National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for farm facility closure

  1. Technical Review of Retrieval and Closure Plans for the INEEL INTEC Tank Farm Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bamberger, Judith A; Burks, Barry L; Quigley, Keith D; Falter, Diedre D

    2001-09-28

    The purpose of this report is to document the conclusions of a technical review of retrieval and closure plans for the Idaho National Energy and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) Tank Farm Facility. In addition to reviewing retrieval and closure plans for these tanks, the review process served as an information exchange mechanism so that staff in the INEEL High Level Waste (HLW) Program could become more familiar with retrieval and closure approaches that have been completed or are planned for underground storage tanks at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Hanford sites. This review focused not only on evaluation of the technical feasibility and appropriateness of the approach selected by INEEL but also on technology gaps that could be addressed through utilization of technologies or performance data available at other DOE sites and in the private sector. The reviewers, Judith Bamberger of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and Dr. Barry Burks of The Providence Group Applied Technology, have extensive experience in the development and application of tank waste retrieval technologies for nuclear waste remediation.

  2. Tank Farm Area Closure

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    ... Disposal Facility FFTF Fast Flux Test Facility FY ... Sodium dichromate was used as a water treatment chemical for cooling water used in Hanford's production reactors. ...

  3. Tank Closure Progress at the Department of Energy's Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Tank Farm Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Quigley, K.D.; Butterworth, St.W.; Lockie, K.A.

    2008-07-01

    Significant progress has been made at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to empty, clean and close radioactive liquid waste storage tanks at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC) Tank Farm Facility (TFF). The TFF includes eleven 1,135.6-kL (300,000-gal) underground stainless steel storage tanks and four smaller, 113.5-kL (30,000-gal) stainless steel tanks, along with tank vaults, interconnecting piping, and ancillary equipment. The TFF tanks have historically been used to store a variety of radioactive liquid waste, including wastes associated with past spent nuclear fuel reprocessing. Although four of the large storage tanks remain in use for waste storage, the other seven 1,135.6-kL (300,000-gal) tanks and the four 113.5-kL (30,000-gal) tanks have been emptied of waste, cleaned and filled with grout. A water spray cleaning system was developed and deployed to clean internal tank surfaces and remove remaining tank wastes. The cleaning system was effective in removing all but a very small volume of solid residual waste particles. Recent issuance of an Amended Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and a Waste Determination complying with Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2005, has allowed commencement of grouting activities on the cleaned tanks. The first three 113.5-kL (30,000-gal) tanks were grouted in the Fall of 2006 and the fourth tank and the seven 1,135.6-kL (300,000-gal) tanks were filled with grout in 2007 to provide long-term stability. It is currently planned that associated tank valve boxes and interconnecting piping, will be stabilized with grout as early as 2008. (authors)

  4. ICPP tank farm closure study. Volume 2: Engineering design files

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-02-01

    Volume 2 contains the following topical sections: Tank farm heel flushing/pH adjustment; Grouting experiments for immobilization of tank farm heel; Savannah River high level waste tank 20 closure; Tank farm closure information; Clean closure of tank farm; Remediation issues; Remote demolition techniques; Decision concerning EIS for debris treatment facility; CERCLA/RCRA issues; Area of contamination determination; Containment building of debris treatment facility; Double containment issues; Characterization costs; Packaging and disposal options for the waste resulting from the total removal of the tank farm; Take-off calculations for the total removal of soils and structures at the tank farm; Vessel off-gas systems; Jet-grouted polymer and subsurface walls; Exposure calculations for total removal of tank farm; Recommended instrumentation during retrieval operations; High level waste tank concrete encasement evaluation; Recommended heavy equipment and sizing equipment for total removal activities; Tank buoyancy constraints; Grout and concrete formulas for tank heel solidification; Tank heel pH requirements; Tank cooling water; Evaluation of conservatism of vehicle loading on vaults; Typical vault dimensions and approximately tank and vault void volumes; Radiological concerns for temporary vessel off-gas system; Flushing calculations for tank heels; Grout lift depth analysis; Decontamination solution for waste transfer piping; Grout lift determination for filling tank and vault voids; sprung structure vendor data; Grout flow properties through a 2--4 inch pipe; Tank farm load limitations; NRC low level waste grout; Project data sheet calculations; Dose rates for tank farm closure tasks; Exposure and shielding calculations for grout lines; TFF radionuclide release rates; Documentation of the clean closure of a system with listed waste discharge; and Documentation of the ORNL method of radionuclide concentrations in tanks.

  5. ICPP tank farm closure study. Volume 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Spaulding, B.C.; Gavalya, R.A.; Dahlmeir, M.M.

    1998-02-01

    The disposition of INEEL radioactive wastes is now under a Settlement Agreement between the DOE and the State of Idaho. The Settlement Agreement requires that existing liquid sodium bearing waste (SBW), and other liquid waste inventories be treated by December 31, 2012. This agreement also requires that all HLW, including calcined waste, be disposed or made road ready to ship from the INEEL by 2035. Sodium bearing waste (SBW) is produced from decontamination operations and HLW from reprocessing of SNF. SBW and HLW are radioactive and hazardous mixed waste; the radioactive constituents are regulated by DOE and the hazardous constituents are regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Calcined waste, a dry granular material, is produced in the New Waste Calcining Facility (NWCF). Two primary waste tank storage locations exist at the ICPP: Tank Farm Facility (TFF) and the Calcined Solids Storage Facility (CSSF). The TFF has the following underground storage tanks: four 18,400-gallon tanks (WM 100-102, WL 101); four 30,000-gallon tanks (WM 103-106); and eleven 300,000+ gallon tanks. This includes nine 300,000-gallon tanks (WM 182-190) and two 318,000 gallon tanks (WM 180-181). This study analyzes the closure and subsequent use of the eleven 300,000+ gallon tanks. The 18,400 and 30,000-gallon tanks were not included in the work scope and will be closed as a separate activity. This study was conducted to support the HLW Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) waste separations options and addresses closure of the 300,000-gallon liquid waste storage tanks and subsequent tank void uses. A figure provides a diagram estimating how the TFF could be used as part of the separations options. Other possible TFF uses are also discussed in this study.

  6. Sunset Farms Biomass Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Farms Biomass Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Sunset Farms Biomass Facility Facility Sunset Farms Sector Biomass Facility Type Landfill Gas Location Travis County, Texas...

  7. Sunnybrook Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Sunnybrook Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Sunnybrook Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Facility...

  8. Calcined solids storage facility closure study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dahlmeir, M.M.; Tuott, L.C.; Spaulding, B.C.

    1998-02-01

    The disposal of radioactive wastes now stored at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory is currently mandated under a {open_quotes}Settlement Agreement{close_quotes} (or {open_quotes}Batt Agreement{close_quotes}) between the Department of Energy and the State of Idaho. Under this agreement, all high-level waste must be treated as necessary to meet the disposal criteria and disposed of or made road ready to ship from the INEEL by 2035. In order to comply with this agreement, all calcined waste produced in the New Waste Calcining Facility and stored in the Calcined Solids Facility must be treated and disposed of by 2035. Several treatment options for the calcined waste have been studied in support of the High-Level Waste Environmental Impact Statement. Two treatment methods studied, referred to as the TRU Waste Separations Options, involve the separation of the high-level waste (calcine) into TRU waste and low-level waste (Class A or Class C). Following treatment, the TRU waste would be sent to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for final storage. It has been proposed that the low-level waste be disposed of in the Tank Farm Facility and/or the Calcined Solids Storage Facility following Resource Conservation and Recovery Act closure. In order to use the seven Bin Sets making up the Calcined Solids Storage Facility as a low-level waste landfill, the facility must first be closed to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) standards. This study identifies and discusses two basic methods available to close the Calcined Solids Storage Facility under the RCRA - Risk-Based Clean Closure and Closure to Landfill Standards. In addition to the closure methods, the regulatory requirements and issues associated with turning the Calcined Solids Storage Facility into an NRC low-level waste landfill or filling the bin voids with clean grout are discussed.

  9. Express Farms Greenhouse Low Temperature Geothermal Facility...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Express Farms Greenhouse Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Express Farms Greenhouse Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Facility Express Farms...

  10. Opline Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Opline Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Opline Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Facility Opline Farms...

  11. PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES FOR TANK FARM CLOSURE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MANN, F.M.; CRUMPLER, J.D.

    2005-09-30

    This report documents the performance objectives (metrics, times of analyses, and times of compliance) to be used in performance assessments of Hanford Site tank farm closure.

  12. Tank Closure

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    of SRS Tank Closure Program Two Tank Farms - F Area and H Area Permitted by SC as Industrial Wastewater Facilities under the Pollution Control Act Three agency Federal...

  13. Grouting at the Idaho National Laboratory Tank Farm Facility, R. Mark Shaw

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Grouting at the Idaho National Laboratory Tank Farm Facility R. Mark Shaw, U. S. Department of Energy safety v performance v cleanup v closure M E Environmental Management Environmental Management 2 Topics/Agenda * Tank Farm Overview * Tank and Vault Grouting * Cooling Coil and Transfer Line Grouting safety v performance v cleanup v closure M E Environmental Management Environmental Management 3 INTEC TANK FARM CLOSURE INTEC TANK FARM CLOSURE VES-WM-103 VES-WM-104 VES-WM-105 VES-WM-106 182 183

  14. Blue Spruce Farm Ana Biomass Facility | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Spruce Farm Ana Biomass Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Blue Spruce Farm Ana Biomass Facility Facility Blue Spruce Farm Ana Sector Biomass Location Vermont Coordinates...

  15. HANFORD SITE RIVER PROTECTION PROJECT (RPP) TANK FARM CLOSURE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    JARAYSI, M.N.; SMITH, Z.; QUINTERO, R.; BURANDT, M.B.; HEWITT, W.

    2006-01-30

    The U. S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection and the CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. are responsible for the operations, cleanup, and closure activities at the Hanford Tank Farms. There are 177 tanks overall in the tank farms, 149 single-shell tanks (see Figure 1), and 28 double-shell tanks (see Figure 2). The single-shell tanks were constructed 40 to 60 years ago and all have exceeded their design life. The single-shell tanks do not meet Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 [1] requirements. Accordingly, radioactive waste is being retrieved from the single-shell tanks and transferred to double-shell tanks for storage prior to treatment through vitrification and disposal. Following retrieval of as much waste as is technically possible from the single-shell tanks, the Office of River Protection plans to close the single-shell tanks in accordance with the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order [2] and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [3] requirements. The double-shell tanks will remain in operation through much of the cleanup mission until sufficient waste has been treated such that the Office of River Protection can commence closing the double-shell tanks. At the current time, however, the focus is on retrieving waste and closing the single-shell tanks. The single-shell tanks are being managed and will be closed in accordance with the pertinent requirements in: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and its Washington State-authorized Dangerous Waste Regulations [4], US DOE Order 435.1 Radioactive Waste Management [5], the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [6], and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 [7]. The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, which is commonly referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement or TPA, was originally signed by Department of Energy, the State of Washington, and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1989. Meanwhile, the retrieval of the waste is under way and is being conducted to achieve the completion criteria established in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order.

  16. Valley Fish Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Fish Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Valley Fish Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Facility Valley Fish...

  17. Kerr Aqua Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Kerr Aqua Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Kerr Aqua Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Facility Kerr Aqua...

  18. Silver Creek Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Creek Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Silver Creek Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Facility Silver...

  19. CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS IN THE F-TANK FARM CLOSURE OPERATIONAL DOCUMENTATION REGARDING WASTE TANK INTERNAL CONFIGURATIONS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hommel, S.; Fountain, D.

    2012-03-28

    The intent of this document is to provide clarification of critical assumptions regarding the internal configurations of liquid waste tanks at operational closure, with respect to F-Tank Farm (FTF) closure documentation. For the purposes of this document, FTF closure documentation includes: (1) Performance Assessment for the F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site (hereafter referred to as the FTF PA) (SRS-REG-2007-00002), (2) Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site (DOE/SRS-WD-2012-001), (3) Tier 1 Closure Plan for the F-Area Waste Tank Systems at the Savannah River Site (SRR-CWDA-2010-00147), (4) F-Tank Farm Tanks 18 and 19 DOE Manual 435.1-1 Tier 2 Closure Plan Savannah River Site (SRR-CWDA-2011-00015), (5) Industrial Wastewater Closure Module for the Liquid Waste Tanks 18 and 19 (SRRCWDA-2010-00003), and (6) Tank 18/Tank 19 Special Analysis for the Performance Assessment for the F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site (hereafter referred to as the Tank 18/Tank 19 Special Analysis) (SRR-CWDA-2010-00124). Note that the first three FTF closure documents listed apply to the entire FTF, whereas the last three FTF closure documents listed are specific to Tanks 18 and 19. These two waste tanks are expected to be the first two tanks to be grouted and operationally closed under the current suite of FTF closure documents and many of the assumptions and approaches that apply to these two tanks are also applicable to the other FTF waste tanks and operational closure processes.

  20. Sandia Energy - Scaled Wind Farm Technology Facility Baselining...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Project Accelerates Work Home Renewable Energy Energy SWIFT Facilities Partnership News Wind Energy News & Events Systems Analysis Scaled Wind Farm Technology Facility Baselining...

  1. Sandia Energy - Scaled Wind Farm Technology (SWIFT) Facility...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Facility Wind Turbine Controller Ground Testing Home Renewable Energy Energy SWIFT News Wind Energy News & Events Scaled Wind Farm Technology (SWIFT) Facility Wind Turbine...

  2. TANK FARM CLOSURE - A NEW TWIST ON REGULATORY STRATEGIES FOR CLOSURE OF WASTE TANK RESIDUALS FOLLOWING NUREG

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    LEHMAN LL

    2008-01-23

    Waste from a number of single-shell tanks (SST) at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site has been retrieved by CH2M HILL Hanford Group to fulfill the requirements of the 'Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (HFFACO) [1]. Laboratory analyses of the Hanford tank residual wastes have provided concentration data which will be used to determine waste classification and disposal options for tank residuals. The closure of tank farm facilities remains one of the most challenging activities faced by the DOE. This is due in part to the complicated regulatory structures that have developed. These regulatory structures are different at each of the DOE sites, making it difficult to apply lessons learned from one site to the next. During the past two years with the passage of the Section 3116 of the 'Ronald Reagan Defense Authorization Act of 2005' (NDAA) [2] some standardization has emerged for Savannah River Site and the Idaho National Laboratory tank residuals. Recently, with the issuance of 'NRC Staff Guidance for Activities Related to US. Department of Energy Waste Determinations' (NUREG-1854) [3] more explicit options may be considered for Hanford tank residuals than are presently available under DOE Orders. NUREG-1854, issued in August 2007, contains several key pieces of information that if utilized by the DOE in the tank closure process, could simplify waste classification and streamline the NRC review process by providing information to the NRC in their preferred format. Other provisions of this NUREG allow different methods to be applied in determining when waste retrieval is complete by incorporating actual project costs and health risks into the calculation of 'technically and economically practical'. Additionally, the NUREG requires a strong understanding of the uncertainties of the analyses, which given the desire of some NRC/DOE staff may increase the likelihood of using probabilistic approaches to uncertainty analysis. The purpose of this paper is to discuss implications of NUREG-1854 and to examine the feasibility and potential benefits of applying these provisions to waste determinations and supporting documents such as future performance assessments for tank residuals.

  3. Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of F-Tank Farm...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    ... This facility utilizes fast-response sonic anemometers, ... nuclear production reactors. Before transfer of the waste from the F Canyon to the tank farms, sodium hydroxide was ...

  4. Tank Farm Closure & Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement <br>

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    (DOE/EIS-0391) - Hanford Site Statements Tank Closure & WM EIS Info Documents CERCLA Five-Year Review NEPA - Categorical Exclusions NEPA - Environmental Assessments NEPA - Environmental Impact Statements Environmental Management Performance Reports Tank Farm Closure & Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0391) Email Email Page | Print Print Page |Text Increase Font Size Decrease Font Size The U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) has prepared a Final Environmental

  5. Engineering study for closure of 209E facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brevick, C.H.; Heys, W.H.; Johnson, E.D.

    1997-07-07

    This document is an engineering study for evaluating alternatives to determine the most cost effective closure plan for the 209E Facility, Critical Mass Laboratory. This laboratory is located in the 200 East Area of the Hanford Site and contains a Critical Assembly Room and a Mix room were criticality experiments were once performed.

  6. Regulatory issues associated with closure of the Hanford AX Tank Farm ancillary equipment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Becker, D.L.

    1998-09-02

    Liquid mixed, high-level radioactive waste has been stored in underground single-shell tanks at the US Department of Energy`s (DOE`s) Hanford Site. After retrieval of the waste from the single-shell tanks, the DOE will proceed with closure of the tank farm. The 241-AX Tank Farm includes four one-million gallon single-shell tanks in addition to sluice lines, transfer lines, ventilation headers, risers, pits, cribs, catch tanks, buildings, well and associated buried piping. This equipment is classified as ancillary equipment. This document addresses the requirements for regulatory close of the ancillary equipment in the Hanford Site 241-AX Tank Farm. The options identified for physical closure of the ancillary equipment include disposal in place, disposal in place after treatment, excavation and disposal on site in an empty single-shell tank, and excavation and disposal outside the AX Tank Farm. The document addresses the background of the Hanford Site and ancillary equipment in the AX Tank Farm, regulations for decontamination and decommissioning of radioactively contaminated equipment, requirements for the cleanup and disposal of radioactive wastes, cleanup and disposal requirements governing hazardous and mixed waste, and regulatory requirements and issues associated with each of the four physical closure options. This investigation was conducted by the Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, during Fiscal Year 1998 for the Hanford Tanks Initiative Project.

  7. Sandia Energy - Increasing the Scaled Wind Farm Technology Facility...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Power Production Home Renewable Energy Energy SWIFT Facilities Partnership News Wind Energy News & Events Systems Analysis Increasing the Scaled Wind Farm Technology...

  8. Draft Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site.

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    SRS-WD-2010-001 Revision 0 Draft Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site September 30, 2010 Draft Basis for Section 3116 Determination DOE/SRS-WD-2010-001 for Closure of F-Tank Farm Revision 0 at the Savannah River Site September 30, 2010 Page ii REVISION SUMMARY REV. # DESCRIPTION DATE OF ISSUE 0 Initial Issue 09/30/2010 Draft Basis for Section 3116 Determination DOE/SRS-WD-2010-001 for Closure of F-Tank Farm Revision 0 at the Savannah River

  9. 303-K Storage Facility closure plan. Revision 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-12-15

    Recyclable scrap uranium with zircaloy-2 and copper silicon alloy, uranium-titanium alloy, beryllium/zircaloy-2 alloy, and zircaloy-2 chips and fines were secured in concrete billets (7.5-gallon containers) in the 303-K Storage Facility, located in the 300 Area. The beryllium/zircaloy-2 alloy and zircaloy-2 chips and fines are designated as mixed waste with the characteristic of ignitability. The concretion process reduced the ignitability of the fines and chips for safe storage and shipment. This process has been discontinued and the 303-K Storage Facility is now undergoing closure as defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Dangerous Waste Regulations, WAC 173-303-040. This closure plan presents a description of the 303-K Storage Facility, the history of materials and waste managed, and the procedures that will be followed to close the 303-K Storage Facility. The 303-K Storage Facility is located within the 300-FF-3 (source) and 300-FF-5 (groundwater) operable units, as designated in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) (Ecology et al. 1992). Contamination in the operable units 300-FF-3 and 300-FF-5 is scheduled to be addressed through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 remedial action process. Therefore, all soil remedial action at the 304 Facility will be conducted as part of the CERCLA remedial action of operable units 300-FF-3 and 300-FF-5.

  10. An Initial Evaluation Of Characterization And Closure Options For Underground Pipelines Within A Hanford Site Single-Shell Tank Farm

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Badden, Janet W.; Connelly, Michael P.; Seeley, Paul N.; Hendrickson, Michelle L.

    2013-01-10

    The Hanford Site includes 149 single-shell tanks, organized in 12 'tank farms,' with contents managed as high-level mixed waste. The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order requires that one tank farm, the Waste Management Area C, be closed by June 30, 2019. A challenge to this project is the disposition and closure of Waste Management Area C underground pipelines. Waste Management Area C contains nearly seven miles of pipelines and 200 separate pipe segments. The pipelines were taken out of service decades ago and contain unknown volumes and concentrations of tank waste residuals from past operations. To understand the scope of activities that may be required for these pipelines, an evaluation was performed. The purpose of the evaluation was to identify what, if any, characterization methods and/or closure actions may be implemented at Waste Management Area C for closure of Waste Management Area C by 2019. Physical and analytical data do not exist for Waste Management Area C pipeline waste residuals. To develop estimates of residual volumes and inventories of contamination, an extensive search of available information on pipelines was conducted. The search included evaluating historical operation and occurrence records, physical attributes, schematics and drawings, and contaminant inventories associated with the process history of plutonium separations facilities and waste separations and stabilization operations. Scoping analyses of impacts to human health and the environment using three separate methodologies were then developed based on the waste residual estimates. All analyses resulted in preliminary assessments, indicating that pipeline waste residuals presented a comparably low long-term impact to groundwater with respect to soil, tank and other ancillary equipment residuals, but exceeded Washington State cleanup requirement values. In addition to performing the impact analyses, the assessment evaluated available sampling technologies and pipeline removal or treatment technologies. The evaluation accounted for the potential high worker risk, high cost, and schedule impacts associated with characterization, removal, or treatment of pipelines within Waste Management Area C for closure. This assessment was compared to the unknown, but estimated low, long-term impacts to groundwater associated with remaining waste residuals should the pipelines be left "as is" and an engineered surface barrier or landfill cap be placed. This study also recommended that no characterization or closure actions be assumed or started for the pipelines within Waste Management Area C, likewise with the premise that a surface barrier or landfill cap be placed over the pipelines.

