Evolution of Safety Management Within the Scaled Wind Farm Technology (SWiFT) Facility Program.
Abstract not provided.
Riley, Timothy G↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “Program management”
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.
Evolution of Safety Management Within the Scaled Wind Farm Technology (SWiFT) Facility Program.
Abstract not provided.
Riley, Timothy G↗
To the 'Safety related?' Question: What is Related to Safety? - 18430
Most, if not all, national programs for radioactive waste management (RWM) pledge their overall commitment to safety or - in the case of radioactive waste disposal - to long-term safety. Therefore, it may be somewhat surprising to find that the term 'safety' is hardly defined in these programs. The same holds for some of the core international guidance literature on the deep geological repository (DGR) 'safety case' concept. With respect to stakeholder concern over the safety of geological disposal, it seems, however, advisable to seek common ground in the understanding of the idea of 'safety'. In this paper, we review and discuss the most relevant international guidance literature's provision (or non-provision) of definitions of 'safety' in the context of radioactive waste disposal. Against this background, we develop a tentative, practical, glossary-style definition of 'safety' in the DGR context. As a seed of discussion, it may help to eventually expose possible mismatches in the base assumptions of safety experts and other stakeholders. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Post-Closure Report for Closed Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Units, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, for Fiscal Year 2014
This report serves as the combined annual report for post-closure activities for several Corrective Action Units (CAUs). The locations of the sites are shown in Figure 1. This report covers fiscal year 2014 (October 2013–September 2014). The post-closure requirements for these sites are described in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit Number NEV HW0101 and summarized in each CAU-specific section in Section 1.0 of this report. The results of the inspections, a summary of maintenance activities, and an evaluation of monitoring data are presented in this report. Site inspections are conducted semiannually at CAUs 90 and 91 and quarterly at CAUs 92, 110, 111, and 112. Additional inspections are conducted at CAU 92 if precipitation occurs in excess of 0.50 inches (in.) in a 24-hour period and at CAU 111 if precipitation occurs in excess of 1.0 in. in a 24-hour period. Inspections include an evaluation of the condition of the units, including covers, fences, signs, gates, and locks. In addition to visual inspections, soil moisture monitoring, vegetation evaluations, and subsidence surveys are conducted at CAU 110. At CAU 111, soil moisture monitoring, vegetation evaluations, subsidence surveys, direct radiation monitoring, air monitoring, radon flux monitoring, and groundwater monitoring are conducted. The results of the vegetation surveys and an analysis of the soil moisture monitoring data at CAU 110 are presented in this report. Results of additional monitoring at CAU 111 are documented annually in the Nevada National Security Site Waste Management Monitoring Report Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites and in the Nevada National Security Site Data Report: Groundwater Monitoring Program Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, which will be prepared in approximately June 2015. All required inspections, maintenance, and monitoring were conducted in accordance with the post-closure requirements of the permit. It is recommended to continue inspections and monitoring as scheduled.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Fuel Thermo-physical Characterization Project: Evaluation of Models to Calculate Thermal Diffusivity of Layered Composites
The Office of Material Management and Minimization Fuel Thermo-physical Characterization Project at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is tasked with using PNNL facilities and processes to receive irradiated low enriched uranium-molybdenum fuel plate samples and perform analyses in support of the Office of Material Management and Minimization Reactor Conversion Program. This work is in support of the Fuel Development Pillar that is managed by Idaho National Laboratory. A key portion of the scope associated with this project was to measure the thermal properties of fuel segments harvested from plates that were irradiated in the Advanced Test Reactor. Thermal diffusivity of samples prepared from the fuel segments was measured using laser flash analysis. Two models, one developed by PNNL and the other developed by the Technische Universität München (TUM), were evaluated to extract the thermal diffusivity of the uranium-molybdenum alloy from measurements made on the irradiated, layered composites. The experimental data of the “TC” irradiated fuel segment was evaluated using both models considering a three-layer and five-layer system. Both models are in acceptable agreement with one another and indicate that the zirconium diffusion barrier has a minimal impact on the overall thermal diffusivity of the monolithic U-Mo fuel.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office Visit: Nuclear Nonproliferation and Security Program at LANL [Slides]
The Laboratory’s nuclear nonproliferation and security portfolio is managed by the GS-NNS program office: NNSA’s Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation office (DNN) makes up ~80% of our work. We also support State Dept activities closely aligned with our work for DNN and NASAprograms. Our work is executed across the entire Laboratory, approximately half in the Global Security directorate and a third in the Weapons Program.
