SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Plan”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 1,117 records · Page 62

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-643: Feasibility of Performing Patient Specific VMAT QA On Single Linac for Plans Treated in Beam-Matched Elekta Agility Linacs

Purpose: The increasing application of VMAT demands a more efficient workflow and QA solution. This study aims to investigate the feasibility of performing VMAT QA measurements on one linac for plans treated on other beam-matched Elekta Agility linacs. Methods: A single model was used to create 24 clinically approved VMAT plans (12 head-and-neck and 12 prostate using 6MV and 10MV respectively) on Pinnacle v9.10 (Philips, Einhoven, Netherlands). All head-and-neck plans were delivered on three beam-matched machines while all prostate cases were delivered on two beam-matched 10MV Agility machines. All plans were delivered onto PTW Octavius 4D phantom with 1500 detector array (PTW, Freiburg, Germany). Reconstructed volume doses were then compared with the Pinnacle reference plans in Verisoft 6.1 under 3%/3mm gamma criteria at local dose. Plans were considered clinically acceptable if >90% of the voxels passing the gamma criteria. Results: All measurements were passed (3D gamma passing rate >90%) and the result shows that the mean difference of 3D gamma of 12 head-and-neck cases is 1.2% with standard deviation of 0.6%. While for prostate cases, the mean difference of 3D gamma is 0.9% with standard deviation of 0.7%. Maximum difference of 3D gamma of all measurements between beam-matched machines is less than 2.5%. The differences of passing rates between different machines were statistically insignificant (p>0.05). Conclusion. The result suggests that ther Conclusion: The result suggests that there exists a 3D gamma threshold, in our case 92.5%, above which the VMAT QA performed in any one of beam-matched machine will also pass in another one. Therefore, VMAT QA efficiency may be increased and phantom set up time can be saved by implementing such method. A constant performance across all beam matched machines must be maintained to make this QA approach feasible.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Poster - 22: Retrospective analysis of portal dosimetry based QA of Prostate VMAT Plans

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to retrospectively analyze the portal dosimetry based quality assurance of prostate VMAT plans. Methods: Our standard quality assurance of VMAT treatment plans are performed using EPID installed on Varian TrueBeam Linac. In our current study we analyzed 84 prostate pretreatment VMAT plans. All plans consisted of two arcs, 7800cGy in 39 fractions with a 6MV beam. For each of these VMAT plans, the measured fluence for each arc is compared with the reference fluence using gamma index analysis. Results: We have compared the gamma passing rates for three criteria; 3%/3mm, 2%/2mm and 1%/1mm. Out of 168 arcs measured, the number below the gamma passing rate 95% using the area, Field+1cm, are 0, 2, and 124 for 3%/3mm, 2%/2mm and 1%/1mm criteria respectively. Corresponding numbers for MLC CIAO are 0, 2, and 139 respectively. The average gamma passing rate for all arcs measured using Field+1cm are 99.9±0.4, 99.6±1.2, and 90.9±6.5 for 3%/3mm, 2%/2mm and 1%/1mm respectively. Similarly if the MLC CIAO area is analyzed, a passing rate of 99.9±0.2, 99.2±1.2 and 87.2±8.5 respectively was observed. The average of the maximum gamma was also found to increase with tighter criteria. Conclusion: Analysis of prostate VMAT quality assurance plans indicate that the gamma passing rate is sensitive to the criteria and the area analyzed.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

