Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “siting”

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 883 records · Page 49

Adaptive Site Management Strategies for the Hanford Central Plateau Groundwater

Adaptive site management (ASM) is a systematic and iterative management approach that can be used to expedite the remediation of large and/or complex sites. ASM is defined as a formal and systematic project or site management approach centered on rigorous site planning and a firm understanding of site conditions and uncertainties, using science and technology to routinely re-evaluate and prioritize site remedial actions and characterization activities. The goal of the approach is to create a framework of structured and continuous planning, implementation, and assessment processes that accommodates new information and changing site conditions to develop effective and efficient cleanup approaches that achieves the required outcome(s) while optimizing costs, cleanup timeframe, and performance. Central to ASM is an evolving conceptual site model (CSM). Over time, incremental reductions in uncertainty associated with the CSM will occur, while supporting continued progress toward site cleanup and closure through remedy optimization and evaluation. ASM has the potential to expedite cleanup for the Central Plateau area at Hanford through a planned and systematic approach for reducing uncertainty with targeted characterization activities, while continuing remediation activities that advance cleanup for key risk-driving contaminants. A core component of cleanup within the Central Plateau is the 200 West Pump-and-Treat (P&T) system. Even with an active P&T remedy, uncertainty exists with respect to plume distributions, total mass in the aquifer, and currently known continuing sources. Additional uncertainty is associated with multiple contaminant source locations in the vadose zone, which have the potential to create new groundwater plumes in the absence of any source control measures, although not all contaminant fluxes to groundwater will result in contaminant concentrations above cleanup levels. Collectively, these uncertainties need to be addressed in the CSM to support effective and efficient site progress toward cleanup goal(s). Other nontechnical factors that may warrant an ASM approach at the Hanford Central Plateau are associated with the formation of operable units (OUs) used to manage cleanup. With the exception of the 200-ZP-1 OU, the three remaining groundwater OUs only have interim action records of decision. Nine vadose zone source area OUs are also in the early stages of the remedial investigation and feasibility study process, with pending characterization and technology identification activities. A set of proposed site objectives for the Central Plateau are provided in this document as an initial consideration/example and basis for discussion for ASM implementation. These example site objectives were selected with the goal of maintaining protectiveness at the Columbia River through confinement of contaminant plumes within an administratively controlled area below existing surface waste sites and waste disposal facilities. Although site decision makers and regulators need to provide concurrence, these site objectives are used in this document to describe the elements of an ASM approach, including selection of interim objectives and a long-term adaptive management plan. Interim objectives are also defined to yield measurable incremental progress toward the overall site goals. This document identifies initial technical considerations for developing an ASM framework for the Central Plateau cleanup decisions. These considerations are intended to facilitate more specific decisions, such as objectives, near- and long-term actions, and performance metrics, to develop an overall approach that maintains protectiveness but recognizes the uncertainty, long timeframe, and technical challenges that need to be considered in selecting, implementing, and managing remediation at the Hanford Central Plateau.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

An approach to evaluating and monitoring ecological resources for sustainability on DOE remediation sites: Hanford as a case study - 15524

Protecting ecological and environmental resources is a worthy aspect of the Department of Energy's site missions, for each of its sites, during and after remediation. Ecological resources are important to a range of stakeholders, including regulatory agencies, resource agencies, natural resource trustees, Tribal governments, and the public, and may be an essential component of Native American cultural resources. Because the nature and value of ecological resources can change over time as a result of remediation, succession, and global climate change, it is imperative for DOE to have instituted an acceptable method of evaluating resources before initiation of active remediation, over the ensuing century when institutional and engineering controls are considered to be in effect. Having such a methodology in place also would be key to resource sustainability. Department of Energy sites generally have environmental programs, so instituting specific unified practices for evaluating resources should not be difficult to implement. Instituting these practices would assure the public that ecological resources, as well as human and cultural resources, are being protected now, and can be protected into the future. Key ecological species and/or unique habitats have been preserved at Department of Energy sites since the mid-20. century because of federal government stewardship. Such preservation is particularly true for the sites with larger land areas, including the Hanford Reservation, the Idaho National Laboratory and the Savannah River Site. Individual sites typically have extensive studies of site biodiversity, but site resources are not routinely examined within a regional or national context (Eco-region). The evaluation of the on-site resources with those resources in the appropriate Eco-region provides a context for 'valuing' on- site resources. On-site resources should also be evaluated in terms of federal and state legislation where species may have legal protection and require legal consideration during remediation if present or adjacent to the remediation site. A method is needed in this study for evaluating ecological resources prior to remediation and during remediation, and a paradigm is proposed that will ensure sustainability. Finally, in a period of climate change and instability, developing methods of evaluating ecological resources is essential to successful protection, enhancement, and sustainability. The ecological methodology is part of a Hanford site-wide Risk Review Project, conducted by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP). Our method adapts an existing methodology that includes using established levels for evaluating ecological resources by expanding the existing methodology to include field work for validating previous resource level designations, to assess the occurrence of invasive/exotic species, and to identify landscape scale features (patch size, connectivity). Evaluations should be conducted in the remediation unit itself, and in a buffer zone surrounding the remediation site. The methodology described has been applied to several remediation areas at Hanford, and issues that emerged during its application are discussed. The methodology can be applied at the major sites. Application of the Eco-region analysis will provide regulators and the public with an understanding of the value of the ecological resources in relation to the region, as well as an appreciation for the stewardship role the Department of Energy has played in protecting these resources since the beginning of the Cold War Era and can continue to do so sustainably. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Preparing the FUSRAP Colonie Interim Storage Site for Transfer Back to the US Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management - 19215

The Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) Colonie Interim Storage Site was transferred from the US Department of Energy (US DOE) to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 1997. The USACE initiated remediation efforts at the Site under FUSRAP. The Site was separated into three distinct operable units (OU) to more efficiently manage the remedial process: 1) Groundwater OU, 2) Main Site Soils OU, and 3) Vicinity Property OU. The USACE has completed remedial actions at each of these three OUs and has advanced the OU remedies at the Site to the long-term stewardship stage to be executed by the US DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM). The US DOE LM is the current real property owner of record of the Colonie Main Site. A summary of each OU and the activities needed to prepare for site transfer follows: OU 1 - USACE issued the Colonie Groundwater OU Record of Decision (ROD) (USACE 2010a) on April 9, 2010. The Groundwater ROD remedy is monitored natural attenuation (MNA) and long-term monitoring (LTM) of groundwater after source removal completion. Results of groundwater monitoring indicate reductions in concentrations of contaminants of concern (COC). Based on the marked progress to date, USACE has optimized the groundwater LTM program (USACE, 2014) by reducing the well network, sampling frequency, and analytical parameters, and by abandoning wells that are no longer needed. A Groundwater ROD Five-Year Review report was submitted to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for review in 2018. NYSDEC agreed that MNA is still an appropriate remedial method although it is progressing at a slower rate than predicted. OU 2 - From 1999 to 2007, USACE completed the large-scale removal of soil at the Main Site, which included the adjacent Town of Colonie Vicinity Property. Radioactively contaminated soil along with accessible metals-contaminated soil and soil containing volatile organic compounds (VOC) were removed during this effort. A total of 103,402 cubic meters (m{sup 3}) of soil was excavated and disposed offsite. On March 26, 2015, USACE signed the Main Site Soils OU ROD (USACE, 2015a). The ROD remedy included provisions for Land Use Controls (LUC) consisting of institutional controls (IC) through an Environmental Easement for management of three small and discrete inaccessible locations within three of the 27 Final Status Survey units of the Main Site. The Environmental Easement provides a means of protection based on both current and future land use by placing restrictions on soil excavation and reuse. The easement and a supporting Site Management Plan (SMP) will be finalized by LM in coordination with NYSDEC. OU 3 - the Vicinity Property OU ROD was signed on 20 September 2017. This ROD declared No Action (NA) for dust and No Further Action (NFA) for soil and other media for the Vicinity Properties. Prior to the ROD, USACE performed dust sampling and other characterization activities at representative commercial and residential Vicinity Property locations. These efforts were reported in the Colonie FUSRAP Site Vicinity Property Operable Unit Remedial Investigation Summary Report (USACE, 2016). A Site Closeout Report (SCOR) was issued to NYSDEC and approved in 2018. The approval of this report starts the transfer process back to the LM. Ongoing and future transfer activities include records retention and management, preparation and filing of real estate records, physical site management (fencing, landscape maintenance, well abandonment) and coordination with state regulators and LM staff. This presentation is intended to make all stakeholders aware of the necessary steps for site transfer from the USACE back to the LM. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

External Engagement During Evaluations of Shutdown Nuclear Power Plant Sites - 19221

This is a technical paper that does not take into account the contractual limitations under the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste (Standard Contract) (10 CFR Part 961). Under the provisions of the Standard Contract, DOE does not consider spent nuclear fuel in multi-assembly canisters to be an acceptable waste form, absent a mutually agreed to contract amendment. To the extent discussions or recommendations in this paper conflict with the provisions of the Standard Contract, the Standard Contract provisions prevail. The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Integrated Waste Management (DOE-IWM) continues to conduct evaluations of removing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from shutdown nuclear power plant sites. The 14 shutdown sites included in the evaluation to date have nuclear power reactors that have been permanently shut down and the sites have been decommissioned or are undergoing decommissioning. The 14 shutdown sites are Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, La Crosse, Zion, Crystal River, Kewaunee, San Onofre, Vermont Yankee, and Fort Calhoun. The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station ceased operations in September 2018 and will be included in future evaluations. A key part of the shutdown site evaluations are visits to the sites. These site visits typically take place over 3 days. The first day is spent at the nuclear power plant site. The second day is spent evaluating the near-site transportation infrastructure, including rail infrastructure, potential heavy-haul routes, and potential rail and barge transload locations. The third day is often spent meeting with community engagement or advisory panels. External engagement activities during site visits are conducted in two areas. The first area involves inviting tribal and state representatives, State Regional Group (SRG) representatives, and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) representatives to participate in the entire site visit. The SRG representatives are from the Southern States Energy Board, the Western Interstate Energy Board, the Council of State Governments - Midwest, or the Council of State Governments - Eastern Regional Conference, according to the location of the nuclear power plant. State representatives typically represent their state department of energy, state department of environmental or natural resources, State Rail Safety Participation Program, state police, state department of transportation, radiation protection organization, or emergency management organization. Tribal representatives explore issues associated with cultural affiliation and tribal involvement with past and present site activities. As the regulator of the U.S. railroads, the FRA representatives bring unique experience to the site visits. They also coordinate meetings with the railroads that serve the shutdown sites. The second area of external engagement activities during site visits involves meeting with local community engagement or advisory panels. Meeting with local community engagement or advisory panels provides an opportunity to inform these panels on DOE activities and the roles and responsibilities of federal agencies during site decommissioning. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Factors Affecting Bait Site Visitation: Area of Influence of Baits

