameter values, site meteorology, and location of the maximally exposed individual (MEI). In this report, the DRFs were calculated for potential radionuclide atmospheric releases from 13 SRS release points. The three potential onsite MEI locations to be evaluated are B-Area, Three Rivers Landfill (TRL), and Savannah River Ecology Lab Conference Center (SRELCC) with TRL’s onsite workers considered as members-of-the-public, and the potential future constructions of dormitories at SRELCC and Barracks at B-Area. Each MEI location was evaluated at a specified compass sector with different area to receptor distances and was conducted for both ground-level and elevated release points. The analysis makes use of area-specific meteorological data (Viner 2014). The resulting DRFs are compared to the 2014 NESHAP offsite MEI DRFs for three operational areas; A-Area, H-Area, and COS for a release rate of 1 Ci of tritium oxide at 0 ft. elevation. CAP88 was executed again using the 2016 NESHAP MEI release rates for 0 and 61 m stack heights to determine the radionuclide dose at TRL from the center-of-site (COS).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 12: Effective Aspects of the 2016 Consent Order between DOE-EM-LA Field Office - NM Environment Department and Identifying Comparable Approaches

This panel focused on the extremely effective 2016 Compliance Order on Consent executed between the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management - Los Alamos Field Office (EM-LA) and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and highlights practices and concepts toward developing an environmental compliance agreement that is mutually productive to both the NMED and the DOE. To further demonstrate successful practices, the panel also highlighted another very effective compliance agreement with comparable approaches - the 1993 Savannah River Site (SRS) Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) executed between DOE, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EM-LA, NMED, SRS, and SCDHEC representatives provided attendees an opportunity to understand and compare extremely effective approaches to regulatory compliance across the complex.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2017

A summary of the results from the DOE advanced gas reactor (AGR) fuel development and qualification program

Modular high temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) designs were developed to provide natural safety, which prevents core damage under all licensing basis events. The principle that guides their design concepts is to passively maintain core temperatures below fission product release thresholds under all accident scenarios. The required level of fuel performance and fission product retention reduces the radioactive source term by many orders of magnitude relative to source terms for other reactor types and allows a graded approach to emergency planning and the potential elimination of the need for evacuation and sheltering beyond a small exclusion area. Achieving this level, however, is predicated on exceptionally high coated-particle fuel fabrication quality and excellent performance under normal operation and accident conditions. The design goal of modular HTGRs is to meet the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Action Guides (PAGs) for offsite dose at the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB). To achieve this, the reactor design concepts require a level of fuel integrity that is far better than that achieved for all prior U.S.-manufactured tristructural isotropic (TRISO) coated particle fuel.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, UMTRCA Title I Disposal Site 35 Years Postclosure (1985-2020) - 20288

The DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM) Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, Disposal Site is a former uranium ore-processing site located in the borough of Canonsburg and an important part of US history. For 46 years (1911-1957), the site processed ore, for vanadium, radium and then uranium. Soils and groundwater beneath the site were contaminated by the milling operations. The 15-hectare (37-acre) site is owned by the US government and managed by LM, which serves as the federal land manager and steward of cultural, historical, and natural resources at Cold War legacy sites that have been successfully cleaned up to remedial standards. In 1978 Congress directed DOE to remediate 22 inactive uranium-ore processing sites under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA), in accordance with standards promulgated by the US Environmental Protection Agency in Title 40 CFR Part 192 (40 (CFR 192). Subpart B of 40 CFR 192 regulates the cleanup of contaminated groundwater at the processing sites. The radioactive materials were encapsulated in US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved disposal cells, and the NRC general license for UMTRCA Title I sites is established in 10 CFR 40.27. Canonsburg was the first site to be remediated under UMTRCA. From 1983 to 1985, the Canonsburg site underwent cleanup under this US law that provides for the safe and environmentally sound disposal, long-term stabilization, and control of uranium mill tailings in a manner that minimizes or eliminates radiation health hazards to the public. The site is unique in that it is one of only two UMTRCA Title I sites in the eastern half of the United States, the other site being the Burrell, Pennsylvania, Title I Disposal Site, a vicinity property to the Canonsburg site. It has been 35 years since the disposal cell at the Canonsburg site was completed. This paper discusses the many efforts that have been taken to maintain the site and presents some of the lessons learned concerning the long-term care of the site. The discussion includes but is not limited to the following: (1) Preserving site history so the community can better appreciate and understand the site. (2) Community outreach efforts, and the importance of maintaining transparency of environmental monitoring results with the community. (3) Pursuing reuse opportunities that offer the potential for improving the community. (4) Remaining engaged with the local community. (5) Remaining proactive in the long-term care of the site. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2017

A review on technological options of waste to energy for effective management of municipal solid waste