MRI-Based Radiotherapy Planning to Reduce Rectal Dose in Excess of Tolerance

Background and Purpose. Chronic rectal toxicity significantly decreases the quality of life for men who receive radiotherapy for prostate cancer. The most significant predictor of rectal toxicity is rectal dose-volume exceeding tolerance. To minimize the volume of rectum in the high dose field, it is essential to accurately define the prostate-rectum interface. This can be challenging to do by computed tomography (CT) imaging alone. The current study was undertaken to formally demonstrate in a clinical trial setting that image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) planning using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can reduce the volume of rectum exceeding 70 Gy, a validated metric that predicts the risk of late rectal toxicity. Materials and Methods. This prospective single-arm study enrolled 15 men treated with IG-IMRT for localized prostate cancer. All participants received a dedicated 3 Tesla MRI examination of the prostate in addition to a pelvic CT examination for treatment planning. Two volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans with a prescription dose of 79.2 Gy were designed using identical constraints based on CT- and MRI-defined consensus volumes. The volume of rectum exposed to 70 Gy or more was compared using the Wilcoxon paired signed rank test. Results. For CT-based treatment plans, the median volume of rectum receiving 70 Gy or more was 9.3 cubic centimeters (cc) (IQR 7.0 to 10.2) compared with 4.9 cc (IQR 4.1 to 7.8) for MRI-based plans. This resulted in a median volume reduction of 2.1 cc (IQR 0.5 to 5.3, P < .001). Conclusions. Using MRI to plan prostate IG-IMRT to a dose of 79.2 Gy reduces the volume of rectum receiving radiation dose in excess of tolerance (70 Gy or more) and should be considered in men who are at high risk for late rectal toxicity and are not good candidates for other rectal sparing techniques such as hydrogel spacer. This trial is registered with NCT02470910.

Schmidt, Daniel R.↗

DOE OSTI2025

Distribution Substation Planning Toolkit (dsp-toolkit) v1.0

The Distribution Substation Planning Toolkit (DSP Toolkit) is a software suite designed to streamline the planning and optimization of distribution substations. This toolkit offers a comprehensive set of tools and APIs for data curation, short-term electric load forecasting, and weather-sensitive load adjustment, making it an essential resource for utility companies, engineers, and researchers. Features • Data Preprocessing and Curation: Efficiently manage and preprocess large datasets to ensure high-quality input for analysis. • Short-Term Load Forecasting: Utilize data-driven models to predict short-term electric loads accurately. • Weather-Sensitive Modeling: Automatically adjust load forecasts based on weather data to predict future peak demands more precisely. Uses The DSP Toolkit is ideal for planning and optimizing distribution substations, providing a user-friendly interface and comprehensive documentation. It is suitable for both novice and experienced users, facilitating efficient and accurate planning processes. Advantages • Efficiency: Automates complex planning tasks, reducing manual effort and minimizing errors. • Scalability: Handles large datasets and complex models, making it suitable for large-scale projects. • Community and Support: Open-source with active community contributions, ensuring continuous improvement and support. • Extensibility: Easily extendable with custom modules and plugins, allowing users to tailor the toolkit to their specific needs. The DSP Toolkit stands out by offering a robust, flexible, and user-friendly solution for distribution substation planning. Public Abstract

Li, Han [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LB↗

DOE OSTI2021

Incorporating adaptation and resilience into an integrated watershed and coral reef management plan

Changing environmental conditions are forcing natural resource managers and communities to adapt their strategies to account for global shifts in precipitation, temperature, sea level and more, all of which are occurring in addition to local human impacts. Adapting to threats from climate change requires a fundamental shift in the practice of natural resource management through the development of forward-looking “climate-smart” goals and strategies. Here we present a proof-of-concept application of a decision-support tool to help design climate-smart management actions for the watershed and coral reef management plan for Guánica Bay watershed in southwest Puerto Rico. We also explore the connection between adaptation planning and coral reef resilience, using a recently developed Puerto Rico-wide reef resilience assessment. In the first phase of the study, we used the publicly available Adaptation Design Tool to draft initial climate-smart versions of twelve proposed management actions. In the second phase, two actions (dirt road management on steep slopes, and coral reef restoration) were further refined through consultations with local experts to make more detailed design adjustments; this included the option to use information from the coral reef resilience assessment to inform design improvements. The first phase resulted in moderately detailed assessments that broadly accounted for anticipated direct and indirect effects of climate change on the planned management actions. The second phase resulted in more site-specific technical assessments and additional important design details. The expert panel charged with discussing climate-smart reef restoration around Guánica used the reef resilience assessment to guide discussion of reef restoration, highlighting the importance of having such information available for adaptation planning. This study demonstrates how climate change impacts can be effectively incorporated into a management plan at the most granular level of planning and how a structured, formalized process can be as valuable as the resulting adaptation information.