98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
Data-driven reinforcement learning–based real-time energy management system for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) show great promise in reducing transportation-related fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Designing an efficient energy management system (EMS) for PHEVs to achieve better fuel economy has been an active research topic for decades. Most of the advanced systems rely either on a priori knowledge of future driving conditions to achieve the optimal but not real-time solution (e.g., using a dynamic programming strategy) or on only current driving situations to achieve a real-time but nonoptimal solution (e.g., rule-based strategy). This paper proposes a reinforcement learning–based real-time EMS for PHEVs to address the trade-off between real-time performance and optimal energy savings. The proposed model can optimize the power-split control in real time while learning the optimal decisions from historical driving cycles. Here, a case study on a real-world commute trip shows that about a 12% fuel saving can be achieved without considering charging opportunities; further, an 8% fuel saving can be achieved when charging opportunities are considered, compared with the standard binary mode control strategy.
33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
The Capability Portfolio Analysis Tool (CPAT): A Mixed Integer Linear Programming Formulation for Fleet Modernization Analysis.
In order to effectively plan the management and modernization of its large and diverse fleet of vehicles, the Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems (PEO GCS) commissioned the development of a large-scale portfolio planning optimization tool. This software, the Capability Portfolio Analysis Tool (CPAT), creates a detailed schedule that optimally prioritizes the modernization or replacement of vehicles within the fleet - respecting numerous business rules associated with fleet structure, budgets, industrial base, research and testing, etc., while maximizing overall fleet performance through time. This paper contains a thorough documentation of the terminology, parameters, variables, and constraints that comprise the fleet management mixed integer linear programming (MILP) mathematical formulation.
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
Development of a Technical Standard for Radiological Characterization of DAW - 19552
Since the Manhattan Project, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies have performed a wide mission involving nuclear materials and weapons development, production, testing, and modernization. While the initial mission components relied heavily upon reactor physics and chemistry, the environmental programs have increasingly relied upon development of more accurate and effective measurement methodologies to determine the radiological and chemical properties of the unique waste streams that were generated during the weapons production and testing mission. During the ongoing site cleanup program, the DOE laboratories and former production sites have developed a wide range of site-specific processes and procedures for conducting radiological characterization of dry active waste (DAW) that is managed as low-level radioactive waste. This has resulted in a Complex-wide variability among sites with respect to the methodologies and instrumentation used to characterize individual waste streams. The DAW-type waste was selected for development of a characterization standard since it is a simple, voluminous, and repetitive waste stream with a substantial knowledge base, established experience history at multiple site locations, and the potential for realization of programmatic benefits though standardization. Implementation of a consistent, standardized approach to DAW characterization will take advantage of multiple applications for a technology that is both mature and stable. The DAW characterization process is repetitive and lends itself to implementation at a wide range of operating locations - resulting in economies of scale, compliance with regulatory requirements, and consistent implementation of procedures which support design, operations, maintenance, and management of facilities, activities and environmental restoration programs. In response to a request from DOE, the Energy Facility Contractors Group (EFCOG) Waste Management Working Group (WMWG) is supporting the development of a new DOE Technical Standard for Radiological Characterization of DAW. The purpose of the proposed new standard is to provide a technical resource that integrates and enhances the utilization of current site-specific methodologies and processes. An EFCOG/WMWG technical team has prepared a Technical Basis Document (TBD) to support the development and utilization of the new standard. The TBD provides detailed reference information for use by site personnel when implementing the guidance to be provided in the standard. It also provides the rationale for and details concerning the recommended technical approaches for radiological characterization of representative DAW-type waste streams. The TBD is an essential resource and will be included as an appendix to the proposed standard. Formulation of the new standard will draw upon the information contained in the TBD in order to integrate and improve the utilization of current site-specific methodologies and processes. It will also include a comparison of current radiological characterization methodologies to determine which ones are most reliable and effective in producing relevant and valid data. In view of the long history and participation by several agencies in the regulation of nuclear programs, existing Voluntary Consensus Standards have also been identified in the TBD and will be referenced