Baiting is a fundamental strategy for the global management of wild pigs (Sus scrofa); however, little information exists on how anthropogenic bait affects wild pig movements on a landscape. We investigated factors that are important in determining the spatial area of attraction for wild pigs to bait (‘area of influence’ of a bait site) using data from Global Positioning System (GPS) collars and locations of bait sites. We monitored movements of wild pigs in 2 distinct study areas in the United States from February to September 2016 and used locational data using GPS collars to analyze the influence of habitat quality (dependent on site), home range size, number of bait sites in the home range, distance to a bait site, and sex in relation to movement in time and space. We determined the average area of influence by calculating the area of a circle with the radius as the average maximum distance travelled by wild pigs to reach a bait site. The average area of influence for our bait sites was 6.7 km 2 (or a radius of approximately 1.5 km), suggesting a bait spacing of approximately 1.5 km would be adequate to capture visitation by most wild pigs and a spacing of 3 km could allow substantial visitation while minimizing redundant effort depending on the spatial structure of the populations. Eighty percent of wild pigs first visited bait sites within 8.9 days after bait deployment; and they visited earlier when their home range size was larger. As the number of bait sites in an individual's home range increased, individual pigs visited more bait sites, and the probability of a visit increased dramatically up to approximately 5 bait sites and much less thereafter. Wild pigs travelled farther distances to visit bait sites in lower quality habitat. Our results support the hypothesis that habitat quality can mediate the efficacy of baiting programs for wildlife by influencing their movement patterns and motivation to use anthropogenic resources. Our results suggest wild pigs will travel extensively within their home range to visit bait sites, and that in lower quality habitat, most animals will find bait sites more quickly. Determining the area of influence of bait sites can increase the efficacy of planning and monitoring management programs. Overall, our study provides new information to help managers plan baiting designs to attract the greatest number of pigs.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

Assessment of oil and gas fields in California as potential CO 2 storage sites

California's total annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (425.3 MtCO 2 e) in 2018 were about 6.4% of the US total (6,677 MtCO 2 e) and around 1% of global emissions. About 39% of 2018 GHG emissions in California were from the industrial and electrical sectors. Many of these emissions were from large stationary point sources and were suitable for carbon capture retrofit with subsequent storage of the captured carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in geological formations. Previous studies of California found suitable geology and CO 2 storage resource. This study refines and furthers prior work using a three-stage screening process of oil fields, gas fields, and underground natural gas storage (UGS) sites by combining criteria from previous studies while excluding sites that pose technical risk or are located in regions with surface restrictions including sensitive habitats and dense populations. In the first stage, 129 CO 2 storage sites in California were identified using qualification criteria based upon formation properties including geological conditions and pore pressure. The second stage identified sensitive sites by applying conservative screens including seismic activity, faulting, population density, restricted lands, and sensitive habitats. During the third stage, 61 CO 2 potential storage sites were identified by subtraction of stage 2 areas from stage 1. The potential storage volume in the third stage ranged from 1.0 to 2.0 GtCO 2 . Finally, we applied a scoring system with seven parameters to rank the 61 potential sites based on subsurface technical criteria. The scored sites are classified as high priority, medium priority, and sites for future study. Prospective CO 2 storage sites with high and moderate priority were selected and linked to CO 2 sources. There are 14 prospective sites (above 20 MtCO 2 storage resource per site) with a total storage resource of 1024 MtCO 2 distributed in Northern and Southern California. Of these sites, there are 9 potential CO 2 -EOR sites and 1 depleted oil field with a total estimated CO 2 storage volume of ~800 MtCO 2 in the Southern San Joaquin and Ventura Basin. These 10 prospective sites with a storage resource greater than 20 MtCO 2 could potentially deliver more than 20 years of storage with an average injection rate of 40 MtCO 2 /year. The remaining 4 highly prospective sites are in Northern California. Additionally, study results suggest that saline formations should be re-evaluated in concert with storage in oil, gas, and natural gas storage reservoirs.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

Validation of Remotely Sensed and Modeled Soil Moisture at Forested and Unforested Sites