Gibbs, David A. (ORCID:0000000173898569)↗

DOE OSTI2010

Y-12 Groundwater Protection Program Groundwater And Surface Water Sampling And Analysis Plan For Calendar Year 2011

This plan provides a description of the groundwater and surface water quality monitoring activities planned for calendar year (CY) 2011 at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) that will be managed by the Y-12 Groundwater Protection Program (GWPP). Groundwater and surface water monitoring performed by the GWPP during CY 2011 will be in accordance with requirements of DOE Order 540.1A and the following goals: (1) to protect the worker, the public, and the environment; (2) to maintain surveillance of existing and potential groundwater contamination sources; (3) to provide for the early detection of groundwater contamination and determine the quality of groundwater and surface water where contaminants are most likely to migrate beyond the Oak Ridge Reservation property line; (4) to identify and characterize long-term trends in groundwater quality at Y-12; and (5) to provide data to support decisions concerning the management and protection of groundwater resources. Groundwater and surface water monitoring during CY 2011 will be performed primarily in three hydrogeologic regimes at Y-12: the Bear Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (Bear Creek Regime), the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (East Fork Regime), and the Chestnut Ridge Hydrogeologic Regime (Chestnut Ridge Regime). The Bear Creek and East Fork regimes are located in Bear Creek Valley and the Chestnut Ridge Regime is located south of Y-12 (Figure A.1). Additional surface water monitoring will be performed north of Pine Ridge along the boundary of the Oak Ridge Reservation. Modifications to the CY 2011 monitoring program may be necessary during implementation. Changes in programmatic requirements may alter the analytes specified for selected monitoring wells or may add or remove wells from the planned monitoring network. All modifications to the monitoring program will be approved by the Y-12 GWPP manager and documented as addenda to this sampling and analysis plan. The following sections of this report provide details regarding the CY 2011 groundwater and surface water monitoring activities. Section 2 describes the monitoring locations in each regime and the processes used to select the sampling locations. A description of the field measurements and laboratory analytes is provided in Section 3. Sample collection methods and procedures are described in Section 4, and Section 5 lists the documents cited for more detailed operational and technical information. The narrative sections of the report reference several appendices. Figures (maps and diagrams) and tables (excluding data summary tables presented in the narrative sections) are in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. Groundwater Monitoring Schedules (when issued throughout CY 2011) will be inserted in Appendix C, and addenda to this plan (if issued) will be inserted in Appendix D. Laboratory requirements (bottle lists, holding times, etc.) are provided in Appendix E, and an approved Waste Management Plan is provided in Appendix F.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗

DOE OSTI2010

Corrective Action Decision Document/Corrective Action Plan for the 92-Acre Area and Corrective Action Unit 111: Area 5 WMD Retired Mixed Waste Pits, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada (Rev.1)

This Corrective Action Decision Document/Corrective Action Plan (CADD/CAP) has been prepared for the 92-Acre Area, the southeast quadrant of the Radioactive Waste Management Site, located in Area 5 of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). The 92-Acre Area includes Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 111, 'Area 5 WMD Retired Mixed Waste Pits.' Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) were developed for the 92-Acre Area, which includes CAU 111. The result of the DQO process was that the 92-Acre Area is sufficiently characterized to provide the input data necessary to evaluate corrective action alternatives (CAAs) without the collection of additional data. The DQOs are included as Appendix A of this document. This CADD/CAP identifies and provides the rationale for the recommended CAA for the 92-Acre Area, provides the plan for implementing the CAA, and details the post-closure plan. When approved, this CADD/CAP will supersede the existing Pit 3 (P03) Closure Plan, which was developed in accordance with Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 265, 'Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.' This document will also serve as the Closure Plan and the Post-Closure Plan, which are required by 40 CFR 265, for the 92-Acre Area. After closure activities are complete, a request for the modification of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit that governs waste management activities at the NNSS will be submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection to incorporate the requirements for post-closure monitoring. Four CAAs, ranging from No Further Action to Clean Closure, were evaluated for the 92-Acre Area. The CAAs were evaluated on technical merit focusing on performance, reliability, feasibility, safety, and cost. Based on the evaluation of the data used to develop the conceptual site model; a review of past, current, and future operations at the site; and the detailed and comparative analysis of the potential CAAs, Closure in Place with Administrative Controls is the preferred CAA for the 92-Acre Area. Closure activities will include the following: (1) Constructing an engineered evapotranspiration cover over the 92-Acre Area; (2) Installing use restriction (UR) warning signs, concrete monuments, and subsidence survey monuments; (3) Establishing vegetation on the cover; (4) Implementing a UR; and (5) Implementing post-closure inspections and monitoring. The Closure in Place with Administrative Controls alternative meets all requirements for the technical components evaluated, fulfills all applicable federal and state regulations for closure of the site, and will minimize potential future exposure pathways to the buried waste at the site.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2012