  11. STATUS OF MECHANICAL SLUDGE REMOVAL AND COOLING COILS CLOSURE AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE - F TANK FARM CLOSURE PROJECT - 9225

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jolly, R

    2009-01-06

    The Savannah River Site F-Tank Farm Closure project has successfully performed Mechanical Sludge Removal using the Waste on Wheels (WOW) system within two of its storage tanks. The Waste on Wheels (WOW) system is designed to be relatively mobile with the ability for many components to be redeployed to multiple tanks. It is primarily comprised of Submersible Mixer Pumps (SMPs), Submersible Transfer Pumps (STPs), and a mobile control room with a control panel and variable speed drives. These tanks, designated as Tank 6 and Tank 5 respectively, are Type I waste tanks located in F-Tank Farm (FTF) with a capacity of 2839 cubic meters (750,000 gallons) each. In addition, Type I tanks have 34 vertically oriented cooling coils and two horizontal cooling coil circuits along the tank floor. DOE intends to remove from service and operationally close Tank 5 and Tank 6 and other HLW tanks that do not meet current containment standards. After obtaining regulatory approval, the tanks and cooling coils will be isolated and filled with grout for long term stabilization. Mechanical Sludge Removal of the remaining sludge waste within Tank 6 removed {approx} 75% of the original 25,000 gallons in August 2007. Utilizing lessons learned from Tank 6, Tank 5 Mechanical Sludge Removal completed removal of {approx} 90% of the original 125 cubic meters (33,000 gallons) of sludge material in May 2008. The successful removal of sludge material meets the requirement of approximately 19 to 28 cubic meters (5,000 to 7,500 gallons) remaining prior to the Chemical Cleaning process. The Chemical Cleaning Process will utilize 8 wt% oxalic acid to dissolve the remaining sludge heel. The flow sheet for Chemical Cleaning planned a 20:1 volume ratio of acid to sludge for the first strike with mixing provided by the submersible mixer pumps. The subsequent strikes will utilize a 13:1 volume ratio of acid to sludge with no mixing. The results of the Chemical Cleaning Process are detailed in the 'Status of Chemical Cleaning of Waste Tanks at the Savannah River Site--F Tank Farm Closure Project--Abstract 9114'. To support Tank 5 and Tank 6 cooling coil closure, cooling coil isolation and full scale cooling coil grout testing was completed to develop a strategy for grouting the horizontal and vertical cooling coils. This paper describes in detail the performance of the Mechanical Sludge Removal activities and SMP operational strategies within Tank 5. In addition, it will discuss the current status of Tank 5 & 6 cooling coil isolation activities and the results from the cooling coil grout fill tests.

  12. Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    ... and tank farm closure, Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) ... be placed on top. Bulk sodium inventories would be ... Site and the cocooned reactors transported to the ...

  13. Format and Content Guide for DOE Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Closure

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Plans | Department of Energy Closure Plans Format and Content Guide for DOE Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Closure Plans Format and Content Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Closure Plans PDF icon Format and Content Guide for DOE Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Closure Plans More Documents & Publications Maintenance Guide for DOE Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Format and Content Guide for DOE Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility U.S. Department of

  14. Low-level radioactive waste disposal facility closure

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    White, G.J.; Ferns, T.W.; Otis, M.D.; Marts, S.T.; DeHaan, M.S.; Schwaller, R.G.; White, G.J. )

    1990-11-01

    Part I of this report describes and evaluates potential impacts associated with changes in environmental conditions on a low-level radioactive waste disposal site over a long period of time. Ecological processes are discussed and baselines are established consistent with their potential for causing a significant impact to low-level radioactive waste facility. A variety of factors that might disrupt or act on long-term predictions are evaluated including biological, chemical, and physical phenomena of both natural and anthropogenic origin. These factors are then applied to six existing, yet very different, low-level radioactive waste sites. A summary and recommendations for future site characterization and monitoring activities is given for application to potential and existing sites. Part II of this report contains guidance on the design and implementation of a performance monitoring program for low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. A monitoring programs is described that will assess whether engineered barriers surrounding the waste are effectively isolating the waste and will continue to isolate the waste by remaining structurally stable. Monitoring techniques and instruments are discussed relative to their ability to measure (a) parameters directly related to water movement though engineered barriers, (b) parameters directly related to the structural stability of engineered barriers, and (c) parameters that characterize external or internal conditions that may cause physical changes leading to enhanced water movement or compromises in stability. Data interpretation leading to decisions concerning facility closure is discussed. 120 refs., 12 figs., 17 tabs.

  15. Criticality Safety Evaluation of Hanford Tank Farms Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    WEISS, E.V.

    2000-12-15

    Data and calculations from previous criticality safety evaluations and analyses were used to evaluate criticality safety for the entire Tank Farms facility to support the continued waste storage mission. This criticality safety evaluation concludes that a criticality accident at the Tank Farms facility is an incredible event due to the existing form (chemistry) and distribution (neutron absorbers) of tank waste. Limits and controls for receipt of waste from other facilities and maintenance of tank waste condition are set forth to maintain the margin subcriticality in tank waste.

  16. Closure of hazardous and mixed radioactive waste management units at DOE facilities. [Contains glossary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-06-01

    This is document addresses the Federal regulations governing the closure of hazardous and mixed waste units subject to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements. It provides a brief overview of the RCRA permitting program and the extensive RCRA facility design and operating standards. It provides detailed guidance on the procedural requirements for closure and post-closure care of hazardous and mixed waste management units, including guidance on the preparation of closure and post-closure plans that must be submitted with facility permit applications. This document also provides guidance on technical activities that must be conducted both during and after closure of each of the following hazardous waste management units regulated under RCRA.

  17. Closure End States for Facilities, Waste Sites, and Subsurface Contamination

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gerdes, Kurt D.; Chamberlain, Grover S.; Wellman, Dawn M.; Deeb, Rula A.; Hawley, Elizabeth L.; Whitehurst, Latrincy; Marble, Justin

    2012-11-21

    The United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) manages the largest groundwater and soil cleanup effort in the world. DOE’s Office of Environmental Management (EM) has made significant progress in its restoration efforts at sites such as Fernald and Rocky Flats. However, remaining sites, such as Savannah River Site, Oak Ridge Site, Hanford Site, Los Alamos, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and West Valley Demonstration Project possess the most complex challenges ever encountered by the technical community and represent a challenge that will face DOE for the next decade. Closure of the remaining 18 sites in the DOE EM Program requires remediation of 75 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and 1.7 trillion gallons of contaminated groundwater, deactivation & decommissioning (D&D) of over 3000 contaminated facilities and thousands of miles of contaminated piping, removal and disposition of millions of cubic yards of legacy materials, treatment of millions of gallons of high level tank waste and disposition of hundreds of contaminated tanks. The financial obligation required to remediate this volume of contaminated environment is estimated to cost more than 7% of the to-go life-cycle cost. Critical in meeting this goal within the current life-cycle cost projections is defining technically achievable end states that formally acknowledge that remedial goals will not be achieved for a long time and that residual contamination will be managed in the interim in ways that are protective of human health and environment. Formally acknowledging the long timeframe needed for remediation can be a basis for establishing common expectations for remedy performance, thereby minimizing the risk of re-evaluating the selected remedy at a later time. Once the expectations for long-term management are in place, remedial efforts can be directed towards near-term objectives (e.g., reducing the risk of exposure to residual contamination) instead of focusing on long-term cleanup requirements. An acknowledgement of the long timeframe for complete restoration and the need for long-term management can also help a site transition from the process of pilot testing different remedial strategies to selecting a final remedy and establishing a long-term management and monitoring approach. This approach has led to cost savings and the more efficient use of resources across the Department of Defense complex and at numerous industrial sites across the U.S. Defensible end states provide numerous benefits for the DOE environmental remediation programs including cost-effective, sustainable long-term monitoring strategies, remediation and site transition decision support, and long-term management of closure sites.

  18. DOE/SNL Scaled Wind-Farm Technology facility

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    SNL Scaled Wind-Farm Technology facility - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management

  19. Facility Closure Report for T-Tunnel (U12t), Area 12, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2008-08-01

    This Facility Closure Report (FCR) has been prepared to document the actions taken to permanently close the remaining accessible areas of U12t-Tunnel (T-Tunnel) in Area 12 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The closure of T-Tunnel was a prerequisite to transfer facility ownership from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) to the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO). Closure of the facility was accomplished with the cooperation and concurrence of both NNSA/NSO and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). The purpose of this FCR is to document that the closure of T-Tunnel complied with the closure requirements specified in the Facility Closure Plan for N- and T-Tunnels Area 12, Nevada Test Site (Appendix D) and that the facility is ready for transfer to NNSA/NSO. The Facility Closure Plan (FCP) is provided in Appendix D. T-Tunnel is located approximately 42 miles north of Mercury in Area 12 of the NTS (Figure 1). Between 1970 and 1987, T-Tunnel was used for six Nuclear Weapons Effects Tests (NWETs). The tunnel was excavated horizontally into the volcanic tuffs of Rainier Mesa. The T-Tunnel complex consists of a main access drift with two NWET containment structures, a Gas Seal Plug (GSP), and a Gas Seal Door (GSD) (Figure 2). The T-Tunnel complex was mothballed in 1993 to preserve the tunnel for resumption of testing, should it happen in the future, to stop the discharge of tunnel effluent, and to prevent unauthorized access. This was accomplished by sealing the main drift GSD.

  20. An Initial Evaluation of Characterization and Closure Options for Underground Pipelines within a Hanford Site Single-Shell Tank Farm - 13210

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Badden, Janet W.; Connelly, Michael P.; Seeley, Paul N.; Hendrickson, Michelle L.

    2013-07-01

    The Hanford Site includes 149 single-shell tanks, organized in 12 'tank farms,' with contents managed as high-level mixed waste. The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order requires that one tank farm, the Waste Management Area C, be closed by June 30, 2019. A challenge to this project is the disposition and closure of Waste Management Area C underground pipelines. Waste Management Area C contains nearly seven miles of pipelines and 200 separate pipe segments. The pipelines were taken out of service decades ago and contain unknown volumes and concentrations of tank waste residuals from past operations. To understand the scope of activities that may be required for these pipelines, an evaluation was performed. The purpose of the evaluation was to identify what, if any, characterization methods and/or closure actions may be implemented at Waste Management Area C for closure of Waste Management Area C by 2019. Physical and analytical data do not exist for Waste Management Area C pipeline waste residuals. To develop estimates of residual volumes and inventories of contamination, an extensive search of available information on pipelines was conducted. The search included evaluating historical operation and occurrence records, physical attributes, schematics and drawings, and contaminant inventories associated with the process history of plutonium separations facilities and waste separations and stabilization operations. Scoping analyses of impacts to human health and the environment using three separate methodologies were then developed based on the waste residual estimates. All analyses resulted in preliminary assessments, indicating that pipeline waste residuals presented a comparably low long-term impact to groundwater with respect to soil, tank and other ancillary equipment residuals, but exceeded Washington State cleanup requirement values. In addition to performing the impact analyses, the assessment evaluated available sampling technologies and pipeline removal or treatment technologies. The evaluation accounted for the potential high worker risk, high cost, and schedule impacts associated with characterization, removal, or treatment of pipelines within Waste Management Area C for closure. This assessment was compared to the unknown, but estimated low, long-term impacts to groundwater associated with remaining waste residuals should the pipelines be left 'as is' and an engineered surface barrier or landfill cap be placed. This study also recommended that no characterization or closure actions be assumed or started for the pipelines within Waste Management Area C, likewise with the premise that a surface barrier or landfill cap be placed over the pipelines. (authors)

  1. HIGH LEVEL WASTE MECHANCIAL SLUDGE REMOVAL AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE F TANK FARM CLOSURE PROJECT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jolly, R; Bruce Martin, B

    2008-01-15

    The Savannah River Site F-Tank Farm Closure project has successfully performed Mechanical Sludge Removal (MSR) using the Waste on Wheels (WOW) system for the first time within one of its storage tanks. The WOW system is designed to be relatively mobile with the ability for many components to be redeployed to multiple waste tanks. It is primarily comprised of Submersible Mixer Pumps (SMPs), Submersible Transfer Pumps (STPs), and a mobile control room with a control panel and variable speed drives. In addition, the project is currently preparing another waste tank for MSR utilizing lessons learned from this previous operational activity. These tanks, designated as Tank 6 and Tank 5 respectively, are Type I waste tanks located in F-Tank Farm (FTF) with a capacity of 2,840 cubic meters (750,000 gallons) each. The construction of these tanks was completed in 1953, and they were placed into waste storage service in 1959. The tank's primary shell is 23 meters (75 feet) in diameter, and 7.5 meters (24.5 feet) in height. Type I tanks have 34 vertically oriented cooling coils and two horizontal cooling coil circuits along the tank floor. Both Tank 5 and Tank 6 received and stored F-PUREX waste during their operating service time before sludge removal was performed. DOE intends to remove from service and operationally close (fill with grout) Tank 5 and Tank 6 and other HLW tanks that do not meet current containment standards. Mechanical Sludge Removal, the first step in the tank closure process, will be followed by chemical cleaning. After obtaining regulatory approval, the tanks will be isolated and filled with grout for long-term stabilization. Mechanical Sludge Removal operations within Tank 6 removed approximately 75% of the original 95,000 liters (25,000 gallons). This sludge material was transferred in batches to an interim storage tank to prepare for vitrification. This operation consisted of eleven (11) Submersible Mixer Pump(s) mixing campaigns and multiple intraarea transfers utilizing STPs from July 2006 to August 2007. This operation and successful removal of sludge material meets requirement of approximately 19,000 to 28,000 liters (5,000 to 7,500 gallons) remaining prior to the Chemical Cleaning process. Removal of the last 35% of sludge was exponentially more difficult, as less and less sludge was available to mobilize and the lighter sludge particles were likely removed during the early mixing campaigns. The removal of the 72,000 liters (19,000 gallons) of sludge was challenging due to a number factors. One primary factor was the complex internal cooling coil array within Tank 6 that obstructed mixer discharge jets and impacted the Effective Cleaning Radius (ECR) of the Submersible Mixer Pumps. Minimal access locations into the tank through tank openings (risers) presented a challenge because the available options for equipment locations were very limited. Mechanical Sludge Removal activities using SMPs caused the sludge to migrate to areas of the tank that were outside of the SMP ECR. Various SMP operational strategies were used to address the challenge of moving sludge from remote areas of the tank to the transfer pump. This paper describes in detail the Mechanical Sludge Removal activities and mitigative solutions to cooling coil obstructions and other challenges. The performance of the WOW system and SMP operational strategies were evaluated and the resulting lessons learned are described for application to future Mechanical Sludge Removal operations.

  2. Tank Closure

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Closure Sherri Ross Waste Removal and Tank Closure Waste Disposition Project Programs Division Savannah River Operations Office Presentation to the DOE HLW Corporate Board 2  Overview and Status of SRS Tank Closure Program  Issues/Challenges  Communications  Schedule Performance  Ceasing Waste Removal  Compliance with SC Water Protection Standards  Questions? Topics 3 Overview of SRS Tank Closure Program  Two Tank Farms - F Area and H Area  Permitted by SC as

  3. Facility Closure Report for Tunnel U16a, Area 16, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2009-07-01

    U16a is not listed in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. The closure of U16a was sponsored by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and performed with the cooperation of the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. This report documents closure of this site as identified in the DTRA Fiscal Year 2008 Statement of Work, Task 6.3. Closure activities included: · Removing and disposing of a shack and its contents · Disposing of debris from within the shack and in the vicinity of the tunnel entrance · Verifying that the tunnel is empty · Welding screened covers over tunnel vent holes to limit access and allow ventilation · Constructing a full-tunnel cross-section fibercrete bulkhead to prevent access to the tunnel Field activities were conducted from July to August 2008.

  4. CONSIDERATIONS FOR GROUT FORMULATIONS FOR FACILITY CLOSURES USING IN SITU STRATEGIES

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gladden, J.; Serrato, M.; Langton, C.; Long, T.; Blankenship, J.; Hannah, G.; Stubblefield, R.; Szilagyi, A.

    2010-08-25

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is conducting in situ closures (entombment) at a large number of facilities throughout the complex. Among the largest closure actions currently underway are the closures of the P and R Reactors at the Savannah River Site (SRS), near Aiken, South Carolina. In these facilities, subgrade open spaces are being stabilized with grout; this ensures the long term structural integrity of the facilities and permanently immobilizes and isolates residual contamination. The large size and structural complexity of these facilities present a wide variety of challenges for the identification and selection of appropriate fill materials. Considerations for grout formulations must account for flowability, long term stability, set times, heat generation and interactions with materials within the structure. The large size and configuration of the facility necessitates that grout must be pumped from the exterior to the spaces to be filled, which requires that the material must retain a high degree of flowability to move through piping without clogging while achieving the required leveling properties at the pour site. Set times and curing properties must be controlled to meet operations schedules, while not generating sufficient heat to compromise the properties of the fill material. The properties of residual materials can result in additional requirements for grout formulations. If significant quantities of aluminum are present in the facility, common formulations of highly alkaline grouts may not be appropriate because of the potential for hydrogen generation with the resultant risks. SRS is developing specialized inorganic grout formulations that are designed to address this issue. One circum-neutral chemical grout formulation identified for initial consideration did not possess the proper chemical characteristics, having exceptionally short set times and high heat of hydration. Research efforts are directed toward developing grout formulations that can meet operational requirements for chemical compatibility, extended set times and reduced heat generation.

  5. Environmental assessment: Closure of the Waste Calcining Facility (CPP-633), Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1996-07-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to close the Waste Calcining Facility (WCF). The WCF is a surplus DOE facility located at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) on the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). Six facility components in the WCF have been identified as Resource Conservation and Recovery Ace (RCRA)-units in the INEL RCRA Part A application. The WCF is an interim status facility. Consequently, the proposed WCF closure must comply with Idaho Rules and Standards for Hazardous Waste contained in the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) Section 16.01.05. These state regulations, in addition to prescribing other requirements, incorporate by reference the federal regulations, found at 40 CFR Part 265, that prescribe the requirements for facilities granted interim status pursuant to the RCRA. The purpose of the proposed action is to reduce the risk of radioactive exposure and release of hazardous constituents and eliminate the need for extensive long-term surveillance and maintenance. DOE has determined that the closure is needed to reduce potential risks to human health and the environment, and to comply with the Idaho Hazardous Waste Management Act (HWMA) requirements.

  6. Plantwide Energy Assessment of a Sugarcane Farming and Processing Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jakeway, L.A.; Turn, S.Q.; Keffer, V.I.; Kinoshita, C.M.

    2006-02-27

    A plantwide energy assessment was performed at Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Co., an integrated sugarcane farming and processing facility on the island of Maui in the State of Hawaii. There were four main tasks performed for the plantwide energy assessment: 1) pump energy assessment in both field and factory operations, 2) steam generation assessment in the power production operations, 3) steam distribution assessment in the sugar manufacturing operation, and 4) electric power distribution assessment of the company system grid. The energy savings identified in each of these tasks were summarized in terms of fuel savings, electricity savings, or opportunity revenue that potentially exists mostly from increased electric power sales to the local electric utility. The results of this investigation revealed eight energy saving projects that can be implemented at HC&S. These eight projects were determined to have potential for $1.5 million in annual fuel savings or 22,337 MWh equivalent annual electricity savings. Most of the savings were derived from pump efficiency improvements and steam efficiency improvements both in generation and distribution. If all the energy saving projects were implemented and the energy savings were realized as less fuel consumed, there would be corresponding reductions in regulated air pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions from supplemental coal fuel. As HC&S is already a significant user of renewable biomass fuel for its operations, the projected reductions in air pollutants and emissions will not be as great compared to using only coal fuel for example. A classification of implementation priority into operations was performed for the identified energy saving projects based on payback period and ease of implementation.

  7. HWMA/RCRA Closure Plan for the TRA Fluorinel Dissolution Process Mockup and Gamma Facilities Waste System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    K. Winterholler

    2007-01-31

    This Hazardous Waste Management Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act closure plan was developed for the Test Reactor Area Fluorinel Dissolution Process Mockup and Gamma Facilities Waste System, located in Building TRA-641 at the Reactor Technology Complex (RTC), Idaho National Laboratory Site, to meet a further milestone established under the Voluntary Consent Order SITE-TANK-005 Action Plan for Tank System TRA-009. The tank system to be closed is identified as VCO-SITE-TANK-005 Tank System TRA-009. This closure plan presents the closure performance standards and methods for achieving those standards.

  8. CHEMICAL SLUDGE HEEL REMOVAL AT THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE F TANK FARM CLOSURE PROJECT 8183

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thaxton, D; Timothy Baughman, T

    2008-01-16

    Chemical Sludge Removal (CSR) is the final waste removal activity planned for some of the oldest nuclear waste tanks located at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken, SC. In 2008, CSR will be used to empty two of these waste tanks in preparation for final closure. The two waste tanks chosen to undergo this process have previously leaked small amounts of nuclear waste from the primary tank into an underground secondary containment pan. CSR involves adding aqueous oxalic acid to the waste tank in order to dissolve the remaining sludge heel. The resultant acidic waste solution is then pumped to another waste tank where it will be neutralized and then stored awaiting further processing. The waste tanks to be cleaned have a storage capacity of 2.84E+06 liters (750,000 gallons) and a target sludge heel volume of 1.89E+04 liters (5,000 gallons) or less for the initiation of CSR. The purpose of this paper is to describe the CSR process and to discuss the most significant technical issues associated with the development of CSR.

  9. Karen Avenue Wind Farm II (San Gorgonio Farms) | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Farm II (San Gorgonio Farms) Jump to: navigation, search Name Karen Avenue Wind Farm II (San Gorgonio Farms) Facility Karen Avenue Windfarm II (San Gorgonio Farms) Sector Wind...

  10. CLOSURE REPORT FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION UNIT 115: AREA 25 TEST CELL A FACILITY, NEVADA TEST SITE, NEVADA

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NA

    2006-03-01

    This Closure Report (CR) describes the activities performed to close CAU 115, Area 25 Test Cell A Facility, as presented in the NDEP-approved SAFER Plan (NNSA/NSO, 2004). The SAFER Plan includes a summary of the site history, process knowledge, and closure standards. This CR provides a summary of the completed closure activities, documentation of waste disposal, and analytical and radiological data to confirm that the remediation goals were met and to document final site conditions. The approved closure alternative as presented in the SAFER Plan for CAU 115 (NNSA/NSO, 2004) was clean closure; however, closure in place was implemented under a Record of Technical Change (ROTC) to the SAFER Plan when radiological surveys indicated that the concrete reactor pad was radiologically activated and could not be decontaminated to meet free release levels. The ROTC is included as Appendix G of this report. The objectives of closure were to remove any trapped residual liquids and gases, dispose regulated and hazardous waste, decontaminate removable radiological contamination, demolish and dispose aboveground structures, remove the dewar as a best management practice (BMP), and characterize and restrict access to all remaining radiological contamination. Radiological contaminants of concern (COCs) included cobalt-60, cesium-137, strontium-90, uranium-234/235/236/238, and plutonium-239/240. Additional COCs included Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and asbestos.

  11. Draft environmental assessment -- Closure of the Waste Calcining Facility (CPP-633), Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Braun, J.B.; Irving, J.S.; Staley, C.S.; Stanley, N.

