Engineering Papers⌕ Search

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.

At least 1,261 records · Page 70
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2019

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↗
DOE OSTI2025

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↗
DOE OSTI2017

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↗
DOE OSTI2013

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.↗
DOE OSTI2016

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↗
DOE OSTI2024

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↗
DOE OSTI2015

Appraising the value of independent EIA follow-up verifiers

Independent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) follow-up verifiers such as monitoring agencies, checkers, supervisors and control officers are active on various construction sites across the world. There are, however, differing views on the value that these verifiers add and very limited learning in EIA has been drawn from independent verifiers. This paper aims to appraise how and to what extent independent EIA follow-up verifiers add value in major construction projects in the developing country context of South Africa. A framework for appraising the role of independent verifiers was established and four South African case studies were examined through a mixture of site visits, project document analysis, and interviews. Appraisal results were documented in the performance areas of: planning, doing, checking, acting, public participating and integration with other programs. The results indicate that independent verifiers add most value to major construction projects when involved with screening EIA requirements of new projects, allocation of financial and human resources, checking legal compliance, influencing implementation, reporting conformance results, community and stakeholder engagement, integration with self-responsibility programs such as environmental management systems (EMS), and controlling records. It was apparent that verifiers could be more creatively utilized in pre-construction preparation, providing feedback of knowledge into assessment of new projects, giving input to the planning and design phase of projects, and performance evaluation. The study confirms the benefits of proponent and regulator follow-up, specifically in having independent verifiers that disclose information, facilitate discussion among stakeholders, are adaptable and proactive, aid in the integration of EIA with other programs, and instill trust in EIA enforcement by conformance evaluation. Overall, the study provides insight on how to harness the learning opportunities arising from EIA follow-up through the appointment of independent verifiers. - Highlights: • A framework for appraising the role of independent verifiers is established. • The value added to EIA follow-up by independent verifiers in South Africa is documented. • Verifiers add most value when involved with screening, checking compliance, influencing decisions and community engagement. • Verifiers could be more creatively utilized in pre-construction preparation, giving feedback, and performance evaluation.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2012

Nuclear Crisis Communications: The Plan Worked. A Critique of NRC Communications in the Fukushima Daiichi Reactor Crisis - 12073

'Call the AV-Photo folks and get someone in here to shoot b-roll. We'll never be able to accommodate the network cameras and the only way I can get this to the media is to produce it ourselves'. Eliot Brenner, Director NRC Office of Public Affairs, March 12, 2011. For the past four years we have been speaking to audiences at Waste Management about communications issues. Last year, though we were kept from attending because of the federal budget crisis, our surrogates described to you the lessons the nuclear industry should draw from the BP Gulf oil spill crisis. Those remarks were delivered 11 days before the Fukushima Daiichi tragedy became the nuclear landmark of a generation - an industry changing event with worldwide ramifications, both in science and regulation and in communications. Eliot Brenner cut his teeth on crisis communication in the aviation industry where tragedy unfolds rapidly. He has been a speech-writer to three cabinet secretaries, spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration and now spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 2004. Holly Harrington manages the NRC crisis response program and has 26 years federal public affairs experience, including eight years at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Her crisis experience includes the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, numerous hurricanes and floods, Sept 11, and, now Fukushima Daiichi. Rebecca Schmidt is a veteran government relations professional whose decades in Washington include service with the House Armed Services Committee, the House Budget Committee and the Secretary of Defense. Collectively, the Offices of Public Affairs and Congressional Affairs conducted the largest outreach for the agency since Three Mile Island. We worked with the basic rule, described to Waste Management last year just 11 days before Fukushima - communicate early, often and clearly. The response - while not without its problems and lessons - went as smoothly as a chaotic event like Fukushima could go. That was due in large measure to the fact that the NRC has a well-tested system of responding to nuclear emergencies, and we followed our plan. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Performance improvement and human resources transition management in D and D projects - 15440