for relevancy and applicability to the new proposed standard. A Project Justification Statement (PJS) was also developed by the EFCOG/WMWG Team. Following internal Team review and approval by EFCOG, the draft PJS was submitted through Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and the DOE Argonne Site Office Technical Standards Managers for review and approval by the DOE Argonne Site Office Manager. After resolution of comments and approval by the Manager, the PJS will be submitted to the DOE/HQ Technical Standards Program Manager (TSPM) for formal coordination. Following resolution of technical comments received during the PJS coordination process and receipt of a technical standards project number assigned by the TSPM, the Team will confirm the overall preparation schedule and develop an Internal Draft Technical Standard for coordination with the DOE Argonne Site Office. Following comment resolution, the Team will then prepare a Coordination Draft for submittal to the DOE Technical Standards RevCom review process and will respond to comments generated during this Complex-wide review. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Impacts of management practices on bioenergy feedstock yield and economic feasibility on Conservation Reserve Program grasslands
Abstract Perennial grass mixtures planted on Conservation Reserve Program ( CRP ) land are a potential source of dedicated bioenergy feedstock. Long‐term nitrogen (N) and harvest management are critical factors for maximizing biomass yield while maintaining the longevity of grass stands. A six‐year farm‐scale study was conducted to understand the impact of weather variability on biomass yield, determine optimal N fertilization and harvest timing management practices for sustainable biomass production, and estimate economic viability at six CRP sites in the United States. Precipitation during the growing season was a critical factor for annual biomass production across all regions, and annual biomass production was severely reduced when growing season precipitation was below 50% of average. The N rate of 112 kg ha −1 produced the highest biomass yield at each location. Harvest timing resulting in the highest biomass yield was site‐specific and was a factor of predominant grass type, seasonal precipitation, and the number of harvests taken per year. The use of N fertilizer for yield enhancement unambiguously increased the cost of biomass regardless of the harvest timing for all six sites. The breakeven price of biomass at the farmgate ranged from $37 to $311 Mg −1 depending on the rate of N application, timing of harvesting, and location when foregone opportunity costs were not considered. Breakeven prices ranged from $69 to $526 Mg −1 when the loss of CRP land rental payments was included as an opportunity cost. Annual cost of the CRP to the federal government could be reduced by over 8% in the states included in this study; however, this would require the biomass price to be much higher than in the case where the landowner receives the CRP land rent. This field research demonstrated the importance of long‐term, farm‐scale research for accurate estimation of biomass feedstock production and economic viability from perennial grasslands.
09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
In situ TEM and synchrotron characterization of U–10Mo thin specimen annealed at the fast reactor temperature regime
U–Mo metallic alloys have been extensively used for the Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) program, which is now known as the Office of Material Management and Minimization under the Conversion Program. This fuel form has also recently been proposed as fast reactor metallic fuels in the recent DOE Ultra-high Burnup Fast Reactor project. In order to better understand the behavior of U–10Mo fuels within the fast reactor temperature regime, a series of annealing and characterization experiments have been performed. Annealing experiments were performed in situ at the Intermediate Voltage Electron Microscope (IVEM-Tandem) facility at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). An electro-polished U–10Mo alloy fuel specimen was annealed in situ up to 700 °C. At an elevated temperature of about 540 °C, the U–10Mo specimen underwent a relatively slow microstructure transition. Nano-sized grains were observed to emerge near the surface. At the end temperature of 700 °C, the near-surface microstructure had evolved to a nano-crystalline state. In order to clarify the nature of the observed microstructure, Laue diffraction and powder diffraction experiments were carried out at beam line 34-ID of the Advanced Photon Source (APS) at ANL. Phases present in the as-annealed specimen were identified with both Laue diffraction and powder diffraction techniques. The U–10Mo was found to recrystallize due to thermally-induced recrystallization driven by a high density of pre-existing dislocations. A separate in situ annealing experiment was carried out with a Focused Ion Beam processed (FIB) specimen. A similar microstructure transition occurred at a lower temperature of about 460 °C with a much faster transition rate compared to the electro-polished specimen. - Highlights: • TEM annealing experiments were performed in situ at the IVEM facility up to fast reactor temperature. • At 540 °C, the U-10Mo specimen underwent a slow microstructure transition where nano-sized grains were observed to emerge. • UO{sub 2} phase exists at the thin area of the as-annealed specimen whereas U-10Mo γ phase dominated at the thicker part. • Bcc γ U-10Mo recrystallized to become nano-meter sized crystallites near the specimen surface. • A separateannealing experiment was conducted with a FIB processed specimen where similar transition occurred at a lower temperature of 460 °C with a faster rate.