    1996-04-01

    The DOE-Idaho Operations Office has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to analyze the environmental impacts of closing the Waste Calcining Facility (WCF) at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL). The purpose of the action is to reduce the risk of radioactive exposure and release of radioactive and hazardous constituents and eliminate the need for extensive long-term surveillance and maintenance. DOE has determined that the closure is needed to reduce these risks to human health and the environment and to comply with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requirements. The WCF closure project is described in the DOE Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Final Environmental Impact Statement (Programmatic EIS). DOE determined in the Programmatic EIS Record of Decision (ROD) that certain actions would be implemented and other actions deferred. The EA examined the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and evaluated reasonable alternatives, including the no action alternative in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations. Based on the analysis in the EA, the action will not have a significant effect on the human environment.

  12. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 116: Area 25 Test Cell C Facility, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2011-09-29

    This Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 116, Area 25 Test Cell C Facility. This CR complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Management; the U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management (FFACO, 1996 [as amended March 2010]). CAU 116 consists of the following two Corrective Action Sites (CASs), located in Area 25 of the Nevada National Security Site: (1) CAS 25-23-20, Nuclear Furnace Piping and (2) CAS 25-41-05, Test Cell C Facility. CAS 25-41-05 consisted of Building 3210 and the attached concrete shield wall. CAS 25-23-20 consisted of the nuclear furnace piping and tanks. Closure activities began in January 2007 and were completed in August 2011. Activities were conducted according to Revision 1 of the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Plan for CAU 116 (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office [NNSA/NSO], 2008). This CR provides documentation supporting the completed corrective actions and provides data confirming that closure objectives for CAU 116 were met. Site characterization data and process knowledge indicated that surface areas were radiologically contaminated above release limits and that regulated and/or hazardous wastes were present in the facility.

  13. High-Level Waste Mechanical Sludge Removal at the Savannah River Site - F Tank Farm Closure Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jolly, R.C.Jr. [Washington Savannah River Company (United States); Martin, B. [Washington Savannah River Company, A Washington Group International Company (United States)

    2008-07-01

    The Savannah River Site F-Tank Farm Closure project has successfully performed Mechanical Sludge Removal (MSR) using the Waste on Wheels (WOW) system for the first time within one of its storage tanks. The WOW system is designed to be relatively mobile with the ability for many components to be redeployed to multiple waste tanks. It is primarily comprised of Submersible Mixer Pumps (SMPs), Submersible Transfer Pumps (STPs), and a mobile control room with a control panel and variable speed drives. In addition, the project is currently preparing another waste tank for MSR utilizing lessons learned from this previous operational activity. These tanks, designated as Tank 6 and Tank 5 respectively, are Type I waste tanks located in F-Tank Farm (FTF) with a capacity of 2,840 cubic meters (750,000 gallons) each. The construction of these tanks was completed in 1953, and they were placed into waste storage service in 1959. The tank's primary shell is 23 meters (75 feet) in diameter, and 7.5 meters (24.5 feet) in height. Type I tanks have 34 vertically oriented cooling coils and two horizontal cooling coil circuits along the tank floor. Both Tank 5 and Tank 6 received and stored F-PUREX waste during their operating service time before sludge removal was performed. DOE intends to remove from service and operationally close (fill with grout) Tank 5 and Tank 6 and other HLW tanks that do not meet current containment standards. Mechanical Sludge Removal, the first step in the tank closure process, will be followed by chemical cleaning. After obtaining regulatory approval, the tanks will be isolated and filled with grout for long-term stabilization. Mechanical Sludge Removal operations within Tank 6 removed approximately 75% of the original 95,000 liters (25,000 gallons). This sludge material was transferred in batches to an interim storage tank to prepare for vitrification. This operation consisted of eleven (11) Submersible Mixer Pump(s) mixing campaigns and multiple intra-area transfers utilizing STPs from July 2006 to August 2007. This operation and successful removal of sludge material meets requirement of approximately 19,000 to 28,000 liters (5,000 to 7,500 gallons) remaining prior to the Chemical Cleaning process. Removal of the last 35% of sludge was exponentially more difficult, as less and less sludge was available to mobilize and the lighter sludge particles were likely removed during the early mixing campaigns. The removal of the 72,000 liters (19,000 gallons) of sludge was challenging due to a number factors. One primary factor was the complex internal cooling coil array within Tank 6 that obstructed mixer discharge jets and impacted the Effective Cleaning Radius (ECR) of the Submersible Mixer Pumps. Minimal access locations into the tank through tank openings (risers) presented a challenge because the available options for equipment locations were very limited. Mechanical Sludge Removal activities using SMPs caused the sludge to migrate to areas of the tank that were outside of the SMP ECR. Various SMP operational strategies were used to address the challenge of moving sludge from remote areas of the tank to the transfer pump. This paper describes in detail the Mechanical Sludge Removal activities and mitigative solutions to cooling coil obstructions and other challenges. The performance of the WOW system and SMP operational strategies were evaluated and the resulting lessons learned are described for application to future Mechanical Sludge Removal operations. (authors)

  14. Report for the HWMA/RCRA Post Closure Permit for the INTEC Waste Calcining Facility at the INL Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Idaho Cleanup Project

    2006-06-01

    The Waste Calcining Facility (WCF) is located at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center. In 1998, the WCF was closed under an approved Hazardous Waste Management Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (HWMA/RCRA) Closure Plan. Vessels and spaces were grouted and then covered with a concrete cap. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality issued a final HWMA/RCRA post-closure permit on September 15, 2003, with an effective date of October 16, 2003. This permit sets forth procedural requirements for groundwater characterization and monitoring, maintenance, and inspections of the WCF to ensure continued protection of human health and the environment. The post-closure permit also includes semiannual reporting requirements under Permit Conditions III.H. and I.U. These reporting requirements have been combined into this single semiannual report.

  15. Tank Farm Area Closure

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    ... Final Disposition Reactor Current Status (a) Decision Area Final Disposition B National Historic Landmark (2008) 100-BC ROD for Decommissioning of Eight Surplus Production ...

  16. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 117: Area 26 Pluto Disassembly Facility, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mark Burmeister

    2009-06-01

    This Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 117: Area 26 Pluto Disassembly Facility, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. This CR complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Management; U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management. Corrective Action Unit 117 comprises Corrective Action Site (CAS) 26-41-01, Pluto Disassembly Facility, located in Area 26 of the Nevada Test Site. The purpose of this CR is to provide documentation supporting the completed corrective actions and provide data confirming that the closure objectives for CAU 117 were met. To achieve this, the following actions were performed: • Review the current site conditions, including the concentration and extent of contamination. • Implement any corrective actions necessary to protect human health and the environment. • Properly dispose of corrective action and investigation wastes. • Document Notice of Completion and closure of CAU 117 issued by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. From May 2008 through February 2009, closure activities were performed as set forth in the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Plan for Corrective Action Unit 117, Area 26 Pluto Disassembly Facility, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. The purpose of the activities as defined during the data quality objectives process were: • Determine whether contaminants of concern (COCs) are present. • If COCs are present, determine their nature and extent, implement appropriate corrective actions, and properly dispose of wastes. Analytes detected during the closure activities were evaluated against final action levels to determine COCs for CAU 117. Assessment of the data generated from closure activities indicated that the final action levels were exceeded for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) reported as total Aroclor and radium-226. A corrective action was implemented to remove approximately 50 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil, approximately 1 cubic foot of radium-226 contaminated soil (and scabbled asphalt), and a high-efficiency particulate air filter that was determined to meet the criteria of a potential source material (PSM). Electrical and lighting components (i.e., PCB-containing ballasts and capacitors) and other materials (e.g., mercury-containing thermostats and switches, lead plugs and bricks) assumed to be PSM were also removed from Building 2201, as practical, without the need for sampling. Because the COC contamination and PSMs have been removed, clean closure of CAS 26-41-01 is recommended, and no use restrictions are required to be placed on this CAU. No further action is necessary because no other contaminants of potential concern were found above preliminary action levels. The physical end state for Building 2201 is expected to be eventual demolition to slab. The DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office provides the following recommendations: • Clean closure is the recommended corrective action for CAS 26-41-01 in CAU 117. • A Notice of Completion to the DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office is requested from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection for closure of CAU 117. • Corrective Action Unit 117 should be moved from Appendix III to Appendix IV of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order.

  17. Closure End States for Facilities, Waste Sites, and Subsurface Contamination - 12543

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gerdes, Kurt; Chamberlain, Grover; Whitehurst, Latrincy; Marble, Justin; Wellman, Dawn; Deeb, Rula; Hawley, Elisabeth

    2012-07-01

    The United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) manages the largest groundwater and soil cleanup effort in the world. DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM) has made significant progress in its restoration efforts at sites such as Fernald and Rocky Flats. However, remaining sites, such as Savannah River Site, Oak Ridge Site, Hanford Site, Los Alamos, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and West Valley Demonstration Project possess the most complex challenges ever encountered by the technical community and represent a challenge that will face DOE for the next decade. Closure of the remaining 18 sites in the DOE EM Program requires remediation of 75 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and 1.7 trillion gallons of contaminated groundwater, deactivation and decommissioning (D and D) of over 3000 contaminated facilities and thousands of miles of contaminated piping, removal and disposition of millions of cubic yards of legacy materials, treatment of millions of gallons of high level tank waste and disposition of hundreds of contaminated tanks. The financial obligation required to remediate this volume of contaminated environment is estimated to cost more than 7% of the to-go life-cycle cost. Critical in meeting this goal within the current life-cycle cost projections is defining technically achievable end states that formally acknowledge that remedial goals will not be achieved for a long time and that residual contamination will be managed in the interim in ways that are protective of human health and environment. Formally acknowledging the long timeframe needed for remediation can be a basis for establishing common expectations for remedy performance, thereby minimizing the risk of re-evaluating the selected remedy at a later time. Once the expectations for long-term management are in place, remedial efforts can be directed towards near-term objectives (e.g., reducing the risk of exposure to residual contamination) instead of focusing on long-term cleanup requirements. An acknowledgement of the long timeframe for complete restoration and the need for long-term management can also help a site transition from the process of pilot testing different remedial strategies to selecting a final remedy and establishing a long-term management and monitoring approach. This approach has led to cost savings and the more efficient use of resources across the Department of Defense complex and at numerous industrial sites across the U.S. Defensible end states provide numerous benefits for the DOE environmental remediation programs including cost-effective, sustainable long-term monitoring strategies, remediation and site transition decision support, and long-term management of closure sites. (authors)

  18. RCRA corrective action and closure

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1995-02-01

    This information brief explains how RCRA corrective action and closure processes affect one another. It examines the similarities and differences between corrective action and closure, regulators` interests in RCRA facilities undergoing closure, and how the need to perform corrective action affects the closure of DOE`s permitted facilities and interim status facilities.

  19. Largest Federally Owned Wind Farm Breaks Ground at U.S. Weapons Facility |

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Y-12 National Security Complex Largest Federally Owned ... Largest Federally Owned Wind Farm Breaks Ground at U.S. Weapons Facility Posted: August 13, 2013 - 12:01pm WASHINGTON - Building on President Obama's Climate Action Plan, which calls for steady, responsible steps to reduce carbon pollution, the Energy Department today broke ground on the nation's largest federally owned wind project at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas. Once completed, this five-turbine 11.5 megawatt project will

  20. Microsoft Word - 2014 Scaled Wind Farm Technology Facility Overview and Preliminary Results.docx

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Scaled Wind Farm Technology Facility Overview Jonathan Berg 1 , Josh Bryant 2 , Bruce LeBlanc 3 , David Maniaci 4 , Brian Naughton 5 , Josh Paquette 6 , Brian Resor 7 , and Jonathan White 8 Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 87185-1124 and David Kroeker 9 Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79416 In the past decade wind energy installations have increased exponentially driven by reducing cost from technology innovation and favorable governmental policy. Modern wind turbines are

  1. Final closure plan for the high-explosives open burn treatment facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Experimental Test Site 300

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mathews, S.

    1997-04-01

    This document addresses the interim status closure of the HE Open Bum Treatment Facility, as detailed by Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 15, Article 7 of the Califonia Code of Regulations (CCR) and by Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 265, Subpart G, ``Closure and Post Closure.`` The Closure Plan (Chapter 1) and the Post- Closure Plan (Chapter 2) address the concept of long-term hazard elimination. The Closure Plan provides for capping and grading the HE Open Bum Treatment Facility and revegetating the immediate area in accordance with applicable requirements. The Closure Plan also reflects careful consideration of site location and topography, geologic and hydrologic factors, climate, cover characteristics, type and amount of wastes, and the potential for contaminant migration. The Post-Closure Plan is designed to allow LLNL to monitor the movement, if any, of pollutants from the treatment area. In addition, quarterly inspections will ensure that all surfaces of the closed facility, including the cover and diversion ditches, remain in good repair, thus precluding the potential for contaminant migration.

  2. Final closure cover for a Hanford radioactive mixed waste disposal facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Johnson, K.D.

    1996-02-06

    This study provides a preliminary design for a RCRA mixed waste landfill final closure cover. The cover design was developed by a senior class design team from Seattle University. The design incorporates a layered design of indigenous soils and geosynthetics in a layered system to meet final closure cover requirements for a landfill as imposed by the Washington Administrative Code WAC-173-303 implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

  3. Closure of the Fast Flux Test Facility: Current Status and Future Plans

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Farabee, O.A.; Witherspoon, W.V.

    2008-01-15

    The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) was a 400 MWt sodium cooled fast reactor designed and constructed in the 1970's. The original purpose of the facility was to develop and test advanced fuels and materials for the liquid metal fast breeder reactor program. The facility operated very successfully from 1982 through 1992, fulfilling its original mission as well as other identified missions. However, in 1993 the Department of Energy concluded that there was no longer a need for the FFTF and thus ordered that it be shut down. Following eight years of additional study of potential new missions, the final decision to shut down the facility was made in 2001. (During this eight year period the plant was maintained in a condition to allow safe and efficient shut down or restart). The complete closure of the FFTF consists of the following phases: - Deactivation - removal/stabilization of hazards to allow long-term storage (2001-2009); - Surveillance and maintenance - minimum cost compliant storage (2010-2015); - Decontamination and decommissioning (2016-2024). All of the FFTF fuel has been removed from the site except the sodium-bonded fuel that is destined for transportation to Idaho National Laboratory for final disposition. The sodium-bonded fuel had metallic sodium inside of the fuel pin to increase the heat transfer from the fuel pellet to the clad in order to reduce pellet centerline temperature. Three hundred and seventy-six (376) fuel assemblies have been washed (sodium removed) and transferred to storage at other Hanford locations. The majority of the spent fuel is stored in interim storage casks designed for a 50 year storage life, holding seven assemblies each. All sodium systems have been drained and the sodium stored under an inert gas blanket at ambient temperature in a Sodium Storage Facility at the FFTF site. This facility consists of four large tanks and associated piping. The main contaminants are sodium-22, cesium-137 and tritium. The sodium-potassium (NaK) that was used as an intermediate cooling fluid in several FFTF systems has been drained and removed or flushed to sodium systems where it became mixed with the sodium. The in-containment hot cell has minimal sodium contamination, is currently inerted with argon and is being used for loading of the T-3 transportation cask with the sodium-bonded fuel for transportation to Idaho National Laboratory. The majority of the fuel handling machines are still operational and being used for loading the sodium-bonded fuel into the T-3 casks. This equipment will be shut down immediately following completion of shipment of the sodium-bonded fuel. The majority of hotel systems are still operating. Four of the eight 400-ton chillers have been shut down and four of the cooling towers have been shut down. The argon system is operational and supplying gas for sodium systems cover gas, in-containment hot cell atmosphere and fuel handling systems. The nitrogen system remains in service supplying cover gas to the demineralized water system and fire suppression systems. Eleven of the facilities nineteen transformers containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been removed and significant re-routing of power has been performed to support the long term minimum cost surveillance mode. Future plans include the complete deactivation, the long-term surveillance and maintenance, the sodium disposition and the decontamination and decommissioning The most complex and costly activity during the decontamination and decommissioning phase will be the removal of the 'residual sodium' in the sodium systems. It was impractical to remove the residual sodium during the systems draining evolution. It is estimated that approximately 24,000 liters (6,400 gallons) remain within the systems. The complexity of design of the FFTF exceeds any sodium facility in the United States in which sodium removal has occurred. There are a total of 21 miles of sodium piping in the FFTF as well as three large vessels (the reactor vessel and two spent fuel pool vessels) that will require partial disassembly and drilling in order react/remove remaining sodium.

  4. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 254: Area 25, R-MAD Decontamination Facility, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    G. N. Doyle

    2002-02-01

    Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 254 is located in Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS), approximately 100 kilometers (km) (62 miles) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The site is located within the Reactor Maintenance, Assembly and Disassembly (R-MAD) compound and consists of Building 3126, two outdoor decontamination pads, and surrounding areas within an existing fenced area measuring approximately 50 x 37 meters (160 x 120 feet). The site was used from the early 1960s to the early 1970s as part of the Nuclear Rocket Development Station program to decontaminate test-car hardware and tooling. The site was reactivated in the early 1980s to decontaminate a radiologically contaminated military tank. This Closure Report (CR) describes the closure activities performed to allow un-restricted release of the R-MAD Decontamination Facility.

  5. 324 Facility special-case waste assessment in support of 324 closure (TPA milestone M-89-05)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hobart, R.L.

    1998-06-25

    Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, also known as the Tri-Party Agreement Milestone M-89-05, requires US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office to complete a 324 Facility Special-Case Waste Assessment in Support of 324 Closure. This document, HNF-1270, has been prepared with the intent of meeting this regulatory commitment. Alternatives for the special-case wastes located in the 324 Building were defined and analyzed. Based on the criteria of safety, environmental, complexity of interfaces, risk, cost, schedule, and long-term operability and maintainability, the best alternative was chosen. Waste packaging and transportation options are also included in the recommendations. The waste disposition recommendations for the B-Cell dispersibles/tank heels and High-Level Vault packaged residuals are to direct them to the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility (PUREX) Number 2 storage tunnel.

  6. Spring Canyon Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Spring Canyon Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Spring Canyon Wind Farm Facility Spring Canyon Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  7. Gray County Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Gray County Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Gray County Wind Farm Facility Gray County Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status...

  8. Spanish Fork Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Fork Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Spanish Fork Wind Farm Facility Spanish Fork Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  9. Green Mountain Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Green Mountain Wind Farm Facility Green Mountain Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  10. Shane Cowell Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Shane Cowell Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Shane Cowell Wind Farm Facility Shane Cowell Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  11. Antelope Ridge Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Antelope Ridge Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Antelope Ridge Wind Farm Facility Antelope Ridge Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  12. Locust Ridge Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Locust Ridge Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Locust Ridge Wind Farm Facility Locust Ridge Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  13. Rosiere Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Rosiere Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Rosiere Wind Farm Facility Rosiere Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  14. Paynes Ferry Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Paynes Ferry Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Paynes Ferry Wind Farm Facility Paynes Ferry Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  15. Marengo Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Marengo Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Marengo Wind Farm Facility Marengo Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  16. Stoney Corners Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Stoney Corners Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Stoney Corners Wind Farm Facility Stoney Corners Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  17. Marshall Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Marshall Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Marshall Wind Farm Facility Marshall Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  18. Laredo Ridge Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Laredo Ridge Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Laredo Ridge Wind Farm Facility Laredo Ridge Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  19. Nine Canyon Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Nine Canyon Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Nine Canyon Wind Farm Facility Nine Canyon Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status...

  20. Casper Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Casper Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Casper Wind Farm Facility Casper Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  1. Wallys Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wallys Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Wallys Wind Farm Facility Wallys Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  2. Cassia Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Cassia Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Cassia Wind Farm Facility Cassia Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  3. Hatchet Ridge Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Hatchet Ridge Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Hatchet Ridge Wind Farm Facility Hatchet Ridge Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  4. Cedar Point Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Cedar Point Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Cedar Point Wind Farm Facility Cedar Point Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status...

  5. Greensburg Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Greensburg Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Greensburg Wind Farm Facility Greensburg Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  6. Wheatfield Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wheatfield Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Wheatfield Wind Farm Facility Wheatfield Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  7. Ewington Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Ewington Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Ewington Wind Farm Facility Ewington Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  8. Uilk Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Uilk Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Uilk Wind Farm Facility Uilk Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Developer...

  9. Octotillo Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Octotillo Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Octotillo Wind Farm Facility Octotillo Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  10. Flat Water Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Water Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Flat Water Wind Farm Facility Flat Water Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  11. Star Point Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Point Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Star Point Wind Farm Facility Star Point Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  12. Turkey Track Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Track Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Turkey Track Wind Farm Facility Turkey Track Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  13. Blue Creek Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Creek Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Blue Creek Wind Farm Facility Blue Creek Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  14. Hopkins Ridge Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Hopkins Ridge Wind Farm Facility Hopkins Ridge Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  15. Red Canyon Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Canyon Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Red Canyon Wind Farm Facility Red Canyon Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  16. Olsen Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Olsen Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Olsen Wind Farm Facility Olsen Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  17. Tuana Springs Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Springs Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Tuana Springs Wind Farm Facility Tuana Springs Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status...

  18. Montfort Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Montfort Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Montfort Wind Farm Facility Montfort Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  19. Aqua Farms International Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Farms International Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Aqua Farms International Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility...

  20. DOE/SNL-TTU scaled wind farm technology facility : research opportunities for study of turbine-turbine interaction.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Barone, Matthew Franklin; White, Jonathan

    2011-09-01

    The proposed DOE/Sandia Scaled Wind Farm Technology Facility (SWiFT) hosted by Texas Tech University at Reese Technology Center in Lubbock, TX, will provide a facility for experimental study of turbine-turbine interaction and complex wind farm aerodynamics. This document surveys the current status of wind turbine wake and turbine-turbine interaction research, identifying knowledge and data gaps that the proposed test site can potentially fill. A number of turbine layouts is proposed, allowing for up to ten turbines at the site.

  1. Risk-Based Decision Process for Accelerated Closure of a Nuclear Weapons Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Butler, L.; Norland, R. L.; DiSalvo, R.; Anderson, M.

    2003-02-25

    Nearly 40 years of nuclear weapons production at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS or Site) resulted in contamination of soil and underground systems and structures with hazardous substances, including plutonium, uranium and hazardous waste constituents. The Site was placed on the National Priority List in 1989. There are more than 370 Individual Hazardous Substance Sites (IHSSs) at RFETS. Accelerated cleanup and closure of RFETS is being achieved through implementation and refinement of a regulatory framework that fosters programmatic and technical innovations: (1) extensive use of ''accelerated actions'' to remediate IHSSs, (2) development of a risk-based screening process that triggers and helps define the scope of accelerated actions consistent with the final remedial action objectives for the Site, (3) use of field instrumentation for real time data collection, (4) a data management system that renders near real time field data assessment, and (5) a regulatory agency consultative process to facilitate timely decisions. This paper presents the process and interim results for these aspects of the accelerated closure program applied to Environmental Restoration activities at the Site.

