Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Cultural resources”

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

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

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Steen's photographs of Bandelier, NM

The intention of this document is to provide photographs and captions of Bandelier National Monument (BNM) to BNM resources management staff. All of the photograph slides and captions were accessed into the Los Alamos National Laboratory archives because the photographer, Charlie Steen, was a former Laboratory archaeologist. Included in this document, you will find twenty-six images of scanned photograph slides and captions captured and recorded by Charlie Steen in the 1970s at Bandelier National Monument. Not all of the eighteen images have captions, and some photographs were captioned as a group rather than individually. We are sharing these photographs with you for your cultural resources records. The images are organized by Steen’s slide number codification.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Risk to Ecological Resources on Burial Waste Sites on the Hanford Site, Washington - 20248

The US and other nations have a large nuclear and chemical waste remediation task remaining from World War II, the Cold War, and industrial activities. The US Department of Energy (DOE) has the largest task in the U.S., with Hanford (Washington State) being the most contaminated site, with the longest and most costly cleanup program projected to extend to the end of the century. One of the greatest remediation problems at Hanford are the burial waste facilities, some of which are inside the 200 Areas on the Central Plateau, while others are outside the 200 Areas. These areas are associated with waste sites, pipes, and contaminated trenches, posing technical cleanup challenges to meet DoE's remediation goals, including protection of human health and the environment commensurate with Tri- Party Agreement and current regulatory requirements. In this paper we select one of the legacy waste sites (the BC Cribs and Trenches) as a case study to explore how risk to ecological resources varies during and as a consequence of remediation on sites primarily considered legacy waste sites. We used the risk methodology developed by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) during the Hanford Site-wide Risk Review. The CRESP methodology included evaluating the risk to receptors, including human health, the Columbia River, groundwater, and ecological and cultural resources. The risk evaluation process for ecological receptors included defining the boundaries of each evaluation unit (EU) to be remediated, definition of a suitable buffer area that might be affected, and consideration of the known resource value based on field work. This information, coupled with known remediation options or strategies, allowed us to develop a risk rating for ecological resources. Site risks were evaluated on a scale of 'not discernible' to 'very high' risk. Consideration of the risks at the buried waste sites was complicated by uncertainties in remediation methods and the degree of restoration that would occur as part of the remediation process. We use the BC Cribs and Trenches as a case study to explore why the risks are low currently but increase during remediation. The current 'not discernible to low' risk rating is due to the lack of high quality ecological resources on the BC Cribs and Trenches EU, except for edge areas (with some state-listed species). During remediation the risks increase to 'medium', mainly due to high quality resources on adjacent buffer lands, which could be disrupted during active remediation. Medium and high quality resources on the edge of the site are continuous with higher quality native shrub-steppe habitat on the buffer. Ecological resources on some of the areas surrounding the 200 East and West Areas are some of the highest quality shrub-steppe areas on the Hanford Site, and risk to these resources could be prevented by planning before and during remediation to minimize disruption. For example, lay down areas for the BC Cribs and Trenches can be minimized by careful planning. Heavy truck and other vehicular traffic can be minimized. Spread of the noxious weeds now on some of the site can be prevented, and the spread of invasive species into the site (particularly near undisturbed shrub-steppe habitat) can be reduced. Further, the areas around and between the 200 East and West Areas have been largely undisturbed and can serve as a source of seeds and propagules for any revegetation that occurs as part of the remediation process. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Non-Technical Barriers to Geothermal Development in California and Nevada