Soil moisture is an important driver for forest ecosystems, influencing fire occurrence and extent, insect and pathogen impacts, and tree growth, which creates a need for regular, globally extensive soil moisture information that only satellite-based sensors or models can achieve. However, the reliability of soil moisture measurements in forests is not well understood due to a lack of suitable validation sites (especially relative to unforested ecosystems) and interference caused by high vegetation water content on remotely sensed measurements; although recent studies have started to address this gap [1], [2], [3], [4]. Here we validate the performance of multiyear remotely sensed (SMAP/Sentinel), remotely sensed data assimilation modelled (SMAP-L4), and modelled (NLDAS) surface and root zone (0-1 m) soil moisture datasets with data from in-situ sensors at 39 National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) sites throughout the contiguous US. Due to differences in spatial resolution, NEON soil moisture (~0.2 km measurement zone) correlations were expected to be stronger with the SMAP/Sentinel product (3 km resolution) than with coarser resolution SMAP-L4 (9 km resolution) or NLDAS products (13 km resolution). However, given the sensitivity of satellite measurements to vegetation water content we expected a deterioration in the correlations based on remotely sensed measurements (SMAP/Sentinel and SMAP-L4) as aboveground biomass increased, whereas the model-based data (NLDAS) was expected to be largely insensitive to vegetation type. We recognize that the SMAP/Sentinel product was developed for unforested regions, therefore our application is outside its primary use case. Soil moisture is measured at up to 8 depths in five soil plots spaced up to 40 m apart at each NEON terrestrial site. Correlation parameters were calculated for the three remotely sensed and modelled data products relative to in-situ measurement following Entekhabi et al. [5]. The datasets comprised 94 (SMAP-L4), 28 (SMAP/Sentinel), and 106 (NLDAS) sites-years for surface soils and 13 (SMAP-L4) and 14 (NLDAS) site-years for the root zone. At unforested sites, the performance of the three remotely sensed and modelled data products was similar for surface soils (Table 1). For example, unbiased RMSD (ubRMSD), which SMAP uses as its primary performance metric [6], ranged from 0.05 to 0.06 m3 m-3 (Table 1), indicating the ability of all three products to track changes in soil moisture over time. The performance of the three products deteriorated at forested sites, however, while the difference in performance was modest for SMAP-L4 and NLDAS, the deterioration in SMAP/Sentinel performance was substantial. For instance, SMAP/Sentinel ubRMSD increased from 0.06 to 0.11 m3 m-3 and absolute mean difference (Abs MD; which includes measurement bias and spatial representativeness errors) increased from 0.06 to 0.16 m3 m-3, indicating both a reduction in ability to track temporal changes and absolute amounts of soil moisture in forest ecosystems. SMAP-L4 and NLDAS had lower unbiased RMSD for root zone (0-1 m) than surface soils at both forested and unforested sites (Tables 1 and 2; SMAP/Sentinel does not produce a root zone measurement). However, in most cases the correlation coefficient (r) was lower for the root zone than surface soils, suggesting the lower unbiased RMSD may be attributed to greater temporal stability of soil moisture in the root zone rather than improved data product performance. Mean difference and absolute mean difference, which encompass measurement bias and spatial representativeness errors, were greater for root zone than surface soils at unforested sites for both data products, but the opposite was generally true at forested sites. As with surface soils, there was relatively little change in the performance of SMAP-L4 and NLDAS between the unforested and forested sites. In summary, all three data products were able to adequately represent soil moisture at unforested sites, at least when aggregating across sites. However, while the performance of all three products deteriorated at forested sites, SMAP-L4 and NLDAS maintained sufficient performance to remain suitable for some use cases (ubRMSD <0.06 m3 m-3 and RMSD <0.13 m3 m-3). In contrast, the relatively poorer performance of the SMAP/Sentinel product at forested sites seems insufficient for most use cases (ubRMSD >0.1 m3 m-3 and RMSD >0.2 m3 m-3). We attribute the large reduction in the performance of the SMAP/Sentinel product in forests to its use of C-band wavelengths, which are particularly sensitive to vegetation interference, and apparently outweighed any gains provided by its higher spatial resolution. A combined SMAP/NISAR soil moisture product may provide improved performance relative to SMAP/Sentinel due to NISAR’s use of L-band wavelengths, which are less sensitive to vegetation (NISAR is scheduled for launch in early 2024).

Edward Ayres↗

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↗

Energy Efficiency and Infrastructure Upgrades on Nuclear Clean-up Sites: The Hanford Experience - 18641

The Hanford site, located in southeastern Washington, produced much of our nation's weapons-grade plutonium for the Defense nuclear weapons program. This production lasted the better part of four decades with production ending in 1987. Since 1987, the focus of the Hanford site has turned to clean-up activities. Mission Support Alliance (MSA) is the integrator of the multi-contractor effort to clean up the Hanford site. MSA collaborates with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and all Hanford site contractors in finding and implementing new, cost-saving, safe and practical solutions to cleanup challenges with a continual focus on innovative processes and technologies that reduce costs, energy use and bring safety improvements to the site. Support Services include environmental integration and land management; fleet and road maintenance; water/electric and utilities; cyber security and information management as well as the preservation of the site's cultural artifacts. This paper describes the process, challenges, and focus on infrastructure upgrade and energy efficiency projects in the context of a multi-contractor nuclear clean-up site. Project development and new technology deployment at Hanford has long been plagued with economic challenges. For example, despite extensive auditing, analysis, and project development, most of the energy-related projects on the Hanford site have gone unfunded due to the low cost of electricity, the relatively high cost of labor, and costs associated with detailed safety and cultural reviews. - The Hanford site is a direct-service customer of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and has a marginal electricity rate of $0.033/kWh. - Labor costs on the Hanford site track high because of the requirements associated with the safety and security necessary to operate a legacy nuclear weapons complex. - In partnership with three federally recognized and other affected Native American tribes (Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and Wanapum People), most activities on the Hanford site are afforded in-depth cultural reviews. To work within these constraints, the MSA Energy Management team has embarked on a three-pronged approach to energy project development: Program Visibility: The MSA Energy Management team has promoted both project opportunities and requirements across the Hanford site. This information comes in the form of site-wide newsletters, group meetings, e-mails, success stories, and recognition of staff. Single-point Analysis: To by-pass the inevitable duplications of effort, learning curve issues, and to improve project consistency/delivery, the MSA Energy Management team serves as the single resource to the site for energy project analysis. This resource includes initial assessment, engineering analysis, efficiency calculation and project recommendations. Contractor/utility Interface: In addition to the infrastructure under its own purview, MSA provides all support services for the contractor/utility interface. These activities include formulation and submission of incentive-based efficiency projects, project tracking, and incentive awards. All incentive awards are forwarded to the relevant contractor and then highlighted in the visibility campaign. Successful energy efficiency projects at Hanford have included high efficiency heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) systems, interior and exterior lighting/lighting control systems, pump and motor systems, and the right-sizing of transformers and area-wide electrical distribution systems. Prior to the initiation of this program and structure (roughly 3 years ago) the average annual energy efficiency incentive applied for and received was under $10,000, with an annual energy savings of approximately 36,000 kilowatt hours (kWh). In fiscal year 2017, the annual incentive received was over $419,000, with identified energy savings of over 1.3 million kWh. Details and case studies of the major project accomplishments are included. The success of this program can be traced to an understanding of the constraints, the development of a program to address these constraints, and good communication/coordination across DOE and the multiple contractors serving the Hanford site. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Preliminary Evaluation of Removing Used Nuclear Fuel From Nine Shutdown Sites