  2. EIS-0356: Retrieval, Treatment and Disposal of Tank Wastes and Closure of Single-Shell Tanks at the Hanford Site, Richland, WA

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EIS analyzes DOE's proposed retrieval, treatment, and disposal of the waste being managed in the high-level waste (HLW) tank farms at the Hanford Site near Richland, Washington, and closure of the 149 single-shell tanks (SSTs) and associated facilities in the HLW tank farms.

  3. Zirbel Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    to: navigation, search Name Zirbel Wind Farm Facility Zirbel Wind Farm (Glenmore Wind Energy Facility) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  4. Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Allegheny Ridge Wind Farm Facility Allegheny Ridge wind farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  5. Tillamook Offshore Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Tillamook Offshore Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Tillamook Offshore Wind Farm Facility Tillamook Offshore Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Offshore Wind...

  6. Galveston Offshore Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Galveston Offshore Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Galveston Offshore Wind Farm Facility Galveston Offshore Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Offshore Wind...

  7. Sandia Wake Imaging System Field Test Report: 2015 Deployment at the Scaled Wind Farm Technology (SWiFT) Facility.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Naughton, Brian Thomas; Herges, Thomas

    2015-10-01

    This report presents the objectives, configuration, procedures, reporting , roles , and responsibilities and subsequent results for the field demonstration of the Sandia Wake Imaging System (SWIS) at the Sandia Scaled Wind Farm Technology (SWiFT) facility near Lubbock, Texas in June and July 2015.

  8. CLOSURE OF THE FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY (FFTF) CURRENT STATUS & FUTURE PLANS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    LESPERANCE, C.P.

    2007-05-23

    The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) was a 400 MWt sodium-cooled fast reactor situated on the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site in the southeastern portion of Washington State. DOE issued the final order to shut down the facility in 2001, when it was concluded that there was no longer a need for FFTF. Deactivation activities are in progress to remove or stabilize major hazards and deactivate systems to achieve end points documented in the project baseline. The reactor has been defueled, and approximately 97% of the fuel has been removed from the facility. Approximately 97% of the sodium has been drained from the plant's systems and placed into an on-site Sodium Storage Facility. The residual sodium will be kept frozen under a blanket of inert gas until it is removed later as part of the facility's decontamination and decommissioning (D&D). Plant systems have been shut down and placed in a low-risk state to minimize requirements for surveillance and maintenance. D&D work cannot begin until an Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared to evaluate various end state options and to provide a basis for selecting one of the options. The Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be issued in 2009.

  9. CLOSURE OF THE FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY (FFTF) HISTORY & STATUS & FUTURE PLANS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    FARABEE, O.A.

    2006-02-24

    In 1993, the US Department of Energy (DOE) decided to shut down the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) due to lack of national missions that justified the annual operating budget of approximately $88M/year. The initial vision was to ''deactive'' the facility to an industrially and radiologically safe condition to allow long-term, minimal surveillance storage until approximately 2045. This approach would minimize near term cash flow and allow the radioactive decay of activated components. The final decontamination and decommissioning (D and D) would then be performed using then-current methodology in a safe and efficient manner. the philosophy has now changed to close coupling the initial deactivation with final D and D. This paper presents the status of the facility and focuses on the future challenge of sodium removal.

  10. CLOSURE OF THE FAST FLUX TEST FACILITY (FFTF) CURRENT STATUS & FUTURE PLANS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BURKE, T.M.

    2005-04-13

    Deactivation activities are currently in progress at the Fast Flux Test Facility. These deactivation activities are intended to remove most hazardous materials and prepare the facility for final disposition. The two major hazards to be removed are the nuclear fuel and the alkali metal (most sodium) coolant. The fuel and coolant removal activities are proceeding well and are expected to complete in 2006. Plant systems are being shut down as allowed by completion of various fuel and coolant removal actions. A Decommissioning Environmental Impact Statement is in progress to evaluate a range of potential final disposition end states.

  11. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 118: Area 27 Super Kukla Facility, Nevada Test Site, Nevada with ROTC 1, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mark Burmeister

    2007-09-01

    This CR provides documentation and justification for the closure of CAU 118 without further corrective action. This justification is based on process knowledge and the results of the investigative and closure activities conducted in accordance with the CAU 118 SAFER Plan: Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan for CAU 118: Area 27 Super Kukla Facility, Nevada Test Site, Nevada (NNSA/NSO, 2006). The SAFER Plan provides information relating to site history as well as the scope and planning of the investigation. This CR also provides the analytical and radiological survey data to confirm that the remediation goals were met as specified in the CAU 118 SAFER Plan (NNSA/NSO, 2006). The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) approved the CAU 118 SAFER Plan (Murphy, 2006), which recommends closure in place with use restrictions (URs).

  12. Campbell Hill Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Hill Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Campbell Hill Wind Farm Facility Campbell Hill Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  13. Happy Jack Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Happy Jack Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Happy Jack Wind Farm Facility Happy Jack Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  14. Sky River Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    River Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Sky River Wind Farm Facility Sky River Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  15. Bull Creek Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Facility Bull Creek Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Eurus Developer Eurus Energy Purchaser Market...

  16. Mountain Home Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Mountain Home Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Mountain Home Wind Farm Facility Mountain Home Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  17. Turtle Mountain Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Turtle Mountain Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Turtle Mountain Wind Farm Facility Turtle Mountain Sector Wind energy Facility Type Small Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  18. Silver Sage Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Sage Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Silver Sage Wind Farm Facility Silver Sage Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  19. Green Power Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Green Power Wind Farm Facility Green Power Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  20. Gulf Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Gulf Wind Farm Facility Gulf Wind Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Pattern Energy...

  1. Stetson Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Stetson Wind Farm Facility Stetson Wind Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner First Wind...

  2. Great Plains Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Great Plains Wind Farm Facility Great Plains Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  3. Nobles Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Nobles Wind Farm Facility Nobles Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Nobles Cooperative...

  4. Whirlwind Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Whirlwind Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Whirlwind Wind Farm Facility Whirlwind Energy Center Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  5. Federated Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Federated Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Federated Wind Farm Facility Federated Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  6. Hilltop Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Hilltop Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Hilltop Wind Farm Facility Hilltop Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  7. Calverton Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Calverton Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Calverton Wind Farm Facility Calverton Sector Wind energy Facility Type Small Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Long...

  8. Bitworks Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Bitworks Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Bitworks Wind Farm Facility Bitworks Sector Wind energy Facility Type Small Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Bitworks...

  9. Ridgewind Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Ridgewind Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Ridgewind Wind Farm Facility Ridgewind Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  10. Beaulieu Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Beaulieu Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Beaulieu Wind Farm Facility Beaulieu Sector Wind energy Facility Type Small Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Private...

  11. Crofton Hills Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Crofton Hills Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Crofton Hills Wind Farm Facility Crofton Hills Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  12. Cottonwood Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Cottonwood Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Cottonwood Wind Farm Facility Cottonwood Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  13. SMUD Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    SMUD Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name SMUD Wind Farm Facility SMUD Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Sacramento...

  14. Glenrock Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Glenrock Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Glenrock Wind Farm Facility Glenrock Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  15. Anacacho Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Anacacho Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Anacacho Wind Farm Facility Anacacho Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  16. Savoonga Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Savoonga Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Savoonga Wind Farm Facility Savoonga Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  17. Crookston Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Crookston Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Crookston Wind Farm Facility Crookston Sector Wind energy Facility Type Small Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  18. Canova Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Canova Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Canova Wind Farm Facility Canova Sector Wind energy Facility Type Community Wind Facility Status In Service Owner City of Howard...

  19. Agriwind Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Agriwind Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Agriwind Wind Farm Facility Agriwind Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  20. Nome Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Nome Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Nome Wind Farm Facility Nome Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Bering Straits...

  1. Affinity Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Affinity Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Affinity Wind Farm Facility Affinity Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status Under Construction...

  2. Silver Star Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Star Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Silver Star Wind Farm Facility Silver Star Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  3. Ashtabula II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Ashtabula II Wind Farm Facility Ashtabula II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  4. Marengo II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Marengo II Wind Farm Facility Marengo II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  5. Klondike II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Klondike II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Klondike II Wind Farm Facility Klondike II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  6. Harvest Wind Farm II | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Jump to: navigation, search Name Harvest Wind Farm II Facility Harvest Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner John...

  7. Murray Various Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Various Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Murray Various Wind Farm Facility Murray Various Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  8. Noble Bellmont Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Noble Bellmont Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Noble Bellmont Wind Farm Facility Noble Bellmont Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status...

  9. Forbes Park Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Forbes Park Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Forbes Park Wind Farm Facility Forbes Park Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  10. West Winds Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Winds Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name West Winds Wind Farm Facility West Winds Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  11. Prairie Winds Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Prairie Winds Wind Farm Facility Prairie Winds Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  12. Wildcat Ridge Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wildcat Ridge Wind Farm Facility Wildcat Ridge Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Offshore Wind Facility Status Proposed Owner Midwest Wind Energy Developer Midwest Wind...

  13. Radial Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    search Name Radial Wind Farm Facility Radial Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Offshore Wind Facility Status Proposed Owner Radial Wind Developer Radial Wind Location...

  14. Deepwater Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Name Deepwater Wind Farm Facility Deepwater Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Offshore Wind Facility Status Proposed Owner PSEG Renewable Generation Deepwater Wind...

  15. Hull Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Hull Wind Farm Facility Hull Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Hull Municipal Light...

  16. Tholen & Petersen Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Tholen & Petersen Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Tholen & Petersen Wind Farm Facility Tholen & Petersen Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  17. Camp Springs Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Camp Springs Wind Farm Facility Camp Springs Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  18. Hot Springs Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Hot Springs Wind Farm Facility Hot Springs Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Idaho...

  19. Pebble Springs Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Springs Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Pebble Springs Wind Farm Facility Pebble Springs Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  20. Sweetwater 5 Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    5 Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Sweetwater 5 Wind Farm Facility Sweetwater 5 Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  1. Fall 2010 Semiannual (III.H. and I.U.) Report for the HWMA/RCRA Post Closure Permit for the INTEC Waste Calcining Facility and the CPP 601/627/640 Facility at the INL Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boehmer, Ann

    2010-11-01

    The Waste Calcining Facility is located at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center. In 1999, the Waste Calcining Facility was closed under an approved Hazardous Waste Management Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (HWMA/RCRA) Closure Plan. Vessels and spaces were grouted and then covered with a concrete cap. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality issued a final HWMA/RCRA post-closure permit on September 15, 2003, with an effective date of October 16, 2003. This permit sets forth procedural requirements for groundwater characterization and monitoring, maintenance, and inspections of the Waste Calcining Facility to ensure continued protection of human health and the environment. The post closure permit also includes semiannual reporting requirements under Permit Conditions III.H. and I.U. These reporting requirements have been combined into this single semiannual report, as agreed between the Idaho Cleanup Project and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. The Permit Condition III.H. portion of this report includes a description and the results of field methods associated with groundwater monitoring of the Waste Calcining Facility. Analytical results from groundwater sampling, results of inspections and maintenance of monitoring wells in the Waste Calcining Facility groundwater monitoring network, and results of inspections of the concrete cap are summarized. The Permit Condition I.U. portion of this report includes noncompliances not otherwise required to be reported under Permit Condition I.R. (advance notice of planned changes to facility activity which may result in a noncompliance) or Permit Condition I.T. (reporting of noncompliances which may endanger human health or the environment). This report also provides groundwater sampling results for wells that were installed and monitored as part of the Phase 1 post-closure period of the landfill closure components in accordance with HWMA/RCRA Landfill Closure Plan for the CPP-601 Deep Tanks System Phase 1. These monitoring wells are intended to monitor for the occurrence of contaminants of concern in the perched water beneath and adjacent to the CPP-601/627/640 Landfill. The wells were constructed to satisfy requirements of the HWMA/RCRA Post-Closure Plan for the CPP 601/627/640 Landfill.

  2. Addendum to the Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 113: Area 25 R-MAD Facility, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2011-02-24

    This addendum to the Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 113: Area 25, Reactor Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly Facility, Building 3110, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, DOE/NV--891-VOL I-Rev. 1, dated July 2003, provides details of demolition, waste disposal, and use restriction (UR) modification for Corrective Action Unit 113, Area 25 R-MAD Facility. Demolition was completed on July 15, 2010, when the last of the building debris was disposed. Final field activities were concluded on August 30, 2010, after all equipment was demobilized and UR signs were posted. This work was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

  3. Analysis of Debris Trajectories at the Scaled Wind Farm Technology (SWiFT) Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    White, Jonathan R.; Burnett, Damon J.

    2016-01-01

    Sandia National Laboratories operates the Scaled Wind Farm Technology Facility (SWiFT) on behalf of the Department of Energy Wind and Water Power Technologies Office. An analysis was performed to evaluate the hazards associated with debris thrown from one of SWiFT’s operating wind turbines, assuming a catastrophic failure. A Monte Carlo analysis was conducted to assess the complex variable space associated with debris throw hazards that included wind speed, wind direction, azimuth and pitch angles of the blade, and percentage of the blade that was separated. In addition, a set of high fidelity explicit dynamic finite element simulations were performed to determine the threshold impact energy envelope for the turbine control building located on-site. Assuming that all of the layered, independent, passive and active engineered safety systems and administrative procedures failed (a 100% failure rate of the safety systems), the likelihood of the control building being struck was calculated to be less than 5/10,000 and ballistic simulations showed that the control building would not provide passive protection for the majority of impact scenarios. Although options exist to improve the ballistic resistance of the control building, the recommendation is not to pursue them because there is a low probability of strike and there is an equal likelihood personnel could be located at similar distances in other areas of the SWiFT facility which are not passively protected, while the turbines are operating. A fenced exclusion area has been created around the turbines which restricts access to the boundary of the 1/100 strike probability. The overall recommendation is to neither relocate nor improve passive protection of the control building as the turbine safety systems have been improved to have no less than two independent, redundant, high quality engineered safety systems. Considering this, in combination with a control building strike probability of less than 5/10,000, the overall probability of turbine debris striking the control building is less than 1/1,000,000.

  4. HWMA/RCRA Closure Plan for the Basin Facility Basin Water Treatment System - Voluntary Consent Order NEW-CPP-016 Action Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Evans, S. K.

    2007-11-07

    This Hazardous Waste Management Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act closure plan for the Basin Water Treatment System located in the Basin Facility (CPP-603), Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC), Idaho National Laboratory Site, was developed to meet future milestones established under the Voluntary Consent Order. The system to be closed includes units and associated ancillary equipment included in the Voluntary Consent Order NEW-CPP-016 Action Plan and Voluntary Consent Order SITE-TANK-005 Tank Systems INTEC-077 and INTEC-078 that were determined to have managed hazardous waste. The Basin Water Treatment System will be closed in accordance with the requirements of the Hazardous Waste Management Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as implemented by the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act 58.01.05.009 and 40 Code of Federal Regulations 265, to achieve "clean closure" of the tank system. This closure plan presents the closure performance standards and methods of achieving those standards for the Basin Water Treatment Systems.

  5. High Sheldon Energy Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Sheldon Energy Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name High Sheldon Energy Wind Farm Facility High Sheldon Energy Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale...

  6. Luverne Wind Farm (North Field) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Luverne Wind Farm (North Field) Jump to: navigation, search Name Luverne Wind Farm (North Field) Facility Luverne Wind Farm (North Field) Sector Wind energy Facility Type...

  7. Rhode Island Offshore Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Rhode Island Offshore Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Rhode Island Offshore Wind Farm Facility Rhode Island Offshore Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Offshore...

  8. Carrizo Energy Solar Farm Solar Power Plant | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Carrizo Energy Solar Farm Solar Power Plant Jump to: navigation, search Name Carrizo Energy Solar Farm Solar Power Plant Facility Carrizo Energy Solar Farm Sector Solar Facility...

  9. Mustang Island Offshore Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Island Offshore Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Mustang Island Offshore Wind Farm Facility Mustang Island Offshore Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Offshore...

  10. Desert Sky Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Sky Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Desert Sky Wind Farm Facility Desert Sky Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  11. Rim Rock Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Rim Rock Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Rim Rock Wind Farm Facility Rim Rock Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  12. Broken Bow Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Broken Bow Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Broken Bow Wind Farm Facility Broken Bow Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  13. Moe Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Moe Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Moe Wind Farm Facility Moe Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Developer Two...

  14. Lost Creek Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Lost Creek Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Lost Creek Wind Farm Facility Lost Creek Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  15. JJN Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    JJN Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name JJN Wind Farm Facility JJN Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner JJNWind...

  16. Flat Ridge Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Flat Ridge Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Flat Ridge Wind Farm Facility Flat Ridge Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  17. Nobles Wind Farm II | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Farm II Jump to: navigation, search Name Nobles Wind Farm II Facility Nobles Wind Farm II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  18. Red Hills Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Hills Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Red Hills Wind Farm Facility Red Hills Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  19. We Energy Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    We Energy Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name We Energy Wind Farm Facility We Energy Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  20. Transition from Consultation to Monitoring-NRC's Increasingly Focused Review of Factors Important to F-Area Tank Farm Facility Performance - 13153

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Barr, Cynthia; Grossman, Christopher; Alexander, George; Parks, Leah; Fuhrmann, Mark; Shaffner, James; McKenney, Christepher; Pabalan, Roberto; Pickett, David; Dinwiddie, Cynthia

    2013-07-01

    In consultation with the NRC, DOE issued a waste determination for the F-Area Tank Farm (FTF) facility in March 2012. The FTF consists of 22 underground tanks, each 2.8 to 4.9 million liters in capacity, used to store liquid high-level waste generated as a result of spent fuel reprocessing. The waste determination concluded stabilized waste residuals and associated tanks and auxiliary components at the time of closure are not high-level and can be disposed of as LLW. Prior to issuance of the final waste determination, during the consultation phase, NRC staff reviewed and provided comments on DOE's revision 0 and revision 1 FTF PAs that supported the waste determination and produced a technical evaluation report documenting the results of its multi-year review in October 2011. Following issuance of the waste determination, NRC began to monitor DOE disposal actions to assess compliance with the performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C. To facilitate its monitoring responsibilities, NRC developed a plan to monitor DOE disposal actions. NRC staff was challenged in developing a focused monitoring plan to ensure limited resources are spent in the most cost-effective manner practical. To address this challenge, NRC prioritized monitoring areas and factors in terms of risk significance and timing. This prioritization was informed by NRC staff's review of DOE's PA documentation, independent probabilistic modeling conducted by NRC staff, and NRC-sponsored research conducted by the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses in San Antonio, TX. (authors)

  1. Stateline Expansion Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Stateline Expansion Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Stateline Expansion Wind Farm Facility Stateline Expansion Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  2. Nichinghsiang Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Nichinghsiang Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Nichinghsiang Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility...

  3. Summerside Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Summerside Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Summerside Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Community Wind Facility Status In Service Owner City of Summerside...

  4. Closure Strategy for a Waste Disposal Facility with Multiple Waste Types and Regulatory Drivers at the Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D. Wieland, V. Yucel, L. Desotell, G. Shott, J. Wrapp

    2008-04-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) plans to close the waste and classified material storage cells in the southeast quadrant of the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS), informally known as the '92-Acre Area', by 2011. The 25 shallow trenches and pits and the 13 Greater Confinement Disposal (GCD) borings contain various waste streams including low-level waste (LLW), low-level mixed waste (LLMW), transuranic (TRU), mixed transuranic (MTRU), and high specific activity LLW. The cells are managed under several regulatory and permit programs by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Although the specific closure requirements for each cell vary, 37 closely spaced cells will be closed under a single integrated monolayer evapotranspirative (ET) final cover. One cell will be closed under a separate cover concurrently. The site setting and climate constrain transport pathways and are factors in the technical approach to closure and performance assessment. Successful implementation of the integrated closure plan requires excellent communication and coordination between NNSA/NSO and the regulators.

  5. Mars Hill (2006) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Mars Hill (2006) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Mars Hill (2006) Wind Farm Facility Mars Hill (2006) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  6. Windy Point (08) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    (08) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Windy Point (08) Wind Farm Facility Windy Point (08) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  7. Windy Point - Siemens Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Siemens Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Windy Point - Siemens Wind Farm Facility Windy Point - Siemens Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  8. First Ascent Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Ascent Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name First Ascent Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Facility...

  9. Prairie Star (07) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Prairie Star (07) Wind Farm Facility Prairie Star (07) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  10. Prairie Star (08) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Prairie Star (08) Wind Farm Facility Prairie Star (08) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  11. Klondike III II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Klondike III II Wind Farm Facility Klondike III Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  12. Langdon II - FPL Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Langdon II - FPL Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Langdon II - FPL Wind Farm Facility Langdon II - FPL Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  13. Hydrogen Pilot Project Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Pilot Project Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Hydrogen Pilot Project Wind Farm Facility Hydrogen Pilot Project Sector Wind energy Facility Type Small Scale Wind Facility...

  14. Liberty Turbine Test Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Turbine Test Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Liberty Turbine Test Wind Farm Facility Liberty Turbine Test Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  15. Wind Power Partners '94 Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    4 Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Wind Power Partners '94 Wind Farm Facility Wind Power Partners '94 Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  16. Saint Paul Island Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Paul Island Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Saint Paul Island Wind Farm Facility Saint Paul Island Sector Wind energy Facility Type Community Wind Facility Status In...

  17. Cisco Wind Energy Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Cisco Wind Energy Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Cisco Wind Energy Wind Farm Facility Cisco Wind Energy Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  18. Spring 2009 Semiannual (III.H. and I.U.) Report for the HWMA/RCRA Post-Closure Permit for the INTEC Waste Calcining Facility at the INL Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boehmer, Ann M.

    2009-05-31

    The Waste Calcining Facility is located at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center. In 1999, the Waste Calcining Facility was closed under and approved Hazardous Waste Management Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Closure plan. Vessels and spaces were grouted and then covered with a concrete cap. This permit sets forth procedural requirements for groundwater characterization and monitoring, maintenance, and inspections of the Waste Calcining Facility to ensure continued protection of human health and the environment.

  19. Interim Closure Activities at Corrective Action Unit 114: Area 25 EMAD Facility, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boehlecke, R. F.

    2011-10-24

    This letter report documents interim activities that have been completed at CAU 114 to support ongoing access and generate information necessary to plan future closure activities. General housekeeping and cleanup of debris was conducted in the EMAD yard, cold bays, support areas of Building 3900, and postmortem cell tunnel area of the hot bay. All non-asbestos ceiling tiles and loose and broken non-friable asbestos floor tiles were removed from support galleries and office areas. Non-radiologically contaminated piping and equipment in the cold areas of the building and in the two 120-ton locomotives in the yard were tapped, characterized, drained, and verified free of contents.

  20. Cooper Farms | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Farms Sector Wind energy Facility Type Community Wind Facility Status In Service Owner V.H. Cooper and Co Inc Developer One Energy LLC Energy Purchaser Cooper Farms Location Van...