Power generation and other nuclear facilities production is mainly characterized by stable working environment, with continuous efforts for improvement based on previous achievements, constant workload, foreseeable and established organizational hierarchy; and generation of cash. In contrary to normal production - when phasing down the facility for final shutdown, decommissioning and dismantling - one has to manage a new, highly dynamic working environment, with decreasing workload, new skills required; and consumption of cash. The key to successful transition is to recognize the need for establishing an explicit performance improvement program with an effective change management process in order to address this profound evolution as early as possible in the project. AREVA owns and operates large nuclear material processing facilities. This includes the responsibility for their end of life up to final Decommissioning and Dismantling (D and D). Faced with this transitional challenge, AREVA took example from well-known management methods (Lean Management, 6 Sigma, TPM...) successfully applied by the non-nuclear production industry with the corresponding philosophy of Operational Excellence. These methods were adapted to the specifics of nuclear decommissioning projects. Furthermore, specific computerized tools were developed to assist managers in implementing measures for re-deploying, re-training and re-qualifying personnel as well as re-organizing the work structure while maintaining safety and social consensus. Significant improvements in the dismantling works as well as in the management of generated waste were achieved early after start of the implementation of the performance improvement programs. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2014--Summary

This Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report (NNSSER) was prepared to satisfy DOE Order DOE O 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health reporting.” Its purpose is to (1) report compliance status with environmental standards and requirements, (2) present results of environmental monitoring of radiological and nonradiological effluents, (3) report estimated radiological doses to the public from releases of radioactive material, (4) summarize environmental incidents of noncompliance and actions taken in response to them, (5) describe the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office Environmental (NSA/NFO) Management System and characterize its performance, and (6) highlight significant environmental programs and efforts. The three major NNSS missions include National Security/Defense, Environmental Management, and Nondefense. The major programs that support these missions are Stockpile Stewardship and Management, Nonproliferation and Counterterrorism, Nuclear Emergency Response, Strategic Partnership Project, Environmental Restoration, Waste Management, Conservation and Renewable Energy, Other Research and Development, and Infrastructure. The major facilities that support the programs include the U1a Facility, Big Explosives Experimental Facility (BEEF), Device Assembly Facility, Dense Plasma Focus Facility, Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research Facility, Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex, Nonproliferation Test and Evaluation Complex (NPTEC), Radiological/Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction Incident Exercise Site, Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC), and the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2013

Integrated Weed Control for Land Stewardship at Legacy Management's Rocky Flats Site in Colorado - 13086

Land stewardship is one of nine sustainability programs in the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Management System. Land stewardship includes maintaining and improving ecosystem health. At the Rocky Flats Site near Westminster, Colorado, land stewardship is an integral component of the Office of Legacy Management's post-closure monitoring and management at the site. Nearly 263 hectares (650 acres) were disturbed and re-vegetated during site cleanup and closure operations. Proactive management of revegetation areas is critical to the successful reestablishment of native grasslands, wetlands, and riparian communities. The undisturbed native plant communities that occur at the site also require active management to maintain the high-quality wetlands and other habitats that are home to numerous species of birds and other wildlife such as elk and deer, rare plant communities, and the federally listed threatened Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Over the past several decades, an increase of Noxious weeds has impacted much of Colorado's Front Range. As a result, weed control is a key component of the land stewardship program at Rocky Flats. Thirty-three species of state-listed Noxious weeds are known to occur in the Central and Peripheral Operable Units at Rocky Flats, along with another five species that are considered invasive at the site. Early detection and rapid response to control new invasive species is crucial to the program. An integrated weed control/vegetation management approach is key to maintaining healthy, sustainable plant communities that are able to resist Noxious weed invasions. Weed mapping, field surveys, and field-staff training sessions (to learn how to identify new potential problem species) are conducted to help detect and prevent new weed problems. The integrated approach at Rocky Flats includes administrative and cultural techniques (prevention), mechanical controls, biological controls, and chemical controls. Several species of biocontrol insects have been released to assist with control of different target weed species. Monitoring is conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of control efforts and to provide information for future control efforts. The effective implementation of this integrated approach has reduced the infestation levels of many species and has kept several newly discovered invasive species from spreading and becoming larger problems at the site. (authors)

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Computational Tools and Workflows for Quantitative Risk Assessment and Decision Support for Geologic Carbon Storage Sites: Progress and Insights from the U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership

The 2005 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on CCS raised the profile of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) as an important technology for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CCS is now recognized as a key component of most climate change mitigation scenarios. Since publication of that report the international research, development, and deployment (RD&D) community has advanced key technical aspects, clarified regulatory requirements, explored value chain and infrastructure solutions, and developed incentive paradigms to enable and promote large-scale deployment of CCS. These efforts have included research to better characterize geologic storage resources, to improve injection performance and storage efficiency, to assess and manage subsurface environmental risks, and to advance monitoring technologies to assure system conformance. These efforts have helped to build confidence in the viability of geologic carbon storage (GCS), but stakeholder concerns about long-term risks and liability associated with GCS remain a hurdle to broad acceptance and large-scale deployment of CCS. Since 2010, the U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) – a research collaboration between five contributing national laboratories – has worked to establish and demonstrate methods and tools to quantify and manage the subsurface environmental risks associated with GCS, amidst uncertainty. This work supports the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Carbon Transport and Storage Program’s goal of advancing safe and secure commercial-scale GCS deployment. To address the technical challenge of simulating the physical response of the GCS site to large-scale CO2 injection, NRAP has adopted an approach that relies on coupling computationally efficient reduced-order and/or data-driven proxy models of important system components (i.e., storage reservoir, sealing caprock, leakage pathways, intermediate formations, overlying groundwater aquifers, and the atmosphere) in integrated assessment framework. That integrated model of the physical system is complemented with fit-for purpose functionality to support site characterization and risk-related decisions. The recently released NRAP Phase II toolset includes the Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM) for evaluation of trends in leakage risk and potential impact, tools to support monitoring design optimization (Designs for Risk Evaluation and Management – DREAM v3.0 and Passive Seismic Monitoring Tool - PSMT), and tools for state of stress evaluation (State-of-Stress Analysis Tool - SOSAT) and forecasting induced seismicity risk. The NRAP team has also released a pair of reports describing conceptual workflows to incorporate physics-based, quantitative risk assessment into many of the design, planning, operation, and closure decisions for GCS projects. An online catalogue highlights published studies where these tools and methods are demonstrated. In this presentation, the utility of these products to assess risks and address key stakeholder questions will be highlighted through examples, and related insights about the safety and security of geologic carbon storage in qualified storage sites will be discussed. The prospect of rapid, large-scale deployment of GCS technology to aggressively reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions requires careful consideration of interference between multiple commercial-scale storage projects within a basin. Going forward, NRAP is expanding and adapting site-scale risk quantification tools and methods to enable assessment of risks and inform management decisions for basin-scale deployment. Increasingly, this work will leverage next-generation approaches for surrogate modelling, fast prediction, and advanced visualization enabled by machine learning and artificial intelligence to promote virtual learning, scenario evaluation, and augment risk-based decision making.

quantitative risk assessment, geologic carbon stor↗
DOE OSTI2017

The Capability Portfolio Analysis Tool (CPAT): A Mixed Integer Linear Programming Formulation for Fleet Modernization Analysis (Version 2.0.2).

In order to effectively plan the management and modernization of their large and diverse fleets of vehicles, Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems (PEO GCS) and Program Executive Office Combat Support and Combat Service Support (PEO CS&CSS) commis- sioned 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 thor- ough documentation of the terminology, parameters, variables, and constraints that comprise the fleet management mixed integer linear programming (MILP) mathematical formulation. This paper, which is an update to the original CPAT formulation document published in 2015 (SAND2015-3487), covers the formulation of important new CPAT features.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2019

Low-Level Waste Minimization and Management Planning at the Western Waste Management Facility, Ontario Power Generation - 19235

The purpose of this study was to examine the strategies intended to mitigate the temporary storage restrictions for Low-Level radioactive waste at the Western Waste Management Facility to enable continued accommodation of waste generation rates, and to recover storage capacity from 2018-2023 to optimize long-term sustainability for radioactive waste management. The management options considered were based on existing waste processing technologies and programs available at the Western Waste Management Facility, in combination with third party volume-reduction services. Completed analysis measured the consumption of Low-Level Waste storage space as influenced by the projected volumes from nuclear generating stations, and the various processing scenarios developed; such as reducing the volume of surplus processable waste on-site, and the reduction of specific waste streams previously considered to be non-processable. Results from the quantitative analysis indicated which strategies will be most effective for minimizing waste volumes for long-term storage and for recovering low-level storage space at the Western Waste Management Facility. The strategic path forward is presented in short- to long-term management objectives. Results from this study will contribute to the waste stream planning and management of major reactor refurbishment projects and to the technological advancements and innovation of radioactive waste processing and minimization. With further understanding of the refurbishment-specific waste types and volumes, it is expected that Nuclear Waste Management and the nuclear generating stations will achieve increasingly improved minimization results with the progression of each refurbished reactor. (author)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2013