36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
Obstacles to Practical Digital Supply Chain Risk Management in the Energy Sector
Cyber supply chain risk management (C-SCRM) programs must consider operations that depend on the lifecycles of digital components such as hardware, firmware, software, and services. We integrate academic literature, historical incidents, and existing standards to identify obstacles faced by C-SCRM programs.
Business Process Management & Integration↗
Path of Disposal for Hazardous and Non-hazardous Waste from Cradle to Grave
Hazardous waste is a threat to human health and the environment and must be managed and disposed of properly. A Solid Waste is defined as any material (solid, liquid, containerized gas) which has been discarded, abandoned (no longer needed), or recycled. The Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) is a law that creates the framework for the proper management of solid waste. Under RCRA, EPA has developed a program which ensures hazardous waste is managed safely from the moment it is generated to its final disposal (cradle-to-grave)2. To educate about how waste is handled at the Savannah River Research Campus (SRRC) under RCRA, the path it takes from point of generation (cradle) to disposal (grave), and the responsibilities of every person involved in the process. Researcher or other laboratory personnel that generates waste as a result of their work Responsibilities: - Fill out inventory log sheet and corresponding container sheet which includes the constituents of the waste; - Properly label waste container with SAA/WSA ID no., generator's name, what it is, the hazards, and date; - Place waste in designated waste storage area. Laboratory Custodian Responsibilities: - Ensures waste is handled and stored properly; - Ensures inventory is updated; - Ensures all container sheets are completed; - Ensures only authorized personal have access to waste storage areas. Environmental Compliance Authority Responsibilities: - Develops waste procedures; - Provide waste training; - Inspects for improperly handled waste; - Establishes or closes waste storage areas as needed; - Determines if waste can be recycled; - Determines if waste is RCRA hazardous: Is it U or P listed? - Unused commercial chemical products; Is it F listed - Spent solvents; Is it characteristic? - Flammable/Oxidizer, Corrosive, Reactive, Toxic; - Weighs waste to ensure laboratory has not exceeded its monthly or total storage limits; - Maintains waste records; - Determines how waste should be disposed: Trash - Nonhazardous solids; Drain - Nonhazardous Liquids; Labpack; - Prepares waste for shipment with Vendor and Department of Transportation (DOT) personnel. Packages, Transports, and Treats Hazardous Waste Responsibilities: - Must be EPA permitted and approved by the Department of Energy - Picks up hazardous waste for transport to a treatment, storage or disposal facility depending on waste disposal requirements - Must meet all Department of Transportation regulations for transporting hazardous waste - Dispose of waste according to RCRA regulations. Due to the potential risks to human health and the environment, waste must be handled safely through the chain of possession from cradle to grave. To ensure proper handling, there are many safety checks as required by RCRA and DOT regulations. This includes proper labeling, inventory, and characterization to ensure all hazards are known, inspections by the Custodian, ECA, and the state regulator (SCDHEC), and transportation verifications and manifesting. One of the best ways to reduce the risks that waste presents is to minimize or eliminate the creation of waste. This can be accomplished through source reduction which includes: Inventory control, material substitution, process modification, improved housekeeping, and preventative maintenance and recycling.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
A Microreactor Program Plan for The Department of Energy
The DOE Microreactor Program was established in FY 2019 to support research and development (R&D) of technologies related to the development, demonstration, and deployment of low-power, transportable reactors to provide power and heat for decentralized generation in civilian, industrial, and defense energy sectors. The program conducts both fundamental and applied R&D to de-risk technology performance and manufacturability readiness of microreactors. R&D projects and work packages are selected to support concept-neutral technology maturation. The intent is to ensure those concepts can be licensed and deployed by commercial entities to meet specific use case requirements. At the same time, the program will also support R&D specific to certain reactor technology groups (e.g., heat pipe reactors and gas-cooled reactors) to ensure relevancy and address the technology needs of commercial developers. The program will ensure coordination of work and activities across participating laboratories and universities, establish, and manage stakeholder interactions, and support program meetings. These stakeholders include, but are not limited to, industry developers, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, policymakers, and end users. This document provides an overview of the overall Microreactor Program, including its vision, key technical objectives, and scope of the current and proposed R&D portfolio. It covers a 5-year rolling currently from Fiscal year 2025 through Fiscal year 2030. This document will be revised at least biennially to reflect changing priorities.