  1. Tank Farms - Hanford Site

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    River Protection About ORP ORP Projects & Facilities Tank Farms Retrieval Activities PHOENIX - Tank Monitoring Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant 222-S Laboratory 242-A...

  2. Environmental Assessment for the Accelerated Tank Closure Demonstration Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    N /A

    2003-06-16

    The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of River Protection (ORP) needs to collect engineering and technical information on (1) the physical response and behavior of a Phase I grout fill in an actual tank, (2) field deployment of grout production equipment and (3) the conduct of component closure activities for single-shell tank (SST) 241-C-106 (C-106). Activities associated with this Accelerated Tank Closure Demonstration (ATCD) project include placement of grout in C-106 following retrieval, and associated component closure activities. The activities will provide information that will be used in determining future closure actions for the remaining SSTs and tank farms at the Hanford Site. This information may also support preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Retrieval, Treatment, and Disposal of Tank Waste and Closure of Single-Shell Tanks at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington (Tank Closure EIS). Information will be obtained from the various activities associated with the component closure activities for C-106 located in the 241-C tank farm (C tank farm) under the ''Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976'' (RCRA) and the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (HFFACO) (Ecology et al. 1989). The impacts of retrieving waste from C-106 are bounded by the analysis in the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) EIS (DOE/EIS-0189), hereinafter referred to as the TWRS EIS. DOE has conducted and continues to conduct retrieval activities at C-106 in preparation for the ATCD Project. For major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, the ''National Environmental Policy Act of 1969'' (NEPA) requires that federal agencies evaluate the environmental effects of their proposed and alternative actions before making decisions to take action. The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has developed regulations for implementing NEPA. These regulations are found in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 1500-1508. They require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) that includes an evaluation of alternative means of addressing the problem and a discussion of the potential environmental impacts of a proposed federal action. An EA provides analysis to determine whether an EIS or a finding of no significant impact should be prepared.

  3. Post-Closure Benefits | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Post-Closure Benefits Post-Closure Benefits The Legacy Management Post-Closure Benefits (PCB) Program includes the development, implementation, and oversight of the Department's policy concerning the continuation of contractor pension and medical benefits after the closure of applicable DOE sites/facilities. This includes oversight of the administration and management of legacy contractor benefits in a fiscally responsible and effective manner. The primary program objective is to ensure a

  4. G. McNeilus Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    G. McNeilus Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name G. McNeilus Wind Farm Facility G. McNeilus Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status...

  5. Minn-Dakota Wind Farm I | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Minn-Dakota Wind Farm I Jump to: navigation, search Name Minn-Dakota Wind Farm I Facility Minn-Dakota Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  6. PaTu Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    PaTu Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name PaTu Wind Farm Facility PaTu Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Developer...

  7. Michigan Wind II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Michigan Wind II Wind Farm Facility Michigan Wind II Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status...

  8. Corn Plus Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Plus Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Corn Plus Wind Farm Facility Corn Plus Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner John...

  9. Difwind V Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    V Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Difwind V Wind Farm Facility Difwind V Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner EnXco...

  10. Shiloh II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Shiloh II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Shiloh II Wind Farm Facility Shiloh II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  11. Oliver II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Oliver II Wind Farm Facility Oliver II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner NextEra...

  12. CWES II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name CWES II Wind Farm Facility CWES II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner SeaWest...

  13. Wing River Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    to: navigation, search Name Wing River Wind Farm Facility Wing River Wind Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Wing River...

  14. Wessington Springs Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    to: navigation, search Name Wessington Springs Wind Farm Facility Wessington Springs Wind Energy Center Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  15. Barton Chapel Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    navigation, search Name Barton Chapel Wind Farm Facility Barton Chapel Wind Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Iberdrola...

  16. Wolverine Creek Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Jump to: navigation, search Name Wolverine Creek Wind Farm Facility Wolverine Creek Wind Energy Project Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  17. Cabazon Wind Farm II | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Jump to: navigation, search Name Cabazon Wind Farm II Facility Cabazon Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Goldman Sachs...

  18. In-Tank Precipitation Facility (ITP) and H-Tank Farm (HTF) geotechnical report, WSRC-TR-95-0057, Revision 0, Volume 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-11-01

    A geotechnical study has been completed in H-Area for the In-Tank Precipitation Facility (ITP) and the balance of the H-Area Tank Farm (HTF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. The study consisted of subsurface field exploration, field and laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. The purpose of these investigations is to evaluate the overall stability of the H-Area tanks under static and dynamic conditions. The objectives of the study are to define the site-specific geological conditions at ITP and HTF, obtain engineering properties for the assessment of the stability of the native soils and embankment under static and dynamic loads (i.e., slope stability, liquefaction potential, and potential settlements), and derive properties for soil-structure interaction studies. This document (Volume 4) contains the laboratory test results for the In-Tank Precipitation Facility (ITP) and H-Tank Farm (HTF) Geotechnical Report.

  19. University of Minnesota -- Morris Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    -- Morris Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name University of Minnesota -- Morris Wind Farm Facility University of Minnesota -- Morris Sector Wind energy Facility Type...

  20. Windy Point - REpower (09) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    REpower (09) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Windy Point - REpower (09) Wind Farm Facility Windy Point - REpower (09) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale...

  1. Paso Robles Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Paso Robles Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Paso Robles Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility...

  2. California Desert Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Desert Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name California Desert Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility...

  3. Blue Aquarius Fish Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Blue Aquarius Fish Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Blue Aquarius Fish Farms Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility...

  4. Traverse City Light & Power Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    City Light & Power Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Traverse City Light & Power Wind Farm Facility Traverse City Light & Power Sector Wind energy Facility Type Community...

  5. Milford Wind Corridor Phase I (Clipper) Wind Farm | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Clipper) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Milford Wind Corridor Phase I (Clipper) Wind Farm Facility Milford Wind Corridor Phase I (Clipper) Sector Wind energy Facility...

  6. International Turbine Research Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Turbine Research Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name International Turbine Research Wind Farm Facility International Turbine Research Sector Wind energy Facility Type...

  7. Harbec Plastic Wind Turbine Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Harbec Plastic Wind Turbine Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Harbec Plastic Wind Turbine Wind Farm Facility Harbec Plastic Wind Turbine Sector Wind energy Facility Type...

  8. Mountain View Power Partners III Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    III Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Mountain View Power Partners III Wind Farm Facility Mountain View Power Partners III Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial...

  9. Stetson Wind Expansion Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Stetson Wind Expansion Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Stetson Wind Expansion Wind Farm Facility Stetson Wind Expansion Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale...

  10. Windland (Boxcar II) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Windland (Boxcar II) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Windland (Boxcar II) Wind Farm Facility Windland (Boxcar II) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  11. Champion (Roscoe II) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Champion (Roscoe II) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Champion (Roscoe II) Wind Farm Facility Champion (Roscoe II) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  12. Langdon II - Otter Tail Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Otter Tail Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Langdon II - Otter Tail Wind Farm Facility Langdon II - Otter Tail Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  13. Mountain View Power Partners II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Mountain View Power Partners II Wind Farm Facility Mountain View Power Partners II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale...

  14. Beech Ridge Energy Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Beech Ridge Energy Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Beech Ridge Energy Wind Farm Facility Beech Ridge Energy Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  15. Humboldt Industrial Park Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Industrial Park Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Humboldt Industrial Park Wind Farm Facility Humboldt Industrial Park Sector Wind energy Facility Type Community Wind...

  16. Sustainable Technologies Museum Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Sustainable Technologies Museum Wind Farm Facility Sustainable Technologies Museum Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  17. Bureau Valley School District Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Valley School District Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Bureau Valley School District Wind Farm Facility Bureau Valley School District Sector Wind energy Facility Type...

  18. Wethersfield Wind Power Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wethersfield Wind Power Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Wethersfield Wind Power Wind Farm Facility Wethersfield Wind Power Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial...

  19. Loranger Power Generation Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Loranger Power Generation Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Loranger Power Generation Wind Farm Facility Loranger Power Generation Sector Wind energy Facility Type...

  20. Shaokatan Power Partners Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Power Partners Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Shaokatan Power Partners Wind Farm Facility Shaokatan Power Partners Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale...

  1. Oasis Power Partners Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Oasis Power Partners Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Oasis Power Partners Wind Farm Facility Oasis Power Partners Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  2. Massachusetts Maritime Academy Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Maritime Academy Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Massachusetts Maritime Academy Wind Farm Facility Massachusetts Maritime Academy Sector Wind energy Facility Type...

  3. Great Lakes Science Center Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Science Center Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Great Lakes Science Center Wind Farm Facility Great Lakes Science Center Sector Wind energy Facility Type Community Wind...

  4. American Windmill Museum Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Windmill Museum Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name American Windmill Museum Wind Farm Facility American Windmill Museum Sector Wind energy Facility Type Community Wind...

  5. Stanton Energy Center Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Stanton Energy Center Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Stanton Energy Center Wind Farm Facility Stanton Energy Center Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale...

  6. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 543: Liquid Disposal Units, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2008-01-01

    This Closure Report (CR) documents closure activities for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 543, Liquid Disposal Units, according to the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO, 1996) and the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for CAU 543 (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office [NNSA/NSO], 2007). CAU 543 is located at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), Nevada (Figure 1), and consists of the following seven Corrective Action Sites (CASs): CAS 06-07-01, Decon Pad; CAS 15-01-03, Aboveground Storage Tank; CAS 15-04-01, Septic Tank; CAS 15-05-01, Leachfield; CAS 15-08-01, Liquid Manure Tank; CAS 15-23-01, Underground Radioactive Material Area; CAS 15-23-03, Contaminated Sump, Piping; and CAS 06-07-01 is located at the Decontamination Facility in Area 6, adjacent to Yucca Lake. The remaining CASs are located at the former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Farm in Area 15. The purpose of this CR is to provide a summary of the completed closure activities, to document waste disposal, and to present analytical data confirming that the remediation goals were met. The closure alternatives consisted of closure in place for two of the CASs, and no further action with implementation of best management practices (BMPs) for the remaining five CASs.

  7. Dutch Hill/Cohocton Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Dutch HillCohocton Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Dutch HillCohocton Wind Farm Facility Dutch HillCohocton Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial...

  8. Blue Sky Green Field Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Green Field Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Blue Sky Green Field Wind Farm Facility Blue Sky Green Field Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  9. FERN Blue Ribbon Wind Farm I | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    FERN Blue Ribbon Wind Farm I Jump to: navigation, search Name FERN Blue Ribbon Wind Farm I Facility FERN Blue Ribbon Wind Farm I Sector Wind energy Facility Type Offshore Wind...

  10. Nine Canyon Wind Farm Phase II | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Farm Phase II Jump to: navigation, search Name Nine Canyon Wind Farm Phase II Facility Nine Canyon Wind Farm Phase II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  11. Duct closure

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Vowell, Kennison L. (Canoga Park, CA)

    1987-01-01

    A closure for an inclined duct having an open upper end and defining downwardly extending passageway. The closure includes a cap for sealing engagement with the open upper end of the duct. Associated with the cap are an array of vertically aligned plug members, each of which has a cross-sectional area substantially conforming to the cross-sectional area of the passageway at least adjacent the upper end of the passageway. The plug members are interconnected in a manner to provide for free movement only in the plane in which the duct is inclined. The uppermost plug member is attached to the cap means and the cap means is in turn connected to a hoist means which is located directly over the open end of the duct.

  12. Post-Closure Benefits: DOE Complex vs Closure Sites | Department...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Closure Sites Post-Closure Benefits: DOE Complex vs Closure Sites Status of Contractor Pension and PRB Benefit Programs - September 30, 2013 DOE Wide Closure Sites Defined Benefit...

  13. Secretary's Honor Awards Recognize EM's Tank Cleanup, Closure |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy Secretary's Honor Awards Recognize EM's Tank Cleanup, Closure Secretary's Honor Awards Recognize EM's Tank Cleanup, Closure April 8, 2014 - 12:00pm Addthis Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, fourth from left, and Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman, third from right, present the Secretary's Achievement Award to members of the Savannah River Site F-Tank Farm Closure Team. Team members pictured, left to right, are James Rush, William Levitan, Kathleen Martin, Linda Suttora, James

  14. Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    -1 TC & WM EIS Proposed Actions (1) Retrieve, treat, and dispose of waste in single-shell tank (SST) and double-shell tank (DST) farms and close the SST system. (2) Decommission the Fast Flux Test Facility, manage the resulting waste, and manage the disposition of the Hanford Site's (Hanford's) inventory of bulk sodium. (3) Manage waste from tank closure and other Hanford activities, as well as limited volumes received from U.S. Department of Energy sites. CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED ACTIONS AND

  15. Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    ... for tank closure, Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) ... for disposition of bulk sodium, and Waste Management ... plants, production reactors, PUREX Plutonium-Uranium ...

  16. Mars Hill (2007) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    7) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Mars Hill (2007) Wind Farm Facility Mars Hill (2007) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  17. G.M. Allen & Sons Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    M. Allen & Sons Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name G.M. Allen & Sons Wind Farm Facility G.M. Allen & Sons Sector Wind energy Facility Type Small Scale Wind Facility Status...

  18. Bison Wind Farm 1A | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Bison Wind Farm 1A Jump to: navigation, search Name Bison Wind Farm 1A Facility Bison Wind 1A Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  19. McNeilus Wind Farm I | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    McNeilus Wind Farm I Jump to: navigation, search Name McNeilus Wind Farm I Facility McNeilus Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  20. JD Wind 6 Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    JD Wind 6 Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name JD Wind 6 Wind Farm Facility JD Wind 6 Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  1. JD Wind 7 Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    JD Wind 7 Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name JD Wind 7 Wind Farm Facility JD Wind 7 Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  2. EcoGrove Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    EcoGrove Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name EcoGrove Wind Farm Facility EcoGrove Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  3. Lone Star I (Q2) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Q2) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Lone Star I (Q2) Wind Farm Facility Lone Star I (Q2) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  4. Lone Star I (Q3) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Q3) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Lone Star I (Q3) Wind Farm Facility Lone Star I (Q3) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  5. FERN Blue Ribbon Wind Farm II* | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II* Jump to: navigation, search Name FERN Blue Ribbon Wind Farm II* Facility FERN Blue Ribbon Wind Farm II* Sector Wind energy Facility Type Offshore Wind Facility Status Proposed...

  6. Hopkins Ridge II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Hopkins Ridge II Wind Farm Facility Hopkins Ridge II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  7. Panther Creek II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Panther Creek II Wind Farm Facility Panther Creek II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  8. Minn-Dakota Wind Farm II | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Jump to: navigation, search Name Minn-Dakota Wind Farm II Facility Minn-Dakota Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  9. North Dakota Wind II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name North Dakota Wind II Wind Farm Facility North Dakota Wind II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  10. Lake Benton II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Lake Benton II Wind Farm Facility Lake Benton II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  11. Smoky Hills II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Smoky Hills II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Smoky Hills II Wind Farm Facility Smoky Hills II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  12. Tres Vaqueros II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Tres Vaqueros II Wind Farm Facility Tres Vaqueros II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  13. Venture Wind II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Venture Wind II Wind Farm Facility Venture Wind II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  14. Twin Groves II (08) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    8) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Twin Groves II (08) Wind Farm Facility Twin Groves II (08) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  15. Dry Lake II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Dry Lake II Wind Farm Facility Dry Lake II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  16. Foote Creek Rim II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Foote Creek Rim II Wind Farm Facility Foote Creek Rim II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  17. Twin Groves II (07) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    7) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Twin Groves II (07) Wind Farm Facility Twin Groves II (07) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  18. Meridian Way II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Meridian Way II Wind Farm Facility Meridian Way II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  19. MinWind I & II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    I & II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name MinWind I & II Wind Farm Facility MinWind I & II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  20. Wild Horse II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Wild Horse II Wind Farm Facility Wild Horse II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  1. JD Wind 4 Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    4 Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name JD Wind 4 Wind Farm Facility JD Wind 4 Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner John...

  2. Echo 8-9 Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    8-9 Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Echo 8-9 Wind Farm Facility Echo 8-9 Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner John...

  3. Buffalo Gap 3 Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    3 Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Buffalo Gap 3 Wind Farm Facility Buffalo Gap 3 Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  4. Hull Wind II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Hull Wind II Wind Farm Facility Hull II Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Hull...

  5. JD Wind 5 Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    5 Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name JD Wind 5 Wind Farm Facility JD Wind 5 Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner John...

  6. Mojave 90 (3 & 5) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    3 & 5) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Mojave 90 (3 & 5) Wind Farm Facility Mojave 90 (3 & 5) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  7. Metro Wind LLC Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind LLC Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Metro Wind LLC Wind Farm Facility Metro Wind LLC Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  8. Echo 1-7 Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Echo 1-7 Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Echo 1-7 Wind Farm Facility Echo 1-7 Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  9. JD Wind 1 Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name JD Wind 1 Wind Farm Facility JD Wind 1 Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner DWSJohn...

  10. CLOSURE DEVICE

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Linzell, S.M.; Dorcy, D.J.

    1958-08-26

    A quick opening type of stuffing box employing two banks of rotatable shoes, each of which has a caraming action that forces a neoprene sealing surface against a pipe or rod where it passes through a wall is presented. A ring having a handle or wrench attached is placed eccentric to and between the two banks of shoes. Head bolts from the shoes fit into slots in this ring, which are so arranged that when the ring is rotated a quarter turn in one direction the shoes are thrust inwardly to cramp the neopnrene about the pipe, malting a tight seal. Moving the ring in the reverse direction moves the shoes outwardly and frees the pipe which then may be readily removed from the stuffing box. This device has particular application as a closure for the end of a coolant tube of a neutronic reactor.

  11. Medicine Bow Wind Farm II | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Jump to: navigation, search Name Medicine Bow Wind Farm II Facility Medicine Bow Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Platte...

  12. Medicine Bow Wind Farm IV | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    IV Jump to: navigation, search Name Medicine Bow Wind Farm IV Facility Medicine Bow Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Platte...

  13. Medicine Bow Wind Farm III | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    III Jump to: navigation, search Name Medicine Bow Wind Farm III Facility Medicine Bow Sector Wind energy Facility Type Small Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Platte...

  14. Medicine Bow Wind Farm I | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    I Jump to: navigation, search Name Medicine Bow Wind Farm I Facility Medicine Bow Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Platte...

  15. Green Ridge Power Wind Farm II | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Jump to: navigation, search Name Green Ridge Power Wind Farm II Facility Green Ridge Power Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  16. Iowa Lakes Superior Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    search Name Iowa Lakes Superior Wind Farm Facility Iowa Lakes Superior Wind Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Iowa Lakes...

  17. Iowa Lakes Lakota Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    search Name Iowa Lakes Lakota Wind Farm Facility Iowa Lakes Lakota Wind Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Iowa Lakes...

  18. NREL Research Wind Farm II | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Jump to: navigation, search Name NREL Research Wind Farm II Facility NREL Research Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Developer...

  19. NREL Research Wind Farm I | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    I Jump to: navigation, search Name NREL Research Wind Farm I Facility NREL Research Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Developer...

  20. Cedar Creek Wind Farm II (Nordex) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Nordex) Jump to: navigation, search Name Cedar Creek Wind Farm II (Nordex) Facility Cedar Creek II (Nordex) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status...

  1. Whitewater Hill Wind Farm II | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Jump to: navigation, search Name Whitewater Hill Wind Farm II Facility Whitewater Hill Sector Wind energy Facility Type Community Wind Facility Status In Service Owner Cannon...

  2. Oak Creek Energy Systems Wind Farm II | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Jump to: navigation, search Name Oak Creek Energy Systems Wind Farm II Facility Oak Creek Energy Systems Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status...

  3. Victory Gardens Phase IV Wind Farm II | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Jump to: navigation, search Name Victory Gardens Phase IV Wind Farm II Facility Victory Gardens- Phase IV Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status...

  4. Coachella Valley Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Coachella Valley Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Coachella Valley Fish Farm Aquaculture Low Temperature Geothermal...

  5. Portsmouth Abbey School Wind Turbine Wind Farm | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Abbey School Wind Turbine Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Portsmouth Abbey School Wind Turbine Wind Farm Facility Portsmouth Abbey School Wind Turbine Sector Wind energy...

  6. Kings River Conservation District (KRCD) Solar Farm Solar Power...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    River Conservation District (KRCD) Solar Farm Solar Power Plant Jump to: navigation, search Name Kings River Conservation District (KRCD) Solar Farm Solar Power Plant Facility...

  7. State Fair Wind Energy Education Center Wind Farm | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Fair Wind Energy Education Center Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name State Fair Wind Energy Education Center Wind Farm Facility Wind Energy Education Center Sector Wind...

  8. RCRA post-closure permits

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-05-01

    The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires that hazardous waste management facilities operate in accordance with permits granted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a State authorized to carry out the RCRA Subtitle C program. Several categories of permits (including treatment, storage, and disposal permits; research, development, and demonstration permits; post-closure permits; emergency permits; permits-by-rule; and trial burn and land treatment demonstration permits) are issued under the RCRA Subtitle C program. This Information Brief focuses on post-closure permitting requirements under 40 CFR 270.1(c).

  9. In-tank Precipitation Facility (ITP) and H-Tank Farm (HTF) geotechnical report, WSRC-TR-95-0057, Revision 0, Volume 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1995-01-01

    A geotechnical study has been completed in H-Area for the In-Tank Precipitation Facility (ITP) and the balance of the H-Area Tank Farm (HTF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. The study consisted of subsurface field exploration, field and laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. The purpose of these investigations is to evaluate the overall stability of the H-Area tanks under static and dynamic conditions. The objectives of the study are to define the site-specific geological conditions at ITP and HTF, obtain engineering properties for the assessment of the stability of the native soils and embankment under static and dynamic loads (i.e., slope stability, liquefaction potential, and potential settlements), and derive properties for soil-structure interaction studies.

  10. Facilities

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Facilities Facilities LANL's mission is to develop and apply science and technology to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent; reduce global threats; and solve other emerging national security and energy challenges. Contact Operator Los Alamos National Laboratory (505) 667-5061 Some LANL facilities are available to researchers at other laboratories, universities, and industry. Unique facilities foster experimental science, support LANL's security mission DARHT

  11. Facilities

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Secure and Sustainable Energy Future Mission/Facilities - FacilitiesTara Camacho-Lopez2015-10-27T01:52:50+00:00 National Solar Thermal Test Facility (NSTTF) facility_nsttf_slide NSTTF's primary goal is to provide experimental engineering data for the design, construction, and operation of unique components and systems in proposed solar thermal electrical plants, which have three generic system architectures: line-focus (trough and continuous linear Fresnel reflector systems), point-focus central

  12. Tank Farms - Hanford Site

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    About Us Projects & Facilities Tank Farms About Us About Hanford Cleanup Hanford History Hanford Site Wide Programs Contact Us 100 Area 118-K-1 Burial Ground 200 Area 222-S Laboratory 242-A Evaporator 300 Area 324 Building 325 Building 400 Area/Fast Flux Test Facility 618-10 and 618-11 Burial Grounds 700 Area B Plant B Reactor C Reactor Canister Storage Building and Interim Storage Area Canyon Facilities Cold Test Facility D and DR Reactors Effluent Treatment Facility Environmental

  13. Kibby Mountain Phase I Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Kibby Mountain Phase I Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Kibby Mountain Phase I Wind Farm Facility Kibby Mountain Phase I Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale...