Expediting Groundwater Sampling at Hanford and Making It Safer - 13158

The CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) manages the groundwater monitoring programs at the Department of Energy's 586-square-mile Hanford site in southeastern Washington state. These programs are regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). The purpose of monitoring is to track existing groundwater contamination from past practices, as well as other potential contamination that might originate from RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities. An integral part of the groundwater-monitoring program involves taking samples of the groundwater and measuring the water levels in wells scattered across the site. Each year, more than 1,500 wells are accessed for a variety of reasons. Historically, the monitoring activities have been very 'people intensive'. Field personnel or 'samplers' have been issued pre-printed forms showing information about the well(s) for a particular sampling evolution. This information is taken from two official electronic databases: the Hanford Well Information System (HWIS) and the Hanford Environmental Information System (HEIS). The samplers traditionally used these hardcopy forms to document the groundwater samples and well water-levels. After recording the entries in the field, the samplers turned the forms in at the end of the day and other personnel posted the collected information. In Automating Groundwater Sampling at Hanford (HNF-38542-FP Revision 0, Presented at Waste Management 2009 Conference, March 1 - March 5, 2009, Phoenix, AZ), we described the methods, tools, and techniques that would be used in automating the activities associated with measuring water levels. The Field Logging and Electronic Data Gathering (FLEDG) application/database that automates collecting the water-level measurement data has now been implemented at Hanford. In addition to eliminating the need to print out documents, the system saves three-to-four man days each month for the field personnel taking the measurements and the scientists and administrators managing the data and the documentation. After the information has received technical review, FLEDG automatically updates the database for water-level measurements and loads the document management system with the completed sampling report. Due to safety considerations, access to wells is conditional. A spreadsheet with appropriate data not only lists the wells that are cleared for work, but also the safety personnel who must be present before work can start. This spreadsheet is used in planning daily activities. Daily plans are structured to ensure that the wells to be sampled are cleared for work and the appropriate safety personnel have been assigned and are present before the work starts. Historically, the spreadsheets have been prepared manually, and as a result, are potentially subject to human error. However, a companion database application has been developed to work with FLEDG - making the entire sampling process more efficient and safer for personnel. The Well Access List - Electronic, WAL-E, is a database that contains much the same information that was previously manually loaded into the spread sheet. In addition, WAL-E contains a managed work-flow application that shows the access requirements and allows for appropriate reviews of the compiled well. Various CHPRC organizations, including Industrial Hygiene, RADCON, and Well Maintenance and Sample Administration are able to enter and review the wells added or deleted from the WAL-E database. The FLEDG system then accesses this database information to identify appropriate support personnel and provide safety requirements to field personnel. In addition, WAL-E offers the assurance that wells have appropriate locks and are correctly labeled and electrically grounded as required, before well activities begin. This feature is an extremely important aspect of the FLEDG/WAL-E system because it adds another safety check to the work evolution and reduces the potential for unsafe conditions to exist that would lead to a stop-work situation. This paper will further describe the technical aspects of both electronic programs/databases and their successful application at Hanford. (authors)

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

Recommendations for Improving ASC Data Management

The Advanced Simulation & Computing (ASC) Program started in 1995 and has an essential mission that requires data stewardship for massive amounts of high performance computing data. This report provides general user requirements as determined through interviews of key users, describes the design attributes for high performance computing storage systems, and identifies improvements that would enable users to better manage their data.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Plan to Qualify New Fuel for the High Flux Isotope Reactor for Material Minimization