Geothermal project development in the United States may be subject to numerous permits, authorizations, and other regulatory requirements at the federal, state, and local level, which are necessary to address potential environmental and resource impacts at geothermal project sites. This report presents the findings of our study, including an analysis of federal, state, and local geothermal regulatory and permitting processes, case studies analyzing site-specific attributes that may impact project development at four selected geothermal project sites, an analysis of cost and timeline implications for geothermal project development, and the results of a qualitative study focused on inter-agency coordination and collaboration efforts between federal, state, and/or local agencies for geothermal projects located in California and Nevada. Our analysis found that development timelines may be impacted by multiple federal and state environmental review processes and duplicative permitting requirements as well as coordination efforts between numerous federal, state, and local agencies involved in issuing authorizations and permits necessary for project development. In addition, projects in California and Nevada may face site-specific environmental challenges due to the presence of sensitive resources (e.g., biological species and species habitat, cultural resources) that may result in project construction delays. Our study results also indicate that protracted geothermal development timelines caused by delays in acquiring necessary permits and environmental reviews may result in loss of generated electricity revenue and additional financing costs, which may increase economic uncertainty associated with project development. Through our qualitative analysis, we found that utilization of best practices, including tiering to existing environmental review documents and developing memoranda of understanding, which clearly delineate agency roles and responsibilities may reduce overall project timelines, costs, and uncertainties associated with geothermal project development in California and Nevada.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Non-Technical Barriers to Geothermal Development in California and Nevada [Slides]

This presentation presents the findings of our study, including an analysis of federal, state, and local geothermal regulatory and permitting processes, case studies analyzing site-specific attributes that may impact project development at four selected geothermal project sites, an analysis of cost and timeline implications for geothermal project development, and the results of a qualitative study focused on inter-agency coordination and collaboration efforts between federal, state, and/or local agencies for geothermal projects located in California and Nevada. Our analysis found that development timelines may be impacted by multiple federal and state environmental review processes and duplicative permitting requirements as well as coordination efforts between numerous federal, state, and local agencies involved in issuing authorizations and permits necessary for project development. In addition, projects in California and Nevada may face site-specific environmental challenges due to the presence of sensitive resources (e.g., biological species and species habitat, cultural resources) that may result in project construction delays. Our study results also indicate that protracted geothermal development timelines caused by delays in acquiring necessary permits and environmental reviews may result in loss of generated electricity revenue and additional financing costs, which may increase economic uncertainty associated with project development. Through our qualitative analysis, we found that utilization of best practices, including tiering to existing environmental review documents and developing memoranda of understanding, which clearly delineate agency roles and responsibilities may reduce overall project timelines, costs, and uncertainties associated with geothermal project development in California and Nevada.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Eligibility Assessment of Items in the TA-60 Rack Assembly and Alignment Complex Legacy Storage Yard

The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Field Office (NA-LA), documented and evaluated seven structures in the Technical Area 60 (TA-60) Rack Assembly and Alignment Complex (RAAC) legacy storage yard at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or Laboratory) for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). This documentation and evaluation was conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 800); the Programmatic Agreement among the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Field Office, the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Concerning Management of the Historic Properties at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos New Mexico (PA)1; and A Plan for the Management of the Cultural Heritage at Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico (LANL’s Cultural Resources Management Plan (2017). NA-LA makes the following National Register eligibility determinations: la cuna; the rack transporter (jeep, rack trailer, and steering dolly); the Mexia diagnostic rack; the Mexia device canister; the Mexia device mounting stand; and the Mexia target stand are eligible for listing in the National Register, and the second steering dolly is not eligible for listing in the National Register. This National Register evaluation was completed because LANL proposes to develop a consolidated waste facility in TA-60 next to the former RAAC. Across 3.56 acres, LANL proposes to construct an 8,000-square-foot, pre-engineered waste storage building; a 1,500-square-foot office/warehouse building; and 28,500 square feet of covered storage. The development will also include access control features and fencing, parking spaces, and utilities. Additionally, the Laboratory will continue to use the southern part of TA-60-0017 and reuse TA-60-0086 and TA-60-0324 in the development. The consolidated waste facility will operate as a central accumulation area—storing universal waste, mixed low-level (radioactive) waste, hazardous chemicals, and New Mexico special waste—until the waste can be shipped off site.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Comprehensive Land Use and Environmental Stewardship