  14. Black River Farm Solar Project | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Solar Project Facility Black River Farm Solar Project Sector Solar Facility Type Fixed Tilt Ground-Mount & Roof-Mount Owner EnXco Developer EnXco Energy Purchaser Black River Farm...

  15. Green Mountain Energy Wind Farm II | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Jump to: navigation, search Name Green Mountain Energy Wind Farm II Facility AMP-OhioGreen Mountain Energy Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  16. Green Mountain Energy Wind Farm I | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    I Jump to: navigation, search Name Green Mountain Energy Wind Farm I Facility AMP-OhioGreen Mountain Energy Wind Farm Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  17. Mountain View Power Partners I Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    I Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Mountain View Power Partners I Wind Farm Facility Mountain View Power Partners I Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  18. Woodward Mountain I & II Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Mountain I & II Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Woodward Mountain I & II Wind Farm Facility Woodward Mountain Wind Ranch I and II Sector Wind energy Facility Type...

  19. Cow Branch Wind Energy Center Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Cow Branch Wind Energy Center Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Cow Branch Wind Energy Center Wind Farm Facility Cow Branch Wind Energy Center Sector Wind energy Facility...

  20. H-Tank Farm Waste Determination | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    H-Tank Farm Waste Determination H-Tank Farm Waste Determination On Dec. 19, 2014, the Energy Secretary signed a determination that allows the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina to complete cleanup and closure of the underground liquid waste tanks in the H Tank Farm as they are emptied and cleaned. The action marked a major milestone in efforts to clean up the Cold War legacy at SRS. PDF icon Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of H-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site PDF

  1. Facilities

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Facilities - An example of a probablistic solar forecast produced with PRESCIENT. Permalink Gallery Sandia Develops Stochastic Production Cost Model Simulator for Electric Power Systems Analysis, Capabilities, Computational Modeling & Simulation, DETL, Distribution Grid Integration, Energy, Facilities, Grid Integration, Modeling, Modeling, Modeling & Analysis, Modeling & Analysis, News, News & Events, Photovoltaic, Renewable Energy, Research & Capabilities, Solar, Solar

  2. Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    E-1 APPENDIX E DESCRIPTIONS OF FACILITIES, OPERATIONS, AND TECHNOLOGIES Appendix E provides additional information about the technologies, processes, and facilities for the three key activities of this Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington: tank closure, Fast Flux Test Facility decommissioning, and waste management. Section E.1 includes this information for tank closure; Section E.2, for Fast Flux Test Facility

  3. Buena Vista Wind Farm I | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    I Jump to: navigation, search Name Buena Vista Wind Farm I Facility Buena Vista Facility Status Decommissioned Owner International Wind Companies Energy Purchaser Pacific Gas &...

  4. Masson Radium Springs Farm Greenhouse Low Temperature Geothermal...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Temperature Geothermal Facility Facility Masson Radium Springs Farm Sector Geothermal energy Type Greenhouse Location Radium Springs, New Mexico Coordinates 32.501453,...

  5. ORP Projects & Facilities - Hanford Site

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Facilities Office of River Protection About ORP ORP Projects & Facilities Tank Farms Waste Treatment & Immobilization Plant 222-S Laboratory 242-A Evaporator Newsroom Contracts &...

  6. Reliability assessment of underground shaft closure

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fossum, A.F.

    1994-12-31

    The intent of the WIPP, being constructed in the bedded geologic salt deposits of Southeastern New Mexico, is to provide the technological basis for the safe disposal of radioactive Transuranic (TRU) wastes generated by the defense programs of the United States. In determining this technological basis, advanced reliability and structural analysis techniques are used to determine the probability of time-to-closure of a hypothetical underground shaft located in an argillaceous salt formation and filled with compacted crushed salt. Before being filled with crushed salt for sealing, the shaft provides access to an underground facility. Reliable closure of the shaft depends upon the sealing of the shaft through creep closure and recompaction of crushed backfill. Appropriate methods are demonstrated to calculate cumulative distribution functions of the closure based on laboratory determined random variable uncertainty in salt creep properties.

  7. AX Tank Farm tank removal study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    SKELLY, W.A.

    1998-10-14

    This report considers the feasibility of exposing, demolishing, and removing underground storage tanks from the 241-AX Tank Farm at the Hanford Site. For the study, it was assumed that the tanks would each contain 360 ft{sup 3} of residual waste (corresponding to the one percent residual Inventory target cited in the Tri-Party Agreement) at the time of demolition. The 241-AX Tank Farm is being employed as a ''strawman'' in engineering studies evaluating clean and landfill closure options for Hanford single-shell tank farms. The report is one of several reports being prepared for use by the Hanford Tanks Initiative Project to explore potential closure options and to develop retrieval performance evaluation criteria for tank farms.

  8. Lone Star II (1Q08) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Lone Star II (1Q08) Wind Farm Facility Lone Star II (1Q08) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  9. Lone Star II (4Q07) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Lone Star II (4Q07) Wind Farm Facility Lone Star II (4Q07) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  10. Lone Star I (4Q07) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Lone Star I (4Q07) Wind Farm Facility Lone Star I (4Q07) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  11. Lone Star II (2Q08) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Lone Star II (2Q08) Wind Farm Facility Lone Star II (2Q08) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In...

  12. Mojave 16-17-18 Wind Farm II | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    16-17-18 Wind Farm II Jump to: navigation, search Name Mojave 16-17-18 Wind Farm II Facility Mojave 161718 Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status...

  13. Camp Springs II (4Q07) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    4Q07) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Camp Springs II (4Q07) Wind Farm Facility Camp Springs II (4Q07) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  14. Camp Springs II (1Q08) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    1Q08) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Camp Springs II (1Q08) Wind Farm Facility Camp Springs II (1Q08) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility...

  15. Camp William Utah National Guard Wind Farm II | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Jump to: navigation, search Name Camp William Utah National Guard Wind Farm II Facility Camp William Utah National Guard Sector Wind energy Facility Type Community Wind Facility...

  16. About the Facility

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    National Solar Thermal Test Facility Nuclear Energy Systems LaboratoryBrayton Lab Photovoltaic Systems Evaluation Laboratory PV Regional Test Centers Scaled Wind Farm ...

  17. Preliminary Notice of Violation, Washington Closure Hanford, LLC -

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    WEA-2010-02 | Department of Energy Closure Hanford, LLC - WEA-2010-02 Preliminary Notice of Violation, Washington Closure Hanford, LLC - WEA-2010-02 August 19, 2010 Issued to Washington Closure Hanford, LLC related an Employee Fall at the High Bay Testing Facility (336 Building) at the Hanford Site On August 19, 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Health, Safety and Security's Office of Enforcement issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation (WEA-2010-02) to Washington Closure

  18. Decontamination & Decommissioning/ Facilities Engineering (D&D/FE)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    As the DOE complex sites prepare for closure, a large number of buildings and facilities must be deactivated and decommissioned.

  19. Criticality assessment of LLRWDF closure

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sarrack, A.G.; Weber, J.H.; Woody, N.D.

    1992-10-06

    During the operation of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility (LLRWDF), large amounts (greater than 100 kg) of enriched uranium (EU) were buried. This EU came primarily from the closing and decontamination of the Naval Fuels Facility in the time period from 1987--1989. Waste Management Operations (WMO) procedures were used to keep the EU boxes separated to prevent possible criticality during normal operation. Closure of the LLRWDF is currently being planned, and waste stabilization by Dynamic Compaction (DC) is proposed. Dynamic compaction will crush the containers in the LLRWDF and result in changes in their geometry. Research of the LLRWDF operations and record keeping practices have shown that the EU contents of trenches are known, but details of the arrangement of the contents cannot be proven. Reviews of the trench contents, combined with analysis of potential critical configurations, revealed that some portions of the LLRWDF can be expected to be free of criticality concerns while other sections have credible probabilities for the assembly of a critical mass, even in the uncompacted configuration. This will have an impact on the closure options and which trenches can be compacted.

  20. Long Island New York City Offshore Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Long Island New York City Offshore Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Long Island New York City Offshore Wind Farm Facility Long Island New York City Offshore Wind Farm...

  1. Rocky Flats Closure Unit Cost Data

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sanford, P.C.; Skokan, B.

    2007-07-01

    The Rocky Flats Closure Project has completed the process of stabilizing residual nuclear materials, decommissioning nuclear facilities, remediating environmental media and closing the Rocky Flats Site (Site). The project cost approximately $4.1 B and included the decommissioning of over 700 structures including 5 major plutonium facilities and 5 major uranium facilities, shipping over 14,600 cubic meters of transuranic and 565,000 cubic meters of low level radioactive waste, and remediating a 385-acre industrial area and the surrounding land. Actual costs were collected for a large variety of closure activities. These costs can be correlated with metrics associated with the facilities and environmental media to capture cost factors from the project that could be applicable to a variety of other closure projects both within and outside of the Department of Energy's weapons complex. The paper covers four general topics: the process to correlate the actual costs and metrics, an example of the correlated data for one large sub-project, a discussion of the results, and the additional activities that are planned to correlate and make this data available to the public. The process to collect and arrange the project control data of the Closure Project relied on the actual Closure Project cost information. It was used to correlate these actual costs with the metrics for the physical work, such as building area or waste generated, to support the development of parametric cost factors. The example provides cost factors for the Industrial Sites Project. The discussion addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the data, followed by a section identifying future activities to improve and extend the analyses and integrate it within the Department's Environmental Cost Analysis System. (authors)

  2. Green Ridge Power Wind Farm I | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    I Jump to: navigation, search Name Green Ridge Power Wind Farm I Facility Green Ridge Power Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Owner...

  3. Cedar Creek Wind Farm II (GE) | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    GE) Jump to: navigation, search Name Cedar Creek Wind Farm II (GE) Facility Cedar Creek II (GE) Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  4. Wind Farm

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The wind farm in Greensburg, Kansas, was completed in spring 2010, and consists of ten 1.25 megawatt (MW) wind turbines that supply enough electricity to power every house, business, and municipal...

  5. Compilation of RCRA closure plan conditions applicable to boilers and industrial furnaces at cement plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Raymond, A.N.

    1998-12-31

    A prudent approach to closure plan development will assist preparers of closure plans to ensure that a cement kiln BIF unit and associated Resources conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) units are effectively closed in a manner that minimizes potential threats to human health and the environment, as well as facilitating closure in an economical and timely manner. Cement kilns burning hazardous waste-derived-fuel (HWDF) must comply with the general facility standards of Subpart G Closure and Post-Closure requirements of 40 CFR parts 264 or 265 in addition to the RCRA Part b permitting requirements of 40 CFR parts 270.13 and 270.22 (e) and (f). As a result, approved closure plans for BIF facilities (or individual BIF units) will contain general and site-specific permit conditions that will mandate numerous closure activities be conducted to successfully implement the partial or final closure of a permitted or interim status BIF unit or facility. Currently, a scarce amount of published information is available to the cement industry in the form of agency guidance documents that would assist facilities with BIF unit closures. A review of seven approved or implemented closure plans revealed significant differences between plans approved recently versus a few years ago as well as observed differences in acceptable closure criteria between EPA regions and various states agencies. The intent of this paper is to first familiarize readers with general closure plan requirements, followed by a detailed discussion of closure requirements that are pertinent to BIF unit facilities. Comparisons are presented to provide an overview of typical components of BIF unit closure plans.

  6. Painted Hills B&C Wind Farm I | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Painted Hills B&C Wind Farm I Jump to: navigation, search Name Painted Hills B&C Wind Farm I Facility Painted Hills B&C Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  7. Ponnequin phase I and II (PSCo) Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    I and II (PSCo) Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Ponnequin phase I and II (PSCo) Wind Farm Facility Ponnequin phase I and II (PSCo) Sector Wind energy Facility Type...

  8. Oak Creek Wind Power Phase 2 Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Wind Power Phase 2 Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Oak Creek Wind Power Phase 2 Wind Farm Facility Oak Creek Wind Power Phase 2 Sector Wind energy Facility Type...

  9. Wind Power Partners '90-'92 Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    0-'92 Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name Wind Power Partners '90-'92 Wind Farm Facility Wind Power Partners '90-'92 Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind...

  10. F.E. Warren Air Force Base Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    F.E. Warren Air Force Base Wind Farm Jump to: navigation, search Name F.E. Warren Air Force Base Wind Farm Facility F.E. Warren Air Force Base Sector Wind energy Facility Type...

  11. Progress Continues Toward Closure of Two Underground Waste Tanks at

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Savannah River Site | Department of Energy Progress Continues Toward Closure of Two Underground Waste Tanks at Savannah River Site Progress Continues Toward Closure of Two Underground Waste Tanks at Savannah River Site October 30, 2013 - 12:00pm Addthis Grouting of two Savannah River Site waste tanks began in August. Here, the first trucks with grout arrive at F Tank Farm. Grouting of two Savannah River Site waste tanks began in August. Here, the first trucks with grout arrive at F Tank

  12. Topaz Solar Farm Solar Power Plant | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Topaz Solar Farm Sector Solar Facility Type Photovoltaic Developer OptiSolar Location San Luis Obispo County, California Coordinates 35.3102296, -120.4357631 Show Map...

  13. Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA) Wind Farm I...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    I Jump to: navigation, search Name Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA) Wind Farm I Facility Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA) Sector Wind energy...

  14. Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA) Wind Farm Ii...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Ii Jump to: navigation, search Name Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA) Wind Farm Ii Facility Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA) Sector Wind energy...

  15. Baseline Risk Assessment Supporting Closure at Waste Management Area C at the Hanford Site Washington

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Singleton, Kristin M.

    2015-01-07

    The Office of River Protection under the U.S. Department of Energy is pursuing closure of the Single-Shell Tank (SST) Waste Management Area (WMA) C under the requirements of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (HFFACO). A baseline risk assessment (BRA) of current conditions is based on available characterization data and information collected at WMA C. The baseline risk assessment is being developed as a part of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation (RFI)/Corrective Measures Study (CMS) at WMA C that is mandatory under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and RCRA corrective action. The RFI/CMS is needed to identify and evaluate the hazardous chemical and radiological contamination in the vadose zone from past releases of waste from WMA C. WMA C will be under Federal ownership and control for the foreseeable future, and managed as an industrial area with restricted access and various institutional controls. The exposure scenarios evaluated under these conditions include Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method C, industrial worker, maintenance and surveillance worker, construction worker, and trespasser scenarios. The BRA evaluates several unrestricted land use scenarios (residential all-pathway, MTCA Method B, and Tribal) to provide additional information for risk management. Analytical results from 13 shallow zone (0 to 15 ft. below ground surface) sampling locations were collected to evaluate human health impacts at WMA C. In addition, soil analytical data were screened against background concentrations and ecological soil screening levels to determine if soil concentrations have the potential to adversely affect ecological receptors. Analytical data from 12 groundwater monitoring wells were evaluated between 2004 and 2013. A screening of groundwater monitoring data against background concentrations and Federal maximum concentration levels was used to determine vadose zone contamination impacts on groundwater. Waste Management Area C is the first of the Hanford tank farms to begin the closure planning process. The current baseline risk assessment will provide valuable information for making corrective actions and closure decisions for WMA C, and will also support the planning for future tank farm soil investigation and baseline risk assessments.

  16. ROCKET PORT CLOSURE

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Mattingly, J.T.

    1963-02-12

    This invention provides a simple pressure-actuated closure whereby windowless observation ports are opened to the atmosphere at preselected altitudes. The closure comprises a disk which seals a windowless observation port in rocket hull. An evacuated instrument compartment is affixed to the rocket hull adjacent the inner surface of the disk, while the outer disk surface is exposed to the atmosphere through which the rocket is traveling. The pressure differential between the evacuated instrument compartment and the relatively high pressure external atmosphere forces the disk against the edge of the observation port, thereby effecting a tight seai. The instrument compartment is evacuated to a pressure equal to the atmospheric pressure existing at the altitude at which it is desiretl that the closure should open. When the rocket reaches this preselected altitude, the inwardly directed atmospheric force on the disk is just equaled by the residual air pressure force within the instrument compartment. Consequently, the closure disk falls away and uncovers the open observation port. The separation of the disk from the rocket hull actuates a switch which energizes the mechanism of a detecting instrument disposed within the instrument compartment. (AE C)

  17. Washington Closure Hanford: Cleanup Progress Along Hanford's...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Sax, President, Washington Closure Hanford. Washington Closure Hanford: Cleanup Progress Along Hanford's River Corridor More Documents & Publications 2014 Congressional Nuclear...

  18. Performance Assessment Program for the Savannah River Site Liquid Waste Facilities - 13610

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rosenberger, Kent H.

    2013-07-01

    The Liquid Waste facilities at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS) are operated by Liquid Waste Operations contractor Savannah River Remediation LLC (SRR). A separate Performance Assessment (PA) is prepared to support disposal operations at the Saltstone Disposal Facility and closure evaluations for the two liquid waste tank farm facilities at SRS, F-Tank Farm and H-Tank Farm. A PA provides the technical basis and results to be used in subsequent documents to demonstrate compliance with the pertinent requirements identified in operations and closure regulatory guidance. The Saltstone Disposal Facility is subject to a State of South Carolina industrial solid waste landfill permit and the tank farms are subject to a state industrial waste water permit. The three Liquid Waste facilities are also subject to a Federal Facility Agreement approved by the State, DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Due to the regulatory structure, a PA is a key technical document reviewed by the DOE, the State of South Carolina and the EPA. As the waste material disposed of in the Saltstone Disposal Facility and the residual material in the closed tank farms is also subject to reclassification prior to closure via a waste determination pursuant to Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is also a reviewing agency for the PAs. Pursuant to the Act, the NRC also has a continuing role to monitor disposal actions to assess compliance with stated performance objectives. The Liquid Waste PA program at SRS represents a continual process over the life of the disposal and closure operations. When the need for a PA or PA revision is identified, the first step is to develop a conceptual model to best represent the facility conditions. The conceptual model will include physical dimensions of the closed system, both the engineered and natural system, and modeling input parameters associated with the modeled features, both initial values (at the time of facility closure) and degradation rates/values. During the development of the PA, evaluations are conducted to reflect not only the results associated with the best available information at the time but also to evaluate potential uncertainties and sensitivities associated with the modeled system. While the PA will reflect the modeled system results from the best available information, it will also identify areas for future work to reduce overall PA uncertainties moving forward. DOE requires a PA Maintenance Program such that work continues to reduce model uncertainties, thus bolstering confidence in PA results that support regulatory decisions. This maintenance work may include new Research and Development activities or modeling as informed by previous PA results and other new information that becomes available. As new information becomes available, it is evaluated against previous PAs and appropriate actions are taken to ensure continued confidence in the regulatory decisions. Therefore, the PA program is a continual process that is not just the development of a PA but seeks to incorporate new information to reduce overall model uncertainty and provide continuing confidence in regulatory decisions. (author)

  19. HANFORD TANK FARM RESOURCE CONVERVATION & RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    KRISTOFZSKI, J.G.

    2007-01-15

    As a consequence of producing special nuclear material for the nation's defense, large amounts of extremely hazardous radioactive waste was created at the US Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site in south central Washington State. A little over 50 million gallons of this waste is now stored in 177 large, underground tanks on Hanford's Central Plateau in tank farms regulated under the Atomic Energy Act and the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA). Over 60 tanks and associated infrastructure have released or are presumed to have released waste in the vadose zone. In 1998, DOE's Office of River Protection established the Hanford Tank Farm RCRA Corrective Action Program (RCAP) to: (1) characterize the distribution and extent of the existing vadose zone contamination; (2) determine how the contamination will move in the future; (3) estimate the impacts of this contamination on groundwater and other media; (4) develop and implement mitigative measures; and (5) develop corrective measures to be implemented as part of the final closure of the tank farm facilities. Since its creation, RCAP has made major advances in each of these areas, which will be discussed in this paper.

  20. AREA 5 RWMS CLOSURE

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    153 CLOSURE STRATEGY NEVADA TEST SITE AREA 5 RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SITE Revision 0 Prepared by Under Contract No. DE-AC52-06NA25946 March 2007 DISCLAIMER Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors. Available for sale to the public,

  1. ARM - Facility News Article

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    2D video disdrometer is collecting precipitation data at Kessler Farm, near the SGP's Purcell Boundary Facility. In late April, an NCAR 2D video disdrometer was installed at...

  2. Hanford Single-Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations - 241-B Farm

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

    2013-07-11

    This document identifies 241-B Tank Farm (B Farm) leak cause and locations for the 100 series leaking tank (241-B-107) identified in RPP-RPT-49089, Hanford B-Farm Leak Inventory Assessments Report. This document satisfies the B Farm portion of the target (T04) in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F.

  3. Facility Floorplan

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Facility Floorplan

  4. Draft Performance Assessment for the F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    | Department of Energy Draft Performance Assessment for the F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site Draft Performance Assessment for the F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site This Performance Assessment (PA) for the Savannah River Site (SRS) was prepared to support the eventual operational closure of the F-Tank Farm (FTF) underground radioactive waste tanks and ancillary equipment. This PA provides the technical basis and results to be used in subsequent documents to demonstrate compliance

  5. Tjaden Farms Wind Farm | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Status In Service Owner Tjaden Farms Energy Purchaser Tjaden Farms Location Charles City IA Coordinates 43.170337, -92.58944 Show Map Loading map... "minzoom":false,"mappingse...