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future identified removal of stranded used nuclear fuel at shutdown sites as a priority so that these sites may be completely decommissioned and put to other beneficial uses. In this report, a preliminary evaluation of removing used nuclear fuel from nine shutdown sites was conducted. The shutdown sites included Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe, Connecticut Yankee, Humboldt Bay, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Trojan, La Crosse, and Zion. At these sites a total of 7649 used nuclear fuel assemblies and a total of 2813.2 metric tons heavy metal (MTHM) of used nuclear fuel are contained in 248 storage canisters. In addition, 11 canisters containing greater-than-Class C (GTCC) low-level radioactive waste are stored at these sites. The evaluation was divided in four components: • characterization of the used nuclear fuel and GTCC low-level radioactive waste inventory at the shutdown sites • an evaluation of the onsite transportation conditions at the shutdown sites • an evaluation of the near-site transportation infrastructure and experience relevant to the shipping of transportation casks containing used nuclear fuel from the shutdown sites • an evaluation of the actions necessary to prepare for and remove used nuclear fuel and GTCC low-level radioactive waste from the shutdown sites. Using these evaluations the authors developed time sequences of activities and time durations for removing the used nuclear fuel and GTCC low-level radioactive waste from a single shutdown site, from three shutdown sites located close to each other, and from all nine shutdown sites.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

The transportation factor in site evaluations for spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal facilities - 15460

New facility siting studies will be necessary to fulfill the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America's Nuclear Future 2012 recommendation to develop consolidated interim storage (CIS) for spent nuclear fuel in the next decade. Future site evaluations for used nuclear fuel (UNF) storage and disposal facilities must address transportation requirements, especially access to mainline railroads, early in the site selection process. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in 2013 proposed a strategy for managing spent nuclear fuel in accordance with the BRC recommendations by establishing a pilot interim storage facility by 2021 and a consolidated interim storage facility by 2025. The authors demonstrate that currently available geographic information systems and already adopted siting criteria (defining favorable and unfavorable conditions) allow the identification of the transportation portion of a storage facility siting process to begin without delay. Ready access to the mainline rail system is absolutely critical since existing rail access, or easily constructed access, is a highly favorable condition for successful siting. Despite widespread rail abandonments over the past three decades, vast areas of the United States retain mainline rail service or could connect to existing mainlines by building new rail spurs of less than 25-50 miles. This precondition for transportation planning is critical. Planners need to start with the beginning - availability of rail transportation to and from the interim storage facility/facilities. A second step in transportation screening would be to evaluate those potential site locations within 50 miles of existing mainline railroads using other appropriate variables. This effort could begin with the application of the 1984 repository siting guidelines for transportation (10 CFR 960.5-2-7)[1]. Repository surface facilities have essentially the same transportation requirements as storage facilities. The guidelines in 10 CFR 960 provide a readily available template for evaluating sites based on transportation risks, impacts and costs. Initial site screening, after considering proximity to mainline railroads as the precursory step, should evaluate: 1) proximity to highly populated areas; 2) proximity to interstate highways; 3) proximity to environmentally sensitive areas and lands protected by federal, state, or tribal governments; and 4) proximity to military installations, hazardous materials facilities, or other facilities that might impact transportation safety and security.Several challenges exist which prevent effective transportation planning. The diversity of canister and cask types and SNF characteristics and conditions, the increasingly limited rail access at the shipping sites and the ease with which public attention can be marshalled against a waste management program, all suggest that future efforts need to identify potential storage sites that reduce transportation impacts and costs by reducing near-site transportation construction and reduce total system transportation impacts. This can most easily be accomplished by reducing shipping distances in a process that is easily defined and implemented. The paper concludes that the DOE should develop a site screening and evaluation program with transportation as a central consideration. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Ce{sub 11}Ge{sub 3.73(2)}In{sub 6.27}: Solid-state synthesis, crystal structure and site-preference