99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 2016 Annual Financial Report
FY2016 was a year of significant change and progress at Berkeley Lab. In March, Laboratory Director Michael Witherell assumed his new role when former Lab Director Paul Alivisatos became Vice Chancellor for Research at UC Berkeley. Dr. Witherell has solidified the Lab’s strategy, with a focus on long term science and technology priorities. Large-scale science efforts continued to expand at the Lab, including the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument now heading towards construction, and the LUX-ZEPLIN dark matter detector to be built underground in South Dakota. Another proposed project, the Advanced Light Source-Upgrade, was given preliminary approval and will be the Lab’s largest scientific investment in years. Construction of the Integrative Genomics Building began, and will bring together researchers from the Lab’s Joint Genome Institute, now based in Walnut Creek, and the Systems Biology Knowledgebase (K-Base) under one roof. Investment in the Lab’s infrastructure also continues, informed by the Lab’s Infrastructure Strategic Plan. Another important focus is on developing the next generation of scientists with the talent and diversity needed to sustain Berkeley Lab’s scientific leadership and mission contributions to DOE and the Nation. Berkeley Lab received $897.5M in new FY2016 funding, a 12.5% increase over FY2015, for both programmatic and infrastructure activities. While the Laboratory experienced a substantial increase in funding, it was accompanied by only a modest increase in spending, as areas of growth were partially offset by the completion of several major efforts in FY2015. FY2016 costs were $826.9M, an increase of 1.9% over FY2015. Similar to the prior year, the indirect-funded Operations units worked with generally flat budgets to yield more funding for strategic needs. A key challenge for Berkeley Lab continues to be achieving the best balance to fund essential investments, deliver highly effective operational mission support and remain cost-competitive. Through a comprehensive approach to prioritize competing needs, the Lab ended the year in a favorable financial position. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) played a key role in providing analysis and decision support to Executive Leadership, enabling the Lab to enhance its financial management strategies. In FY2016, the OCFO updated its analytic approaches and models to enhance long term financial projections under various funding and investment scenarios, and to assess total cost of ownership for major proposed investments. These improvements provided the new Lab Director and Senior Leadership with more comprehensive information and analytic support for planning and prioritization efforts. Within the OCFO, we focused on core operations and key initiatives defined in our OCFO Strategic Roadmap. The Lab’s Financial System transitioned from stabilization to optimization, with a focus on expanding the financial reporting capabilities considerably. We completed implementation of the eCommerce platform, achieving a notable outcome for the Lab in close partnership with DOE’s Office of Science. In other accomplishments, we launched a financial literacy program to enable Lab managers and staff to understand and execute their financial management and stewardship responsibilities more effectively; made substantial progress in enhancing our Field Finance model that provides financial support to client divisions and areas; developed a business process governance model to define OCFO business processes, clarify roles, and strengthen service delivery; and implemented a Partners in Leadership training program to build leadership capacity among our staff. We completed a ‘refresh’ of our Strategic Roadmap, which now defines our priorities for FY2017-FY2019. As a part of this effort, we made a subtle but important change to the OCFO mission statement to call out the Lab’s research and stewardship mission to sustain the Lab’s science and technology capabilities now and into the future. Berkeley Lab’s FY2016 progress on all fronts - scientific, operations, and financial management – position the Lab to continue bringing science solutions to the world as we charge into the 21st Century.