  6. AIR AND RADON PATHWAY MODELING FOR THE F-AREA TANK FARM

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dixon, K; Mark Phifer, M

    2007-09-17

    The F-Area Tank Farm (FTF) is located within F-Area in the General Separations Area (GSA) of the Savannah River Site (SRS) as seen in Figure 1. The GSA contains the F and H Area Separations Facilities, the S-Area Defense Waste Processing Facility, the Z-Area Saltstone Facility, and the E-Area Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities. The FTF is a nearly rectangular shaped area and comprises approximately 20 acres, which is bounded by SRS coordinates N 76,604.5 to N 77,560.0 and E 52,435.0 to E 53,369.0. SRS is in the process of preparing a Performance Assessment (PA) to support FTF closure. As part of the PA process, an analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential magnitude of gaseous release of radionuclides from the FTF over the 100-year institutional control period and 10,000-year post-closure compliance period. Specifically, an air and radon pathways analysis has been conducted to estimate the flux of volatile radionuclides and radon at the ground surface due to residual waste remaining in the tanks following closure. This analysis was used as the basis to estimate the dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) for the air pathway per Curie (Ci) of each radionuclide remaining in the combined FTF waste tanks. For the air pathway analysis, several gaseous radionuclides were considered. These included carbon-14 (C-14), chlorine-36 (Cl-36), iodine-129 (I-129), selenium-79 (Se-79), antimony-125 (Sb-125), tin-126 (Sn-126), tritium (H-3), and technetium-99 (Tc-99). The dose to the MEI was estimated at the SRS Boundary during the 100 year institutional control period. For the 10,000 year post closure compliance period, the dose to the MEI was estimated at the 100 m compliance point. For the radon pathway analysis, five parent radionuclides and their progeny were analyzed. These parent radionuclides included uranium-238 (U-238), plutonium-238 (Pu-238), uranium-234 (U-234), thorium-230 (Th-230), and radium-226 (Ra-226). The peak flux of radon-222 due to each parent radionuclide was estimated for the simulation period of 10,100 years.

  7. Small Site Closures

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Site Closures This table lists the 85 small sites closed as of 2012 in chronological order of completion. 1 A number of these sites were cleaned up under the Formerly Utilized Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), for which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for site surveys and remediation. Uranium processing sites were addressed by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA). UMTRCA Title II sites are sites that were commercially owned and are regulated under an U.S.

  8. Mixing in SRS Closure Business Unit Applications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    POIRIER, MICHAELR.

    2004-06-23

    The following equipment is commonly used to mix fluids: mechanical agitators, jets (pumps), shrouded axial impeller mixers (Flygt mixers), spargers, pulsed jet mixers, boiling, static mixers, falling films, liquid sprays, and thermal convection. This discussion will focus on mechanical agitators, jets, shrouded axial impeller mixers, spargers, and pulsed jet mixers, as these devices are most likely to be employed in Savannah River Site (SRS) Closure Business applications. In addressing mixing problems in the SRS Tank Farm, one must distinguish between different mixing objectives. These objectives include sludge mixing (e.g., Extended Sludge Processing), sludge retrieval (e.g., sludge transfers between tanks), heel retrieval (e.g., Tanks 18F and 19F), chemical reactions (e.g., oxalic acid neutralization) and salt dissolution. For example, one should not apply sludge mixing guidelines to heel removal applications. Mixing effectiveness is a function of both the mixing device (e.g., slurry pump, agitator, air sparger) and the properties of the material to be mixed (e.g., yield stress, viscosity, density, and particle size). The objective of this document is to provide background mixing knowledge for the SRS Closure Business Unit personnel and to provide general recommendations for mixing in SRS applications.

  9. Washington Closure Hanford - Hanford Site

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Hanford Contracting ORP Contracts and Procurements RL Contracts and Procurements CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company Mission Support Alliance Washington Closure Hanford HPM...

  10. System for closure of a physical anomaly

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Bearinger, Jane P; Maitland, Duncan J; Schumann, Daniel L; Wilson, Thomas S

    2014-11-11

    Systems for closure of a physical anomaly. Closure is accomplished by a closure body with an exterior surface. The exterior surface contacts the opening of the anomaly and closes the anomaly. The closure body has a primary shape for closing the anomaly and a secondary shape for being positioned in the physical anomaly. The closure body preferably comprises a shape memory polymer.

  11. Closure Plan for the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site at the Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Management

    2008-09-01

    The Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RMWS) at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) is managed and operated by National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO). This document is the first update of the preliminary closure plan for the Area 5 RWMS at the NTS that was presented in the Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan (DOE, 2005a). The major updates to the plan include a new closure schedule, updated closure inventory, updated site and facility characterization data, the Title II engineering cover design, and the closure process for the 92-Acre Area of the RWMS. The format and content of this site-specific plan follows the Format and Content Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Closure Plans (DOE, 1999a). This interim closure plan meets closure and post-closure monitoring requirements of the order DOE O 435.1, manual DOE M 435.1-1, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 191, 40 CFR 265, Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 444.743, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements as incorporated into NAC 444.8632. The Area 5 RWMS accepts primarily packaged low-level waste (LLW), low-level mixed waste (LLMW), and asbestiform low-level waste (ALLW) for disposal in excavated disposal cells.

  12. Painted Hills B&C Wind Farm II | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    II Jump to: navigation, search Name Painted Hills B&C Wind Farm II Facility Painted Hills B&C Sector Wind energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service...

  13. Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    -1 CHAPTER 7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION Chapter 7 discusses environmental consequences that would occur due to implementation of the reasonable alternatives for each of the following: (1) tank waste retrieval, treatment, and disposal and single-shell tank system closure at the Hanford Site (i.e., tank closure); (2) decommissioning of the Fast Flux Test Facility and auxiliary facilities and disposition of the inventory of radioactively contaminated bulk sodium (i.e.,

  14. Interim Status Closure Plan Open Burning Treatment Unit Technical Area 16-399 Burn Tray

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vigil-Holterman, Luciana R.

    2012-05-07

    This closure plan describes the activities necessary to close one of the interim status hazardous waste open burning treatment units at Technical Area (TA) 16 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Facility), hereinafter referred to as the 'TA-16-399 Burn Tray' or 'the unit'. The information provided in this closure plan addresses the closure requirements specified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Part 265, Subparts G and P for the thermal treatment units operated at the Facility under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act. Closure of the open burning treatment unit will be completed in accordance with Section 4.1 of this closure plan.

  15. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT TO SUPPORT CLOSURE OF SINGLE-SHELL TANK WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA C AT THE HANFORD SITE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BERGERON MP

    2010-01-14

    Current proposed regulatory agreements (Consent Decree) at the Hanford Site call for closure of the Single-Shell Tank (SST) Waste Management Area (WMA) C in the year 2019. WMA C is part of the SST system in 200 East area ofthe Hanford Site and is one of the first tank farm areas built in mid-1940s. In order to close WMA C, both tank and facility closure activities and corrective actions associated with existing soil and groundwater contamination must be performed. Remedial activities for WMA C and corrective actions for soils and groundwater within that system will be supported by various types of risk assessments and interim performance assessments (PA). The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River Protection (DOE-ORP) and the State ofWashington Department of Ecology (Ecology) are sponsoring a series of working sessions with regulators and stakeholders to solicit input and to obtain a common understanding concerning the scope, methods, and data to be used in the planned risk assessments and PAs to support closure of WMA C. In addition to DOE-ORP and Ecology staff and contractors, working session members include representatives from the U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), interested tribal nations, other stakeholders groups, and members of the interested public. NRC staff involvement in the working sessions is as a technical resource to assess whether required waste determinations by DOE for waste incidental to reprocessing are based on sound technical assumptions, analyses, and conclusions relative to applicable incidental waste criteria.

  16. Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, Washington Closure...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Washington Closure Hanford VPP Report - March 2009 Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, Washington Closure Hanford VPP Report - March 2009 March 2009 Evaluation to determine...

  17. RCRA post-closure permits. RCRA Information Brief

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coalgate, J.

    1993-02-01

    The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires that hazardous waste management facilities operate in accordance with permits granted by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a State authorized to carry out the RCRA Subtitle C program. Several categories of permits, including treatment,storage, and disposal permits; research, development and demonstration permits; post-closure permits; emergency permits; permits-by-rule; and trial burn and land treatment demonstration permits are issued under the RCRA Subtitle C program. This Information Brief focuses on post-closure permitting requirements under 40 CFR 270.1(c).

  18. AIR AND RADON PATHWAY MODELING FOR THE F AREA TANK FARM

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dixon, K.; Phifer, M.

    2010-07-30

    An air and radon pathways analysis was conducted for the F-Area Tank Farm (FTF) to estimate the flux of volatile radionuclides and radon at the ground surface due to residual waste remaining in the tanks following closure. This analysis was used as the basis to estimate the dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) for the air pathway per Curie (Ci) of each radionuclide remaining in the combined FTF waste tanks. For the air pathway analysis, several gaseous radionuclides were considered. These included carbon-14 (C-14), chlorine-36 (Cl-36), iodine-129 (I-129), selenium-79 (Se-79), antimony-125 (Sb-125), tin-126 (Sn-126), tritium (H-3), and technetium-99 (Tc-99). The dose to the MEI was estimated at the SRS Boundary during the 100 year institutional control period. For the 10,000 year post closure compliance period, the dose to the MEI was estimated at the 100 m compliance point. Additionally, the dose to the MEI was estimated at a seepage outcrop located 1600 m from the facility. For the radon pathway analysis, five parent radionuclides and their progeny were analyzed. These parent radionuclides included uranium-238 (U-238), plutonium-238 (Pu-238), uranium-234 (U-234), thorium-230 (Th-230), and radium-226 (Ra-226). The peak flux of radon-222 due to each parent radionuclide was estimated for the simulation period of 10,100 years.

  19. Hanford Single-Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations - 241-BY and 241-TY Farm

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

    2013-11-19

    This document identifies 241-BY Tank Farm (BY Farm) and 241-TY Tank Farm (TY Farm) leak causes and locations for the 100 series leaking tanks (241-BY-103, 241-TY-103, 241-TY-104, 241-TY-105, and 241-TY-106) identified in RPP-RPT-43704, Hanford BY Farm Leak Assessments Report, and in RPP-RPT-42296, Hanford TY Farm Leak Assessments Report. This document satisfies the BY and TY Farm portion of the target (T04) in Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F.

  20. Hanford Single-Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations - 241-BY and 241-TY Farm

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

    2014-09-04

    This document identifies 241-BY Tank Farm (BY Farm) and 241-TY Tank Farm (TY Farm) lead causes and locations for the 100 series leaking tanks (241-BY-103, 241-TY-103, 241-TY-104, 241-TY-105 and 241-TY-106) identified in RPP-RPT-43704, Hanford BY Farm Leak Assessments Report, and in RPP-RPT-42296, Hanford TY Farm Leak Assessments Report. This document satisfies the BY and TY Farm portion of the target (T04) in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F.

  1. Farms to Fuels

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Farms to Fuel Amy Bolten Public Information Officer � Amy.Bolten@scwa.ca.gov � Farms to Fuel * Carbon Free Water by 2015 * One of the largest energy users in Sonoma County * Goal of operating Carbon Free Water system by 2015 * Diverse energy portfolio Farms to Fuel * Agriculture big part of Sonoma County * Poultry and eggs ranked 6 th in the state Farms to Fuel * Local Agriculture Statistics * 2007 Census of Agriculture - Sonoma County * -1% change # of Farms * -15% change Land in Farms *

  2. Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    1878, Rev. 0 Summary Notes from 5 - 7 May 2009 Office of River Protection Waste Management Area C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Input Meeting MP Connelly Washington River Protection Solutions LLC Richland, WA 99352 U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC27-08RV14800 EDT/EON: DRF UC: Cost Center: Charge Code: B&R Code: Total Pages: 15 Key Words: Waste Management Area C, Performance Assessment, tank closure, waste inventory Abstract: Summary of meeting between DOE-ORP and Hanford Site

  3. Hanford Site C Tank Farm Meeting Summary

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    3622, Rev. 0 Summary Notes from 1 - 3 September 2009 Office of River Protection Waste Management Area C Tank Farm Performance Assessment Input Meeting MP Connelly Washington River Protection Solutions LLC Richland, WA 99352 U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC27-08RV1 4800 EDT/ECN: DRF UC: Cost Center: Charge Code: B&R Code: Total Pages: 13 Key Words: Waste Management Area C, Performance Assessment, tank closure, waste inventory Abstract: Summary of meeting between DOE-ORP and Hanford

  4. Rulison Site Surface Closure Report

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    Nevada Operations Office DOE/NV- -510 UC-700 Nevada Environmental Restoration Project Rulison Site Surface Closure Report July 1998 Environmental Restoration Division DOE/NV--510 UC-700 RULISON SITE SURFACE CLOSURE REPORT DOE Nevada Operations Office Las Vegas, Nevada July 1998 This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; prices available from

  5. SEP Success Story: Farming Out Heat and Electricity through Biopower |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy Farming Out Heat and Electricity through Biopower SEP Success Story: Farming Out Heat and Electricity through Biopower December 16, 2011 - 11:46am Addthis Cows like these in Skagit County, Washington, supply the biodigester developed by Kevin Maas of Farm Power up to 70,000 gallons of manure per day. The newest Farm Power facility in Washington generates enough electricity to power 500 homes. Photo courtesy of sea_turtle. Cows like these in Skagit County, Washington,

  6. Farming Out Heat and Electricity through Biopower | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Farming Out Heat and Electricity through Biopower Farming Out Heat and Electricity through Biopower December 16, 2011 - 4:00pm Addthis Cows like these in Skagit County, Washington, supply the biodigester developed by Kevin Maas of Farm Power up to 70,000 gallons of manure per day. The newest Farm Power facility in Washington generates enough electricity to power 500 homes. Photo courtesy of <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/">sea_turtle</a>. Cows

  7. Tank farms essential drawing plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Domnoske-Rauch, L.A.

    1998-08-04

    The purpose of this document is to define criteria for selecting Essential Drawings, Support Drawings, and Controlled Print File (CPF) drawings and documents for facilities that are part of East and West Tank Farms. Also, the drawings and documents that meet the criteria are compiled separate listings. The Essential Drawing list and the Support Drawing list establish a priority for updating technical baseline drawings. The CPF drawings, denoted by an asterisk (*), defined the drawings and documents that Operations is required to maintain per the TWRS Administration Manual. The Routing Boards in Buildings 272-WA and 272-AW are not part of the CPF.

  8. EIS-0391: Hanford Tank Closure and Waste Management, Richland, Washington

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EIS evaluates the environmental impacts for the following three key areas: (1) retrieval, treatment, and disposal of waste from 149 single-shell tanks (SSTs) and 28 double-shell tanks and closure of the SST system, (2) decommissioning of the Fast Flux Test Facility, a nuclear test reactor, and (3) disposal of Hanford’s waste and other DOE sites’ low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste.

  9. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 177: Mud Pits and Cellars Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alfred Wickline

    2007-02-01

    This Closure Report presents information supporting the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 177: Mud Pits and Cellars, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. This Closure Report complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (1996) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Defense. The Corrective Action Sites (CASs) within CAU 177 are located within Areas 8, 9, 19, and 20 of the Nevada Test Site. The purpose of this Closure Report is to provide documentation supporting the completed corrective actions and data that confirm the corrective actions implemented for CAU 177 CASs.

  10. Alarm sensor apparatus for closures

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Carlson, J.A.; Stoddard, L.M.

    1984-01-31

    An alarm sensor apparatus for closures such as doors and windows, and particularly for closures having loose tolerances such as overhead doors, garage doors or the like, the sensor apparatus comprising a pair of cooperating bracket members, one being attached to the door facing or framework and the other to the door member, two magnetic sensor elements carried by said bracket members, the bracket members comprising a pair of cooperating orthogonal guide slots and plates and a stop member engageable with one of the sensors for aligning the sensors with respect to each other in all three orthogonal planes when the door is closed.

  11. Alarm sensor apparatus for closures

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Carlson, James A. (Thornton, CO); Stoddard, Lawrence M. (Arvada, CO)

    1986-01-01

    An alarm sensor apparatus for closures such as doors and windows, and particularly for closures having loose tolerances such as overhead doors, garage doors or the like, the sensor apparatus comprising a pair of cooperating bracket members, one being attached to the door facing or frame work and the other to the door member, two magnetic sensor elements carried by said bracket members, the bracket members comprising a pair of cooperating orthogonal guide slots and plates and a stop member engageable with one of the sensors for aligning the sensors with respect to each other in all three orthogonal planes when the door is closed.

  12. IDENTIFICATION OF DOE'S POST-CLOSURE MONITORING NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    M.A. Ebadian, Ph.D.

    1999-01-01

    The 2006 plan sets an ambitious agenda for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Environmental Management (EM) and the remediation of sites contaminated by decades of nuclear weapons production activities. The plan's primary objective is to reduce overall clean up costs by first eliminating the environmental problems that are most expensive to control and safely maintain. In the context of the 2006 Plan, closure refers to the completion of area or facility specific cleanup projects. The cleanup levels are determined by the planned future use of the site or facility. Use restrictions are still undecided for most sites but are highly probable to exclude residential or agricultural activities. Most of the land will be remediated to ''industrial use'' levels with access restrictions and some areas will be closed-off through containment. Portions of the site will be reserved for waste disposal, either as a waste repository or the in-situ immobilization of contaminated soil and groundwater, and land use will be restricted to waste disposal only. The land used for waste disposal will require monitoring and maintenance activities after closure. Most of the land used for industrial use may also require such postclosure activities. The required postclosure monitoring and maintenance activities will be imposed by regulators and stakeholders. Regulators will not approve closure plans without clearly defined monitoring methods using approved technologies. Therefore, among all other more costly and labor-intensive closure-related activities, inadequate planning for monitoring and lack of appropriate monitoring technologies can prevent closure. The purpose of this project is to determine, document, and track the current and evolving postclosure monitoring requirements at DOE-EM sites. This information will aid CMST-CP in guiding its postclosure technology development and deployment efforts.

  13. Regulatory Framework for Salt Waste Disposal and Tank Closure at the Savannah River Site - 13663

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Thomas, Steve; Dickert, Ginger

    2013-07-01

    The end of the Cold War has left a legacy of approximately 37 million gallons of radioactive waste in the aging waste tanks at the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site (SRS). A robust program is in place to remove waste from these tanks, treat the waste to separate into a relatively small volume of high-level waste and a large volume of low-level waste, and to actively dispose of the low-level waste on-site and close the waste tanks and associated ancillary structures. To support performance-based, risk-informed decision making and to ensure compliance with all regulatory requirements, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its current and past contractors have worked closely with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to develop and implement a framework for on-site low-level waste disposal and closure of the SRS waste tanks. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, provides DOE the authority to manage defense-related radioactive waste. DOE Order 435.1 and its associated manual and guidance documents detail this radioactive waste management process. The DOE also has a requirement to consult with the NRC in determining that waste that formerly was classified as high-level waste can be safely managed as either low-level waste or transuranic waste. Once DOE makes a determination, NRC then has a responsibility to monitor DOE's actions in coordination with SCDHEC to ensure compliance with the Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 (10CFR61), Subpart C performance objectives. The management of hazardous waste substances or components at SRS is regulated by SCDHEC and the EPA. The foundation for the interactions between DOE, SCDHEC and EPA is the SRS Federal Facility Agreement (FFA). Managing this array of requirements and successfully interacting with regulators, consultants and stakeholders is a challenging task but ensures thorough and thoughtful processes for disposing of the SRS low-level waste and the closure of the tank farm facilities. (authors)

  14. Conceptual design report for tank farm restoration and safe operations, project W-314

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Briggs, S.R., Westinghouse Hanford

    1996-05-02

    This Conceptual Design Report (CDR) presents the conceptual level design approach that satisfies the established technical requirements for Project W-314, `Tank Farm Restoration and Safe Operations.` The CDR also addresses the initial cost and schedule baselines for performing the proposed Tank Farm infrastructure upgrades. The scope of this project includes capital improvements to Hanford`s existing tank farm facilities(primarily focused on Double- Shell Tank Farms) in the areas of instrumentation/control, tank ventilation, waste transfer, and electrical systems.

  15. Hanford Single-Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations - 241-T Farm

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

    2014-05-15

    This document identifies 241-T Tank Farm (T Farm) leak causes and locations for the 100 series leaking tanks (241-T-106 and 241-T-111) identified in RPP-RPT-55084, Rev. 0, Hanford 241-T Farm Leak Inventory Assessment Report. This document satisfies the T Farm portion of the target (T04) in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F.

  16. Hanford Single-Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations - 241-C Farm

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

    2013-07-30

    This document identifies 241-C Tank Farm (C Farm) leak causes and locations for the 100 series leaking tanks (241-C-101 and 241-C-105) identified in RPP-RPT-33418, Rev. 2, Hanford C-Farm Leak Inventory Assessments Report. This document satisfies the C Farm portion of the target (T04) in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F.

  17. Hanford Single-Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations - 241-U Farm

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

    2013-12-02

    This document identifies 241-U Tank Farm (U Farm) leak causes and locations for the 100 series leaking tanks (241-U-104, 241-U-110, and 241-U-112) identified in RPP-RPT-50097, Rev. 0, Hanford 241-U Farm Leak Inventory Assessment Report. This document satisfies the U-Farm portion of the target (T04) in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F.

  18. Hanford Single-Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations - 241-A Farm

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

    2013-09-10

    This document identifies 241-A Tank Farm (A Farm) leak causes and locations for the 100 series leaking tanks (241-A-104 and 241-A-105) identified in RPP-ENV-37956, Hanford A and AX Farm Leak Assessment Report. This document satisfies the A Farm portion of the target (T04) in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F.

  19. Hanford Single Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations - 241-TX Farm

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Girardot, C. L.; Harlow, D> G.

    2014-07-22

    This document identifies 241-TX Tank Farm (TX Farm) leak causes and locations for the 100 series leaking tanks (241-TX-107 and 241-TX-114) identified in RPP-RPT-50870, Rev. 0, Hanford 241-TX Farm Leak Inventory Assessment Report. This document satisfies the TX Farm portion of the target (T04) in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F.

  20. Crave Brothers Farm

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2009-10-01

    This is a combined heat and power (CHP) project profile on a 633 kW biogas CHP application at Crave Brothers Farm in Waterloo, Wisconsin.

  1. F-Tank Farm Performance Assessment, Rev 1 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    F-Tank Farm Performance Assessment, Rev 1 F-Tank Farm Performance Assessment, Rev 1 Draft Basis for Section 3116 Determination for Closure of F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site. In accordance with NDAA Section 3116, certain waste from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is not high-level waste if the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the NRC, determines that the criteria in NDAA Section 3116(a) are met. This Draft FTF 3116 Basis Document shows that those criteria are satisfied, to

  2. Site wide integration of the Rocky Flats closure project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Burdge, L.F.; Golan, P.

    1998-06-01

    The prime contractor for the Rocky Flats Closure Project (RFCP), Kaiser-Hill, in concert with the Department of Energy--Rocky Flats Field Office (DOE-RFFO) has applied a fully integrated, life-cycle, critical path schedule and work planning system to manage the work that is required to close the Site. The closure of the Site is complex, in that it houses over 700 facilities, 19,600 kilograms of Special Nuclear Material (Plutonium and Uranium), and over 160,000 cubic meters of Transuranic, Low Level, and Hazardous Waste. The deactivation, decommissioning, decontaminating, and demolition of this large number of facilities, while at the same time accommodating difficult on-going activities, significantly increases the sophistication required in the planning process. The Rocky Flats team has overcome these difficulties by establishing a money oriented critical path process, to provide a least-cost avenue to supporting on-going activities and a line-of-balance process for production oriented activities. These processes, when integrated with a typical activity-based project planning system, guide the way to the shortest and most cost-effective course for the closure of the Rocky Flats Site.