Highlights: • The current status, options and challenges of WTE techniques were analysed. • Incineration is the most widely used WTE technology in the developed countries. • Landfilling is the most common practice of MSWM in developing countries. • Approximately 50 million tonnes of methane is emitted annually from landfills. • WTE will ensure both the energy security and environmental protection. - Abstract: Approximately one-fourth population across the world rely on traditional fuels (kerosene, natural gas, biomass residue, firewood, coal, animal dung, etc.) for domestic use despite significant socioeconomic and technological development. Fossil fuel reserves are being exploited at a very fast rate to meet the increasing energy demands, so there is a need to find alternative sources of energy before all the fossil fuel reserves are depleted. Waste to energy (WTE) can be considered as a potential alternative source of energy, which is economically viable and environmentally sustainable. The present study reviewed the current global scenario of WTE technological options (incineration, pyrolysis, gasification, anaerobic digestion, and landfilling with gas recovery) for effective energy recovery and the challenges faced by developed and developing countries. This review will provide a framework for evaluating WTE technological options based on case studies of developed and developing countries. Unsanitary landfilling is the most commonly practiced waste disposal option in the developing countries. However, developed countries have realised the potential of WTE technologies for effective municipal solid waste management (MSWM). This review will help the policy makers and the implementing authorities involved in MSWM to understand the current status, challenges and barriers for effective management of municipal solid waste. This review concluded WTE as a potential renewable source of energy, which will partly meet the energy demand and ensure effective MSWM.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2017

2016 Annual Site Environmental report Sandia National Laboratories Tonopah Test Range Nevada & Kaua'i Test Facility Hawai'i.

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) under contract DE-NA0003525. The DOE/NNSA Sandia Field Office administers the contract and oversees contractor operations at the SNL, Tonopah Test Range (SNL/TTR) in Nevada and the SNL, Kaua‘i Test Facility (SNL/KTF) in Hawai‘i. SNL personnel manage and conduct operations at SNL/TTR in support of the DOE/NNSA’s Weapons Ordnance Program and have operated the site since 1957. Navarro Research and Engineering personnel perform most of the environmental programs activities at SNL/TTR. The DOE/NNSA/Nevada Field Office retains responsibility for cleanup and management of SNL/TTR Environmental Restoration sites. SNL personnel operate SNL/KTF as a rocket preparation launching and tracking facility. This Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) summarizes data and the compliance status of sustainability, environmental protection, and monitoring programs at SNL/TTR and SNL/KTF during calendar year 2016. Major environmental programs include air quality, water quality, groundwater protection, terrestrial and biological surveillance, waste management, pollution prevention, environmental restoration, oil and chemical spill prevention, and implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. This ASER is prepared in accordance with and as required by DOE O 231.1B, Admin Change 1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2018

WIPP PA Sensitivity Studies in Support of CRA-2014 Completeness Determination and Compliance Decision - 18209