Corrective Action Investigation Plan for Corrective Action Unit 105: Area 2 Yucca Flat Atmospheric Test Sites Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, Revision 0

Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 105 is located in Area 2 of the Nevada National Security Site, which is approximately 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. CAU 105 is a geographical grouping of sites where there has been a suspected release of contamination associated with atmospheric nuclear testing. This document describes the planned investigation of CAU 105, which comprises the following corrective action sites (CASs): • 02-23-04, Atmospheric Test Site - Whitney • 02-23-05, Atmospheric Test Site T-2A • 02-23-06, Atmospheric Test Site T-2B • 02-23-08, Atmospheric Test Site T-2 • 02-23-09, Atmospheric Test Site - Turk These sites are being investigated because existing information on the nature and extent of potential contamination is insufficient to evaluate and recommend corrective action alternatives (CAAs). Additional information will be obtained by conducting a corrective action investigation before evaluating CAAs and selecting the appropriate corrective action for each CAS. The results of the field investigation will support a defensible evaluation of viable CAAs that will be presented in the Corrective Action Decision Document. The sites will be investigated based on the data quality objectives (DQOs) developed on April 30, 2012, by representatives of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office. The DQO process was used to identify and define the type, amount, and quality of data needed to develop and evaluate appropriate corrective actions for CAU 105. The site investigation process will also be conducted in accordance with the Soils Activity Quality Assurance Plan, which establishes requirements, technical planning, and general quality practices to be applied to this activity. The potential contamination sources associated with all CAU 105 CASs are from atmospheric nuclear testing activities. The presence and nature of contamination at CAU 105 will be evaluated based on information collected from a field investigation. Radiological contamination will be evaluated based on a comparison of the total effective dose at sample locations to the dose-based final action level. The total effective dose will be calculated as the total of separate estimates of internal and external dose. Results from the analysis of soil samples will be used to calculate internal radiological dose. Thermoluminescent dosimeters placed at the center of each sample location will be used to measure external radiological dose. Appendix A provides a detailed discussion of the DQO methodology and the DQOs specific to each CAS. This Corrective Action Investigation Plan has been developed in accordance with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; DOE, Environmental Management; U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management. Under the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, this Corrective Action Investigation Plan will be submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection for approval. Fieldwork will be conducted after the plan is approved.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Site 300 SPCC Plan

This Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan describes the measures that are taken at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL) Experimental Test Site (Site 300) near Tracy, California, to prevent, control, and handle potential spills from aboveground containers that can contain 55 gallons or more of oil. This SPCC Plan complies with the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 112 (40 CFR 112) and with 40 CFR 761.65(b) and (c), which regulates the temporary storage of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). This Plan has also been prepared in accordance with Division 20, Chapter 6.67 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC 6.67) requirements for oil pollution prevention (referred to as the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act [APSA]), and the United States Department of Energy (DOE) Order No. 436.1. This SPCC Plan establishes procedures, methods, equipment, and other requirements to prevent the discharge of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines for aboveground oil storage and use at Site 300. This SPCC Plan has been prepared for the entire Site 300 facility and replaces the three previous plans prepared for Site 300: LLNL SPCC for Electrical Substations Near Buildings 846 and 865 (LLNL 2015), LLNL SPCC for Building 883 (LLNL 2015), and LLNL SPCC for Building 801 (LLNL 2014).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Site 300 Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2017

A Reload and Startup Plan for and #8233;Conversion of the NIST Research Reactor

The National Institute of Standards and Technology operates a 20 MW research reactor for neutron-based research. The heavy-water moderated and cooled reactor is fueled with high-enriched uranium (HEU) but a program to convert the reactor to low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel is underway. Among other requirements, a reload and startup test plan must be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for their approval. The NRC provides guidance for what should be in the plan to ensure that the licensee has sufficient information to operate the reactor safely. Hence, a plan has been generated consisting of two parts.The reload portion of the plan specifies the fuel management whereby initially only two LEU fuel elements are in the core for eight fuel cycles. This is repeated until a point when the optimum approach is to place four fresh LEU elements into the reactor each cycle. This final transition is repeated and after eight cycles the reactor is completely fueled with LEU. By only adding two LEU fuel elements initially, the plan allows for the consumption of HEU fuel elements that are expected to be in storage at the time of conversion and provides additional qualification of production LEU fuel under actual operating conditions. Because the reload is to take place over many fuel cycles, startup tests will be done at different stages of the conversion. The tests, to be compared with calculations to show that the reactor will operate as planned, are the measurement of critical shim arm position and shim arm and regulating rod reactivity worths. An acceptance criterion for each test is specified based on technical specifications that relate to safe operation. Additional tests are being considered that have less safety significance but may be of interest to bolster the validation of analysis tools.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2018