Comprehensive Land Use and Environmental Stewardship (CLUES) Report serves as a summary document of the land use and environmental stewardship activities occurring on the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site (Desert) and the Research and Education Campus (REC) within Idaho Falls. Land and facility use planning and decisions at the INL Site are guided by a comprehensive planning process in accordance with the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) Order 430.1C, “Real Property Asset Management,” which states "Establish a data-driven, risk-informed, performance-based approach to the life-cycle management of real property assets that aligns the real property portfolio with DOE mission needs; acquire, manage, positively account for, and dispose of real property assets in a safe, secure, cost-effective, and sustainable manner; and ensure the real property portfolio is appropriately sized, aligned, and in the proper condition to support efficient mission execution." Land use planning, like Campus Master Planning and 5-Year Facility Planning, provides a means for better, more sustainable use of the INL Site in a coordinated effort to ensure current and future mission needs are met, including acquisition, recapitalization, maintenance, disposition, real property utilization and long-term stewardship. This document and all functions of INL are guided by the DOE Vision for INL and the INL Mission and builds on the baseline established in the FY 2015 CLUES Report. However, it delivers a revised structure with focus on new resource management zones, which provide organization of key management considerations and access restrictions to optimize land use and environmental stewardship. A new set of thematic Guiding Principles presented in this report provide the intent and sustainable management direction to protect the INL Site natural environment. They demonstrate that the mission and vision of DOE and INL can be realized with inclusion of first of a kind technology, private sector development, and globally recognized testing and demonstration. This CLUES Report encourages comprehensive management decision-making with additional resource discussions for sustainability, the built environment, and the ecological landscape at the INL Site. Enhanced resource considerations and trends emphasize the importance of air, land use, environmental, subsurface, and cultural resources. The INL Site supports exceptional and interdependent resources. A diversity of bat species are accommodated by culturally significant caves distributed around the Site. Big game species like elk, deer, and moose seek vegetation communities which are protected by long-term stewardship and monitoring programs.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2023

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), one of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science’s 10 national laboratories, provides innovative science and technology development in the areas of energy and the environment, fundamental and computational science, and national security. There are three DOE offices within the Richland area. Two are responsible for the Hanford Site, whereas the Pacific Northwest Site Office oversees PNNL. PNNL prepares an Annual Site Environmental Report to meet the requirements of DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting, and DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, thus assuring that the public is informed of any PNNL-Richland campus or PNNL-Sequim campus event that could adversely affect the health and safety of the public, site staff, or the environment. The report provides a synopsis of ongoing environmental management performance and compliance activities for operations that occur at the PNNL-Richland campus in Richland, Washington, and at the PNNL-Sequim campus near Sequim, Washington. It describes the location of and background for each facility; addresses compliance with applicable DOE, federal, state, and local regulations, and site-specific permits; documents environmental monitoring efforts and their status; presents potential radiation doses to staff and the public in the surrounding areas; and describes DOE-required data quality assurance methods used for data verification. The ASER report describes Compliance with Federal, State, and Local Laws and Regulations in 2023, Environmental Sustainability, Environmental monitoring and dose assessment, Natural and Cultural Resource Management, and Quality Assurance activities that took place during Calendar Year 2023.

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗
DOE OSTI2020

Natural Resources Assessment for the SNS Second Target Station, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