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) has been developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the geologic (deep underground) disposal of transuranic (TRU) waste. Containment of TRU waste at the WIPP is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The DOE demonstrates compliance with the containment requirements by means of performance assessment (PA) calculations. WIPP PA calculations estimate the probability and consequence of potential radionuclide releases from the repository to the accessible environment for a regulatory period of 10,000 years after facility closure. Since TRU waste was first received at the WIPP in 1999, compliance recertification applications (CRAs) have been required by the EPA on five-year cycle. The latest CRA (CRA-2014) was submitted by the DOE to the EPA in 2014. As part of the application, a formal set of PA calculations (CRA-2014 PA) was performed and results were documented in detail. The CRA-2014 PA incorporated several parameter updates based on new data, as well as the implementation of a different model for panel closures, barriers planned for the opening of each waste panel. The results presented as part of the CRA-2014 showed via the required complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) release curves that the estimated releases were within compliance limits. As part of their process for reviewing the completeness of the CRA-2014 [1], the EPA formally requested that the DOE perform sensitivity studies based on EPA-requested changes to model parameters. The DOE performed and documented the results of three sensitivity studies described below: CRA14-SEN2 [2], CRA14-SEN3 [3], and CRA14-SEN4 [4]. In each case, the new analysis results were compared to CRA- 2014 PA (CRA14) results to determine the impact of the EPA-requested changes. CRA14-SEN2: the application of EPA-requested modified parameters in the operations and experimental (non-waste) areas of the repository to simulate an accelerated (instantaneous) creep closure, the inclusion of capillary pressure effects on relative permeability, and an increase in initial/residual brine saturation and residual gas saturation. The modifications to the repository model resulted in increased pressures and decreased brine saturations in waste areas and increased pressures and brine saturations in the operations and experimental areas. However, the overall effects on total high-probability mean releases from the repository were entirely insignificant. It was concluded that the modeling assumptions associated with the operations and experimental areas of the repository have an insignificant effect on the prediction of total releases from the repository and/or adequacy of the current (CRA14) model to demonstrate compliance with the regulatory limits. CRA14-SEN3: the application of EPA-requested modified parameters in the panel closure areas and operations and experimental (non-waste) areas of the repository to simulate an accelerated (instantaneous) creep closure, the inclusion of capillary pressure effects on relative permeability, and an increase in initial/residual brine saturation and residual gas saturation. The modifications to the repository model predominantly result in increased pressures and decreased brine saturations in waste areas, increased pressures and brine saturations in the operations and experimental areas, and decreased brine and gas flows across all panel closures. The pressure increases in repository waste regions yielded slightly decreased brine saturations (on average) in those areas. However, the overall effects on total high-probability mean releases from the repository are entirely insignificant. It was concluded that the modeling assumptions made for this sensitivity study which were associated with the panel closures and north end areas of the repository have only a small effect on the prediction of total releases from the repository and/or adequacy of the current (CRA14) model to demonstrate compliance with the regulatory limits. CRA14-SEN4: the application of several changes to the current WIPP PA model (CRA14), including: parameter changes, use of an updated code, and a revised computational grid for the BRAGFLO code. The modifications to the repository model resulted in increased releases in all primary release mechanisms. The impacts of each EPA-requested change to CRA14 were analyzed with respect to each release mechanism in the CRA14-SEN4 study. Overall, total high-probability predicted mean releases from the repository were increased by about 15%. Total low-probability predicted mean releases were increased by about 107%. It was concluded that the EPA-requested changes to the CRA14 result in increases to the predicted total releases from the repository. However, releases calculated in the CRA14-SEN4 analysis remained below regulatory limits, demonstrating continued compliance of the WIPP. In January 2017, the EPA determined that CRA-2014 was complete and then began a technical evaluation of CRA-2014 to determine whether the WIPP continued to comply with the radiation protection standards for disposal. During their evaluation, the EPA utilized the sensitivity study results to inform their ultimate determination in July 2017 that the WIPP continues to comply with regulatory standards. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2016

Transfer and Transition: Interagency Coordination for Managing Public Lands at UMTRCA Title II Sites in Wyoming - 16614

By the end of fiscal year 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) is anticipating adding 17 sites remediated under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) to the current inventory of 90 sites that it manages. Among the new sites are ones where federal public lands occur within the proposed long-term care boundary, the boundary determined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and LM as necessary to maintain site protectiveness for the entombed uranium mill tailings and residual groundwater contamination. For these sites, public land withdrawals for land and minerals will need to be established. LM's primary mission at UMTRCA sites is to protect the public and the environment from exposure to contamination at the sites. For the sites with public lands or federally controlled minerals that will be transferring to LM, the Office will apply to the Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for new, public land and mineral withdrawals. At most current LM UMTRCA sites that involved public lands and minerals, DOI granted DOE 'full administrative jurisdiction' and permanent withdrawals. Hence, these withdrawals are, permanently, no longer subject to public land, mining, and mineral-leasing laws and regulations. LM is coordinating with DOI/BLM in Wyoming to permanently withdraw full and partial jurisdiction at future UMTRCA Title II sites in that state. This approach would allow LM to fully administer surface lands and minerals, where necessary, and DOI and LM to administer surface lands and leasable minerals where it would not jeopardize sites' radiological safety and long-term public and environmental protection. This 'shared-jurisdiction approach' will meet LM's strategic goal of protecting human health and the environment but also allow BLM to fulfill their mission to 'manage and conserve the lands under the mandate of multiple-use and sustained yield'. In addition, LM could also fulfill the fourth goal of its Strategic Plan, to optimize land use and assets. The portions of the sites where LM will ask for full jurisdiction are those that contain the disposal cell and any adjacent lands and minerals required to maintain and protect it. It is anticipated that the shared jurisdiction portion of the withdrawal would largely coincide with land where known or projected contaminated groundwater from the past ore processing exists or will migrate over time. Examples of BLM-authorized activities on the shared jurisdiction portions of the withdrawals may include livestock grazing, wildlife habitat improvement projects, recreation, and rights of ways for roads, pipelines, utilities, and communication sites. In addition, BLM could authorize subsurface uses such as oil and gas, coal, or geothermal development or groundwater pumping from deeper aquifers if the proposal would not disturb groundwater contamination. For areas of the withdrawal where the agencies will share jurisdictional authority, DOE LM and BLM will develop an interagency agreement (IA) to define acceptable uses and associated roles and responsibilities. To ensure maximum protection of human health and the environment, each site's IA will include a provision allowing DOE LM the right of first refusal against any action it believes might affect radiological safety at the site. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2018