Los Alamos National Laboratory SAVY-4000 Field Surveillance Plan Update for 2018

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2019

Los Alamos National Laboratory SAVY-4000 Field Surveillance Plan Update for 2019

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2019

Pre-Project Planning for a Flameless Pressurized Oxy-Combustion Pilot Plant (Final Technical Report)

The team of Southwest Research Institute® (SwRI®), ITEA, Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI), GE Global Research (GE), Jacobs Engineering (Jacobs), and Peter Reineck Associates (PRA) are advancing Flameless Pressurized Oxy-Combustion (FPO), a novel coal technology. This effort seeks to complete the preliminary engineering and planning of a 50-MWth Pilot Plant that produces electricity and steam for district heating. The technology, pioneered by ITEA at the 5-MWth scale, must be brought to a higher technology readiness level (TRL) to be viable at the commercial scale. This project builds upon extensive evaluation of the techno-economic performance of the FPO technology already performed by ITEA. This includes system improvements, such as the addition of a turbo-expander to the flue gas stream. Some of the performance-enhancing components are not as well defined as others. The primary goal of this project was to bring all of the core cycle components to the same level of design maturity. Extensive cycle modeling and evaluation explored various configurations of the process. Different coals, operating conditions, and heat recovery devices were considered and modeled using Aspen Plus. The results of the cycle modeling informed the pilot plant configuration and the planned configuration at the commercial scale. The system pressurization is maintained in the flue gas clean-up and water removal. This allows for efficient and cost-effective carbon dioxide compression and sequestration package. Once the cycle was optimized, preliminary drawings, layouts, and plans defined the pilot facility. Process flow diagrams (PFD) were used to describe the pilot configuration in greater detail. A heat and mass balance with stream data was created. A master equipment list specified the operating conditions for major pieces of equipment within the pilot using this heat and mass balance. A detailed cost estimate for the planned configuration was completed with an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class IV level of cost analysis. A site selection effort evaluated a variety of potential candidate sites. The selection effort focused on three sites for an in-depth evaluation of the merits and viability of hosting a pilot demonstration. The ability of the host site to support the project with cost sharing was also assessed. The selection process chose the University of Wyoming (UW) as the host site, and cost estimates for the pilot capital estimate were made using local data. A preliminary test plan and operation plan, which creates figures of merit, control, and instrumentation was produced. An effort that outlines methods of pilot cost reduction was completed near the end of the project. A techno-economic assessment (TEA) evaluated the FPO technology at the commercial scale in comparison to the NETL baseline cases. The reference plants were used in combination with proprietary equipment estimates to build a plant capital cost and cost of electricity evaluation. FPO performed better than the sub-bituminous post-combustion capture cases. Further preliminary estimates of improvements to the FPO cycle show even further gains when compared to conventional carbon capture methods.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2019

Los Alamos National Laboratory SAVY-4000 Field Surveillance Plan Update for 2020

The Packaging Surveillance Program section of the Department of Energy (DOE) Manual 441.1-1, Nuclear Material Packaging Manual (DOE 2008), requires DOE contractors to “ensure that a surveillance program is established and implemented to ensure the nuclear material storage package continues to meet its design criteria.” The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) SAVY-4000 Field Surveillance Plan was first issued in fiscal year (FY) 2013. The surveillance plan is reviewed annually and updated as necessary based on SAVY-4000 surveillance findings, as well as results of the lifetime extension studies. Five surveillance plan updates have been issued, one in 2014, one in 2016, one in 2017, one in 2018, and one in 2019. This 2020 update documents what was actually done in 2019 and what is planned for 2020. Deviations from the 2019 surveillance plan were necessary because some of the planned surveillance containers were not available for examination. The goal of the surveillance program is to provide data to: evaluate container component performance over time against the initial baseline qualification; validate the current SAVY container design life; provide data for future design life extensions of components as indicated; identify indications of container degradation early and identify similar containers and/or contents that may need remediation; maintain and continuously improve the surveillance information system that documents the complete life cycle of the containers including the initial production baseline, usage history, surveillance, and disposition; identify container issues related to wear and tear that could indicate the need for a maintenance program for in-service containers prior to the end of the design life.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Middle DP Road Recovery Effort, June 26, 2020