The US Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is a leading institution in advanced materials, supercomputing, neutrons, and nuclear science. As a research laboratory managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for DOE, ORNL has national priorities in energy, security, and scientific discovery that necessitate facility improvements and expansions. DOE is also committed to environmental stewardship. The laboratory is located on the ~32,000-acre Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR), much of which is categorized as a National Environmental Research Park and a state Wildlife Management Area. DOE works with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Department of Agriculture, and other agencies to serve as an effective steward of the ORR. Accordingly, project managers must conform to environmental regulations, agreements, and policies at the federal, state, and institutional levels. Per 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 1508.14, potential effects on research and science education on the National Environmental Research Park represent potential impacts of federal actions. Moreover, federal actions that affect the quantity and quality of hunting opportunities and deer reduction harvest on the Oak Ridge Wildlife Management Area must be considered whenever other aspects of the human environment (as defined by NEPA) are affected. The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) is a premiere facility at ORNL that provides advanced capabilities in neutron scattering to promote new discoveries and research opportunities in material sciences, physics, chemistry, biological sciences, and others. A conceptual design for a Second Target Station (STS) has been in consideration for several years. The STS is intended to complement and enhance existing ORNL capabilities, notably research and exploration of complex materials. The proposed STS will involve development of existing natural areas on the ORR, which might contain sensitive resources that require mitigation or avoidance in accordance with existing policies and regulation. This report summarizes current knowledge of natural and cultural resources within the STS project area. At the time of this report, the proposed STS project consisted of an operations area comprising 55.4 acres (22.4 ha) and a total review area for potential construction comprising ~224 acres (90.6 ha). The review area is located primarily within forested natural areas of the ORR with minor development in the form of power-line rights-of-way and secondary/graveled roads (Figure 1). The primary goal was to evaluate potential effects on sensitive resources that might result from development of the STS. In addition to onthe-ground surveys during summer 2009 and fall 2019 to summer 2020 by ORNL Natural Resources Management Program and Aquatic Ecology Group staff, this report makes use of historical (pre-1995) and contemporary (1995 to present) data from additional confirmed sources (e.g., TDEC). Likewise, forest conditions were compiled primarily from a 2013 forest inventory effort for Forest Management Compartment 17 and supplemented with limited ground observations in 2019. The individuals who obtained and compiled the data that are presented here are familiar with and routinely assess sensitive resources on the ORR.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Historic Significance and Current Condition Assessment of Building 06-CP-170, the Yucca Flat Weather Station, Area 6, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

This report was produced in partial fulfillment of the mitigation of adverse effects to Building 06-CP-170, the Yucca Flat Weather Station on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), and is intended to comply with the 2021 Memorandum of Agreement DE-GM58-21NA25543 Between the U.S. Department of Energy and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Demolition of Fourteen Buildings and Structures in Area 6 of the Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada (hereafter referred to as the MOA). This MOA was executed to resolve adverse effects from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) plan to demolish 14 architectural resources at the Control Point and in the vicinity in Area 6 of the NNSS. The management and operations contractor for the NNSS identified these 14 architectural resources as environmental hazards unsafe for human occupation due to deterioration and rodent infestation. Building 06-CP-170 is scheduled for demolition as part of this undertaking. Building 06-CP-170 was originally recorded in 2018 during a Section 106 cultural resources inventory for a proposed installation of a 138-kilovolt transmission line on the NNSS. The building was determined individually eligible by the DOE, in consultation with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office, for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under the Secretary of the Interior’s Significance Criterion A because of its association with nuclear testing. Pursuant to Stipulation III.D.3 of the MOA, this report provides a summary of the historic significance of Building 06-CP-170 and a description of its current condition and accessory resources. In addition, an updated Architectural Resource Assessment (ARA) form with new information and photographs is included in the appendix in fulfillment of Stipulation III.D.2.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Finding of No Adverse Effect for the Façade Alteration of Building 23-117, Administration Building, Mercury, Area 23, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to update the façade of Building 23-117 in the town of Mercury (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15256), which is on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The purpose of the undertaking is to incorporate Building 23-117 into the new Mercury campus in accordance with the master plan for the modernization of Mercury. The NNSA/NFO will implement this undertaking in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada, hereafter referred to as the Mercury PA. Building 23-117 was built in 1982 as the architect-engineer Administration Building1 for Holmes & Narver, a government contractor who helped design and engineer the town of Mercury and other areas on the NNSS from its inception until the termination of their contract in 1990. The building continued to be used by subsequent government contractors and is currently still in use by MSTS. The town of Mercury and the immediate surrounding area have been formally determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register, NRHP) as the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230) under Criteria A and C for its importance in supporting nuclear testing and scientific research from 1951 through 1992. Building 23-117 was identified as a contributing element to the MHD in a 2018 architectural survey of the district (Reno et al.) and recorded on a Nevada Architectural Resource Assessment (ARA) form (Reno et al. 2017). It is a historic property for the purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and is subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. The NNSA/NFO requested that Desert Research Institute (DRI), cultural resource subject matter experts, analyze the effects of the proposed project on historic properties in the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and make a recommended finding for the undertaking in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and the Mercury PA. The purpose of this letter report is to submit documentation related to the mitigation of the façade alteration of Building 23-117 (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15256) in the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230). This submission is intended to comply with the stipulations in the Programmatic Agreement between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada, hereafter referred to as the Mercury PA.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Guideline for Characterizing and Evaluating a Candidate Project Site for Solar Thermal Applications