Unique Facilities, Innovative Treatment Processes, and a Talented Workforce Allow Fluor Idaho to Successfully Disposition Transuranic Waste - 18388

Fluor Idaho is utilizing state-of-the-art equipment, treatment technologies, and employee expertise at the Department of Energy's (DOE) Idaho Site to treat contact-handled transuranic (CH-TRU) waste, as well as extremely challenging remote-handled transuranic (RH-TRU) waste forms, to prepare the material for shipment and permanent disposal at the Department's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Nowhere else in the DOE Complex - perhaps the world - will one find the compilation of tools and an experienced workforce with an unparalleled history of safely retrieving, characterizing, treating, repackaging, certifying, and shipping TRU waste. Since 2003, the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project (AMWTP) has used both conventional and unique retrieval concepts, high-tech characterization equipment - including real-time radiography and radioassay - robotics, and automated treatment processes to retrieve and treat 65,000 cubic meters of above-ground CH-TRU waste. Additionally, engineered controls and specialized personal protective equipment have allowed employees to make thousands of entries into high-radiation areas without a skin or clothing contamination incident - evidence of the employees' commitment to safety. AMWTP has encountered and found solutions for many challenging waste forms, including polychlorinated biphenyl-contaminated wastes, TRU waste containers with up to 1,000 fissile gram equivalent plutonium-239, oversized TRU boxes, and partially absorbed organic sludge waste. By utilizing additional facilities and equipment at the Accelerated Retrieval Project V and VII, Fluor Idaho has developed new processing lines and capabilities to ensure worker safety and milestone completion. These two soft-sided buildings, located at a facility adjacent to AMWTP, were originally constructed to exhume Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) TRU wastes from a section of a 97-acre landfill. After a total of 1,150 cubic meters of targeted waste were removed, personnel, working in collaboration with state regulators, successfully implemented a unique regulatory strategy that allowed these CERCLA facilities to be modified and permitted to treat Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) wastes from the AMWTP - a savings of tens of millions of dollars over the cost of constructing new buildings. Adding to the AMWTP's technological uniqueness is its ability to treat wastes from other facilities in the DOE Complex. Two prior decision documents and an agreement with the state of Idaho have allowed AMWTP to treat wastes from 15 other DOE sites. It is the only project in the complex to have done so. At another project located next to AMWTP, targeted waste exhumation within the Subsurface Disposal Area is approximately two years ahead of schedule. Crews have removed more than 8,600 cubic meters of CH-TRU and hazardous wastes from eight exhumation areas that equal a combined footprint of 4.75 acres. Less than one acre remains to be exhumed to satisfy the 2008 Record of Decision waste exhumation end state between the DOE, Environmental Protection Agency, and state of Idaho. Construction of the final building where targeted waste exhumation will continue was completed during the summer of 2017. Exhumation will be completed within the next few years. Following exhumation completion, an evapotranspiration barrier (or cap) will be constructed over the entire landfill. Fluor Idaho continues to make progress on a more challenging project involving an inventory of RH-TRU waste that also contains the reactive metal sodium. Crews are utilizing hot cells, once used for spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and high-level waste treatment at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, to render this challenging waste form safe for disposal in a national geologic waste repository. The treatment methods being employed on this RH-TRU waste are unique in the DOE Complex. Minute concentrations of water are sprayed onto the sodium-contaminated material in a process called 'spritzing' to chemically change the sodium from a reactive metal to a non-reactive salt. In other cases, sodium-contaminated waste is dipped in water to initiate a reaction in a process called 'immersion.' Lastly, for more challenging waste shapes that could not be successfully treated with the two prior methods, crews lower the sodium-contaminated RH-TRU waste into a one-of-a-kind distillation unit that uses high temperature and vacuum to volatilize the sodium and recapture it in a condenser unit for disposal. The RH-TRU waste treated with this technology is then safe for permanent disposal. Fluor Idaho is proud to operate DOE's CH- and RH-TRU waste treatment facilities, as well as use innovative processes and its talented workforce to complete this important work-scope. Such capabilities allow the contractor to meet the commitments made by the DOE to the state of Idaho. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2015

2014 Annual Site Environmental Report for Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico

Sandia National Laboratories is a multiprogram laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation (Sandia), a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. This Annual Site Environmental Report summarizes data and the compliance status of Sandia’s sustainability, environmental protection, and monitoring programs at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, during calendar year 2014. Major environmental programs include air quality, water quality, groundwater protection, terrestrial surveillance, waste management, pollution prevention, environmental restoration, oil and chemical spill prevention, and implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental monitoring and surveillance programs are required by DOE O 231.1B, Change 1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting .

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