A novel intermetallic compound of Ce{sub 11}Ge{sub 3.73(2)}In{sub 6.27} has been synthesized through the high-temperature solid-state reaction using Nb-ampoules. A batch of well grown block-/short bar-shaped single-crystals has been obtained, and the crystal structure of the title compound has been characterized by single-crystal X-ray diffraction analyses. Ce{sub 11}Ge{sub 3.73(2)}In{sub 6.27} adopts the Ho{sub 11}Ge{sub 10}-type structure belonging to the tetragonal space group I4/mmm (Z=4, Pearson symbol tI84) with nine crystallographically unique atomic positions in the asymmetric unit. The lattice parameters are a=12.0163(1) Å and c=16.5396(2) Å. The overall crystal structure can simply be depicted as an assembly of three different types of co-facial cationic polyhedra centered by anions, which is further enclosed by the three-dimensional (3-D) cage-like anionic framework. The extra amount of In is observed in one of three isolated anionic sites resulting in introducing the Ge/In-mixed site at the Wyckoff 4e site. This unique site-preference of In substitution for Ge at the 4e site has been enlightened via the atomic size-aspect which was fully supported and rationalized by the site- and bond-energies analyses using tight-binding linear muffin-tin orbital (TB-LMTO) calculations. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), density of states (DOS), crystal orbital Hamilton population (COHP), and electron localization function (ELF) analyses for the title compound are also presented. Magnetic susceptibility measurement proves that an antiferromagnetic ordering of Ce atoms at a low temperature with a paramagnetic Curie temperature of −23.2 K. - Graphical abstract: Reported is experimental and theoretical investigations for Ce{sub 11}Ge{sub 3.73(2)}In{sub 6.27}, which is the first reported example having the extra amounts of In substitution for Ge at one of three “isolated” anionic sites in the Ho{sub 11}Ge{sub 10}-type phase. The observed In site-preference toward the particular anionic site was rationalized via the atomic size-aspect supported by comprehensive analyses for the site-energies including the Wyckoff 4e and 8j sites. - Highlights: • Block or short-bar shaped single-crystals of Ce{sub 11}Ge{sub 3.73(2)}In{sub 6.27} were synthesized. • The first example of having the In/Ge mixture at the “isolated” anionic site. • The site-preference of In was rationalized by the site- and bond-energies.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

Site Management Guide (Blue Book)

The U.S. Department of Energy (Department) Office of Legacy Management (LM), established in 2003, manages the Department’s postclosure responsibilities and ensures the future protection of human health and the environment. During World War II and the Cold War, the Federal government developed and operated a vast network of industrial facilities for the research, production, and testing of nuclear weapons, as well as other scientific and engineering research. These processes left a legacy of radioactive and chemical waste, environmental contamination, and hazardous facilities and materials at well over 100 sites. Since 1989, the Department has taken an aggressive accelerated cleanup approach to reduce risks and cut costs. At most Departmental sites undergoing cleanup, some residual hazards will remain at the time cleanup is completed due to financial and technical impracticality. However, the Department still has an obligation to protect human health and the environment after cleanup is completed. LM fulfills DOE’s postclosure obligation by providing long-term management of postcleanup sites which do not have continuing missions. LM is also responsible for sites under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for site surveys and remediation at FUSRAP sites. Once remediation is completed, LM becomes responsible for long-term management. LM also has responsibility for uranium processing sites addressed by Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA). UMTRCA Title II sites are sites that were commercially owned and are regulated under a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license. For license termination, the owner must conduct an NRC-approved cleanup of any on-site radioactive waste remaining from former uranium ore-processing operations. The site owner must also provide full funding for inspections and, if necessary, ongoing maintenance. Once site cleanup is complete, LM accepts title to these sites on behalf of the United States and assumes long-term management.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Data Validation Package November 2015 Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling at the Old and New Rifle, Colorado, Processing Sites February 2016

Water samples were collected from 36 locations at New Rifle and Old Rifle, Colorado, Processing Sites. Duplicate samples were collected from New Rifle locations 0659 and 0855, and Old Rifle location 0304. One equipment blank was collected after decontamination of non-dedicated equipment used to collect one surface water sample. Sampling and analyses were conducted as specified in the Sampling and Analysis Plan for U.S. Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management Sites (LMS/PRO/S04351, continually updated). New Rifle Site Samples were collected at the New Rifle site from 16 monitoring wells and 7 surface locations in compliance with the December 2008 Groundwater Compliance Action Plan [GCAP] for the New Rifle, Colorado, Processing Site (LMS/RFN/S01920), with one exception: New Rifle location 0635 could not be sampled because it was inaccessible; a fence installed by the Colorado Department of Transportation prevents access to this location. DOE is currently negotiating access with the Colorado Department of Transportation. Analytes measured at the New Rifle site included contaminants of concern (COCs) (arsenic, molybdenum, nitrate + nitrite as nitrogen, selenium, uranium, and vanadium) ammonia as nitrogen, major cations, and major anions. Field measurements of total alkalinity, oxidation- reduction potential, pH, specific conductance, turbidity, and temperature were made at each location, and the water level was measured at each sampled well. A proposed alternate concentration limit (ACL) for vanadium of 50 milligrams per liter (mg/L), specific to the compliance (POC) wells (RFN-0217, -0659, -0664, and -0669) is included in the New Rifle GCAP. Vanadium concentrations in the POC wells were below the proposed ACL as shown in the time-concentration graphs in the Data Presentation section (Attachment 2). Time-concentration graphs from all other locations sampled are also included in Attachment 2. Sampling location RFN-0195 was misidentified for the June/August 2014 and November 2014 sampling events. (Well RFN-0609 was inadvertently sampled instead of RFN-0195 in 2014.) The results for RFN-0195 have been corrected, and are included in associated time-concentration graphs for this location. Recent results for RFN-0195 are consistent with established trends with the possible exception of vanadium. The most recent result for vanadium showed an increase over recent values. Vanadium concentrations at RFN-0195 and other locations will continue to be evaluated in the future to determine the potential for deviations from established trends. The surface water locations were sampled to monitor the impact of groundwater discharge. COC concentrations at Colorado River surface water locations RFN-0324 and RFN-0326, downgradient of the site, remained low and were consistent with historical results, as shown in the time-concentration graphs. COC concentrations did not indicate there are any impacts related to groundwater discharge to the river. In many cases, elevated COC concentrations at the New Rifle site pond locations were observed, as shown in the time-versus concentration graphs. As noted in the GCAP, this indicates impacts from groundwater discharge to the ponds. Old Rifle Site Samples were collected at the Old Rifle site from eight monitoring wells and five surface locations in compliance with the December 2001 Groundwater Compliance Action Plan for the Old Rifle, Colorado, UMTRA Project Site (GJ0-2000-177-TAR). Analytes measured at the Old Rifle site included COCs (selenium, uranium, and vanadium), major cations, and major anions. Field measurements of total alkalinity, oxidation-reduction potential, pH, specific conductance, turbidity, temperature, were made at each location, and the water level was measured at each sampled well. The monitoring strategy described in the GCAP is designed to determine progress of the natural flushing process in meeting compliance standards for site COCs. Standards for selenium and vanadium are the proposed ACLs of0.05 mg/L and 1.0 mg/L, respectively. For uranium the cleanup goal is the UMTRA standard of 0.044 mg/L or background, whichever is higher. As shown in the time concentration graphs, the uranium concentration exceeds the cleanup goal at groundwater monitoring locations RF0-0304, -0305, -0310, -0655, and -0656. The surface water locations were sampled to monitor the impact of groundwater discharge at Colorado River surface water locations adjacent to (RF0-0396) and downgradient of the site (RF0-0741). COC concentrations remain low and consistent with historical concentrations as shown in the time-concentration graphs (Attachment 2), which indicate no impacts from groundwater discharge to the river.