This document presents a structured procedure for characterizing and evaluating candidate project sites for concentrating solar power (CSP) and solar heat for industrial processes (SHIP) applications. The objective is to provide project developers, researchers, and other stakeholders with a consistent, technology-agnostic framework for early-stage site assessment, enabling informed decision-making prior to significant investment in project development. Site selection is a critical factor in project success or failure for both CSP and SHIP projects. Key factors such as solar resource availability, land characteristics, environmental and regulatory constraints, infrastructure availability, and community context are determined by the choice of project site and can materially impact project performance, cost, schedule, and overall viability. This procedure is designed to systematically evaluate these factors, identify potential fatal flaws, and prioritize the most favorable candidate sites for further development. The process begins with rapid screening-level evaluation, using publicly available data to assess solar resource, land availability and suitability, zoning and land-use compatibility, and exclusion zones such as protected lands or sensitive habitats. Sites that meet the minimum screening criteria advance to a more detailed characterization. Subsequent sections of this report provide guidance for a next-level assessment of the most important technical and environmental parameters, including: 1) Solar resource quality, variability, and uncertainty using multiyear datasets and, where appropriate, on-site measurement campaigns; 2) Meteorological conditions such as wind, temperature, extreme weather events, and soiling impacts; 3) Land characteristics including slope, shading, and geotechnical conditions; and 4) Environmental and regulatory considerations, including permitting processes, endangered species, cultural resources, and visual impacts. The procedure also addresses infrastructure and integration considerations, including: 1) Grid interconnection requirements for CSP power generation projects; 2) Electrical and operational integration for SHIP facilities; 3) Water availability, quality, and permitting constraints, which are particularly critical for CSP in arid regions; and 4) Site access, construction logistics, and availability of workforce and supporting services. Recognizing the importance of social and economic context, the procedure includes evaluation of community engagement factors, such as stakeholder sentiment, proximity to sensitive visual receptors, workforce development opportunities, and local economic incentives. The outputs of these assessments are synthesized in a cost and risk evaluation, translating site characteristics into expected impacts on capital cost, operating cost, schedule, and technical risk. This is complemented by screening-level performance modeling, including 8760 simulations and long-term projections, to quantify expected energy or thermal output, assess variability thereof, and support comparison between candidate sites. Finally, the procedure provides high-level guidance on a structured go/no-go decision framework, categorizing sites based on identified risks and constraints, and outlining a clear path forward to feasibility studies and front-end engineering design for viable projects. By standardizing the site characterization process across both CSP and SHIP applications, this guideline aims to: 1) Improve consistency and transparency in early-stage project evaluation; 2) Reduce development risk and avoid investment in nonviable project sites; 3) Support collaboration between developers, researchers, and public agencies; and 4) Accelerate successful deployment of concentrating solar technologies for both power generation and industrial process heat.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Risk to ecological resources following remediation can be due mainly to increased resource value of successful restoration: A case study from the Department of Energy's Hanford Site