The High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is one of five high power research reactors the Office of Material Management and Minimization (M3) Program, Office of Conversion is working to convert from using highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to using low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. This effort stems from the primary objective within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to achieve permanent threat reduction by minimizing, and when possible, eliminating weapon-usable nuclear material around the world. Under M3’s Office of Conversion, the U.S. High Performance Research Reactor (USHPRR) Project is pursuing fuel qualification and licensing of LEU fuels to support the high-performance reactors. All high-performance reactors except HFIR will be converted to LEU monolithic uranium-molybdenum alloy fuel. HFIR will be evaluated for conversion to LEU using a uranium silicide fuel, namely, U3Si2-Al dispersion fuel. The mission of the USHPRR Project is to develop the technology needed to reduce, and eventually eliminate, worldwide use of HEU in civilian applications. The goal is to develop the technical means needed to use low enriched uranium (LEU) instead of HEU fuel in research and test reactors without significant penalties in performance, economics, or safety of the reactors. The USHPRR Project has four major elements, called Pillars: Fuel Qualification (FQ) managed at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Fuel Fabrication (FF) managed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Reactor Conversion (RC) managed at Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne), and Cross-Cutting (CC) managed at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL). FQ is responsible for the qualification of the fuel type. RC is responsible for supporting reactor conversion analysis and overseeing licensing submittals leading to conversions of domestic reactors to LEU fuel. For the FQ effort, FQ (INL) worked in collaboration with RC (Argonne) and ORNL to develop the plan for the uranium silicide fuel qualification for HFIR. The resulting HFIR Fuel Qualification Plan provides the general approach for the USHPRR team to move the selected uranium silicide fuel design for HFIR conversion through qualification. Authorization and use in HFIR will be approved through the DOE’s Office of Science. Uranium silicide fuel was previously qualified in NUREG-1313 at an approximate maximum heat flux of 1.4 MW/m2 and a maximum fuel section temperature of about 130°C. In addition to the different regulator process utilized by DOE, these upper limits will be exceeded in HFIR; therefore, further testing will be necessary to ensure the fuel can meet HFIR qualification requirements. The HFIR fuel loading may exceed 4.8 gU/cm3 which was determined in the NUREG-1313 safety evaluation to be acceptable for use in non-power NRC-licensed reactors provided there exist no other safety considerations. In addition, the uranium silicide fuel will need to be qualified in a HFIR-specific design. This plan includes the currently available information from the USHPRR Project Functions and Requirements document and expands these requirements to ensure that planned tests have traceable results providing evidence that the requirements have been met. Data collection methods are discussed as well as the process to show that the requirements have been met. This document is designed to provide a pathway for researchers to obtain data necessary and at the appropriate quality level for HFIR fuel qualification

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Plan to Qualify New Fuel for the High Flux Isotope Reactor for Material Minimization

The High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is one of five high power research reactors the Office of Material Management and Minimization (M3) Program, Office of Conversion is working to convert from using highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel to using low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuel. This effort stems from the primary objective within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to achieve permanent threat reduction by minimizing, and when possible, eliminating weapon-usable nuclear material around the world. Under M3’s Office of Conversion, the U.S. High Performance Research Reactor (USHPRR) Project is pursuing fuel qualification and licensing of the high-performance reactors to operate with LEU fuels. All high-performance reactors except HFIR will be converted to LEU monolithic uranium-molybdenum alloy fuel. HFIR will be evaluated for conversion to LEU using a uranium silicide fuel, namely, U3Si2-Al dispersion fuel.The mission of the USHPRR Project is to develop the technology needed to reduce, and eventually eliminate, worldwide use of HEU in civilian applications. The goal is to develop the technical means needed to use low enriched uranium (LEU) instead of HEU fuel in research and test reactors without significant penalties in performance, economics, or safety of the reactors. The USHPRR Project has four major elements, called Pillars: Fuel Qualification (FQ) managed at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Fuel Fabrication (FF) managed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Reactor Conversion (RC) managed at Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne), and Cross-Cutting (CC) managed at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL). FQ is responsible for the qualification of the fuel type. RC is responsible for supporting reactor conversion analysis and overseeing licensing submittals leading to conversions of domestic reactors to LEU fuel. For the FQ effort, FQ (INL) worked in collaboration with RC (Argonne) and ORNL to develop the plan for the uranium silicide fuel qualification for HFIR.The resulting HFIR Fuel Qualification Plan provides the general approach for the USHPRR team to move the selected uranium silicide fuel design for HFIR conversion through qualification. Authorization and use in HFIR will be approved through the DOE’s Office of Science. Uranium silicide fuel was previously qualified in NUREG-1313 at an approximate maximum heat flux of 1.4 MW/m2 and a maximum fuel section temperature of about 130°C. In addition to the different regulator process utilized by DOE, these upper limits will be exceeded in HFIR; therefore, further testing will be necessary to ensure the fuel can meet HFIR qualification requirements. The HFIR fuel loading may exceed 4.8 gU/cm3 which was determined in the NUREG-1313 safety evaluation to be acceptable for use in non-power NRC-regulated reactors provided there exist no other safety considerations. In addition, the uranium silicide fuel will need to be qualified in a HFIR-specific design. This plan includes the currently available information from the USHPRR Project Functions and Requirements document and expands these requirements to ensure that planned tests have traceable results providing evidence that the requirements have been met. Data collection methods are discussed as well as the process to show that the requirements have been met. This document is designed to provide a pathway for researchers to obtain data necessary and at the appropriate quality level for HFIR fuel qualification.

Shokes, Tamara↗