2015 Old and New Rifle↗

Update of Erosion Conditions and Assessment of Mitigation Options for the L-Bar Site

The L-Bar former uranium milling site was remediated and closed per regulations and is now under the long-term stewardship of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management (DOE/LM). Since assuming stewardship in 2004, DOE/LM has observed erosion and sedimentation processes at the L-Bar Site that will challenge meeting the design closure criteria in the long term, and therefore erosion control structures were installed in several areas. Portions of these structures were subsequently damaged by summer convective storm events and they are being redesigned. At the request of DOE/LM, Desert Research Institute (DRI) reviewed the proposed redesign plans of the erosion control structures. The purpose of this review is to support DOE/LM decisions regarding mitigation of ongoing erosion processes, including assessing possible repair of the existing erosion control structures, as well as plan for effective long-term site management. This design review is performed in reference to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) standards contained in 40 CFR 192.02 that require containment of residual radioactive material be effective for up to 1,000 years (if achievable, but certainly for 200 years), limit radon release, protect groundwater, and minimize future maintenance. The erosion control structures under review are not subject to the UMTRCA standard directly, but they contribute to the performance of the overall containment system by virtue of their relationship with the large diversion channels bounding the disposal cell. The 11 design drawings included in “Erosion Control Alternatives Analysis, L-Bar, New Mexico, Disposal Site, LTS-111-0043-08-002,” dated January 11, 2019, and listed in Appendix A, and supporting calculations in Weston (2019) are the focus of the review. Additionally, DOE/LM provided supporting data such as a 2018 photogrammetry-based digital elevation model of the site, precipitation records collected from an on-site weather station, and sedimentation records collected at an on-site basin. This assessment includes review of the proposed design to mitigate current site conditions but also addresses site changes between the initial erosion assessment report (Miller et al., 2012) and current conditions. The analysis is at a predesign engineering level and does not include development of hydraulic or sediment transport models. Site precipitation data are included in Miller et al. (2012). The natural conditions of the site, the design of site diversion systems, observed erosion at the site, and predesign engineering analysis are used to develop a holistic view of the challenges to L-Bar Site stability and possible responsive actions.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Hydrogeologic Modeling at the Sylvania Corning FUSRAP Site - 13419

A comparative groundwater hydrogeologic modeling analysis is presented herein to simulate potential contaminant migration pathways in a sole source aquifer in Nassau County, Long Island, New York. The source of contamination is related to historical operations at the Sylvania Corning Plant ('Site'), a 9.49- acre facility located at 70, 100 and 140 Cantiague Rock Road, Town of Oyster Bay in the westernmost portion of Hicksville, Long Island. The Site had historically been utilized as a nuclear materials manufacturing facility (e.g., cores, slug, and fuel elements) for reactors used in both research and electric power generation in early 1950's until late 1960's. The Site is contaminated with various volatile organic and inorganic compounds, as well as radionuclides. The major contaminants of concern at the Site are tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), nickel, uranium, and thorium. These compounds are present in soil and groundwater underlying the Site and have migrated off-site. The Site is currently being investigated as part of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). The main objective of the current study is to simulate the complex hydrogeologic features in the region, such as numerous current and historic production well fields; large, localized recharge basins; and, multiple aquifers, and to assess potential contaminant migration pathways originating from the Site. For this purpose, the focus of attention was given to the underlying Magothy formation, which has been impacted by the contaminants of concern. This aquifer provides more than 90% of potable water supply in the region. Nassau and Suffolk Counties jointly developed a three-dimensional regional groundwater flow model to help understand the factors affecting groundwater flow regime in the region, to determine adequate water supply for public consumption, to investigate salt water intrusion in localized areas, to evaluate the impacts of regional pumping activity, and to better understand the contaminant transport and fate mechanisms through the underlying aquifers. This regional model, developed for the N.Y. State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) by Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM), uses the finite element model DYNFLOW developed by CDM, Cambridge, Massachusetts. The coarseness of the regional model, however, could not adequately capture the hydrogeologic heterogeneity of the aquifer. Specifically, the regional model did not adequately capture the interbedded nature of the Magothy aquifer and, as such, simulated particles tended to track down-gradient from the Site in relatively straight lines while the movement of groundwater in such a heterogeneous aquifer is expected to proceed along a more tortuous path. This paper presents a qualitative comparison of site-specific groundwater flow modeling results with results obtained from the regional model. In order to assess the potential contaminant migration pathways, a particle tracking method was employed. Available site-specific and regional hydraulic conductivity data measured in-situ with respect to depth and location were incorporated into the T-PROG module in GMS model to define statistical variation to better represent the actual stratigraphy and layer heterogeneity. The groundwater flow characteristics in the Magothy aquifer were simulated with the stochastic hydraulic conductivity variation as opposed to constant values as employed in the regional model. Contaminant sources and their exact locations have been fully delineated at the Site during the Remedial Investigation (RI) phase of the project. Contaminant migration pathways originating from these source locations at the Site are qualitatively traced within the sole source aquifer utilizing particles introduced at source locations. Contaminant transport mechanism modeled in the current study is based on pure advection (i.e., plug flow) and mechanical dispersion while molecular diffusion effects are neglected due to relatively high groundwater velocities encountered in the aquifer. In addition, fate of contaminants is ignored hereby to simulate the worst-case scenario, which considers the contaminants of concern as tracer-like compounds for modeling purposes. The results of the modeling analysis are qualitatively compared with the County's regional model, and patterns of contaminant migration in the region are presented. (authors)