Several nations are faced with the need to remediate large contaminated sites following World War II, the Cold War, and abandoned industrial sites, and to return them to productive land uses. In the United States, the Department of Energy (DOE) has the largest cleanup challenge, and its Hanford Site in the state of Washington has the most extensive and most expensive cleanup task. Ideally, the risk to ecological resources on remediation sites is evaluated before, during, and after remediation, and the risk from, or damage to, ecological resources from contaminants should be lower following remediation. In this paper, we report the risk to ecological resources before, during, and as a consequence of remediation on contaminated units requiring cleanup, and then examine the causes for changes in risk by evaluating 56 cleanup evaluation units (EUs) at the Hanford Site. In this case, remediation includes a restoration phase. In general, the risk to ecological and eco-cultural resources is currently not discernible or low at most contaminated units, increases during remediation, and decreases thereafter. Remediation often causes physical disruption to ecosystems as it reduces the risk from exposure to contaminants. Most new remediation projects at the Hanford Site include ecological restoration. Ecological restoration results in the potential for the presence of higher quality resources after remediation than currently exists on these contaminated lands and facilities. Although counter-intuitive, our evaluation of the risk to ecological resources following remediation indicated that a significant percentage of units (61%) will be at increased risk in the post-remediation period. This increased risk is due to DOE's successful remediation and restoration that results in a higher percent of native vegetation and higher ecological value on the sites in the post-remediation period than before. These newly-created resources can then be at risk from post-remediation activities. Risks to these new higher quality resources include the potential for spread of invasive species and of noxious grasses used in previous cleanup actions, disruption of ecosystems (including those with state or federally listed species and unique ecosystems), compaction of soil, use of pesticides to control invasive species, and the eventual need for continued monitoring activities. Thus, by greatly improving the existing habitat and health of eco-receptors, and maintaining habitat corridors between high quality habitats, the ecological resources in the post-remediated units are at risk unless care is taken to protect them. Many of the negative effects of both remediation and future monitoring (or other future land uses) can be avoided by planning and management early in the remediation process. We suggest DOE and other agencies convene a panel of managers, remediation scientists, regulators, environmental and ecological scientists, Native Americans, economists, and the public to develop a generic list of performance metrics for the restoration phase of remediation, including evaluation of success, which could be applied across the DOE complex.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Suillus : an emerging model for the study of ectomycorrhizal ecology and evolution

Research on mycorrhizal symbiosis has been slowed by a lack of established study systems. To address this challenge, we have been developing Suillus, a widespread ecologically and economically relevant fungal genus primarily associated with the plant family Pinaceae, into a model system for studying ectomycorrhizal (ECM) associations. Over the last decade, we have compiled extensive genomic resources, culture libraries, a phenotype database, and protocols for manipulating Suillus fungi with and without their tree partners. Our efforts have already resulted in a large number of publicly available genomes, transcriptomes, and respective annotations, as well as advances in our understanding of mycorrhizal partner specificity and host communication, fungal and plant nutrition, environmental adaptation, soil nutrient cycling, interspecific competition, and biological invasions. Here, we highlight the most significant recent findings enabled by Suillus, present a suite of protocols for working with the genus, and discuss how Suillus is emerging as an important model to elucidate the ecology and evolution of ECM interactions.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

2018 Annual Site Environmental Report Summary

We are committed to act as stewards of our environment to achieve our mission in accordance with all applicable environmental requirements. We set continual improvement objectives and targets, measure and document our progress, and share our results with our workforce, sponsors, and public. We reduce our environmental risk through legacy cleanup, pollution prevention, and long-term sustainability programs.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Eligibility Assessment of TA-52-1 and TA-52-11: The Ultra-High Temperature Reactor Experiment (UHTREX) Complex