Source record↗
Y-12 National Security Complex Biological Monitoring and Abatement Program Plan
This document provides the Biological Monitoring and Abatement Program (BMAP) Plan for East Fork Poplar Creek (EFPC), as required by the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12 Complex) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit which became effective December 1, 2011. The BMAP was first developed in 1985 by staff in the Environmental Science Division at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory at the request of the Y-12 Complex. The multidisciplinary and quantitative biological monitoring approaches used for the BMAP were developed, from the beginning, in close consultation with Y-12 Complex Environmental Compliance staff, as well as the State of Tennessee and the Environmental Protection Agency. A draft BMAP Plan was submitted to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) in May 2012 and was approved by TDEC with revision in December 2012. The TDEC’s Plan changes are incorporated in this final BMAP Plan issued in January 2013. The general approach to the 2013 BMAP Plan follows previous precedent, and addresses all BMAP-related NPDES permit requirements. The focus of the monitoring effort is on EFPC and comparable reference streams, including Brushy Fork and Hinds Creek. Two other stream systems near the Y-12 Complex, Bear Creek and McCoy Branch, are similarly monitored using BMAP and TDEC protocols as required in the permit; however, these streams are monitored by Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act -funded programs and are only briefly summarized in this Plan. Three major tasks comprise the current program: fish bioaccumulation, benthic macroinvertebrate community, and fish community. A concomitant task, toxicity testing of storm drains, is also implemented at the Y-12 Complex and briefly described in the Plan. Each BMAP task differs slightly in the number of sites and frequency of sampling, depending on need as determined by previous monitoring. Sampling rationale and specific methods for each task are provided herein. A summary of program integration components, including data management, quality assurance, and reporting aspects, are also provided. The BMAP is an internationally recognized biological monitoring program that is a valuable case study for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the nation. First and foremost, the program evaluates Tennessee Water Quality Criteria (as required in the NPDES permit) by conducting studies to annually evaluate bioaccumulation of contaminants of concern, and the receiving streams’ biological integrity. The program has been successful in evaluating ecological effects and their causes, and has provided actionable information in the design and application of pollution abatement actions. Most importantly, the program design focuses on assessing spatial and temporal change, and has documented substantial ecological recovery in response to various facility actions. The program results have therefore become a key measure of how well the DOE facilities are doing relative to protecting the environment, and provide assurance to regulators and the public that stream conditions are improving. The DOE’s mission and environmental management in Oak Ridge will continue to evolve as the facilities modernize and various decontamination and decommissioning activities and pollution abatement actions are implemented. Many changes are expected at the Y-12 Complex in the next few years that have the potential to positively affect, or on a short-term basis negatively affect, the stream environment. The BMAP approach described here will continue to provide an important integrated measure of receiving stream conditions and ecological response to future facility actions.
Peterson, Mark J.↗
Transition and Transfer of Remediated Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) Sites from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
The US Department of Energy (DOE) expects to receive the transfer of 10 FUSRAP Sites from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) over the next 10 years; however, the timing of the transfers is highly dependent upon federal funding of the ongoing remedial actions. When remediation for each site is complete and the 2-year operations and maintenance period has concluded, each site will transfer from USACE to DOE for long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTS&M). US DOE’s Office of Legacy Management (LM) will accept program responsibility for these sites and conduct LTS&M activities required to maintain protectiveness, preserve site-specific knowledge, and retain the cleanup and stewardship records while keeping stakeholders informed. Since the last FUSRAP site transfer occurred in 2007, LM in coordination with USACE intends to establish a transition process to promote the seamless transfer of sites from the time when the first record of decision is signed to the completion of FUSRAP activities. The approach to transfer active FUSRAP sites to completed sites status has been historically outlined in foundational documents such as the 1999 Memorandum of Understanding and supporting letters of agreement between the two agencies. As more complex FUSRAP sites are completed, this transition process will provide a model between the two agencies to communicate future long-term care liabilities. Ultimately, the FUSRAP transition process is structured to acquire and preserve site knowledge and information necessary for protecting the environment and public health. As of 2015, LM has transitioned and accepted programmatic responsibility for over 90 sites. From LM’s perspective, successful transition of any site includes understanding the long-term environmental liabilities. LM uses site transition framework requirements from past transitions to develop site-specific transition plans. Site-specific transition plans are developed by LM in coordination with USACE and executed during the 2-year operations and maintenance period. An integrated project team of subject matter experts is assembled to address the conditions of the transitioning site; acquire a site records collection; evaluate site operations and final site conditions and associated risks; identify and contact stakeholders; and document the basis for site LTS&M requirements. While the majority of the transition activities are completed by LM, close coordination between US DOE LM and USACE throughout this process is essential for an effective and seamless transfer to assure that there is no lapse in site protectiveness.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Database and Explorer