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Alternative Endpoints and Approaches for the Remediation of Contaminated Groundwater at Complex Sites - 13426

The goal of United States (U.S.) Department of Energy's (DOE)'s environmental remediation programs is to restore groundwater to beneficial use, similar to many other Federal and state environmental cleanup programs. Based on past experience, groundwater remediation to pre-contamination conditions (i.e., drinking water standards or non-detectable concentrations) can be successfully achieved at many sites. At a subset of the most complex sites, however, complete restoration is not likely achievable within the next 50 to 100 years using today's technology. This presentation describes several approaches used at complex sites in the face of these technical challenges. Many complex sites adopted a long-term management approach, whereby contamination was contained within a specified area using active or passive remediation techniques. Consistent with the requirements of their respective environmental cleanup programs, several complex sites selected land use restrictions and used risk management approaches to accordingly adopt alternative cleanup goals (alternative endpoints). Several sites used long-term management designations and approaches in conjunction with the alternative endpoints. Examples include various state designations for groundwater management zones, technical impracticability (TI) waivers or greater risk waivers at Superfund sites, and the use of Monitored Natural Attenuation (MNA) or other passive long-term management approaches over long time frames. This presentation will focus on findings, statistics, and case studies from a recently-completed report for the Department of Defense's Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) (Project ER-0832) on alternative endpoints and approaches for groundwater remediation at complex sites under a variety of Federal and state cleanup programs. The primary objective of the project was to provide environmental managers and regulators with tools, metrics, and information needed to evaluate alternative endpoints for groundwater remediation at complex sites. A statistical analysis of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites receiving TI waivers will be presented as well as case studies of other types of alternative endpoints and alternative remedial strategies that illustrate the variety of approaches used at complex sites and the technical analyses used to predict and document cost, time frame, and potential remedial effectiveness. This presentation is intended to inform DOE program managers, state regulators, practitioners and other stakeholders who are evaluating technical cleanup challenges within their own programs, and establishing programmatic approaches to evaluating and implementing long-term management approaches. Case studies provide examples of long-term management designations and strategies to manage and remediate groundwater at complex sites. At least 13 states consider some designation for groundwater containment in their corrective action policies, such as groundwater management zones, containment zones, and groundwater classification exemption areas. Long-term management designations are not a way to 'do nothing' or walk away from a site. Instead, soil and groundwater within the zone is managed to be protective of human health and the environment. Understanding when and how to adopt a long-term management approach can lead to cost savings and the more efficient use of resources across DOE and at numerous other industrial and military sites across the U.S. This presentation provides context for assessing the use and appropriate role of alternative endpoints and supporting long-term management designations in final remedies. (authors)

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Overview of the U.S. Department of Energy Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program - 12189

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) was established in 1974 to address residual radiological contamination at sites where work was performed for the Manhattan Engineer District and U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Initially, FUSRAP activities began with a records search for sites that had the potential to contain residual radiological contamination; 46 sites were identified that were eligible for and required remediation. Remedial action began in 1979. In 1997, Congress assigned responsibility for the remediation of FUSRAP sites to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). DOE retains responsibility for determining if sites are eligible for FUSRAP remediation and for providing long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTS and M) of remediated FUSRAP sites. DOE LTS and M activities are designed to ensure that FUSRAP sites remain protective of human health and the environment and to preserve knowledge regarding FUSRAP sites. Additional elements include eligibility determinations, transition of remediated sites from USACE to DOE, LTS and M operations such as inspections and institutional controls management, stakeholder support, preservation of records, and real property and reuse. DOE maintains close coordination with USACE and regulators to ensure there is no loss of protectiveness when sites transition to DOE for LTS and M. Over the life of the FUSRAP program from 1974 to the present, DOE's primary mission and responsibility has been to ensure that FUSRAP sites remain protective of human health and the environment. In fulfilling this mission, the DOE program includes the following key elements: eligibility determinations, transition of remediated sites from USACE to DOE, LTS and M operations such as inspections and institutional controls management, stakeholder support, preservation of records, and real property and reuse. DOE maintains close communication stakeholders as well as state and federal regulators. DOE programs are designed to preserve and present the information that future stewards and stakeholders will need to maintain site remedies and knowledge. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