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a final 2017 Construction General Permit (CGP) that covers discharges of stormwater from construction sites. The 2017 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activity (Appendix D) includes the following requirements:(1) conduct a critical habitat and threatened/endangered species study; (2) develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with good engineering practices; (3) submit a Notice of Intent (NOI); (4) install and maintain erosion and stormwater controls; (5) perform and document storm water inspections during construction and site stabilization; (6) amend the SWPPP as necessary; and (7) submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) following project completion and final stabilization of disturbed areas. Authorization to discharge storm water is required under this Permit for both large and small construction projects disturbing more than one (1) acre or part of a larger common plan of development that collectively disturbs more than one (1) acre. All parties that meet the definition of Operator must be permitted. Each permittee is not required to develop and implement a separate SWPP Plan. It is required that there be at least one SWPP Plan for a site that incorporates the required elements for all Operators. The 2017 CGP number for New Mexico (Region 6) is NMR100000. This Plan, which has been developed for Triad National Security, LLC (Triad), describes the nature and sequencing of construction activities, potential sources of pollution, and identifies the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the potential for erosion and storm water pollution. The Plan was developed in accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § §1251 et seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, P.L. 100-4), and the regulations established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permits for Storm Water Discharges From Construction Activities.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Middle DP Road Recovery Effort, June 26, 2020 (Copy for Informational Puproses Only)

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a final 2017 Construction General Permit (CGP) that covers discharges of stormwater from construction sites. The 2017 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activity (Appendix D) includes the following requirements: (1) conduct a critical habitat and threatened/endangered species study; (2) develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with good engineering practices; (3) submit a Notice of Intent (NOI); (4) install and maintain erosion and stormwater controls; (5) perform and document storm water inspections during construction and site stabilization; (6) amend the SWPPP as necessary; and (7) submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) following project completion and final stabilization of disturbed areas. Authorization to discharge storm water is required under this Permit for both large and small construction projects disturbing more than one (1) acre or part of a larger common plan of development that collectively disturbs more than one (1) acre. All parties that meet the definition of Operator must be permitted. Each permittee is not required to develop and implement a separate SWPP Plan. It is required that there be at least one SWPP Plan for a site that incorporates the required elements for all Operators. The 2017 CGP number for New Mexico (Region 6) is NMR100000. This Plan, which has been developed for Triad National Security, LLC (Triad), describes the nature and sequencing of construction activities, potential sources of pollution, and identifies the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize the potential for erosion and storm water pollution. The Plan was developed in accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § §1251 et seq., as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, P.L. 100-4), and the regulations established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permits for Storm Water Discharges From Construction Activities.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Guidance on Including Social, Organizational and Technical Influences in Nuclear Utility and Plant Modernization Plans

The objective of this report is to provide the nuclear power industry with guidance on including socio-technical issues in plans developed for current and future modernization efforts. Socio-technical issues of concern include social, organizational and related technical aspects of modernized systems. These can be addressed using a set of systematic analysis and design methods developed to address socio-technical issues of the sort facing the nuclear power industry. The next phase of this work will involve developing and implementing a modernization plan that includes socio-technical tools and methods identified and discussed in a report by Dainoff and colleagues (2020). The plan is expected to be developed and implemented in cooperation with a nuclear utility that has expressed interest in participating. The Dainoff et al report provides the foundation for the present effort and presents a methodological tool set for analyzing socio-technical issues applicable to many modernization efforts. The tools described by Dainoff et al are based on principles of human factors engineering, safety engineering, and systems engineering and are discussed within the specific context of nuclear utility modernization and transformation efforts. It is expected that the plan and the concepts described in the current report will be developed and implemented with a nuclear utility partner. The plan developed with the nuclear utility partner will have a substantially higher level of detail than the guidance provided in this report, particularly with regard to details of plan logistics, etc.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