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Field Office (NA-LA) requests the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to concur with the eligibility determinations contained in this report for Buildings 1 and 11 in Technical Area 52 (TA-52) at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Laboratory). Triad National Security LLC cultural resources staff have completed the evaluation of two buildings, called the UHTREX Complex, for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (Register). This complex includes the UHTREX Reactor Building (TA-52-1), and an associated Mechanical Assembly Building (TA-52-11). As part of LANL’s Footprint Reduction Program, both facilities of the UHTREX Complex are scheduled for characterization and demolition. In addition to evaluating their eligibility in the Register, the properties at TA-52 were assessed for potential adaptive reuse, long-term preservation, and public interpretation. Based on the findings in this assessment report, both TA-52-1 and TA-52-11 have been determined to not be eligible for inclusion in the Register. The history of the UHTREX Complex lacks association with exceptionally significant Cold War events of scientific developments. Both TA-52-1 and TA-52-11 lack the necessary internal historic integrity suitable for long-term preservation or public interpretation. And both facilities contain legacy radioactive contamination, which prohibits their reuse. In addition to its loss of integrity and context, TA-52- 11 has been determined ineligible due to its status as a support building of secondary or minor importance. In compliance with Section 106 and Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and with the Programmatic Agreement among the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Field Office, the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Concerning Management of the Historic Properties at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, the SHPO is requested to concur with the eligibility determinations contained in this report for the UHTREX Complex in TA-52.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Implementing Environmental Requirements

The purpose of this document is to describe the processes for identifying, communicating, and implementing environmental requirements at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) for Triad National Security, LLC (Triad). References to LANL or the Laboratory refer to the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) managed portion of LANL. References to the Prime Contract refer to the contract between DOE/NNSA and Triad and does not apply to the portion of Technical Area 54 now managed and operated by DOE Environmental Management (EM-LA).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

2019 Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report Attachment A: Site Description

This attachment expands on the general description of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) presented in the Introduction to the Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2019. Included are subsections that summarize the site’s geological, hydrological, climatological, and ecological settings and the cultural resources of the NNSS. The subsections are meant to aid the reader in understanding the complex physical and biological environment of the NNSS. An adequate knowledge of the site’s environment is necessary to assess the environmental impacts of new projects, design and implement environmental monitoring activities for current site operations, and assess the impacts of site operations on the public residing in the vicinity of the NNSS. The NNSS environment contributes to several key features of the site that afford protection to the inhabitants of adjacent areas from potential exposure to radioactivity or other contaminants resulting from NNSS operations. These key features include the general remote location of the NNSS, restricted access, extended wind transport times, the great depths to slow-moving groundwater, little or no surface water, and low population density. This attachment complements the annual summary of monitoring program activities and dose assessments presented in the main body of this report.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Annual Site Environmental Report (2019)

Los Alamos National Laboratory’s (the Laboratory’s) annual site environmental reports are prepared by the Laboratory’s environmental organizations, as required by U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B, Administrative Change 1, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting, and Order 458.1, Administrative Change 3, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment. The following chapters in this report discuss our success in complying with environmental laws, regulations, and orders (Chapter 2, Compliance Summary); how we manage the Laboratory’s environmental performance (Chapter 3, Environmental Programs); how we monitor for air emissions of radioactive materials and climate conditions (Chapter 4, Air Quality); how we monitor for effects of Laboratory operations on groundwater quality (Chapter 5, Groundwater Protection); how we monitor the movement of chemicals and radionuclides by storm water runoff and the levels of chemicals and radionuclides in deposited sediment (Chapter 6, Watershed Quality); how we monitor for the presence, levels, and effects of chemicals and radionuclides in plants, animals, and soil (Chapter 7, Ecosystem Health); and finally, what radionuclide dose or risk from chemical exposure members of the public may experience as a result of Laboratory operations (Chapter 8, Public Dose and Risk Assessment).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