Overview The Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Toolkit is an online exploratory visualization tool developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) with support from other federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). It provides a single point of access to authoritative information on federal agency investment in a portfolio of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects that have been publicly announced to advance technologies for point source carbon capture, carbon dioxide removal, transport, storage, and conversion, collectively referred to as carbon management. The RD&D programs covered in this tool are authorized by annual congressional appropriations ("Base Program") and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The tool also incorporates public information on other federal initiatives, such as the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, and public information released by other government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and Primacy States’ Underground Injection Control Class VI permits and EPA’s facility level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Developed in a geographic information system, the tool organizes carbon management projects into five groups based on the primary technology that a project aims to advance, each visually represented as a digital layer ("carbon management project layer"). Only federally funded projects are included, which can be awarded projects that are completed or ongoing, or projects that have been selected but are currently under negotiation. Project information can be viewed in the map or in the attribute table below it when turned on. In the map view, each project is displayed at either its host site (for field work), where available, or its performer site (project lead's location, further explained in the table below). Host sites and performer sites are represented in distinct icons. Several reference layers offer additional public information on infrastructural and natural resource environment for carbon management. These reference layers, combined with multiple geographical basemaps, enable users to visualize the carbon management project layers in context. Carbon management project information will be updated monthly based on feedback and information availability. Carbon management project layers Point Source Carbon Capture (PSC) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants or industrial facilities. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, including direct air capture (DAC) and DAC hubs, direct ocean capture, enhanced mineralization, and biomass carbon removal and storage. For projects with multiple host sites, each of the sites are displayed individually with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the total for the entire project. Carbon Transport This layer contains DOE- and DOT-funded projects focused on CO2 transport. The Transport Research and Development sublayer contains projects that do not involve physical infrastructure; the Proposed Transport Corridor sublayer contains projects for which either a route for the transport infrastructure has been proposed or a general area for the transport infrastructure has been identified. Carbon Storage This layer contains DOE-funded key projects focused on CO2 storage. For projects with multiple field-work sites, each of the sites are displayed individually on the map with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the overall total for the entire project. Carbon Conversion This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on converting CO2 into economically valuable products. Reference layers The following layers provide additional information in the geographic proximity of carbon management projects. Users should reference the original sources for more details (weblinks provided below and in pop-up windows on the map). Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub and Facility These layers illustrate the approximate areas of the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs announced by DOE's Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) and the approximate locations of individual facilities that constitute the hubs (see "Where are the H2Hubs located?" on the webpage linked above). EPA Facility Level GHG Emissions (direct emitter) This layer shows direct CO2 emissions from stationary sources in 2022, using data extracted from EPA's Facility Level Information on GreenHouse gases Tool (FLIGHT). Captured and injected CO2 are not deducted from direct emitters’ total emissions. Contact EPA for additional details. Underground Injection Control Class VI permit/permit application This layer shows the locations of CO2 injection wells that are granted or in the process of applying for an Underground Injection Control Class VI permit by EPA or a Primacy State (currently Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming). The URLs for the permits or permit applications are provided in the pop-up windows associated with the well locations. Contact EPA for additional details. Carbon Storage Resource This layer contains information on prospective CO2 storage resources in saline formations and oil and gas reservoirs provided by the National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System (NATCARB) spatial database. Contact NETL for additional details. Existing CO2 pipeline This layer shows active CO2 pipelines based on information digitized from the map issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Contact PHMSA for additional details.
Carbon Conversion↗