  3. F-Tank Farm Performance Assessment Updates through the Special Analysis Process at Savannah River Site - 12169

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Layton, Mark H.

    2012-07-01

    The F-Area Tank Farm (FTF) is owned by the U.S. Department of Energy and operated by Savannah River Remediation, LLC (SRR), Liquid Waste Operations contractor at DOE's Savannah River Site (SRS). The FTF is in the north-central portion of the SRS and occupies approximately 22 acres within F-Area. The FTF is an active radioactive waste storage facility consisting of 22 carbon steel waste tanks and ancillary equipment such as transfer lines, evaporators and pump tanks. An FTF Performance Assessment (PA) was prepared to support the eventual closure of the FTF underground radioactive waste tanks and ancillary equipment. The PA provides the technical basis and results to be used in subsequent documents to demonstrate compliance with the pertinent requirements identified below for final closure of FTF. The FTank Farm is subject to a state industrial waste water permit and Federal Facility Agreement. Closure documentation will include an F-Tank Farm Closure Plan and tank-specific closure modules utilizing information from the performance assessment. For this reason, the State of South Carolina and the Environmental Protection Agency must be involved in the performance assessment review process. The residual material remaining after tank cleaning is also subject to reclassification prior to closure via a waste determination pursuant to Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2005. The projected waste tank inventories in the FTF PA provide reasonably bounding FTF inventory projections while taking into account uncertainties in the effectiveness of future tank cleaning technologies. As waste is removed from the FTF waste tanks, the residual contaminants will be sampled and the remaining residual inventory is characterized. In this manner, tank specific data for the tank inventories at closure will be available to supplement the waste tank inventory projections currently used in the FTF PA. For FTF, the new tank specific data will be evaluated through the Special Analysis process. The FTF Special Analyses process will be utilized to evaluate information regarding the final residual waste that will be grouted in place in the FTF Tanks and assess the potential impact the new inventory information has on the FTF PA assumptions and results. The Special Analysis can then be used to inform decisions regarding FTF tank closure documents. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the Special Analysis process and share insights gained while implementing this process. An example of an area of interest in the revision process is balancing continuous improvement versus configuration control of agreed upon methodologies. Other subjects to be covered include: 1) defining the scope of the revisions included in the Special Analysis, 2) determining which PA results should be addressed in the Special Analysis, and 3) deciding whether the Special Analysis should utilize more qualitative or quantitative assessments. For the SRS FTF, an FTF PA has been prepared to provide the technical basis and results to be used in subsequent documents to demonstrate compliance with the pertinent requirements for final closure of FTF. The FTF Special Analyses process will be utilized to evaluate the impact new information has on the FTF PA assumptions and results. The Special Analysis can then be used to inform decisions regarding FTF tank closure documents. In preparing SAs, it is crucial that the scope of the SA be well defined within the SA, since the specific scope will vary from SA to SA. Since the SAs are essentially addendums to the PA, the SA scope should utilize the PA as the baseline from which the SA scope is defined. The SA needs to focus on evaluating the change associated with the scope, and not let other changes interfere with the ability to perform that evaluation by masking the impact of the change. In preparing the SA, it is also important to let the scope determine whether the Special Analysis should utilize more qualitative or quantitative assessments and also which results from the PA should be addresse

  4. Appendices for the Basis Document

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    INTEC Tank Farm Facility Closure Supporting Tables and Photographs - In support of the Tank Farm Facility (TFF) closure, inventory tables were generated for all tanks that have been cleaned up to...

  5. ARM - Facility News Article

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    February 28, 2009 [Facility News] Climate Models Need Closure Too Bookmark and Share These radiometers at the Southern Great Plains site match those on the aircraft for the RACORO field campaign. The radiometers will take measurements continuously throughout the campaign, allowing scientists to compare measurements from the aircraft against those collected routinely by radiometers at the site. These radiometers at the Southern Great Plains site match those on the aircraft for the RACORO field

  6. Post-Closure Benefits: DOE Complex vs Closure Sites | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Post-Closure Benefits » Post-Closure Benefits: DOE Complex vs Closure Sites Post-Closure Benefits: DOE Complex vs Closure Sites Status of Contractor Pension and PRB Benefit Programs - September 30, 2013 DOE Wide Closure Sites Defined Benefit Pension Plans 36 6 Defined Contribution Plans 13 0 PRB Plans >100 7 Active Participants 61,400 0 Retirees/Survivors 75,300 6,400 Terminated Vested Participants 39,500 2,900 FY 2013 Pension Unfunded Liability 10,616 Million 0 Million FY 2013 PRB Unfunded

  7. Farm Opportunities Loan Program

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Farm Opportunity Loan Program (formerly known as the Sustainable Agriculture Loan Program) is designed to finance the purchase of equipment to add value to crops or livestock, adopt best...

  8. MODIFICATIONS TO THE WIPP PANEL CLOSURE

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    9 Panel Closure ATTACHMENT 1 NMED COMMENTS ITEM 1 - MODIFICATIONS TO THE WIPP PANEL CLOSURE Page 2 of 29 Panel Closure 1-1: PMR Overview, Section 1, "Revision to the PCS Design" This section needs to explicitly explain which Attachment G1 Appendices are being deleted and which new appendices contain relevant information from old appendices. For example, Appendix B appears to include consolidated relevant information from the previous Appendices B through F; the new Appendix A replaces

  9. Clamshell closure for metal drum

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Blanton, Paul S

    2014-09-30

    Closure ring to retain a lid in contact with a metal drum in central C-section conforming to the contact area between a lid and the rim of a drum and further having a radially inwardly directed flange and a vertically downwardly directed flange attached to the opposite ends of the C-section. The additional flanges reinforce the top of the drum by reducing deformation when the drum is dropped and maintain the lid in contact with the drum. The invention is particularly valuable in transportation and storage of fissile material.

  10. River Corridor Closure Contract Section J, Attachment...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    the Government and Washington Closure LLC (Contractor), the undersigned, Washington Group International, Inc. (Guarantor), a corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware with...

  11. River Corridor Closure Project Partnering Performance Agreement...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    - March 2009 Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, River Corridor Closure Project - June 2012 Indoctrinating Subcontractors into the DOE Safety Culture and Expectations...

  12. LABORATORY DELAYED OPENING, CLOSURE, OR EMERGENCY

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    DELAYED OPENING, CLOSURE, OR EMERGENCY Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) may at times experience a work delay or closure due to inclement weather or unexpected Laboratory emergencies. In the event of a delay, closure, or emergency, Laboratory New Hires should call the following number to receive information regarding the delay or closure: LANL Update Hotline: 505-667-6622, 1-877-723-4101, and/or http://www.lanl.gov (Please note, the LANL hotline and webpage are updated by 5:30 a.m.) New Hire

  13. River Corridor Closure Contract Section J, Attachment...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Patrick L. Pettiette, President, Washington Closure LLC, October 7, 2004 Plan accepted by Michael K. Barrett, Contracting Officer, DOE-RL on Contract Award Date (signatures on file...

  14. 216-B-3 expansion ponds closure plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-10-01

    This document describes the activities for clean closure under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) of the 216-B-3 Expansion Ponds. The 216-B-3 Expansion Ponds are operated by the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) and co-operated by Westinghouse Hanford Company (Westinghouse Hanford). The 216-B-3 Expansion Ponds consists of a series of three earthen, unlined, interconnected ponds that receive waste water from various 200 East Area operating facilities. The 3A, 3B, and 3C ponds are referred to as Expansion Ponds because they expanded the capability of the B Pond System. Waste water (primarily cooling water, steam condensate, and sanitary water) from various 200 East Area facilities is discharged to the Bypass pipe (Project X-009). Water discharged to the Bypass pipe flows directly into the 216-B-3C Pond. The ponds were operated in a cascade mode, where the Main Pond overflowed into the 3A Pond and the 3A Pond overflowed into the 3C Pond. The 3B Pond has not received waste water since May 1985; however, when in operation, the 3B Pond received overflow from the 3A Pond. In the past, waste water discharges to the Expansion Ponds had the potential to have contained mixed waste (radioactive waste and dangerous waste). The radioactive portion of mixed waste has been interpreted by the US Department of Energy (DOE) to be regulated under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; the dangerous waste portion of mixed waste is regulated under RCRA.

  15. Format and Content Guide for DOE Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Format and Content Guide for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility ... for U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Closure Plans CONTENTS ...

  16. TANK FARM RETRIEVAL LESSONS LEARNED AT THE HANFORD SITE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DODD RA

    2008-01-22

    One of the environmental remediation challenges facing the nation is the retrieval and permanent disposal of approximately 90 million gallons of radioactive waste stored in underground tanks at the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. The Hanford Site is located in southeastern Washington State and stores roughly 60 percent of this waste. An estimated 53 million gallons of high-level, transuranic, and low-level radioactive waste is stored underground in 149 single-shell tanks (SSTs) and 28 newer double-shell tanks (DSTs) at the Hanford Site. These SSTs range in size from 55,000 gallons to 1,000,000 gallon capacity. Approximately 30 million gallons of this waste is stored in SSTs. The SSTs were constructed between 1943 and 1964 and all have exceeded the nominal 20-year design life. Sixty-seven SSTs are known or suspected to have leaked an estimated 1,000,000 gallons of waste to the surrounding soil. The risk of additional SST leakage has been greatly reduced by removing more than 3 million gallons of interstitial liquids and supernatant and transferring this waste to the DST system. Retrieval of SST saltcake and sludge waste is underway to further reduce risks and stage feed materials for the Hanford Site Waste Treatment Plant. Regulatory requirements for SST waste retrieval and tank farm closure are established in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (HFFACO), better known as the TriParty Agreement, or TPA. The HFFACO was signed by the DOE, the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and requires retrieval of as much waste as technically possible, with waste residues not to exceed 360 fe in 530,000 gallon or larger tanks; 30 fe in 55,000 gallon or smaller tanks; or the limit of waste retrieval technology, whichever is less. If residual waste volume requirements cannot be achieved, then HFFACO Appendix H provisions can be invoked to request Ecology and EPA approval of an exception to the waste retrieval criteria for a specific tank. Tank waste retrieval has been conducted at the Hanford Site over the last few decades using a method referred to as Past Practice Hydraulic Sluicing. Past Practice Hydraulic Sluicing employs large volumes of DST supernatant and water to dislodge, dissolve, mobilize, and retrieve tank waste. Concern over the leak integrity of SSTs resulted in the need for tank waste retrieval methods capable of using smaller volumes of liquid in a more controlled manner.

  17. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 366: Area 11 Plutonium Valley Dispersion Sites, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2013-12-31

    This Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 366, Area 11 Plutonium Valley Dispersion Sites, and provides documentation supporting the completed corrective actions and confirmation that closure objectives for CAU 366 were met. This CR complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Management; the U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management (FFACO, 1996 as amended).

  18. Cool Farm Tool | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    aboutussuppliersustainablesourcingtools?WT.LHNAV Cost: Free Language: English Cool Farm Tool Screenshot References: Cool Farm Tool 1 Overview "The Cool Farm Tool...

  19. State Farm Insurance | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Farm Insurance Jump to: navigation, search Name: State Farm Insurance Place: Bloomington, IL Website: www.statefarminsurance.com References: State Farm Insurance1 Information...

  20. POST-CLOSURE CARE AND INSPECTION PLAN

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    B Post-Closure Care and Inspection Plan This page intentionally left blank U.S. Department of Energy Comprehensive Legacy Management and Institutional Controls Plan Doc. No. S03496-8.0-Final Attachment B-Post-Closure Care and Inspection Plan January 2015 Page i Contents Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. iii 1.0 Introduction

  1. Regulatory Closure Options for the Residue in the Hanford Site Single-Shell Tanks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cochran, J.R. Shyr, L.J.

    1998-10-05

    Liquid, mixed, high-level radioactive waste (HLW) has been stored in 149 single-shell tanks (SSTS) located in tank farms on the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Hanford Site. The DOE is developing technologies to retrieve as much remaining HLW as technically possible prior to physically closing the tank farms. In support of the Hanford Tanks Initiative, Sandia National Laboratories has addressed the requirements for the regulatory closure of the radioactive component of any SST residue that may remain after physical closure. There is significant uncertainty about the end state of each of the 149 SSTS; that is, the nature and amount of wastes remaining in the SSTS after retrieval is uncertain. As a means of proceeding in the face of these uncertainties, this report links possible end-states with associated closure options. Requirements for disposal of HLW and low-level radioactive waste (LLW) are reviewed in detail. Incidental waste, which is radioactive waste produced incidental to the further processing of HLW, is then discussed. If the low activity waste (LAW) fraction from the further processing of HLW is determined to be incidental waste, then DOE can dispose of that incidental waste onsite without a license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC). The NRC has proposed three Incidental Waste Criteria for determining if a LAW fraction is incidental waste. One of the three Criteria is that the LAW fraction should not exceed the NRC's Class C limits.

  2. SRS Reaches Significant Milestone with Waste Tank Closure | Department of

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Energy SRS Reaches Significant Milestone with Waste Tank Closure SRS Reaches Significant Milestone with Waste Tank Closure Addthis Description SRS Reaches Significant Milestone with Waste Tank Closure

  3. HWMA/RCRA Closure Plan for the CPP-602 Laboratory Lines

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Idaho Cleanup Project

    2009-09-30

    This Hazardous Waste Management Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Closure (HWMA/RCRA) Plan for the CPP-602 laboratory lines was developed to meet the tank system closure requirements of the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act 58.01.05.008 and 40 Code of Federal Regulations 264, Subpart G. CPP-602 is located at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center at the Idaho National Laboratory Site. The lines in CPP-602 were part of a liquid hazardous waste collection system included in the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center Liquid Waste Management System Permit. The laboratory lines discharged to the Deep Tanks System in CPP-601 that is currently being closed under a separate closure plan. This closure plan presents the closure performance standards and the methods for achieving those standards. The closure approach for the CPP-602 laboratory lines is to remove the lines, components, and contaminants to the extent practicable. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Site CPP-117 includes the CPP-602 waste trench and the area beneath the basement floor where waste lines are direct-buried. Upon completion of rinsing or mopping to remove contamination to the extent practicable from the waste trench and rinsing the intact buried lines (i.e., stainless steel sections), these areas will be managed as part of CERCLA Site CPP-117 and will not be subject to further HWMA/RCRA closure activities. The CPP-602 building is being decontaminated and decommissioned under CERCLA as a non-time critical removal action in accordance with the Federal Facility Agreement/Consent Order. As such, all waste generated by this CERCLA action, including closure-generated waste, will be managed in coordination with that CERCLA action in substantive compliance with HWMA/RCRA regulations. All waste will be subject to a hazardous waste determination for the purpose of supporting appropriate management and will be managed in accordance with this plan. ii

  4. Facility Name Facility Name Facility FacilityType Owner Developer...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AB Tehachapi Wind Farm AB Tehachapi Wind Farm AB Tehachapi Commercial Scale Wind Coram Energy AB Energy Southern California Edison Co Tehachapi CA MW Vestas In Service AFCEE MMR...

  5. Closure for milliliter scale bioreactor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Klein, David L.; Laidlaw, Robert D.; Andronaco, Gregory; Boyer, Stephen G.

    2010-12-14

    A closure for a microreactor includes a cap that is configured to be inserted into a well of the microreactor. The cap, or at least a portion of the cap, is compliant so as to form a seal with the well when the cap is inserted. The cap includes an aperture that provides an airway between the inside of the well to the external environment when the cap is inserted into the well. A porous plug is inserted in the aperture, e.g., either directly or in tube that extends through the aperture. The porous plug permits gas within the well to pass through the aperture while preventing liquids from passing through to reduce evaporation and preventing microbes from passing through to provide a sterile environment. A one-way valve may also be used to help control the environment in the well.

  6. Wind Farm Recommendation Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    John Reisenauer

    2011-05-01

    On April 21, 2011, an Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Land Use Committee meeting was convened to develop a wind farm recommendation for the Executive Council and a list of proposed actions for proceeding with the recommendation. In terms of land use, the INL Land Use Committee unanimously agrees that Site 6 is the preferred location of the alternatives presented for an INL wind farm. However, further studies and resolution to questions raised (stated in this report) by the INL Land Use Committee are needed for the preferred location. Studies include, but are not limited to, wind viability (6 months), bats (2 years), and the visual impact of the wind farm. In addition, cultural resource surveys and consultation (1 month) and the National Environmental Policy Act process (9 to 12 months) need to be completed. Furthermore, there is no documented evidence of developers expressing interest in constructing a small wind farm on INL, nor a specific list of expectations or concessions for which a developer might expect INL to cover the cost. To date, INL assumes the National Environmental Policy Act activities will be paid for by the Department of Energy and INL (the environmental assessment has only received partial funding). However, other concessions also may be expected by developers such as roads, fencing, power line installation, tie-ins to substations, annual maintenance, snow removal, access control, down-time, and remediation. These types of concessions have not been documented, as a request, from a developer and INL has not identified the short and long-term cost liabilities for such concessions should a developer expect INL to cover these costs. INL has not identified a go-no-go funding level or the priority this Wind Farm Project might have with respect to other nuclear-related projects, should the wind farm remain an unfunded mandate. The Land Use Committee recommends Legal be consulted to determine what, if any, liabilities exist with the Wind Farm Project and INL’s rights and responsibilities in regards to access to the wind farm once constructed. An expression of interest is expected to go out soon to developers. However, with the potential of 2 years of study remaining for Site 6, the expectation of obtaining meaningful interest from developers should be questioned.

  7. Long Island Solar Farm

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Anders, R.

    2013-05-01

    The Long Island Solar Farm (LISF) is a remarkable success story, whereby very different interest groups found a way to capitalize on unusual circumstances to develop a mutually beneficial source of renewable energy. The uniqueness of the circumstances that were necessary to develop the Long Island Solar Farm make it very difficult to replicate. The project is, however, an unparalleled resource for solar energy research, which will greatly inform large-scale PV solar development in the East. Lastly, the LISF is a superb model for the process by which the project developed and the innovation and leadership shown by the different players.

  8. Independent Oversight Special Review, Rocky Flats Closure Project...

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Rocky Flats Closure Project Site - April 2001 Independent Oversight Special Review, Rocky Flats Closure Project Site - April 2001 April 2001 Special Review of the Rocky Flats...

  9. ROCKY FLATS CLOSURE PROJECT EM, AUG 2006 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AUG 2006 ROCKY FLATS CLOSURE PROJECT EM, AUG 2006 PDF icon Rocky Flats Closure Project-Lessons Learned-August 2006.pdf More Documents & Publications Rocky Flats Overview...

  10. Letter: Transition of Closure Sites from the Office of Environmental...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Transition of Closure Sites from the Office of Environmental Management to other DOE Organizations Letter: Transition of Closure Sites from the Office of Environmental Management...

  11. Farming: A Climate Change Culprit

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Farming: A Climate Change Culprit Farming: A Climate Change Culprit Simulations run at NERSC show impact of land-use change on African monsoon precipitation June 7, 2014 SahelMap...

  12. Risk and Performance Analyses Supporting Closure of WMA C at the Hanford Site in Southeast Washington

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eberlein, Susan J.; Bergeron, Marcel P.; Kemp, Christopher J.; Hildebrand, R. Douglas; Aly, Alaa; Kozak, Matthew; Mehta, Sunil; Connelly, Michael

    2013-11-11

    The Office of River Protection under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is pursuing closure of the Single-Shell Tank (SST) Waste Management Area (WMA) C as stipulated by the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (HFFACO) under federal requirements and work tasks will be done under the State-approved closure plans and permits. An initial step in meeting the regulatory requirements is to develop a baseline risk assessment representing current conditions based on available characterization data and information collected at the WMA C location. The baseline risk assessment will be supporting a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) Field Investigation (RFI)/Corrective Measures Study (CMS) for WMA closure and RCRA corrective action. Complying with the HFFACO conditions also involves developing a long-term closure Performance Assessment (PA) that evaluates human health and environmental impacts resulting from radionuclide inventories in residual wastes remaining in WMA C tanks and ancillary equipment. This PA is being developed to meet the requirements necessary for closure authorization under DOE Order 435.1 and Washington State Hazardous Waste Management Act. To meet the HFFACO conditions, the long-term closure risk analysis will include an evaluation of human health and environmental impacts from hazardous chemical inventories along with other performance Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Appropriate and Applicable Requirements (CERCLA ARARs) in residual wastes left in WMA C facilities after retrieval and removal. This closure risk analysis is needed to needed to comply with the requirements for permitted closure. Progress to date in developing a baseline risk assessment of WMA C has involved aspects of an evaluation of soil characterization and groundwater monitoring data collected as a part of the RFI/CMS and RCRA monitoring. Developing the long-term performance assessment aspects has involved the construction of detailed numerical models of WMA C using the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP©) computer code, the development of a technical approach for abstraction of a range of representative STOMP© simulations into a system-level model based on the GoldSim© system-level model software.The STOMP©-based models will be used to evaluate local-scale impacts and closed facility performance over a sufficient range of simulations to allow for development of the system-level model of the WMA C. The GoldSim©-based system-level model will be used to evaluate overall sensitivity of modeled parameters and the estimate the uncertainty in potential future impacts from a closed WMA C facility.

  13. Preparation for Facility Operations RM | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Preparation for Facility Operations RM Preparation for Facility Operations RM The objective of this Standard Review Plan (SRP) on Preparation for Facility Operations is to provide consistency guidance to evaluate the effectiveness of the final project closure of major construction projects for transition from Critical Decision-4 (CD-4) to facility operations. PDF icon Preparation for Facility Operations RM More Documents & Publications Code of Record Standard Review Plan (SRP) Standard

  14. AX tank farm waste inventory study for the Hanford Tanks Initiative (HTI) project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Becker, D.L.

    1997-12-22

    In May of 1996, the US Department of Energy implemented a four-year demonstration project identified as the Hanford Tanks Initiative (HTI). The HTI mission is to minimize technical uncertainties and programmatic risks by conducting demonstrations to characterize and remove tank waste using technologies and methods that will be needed in the future to carry out tank waste remediation and tank farm closure at the Hanford Site. Included in the HTI scope is the development of retrieval performance evaluation criteria supporting readiness to close single-shell tanks in the future. A path forward that includes evaluation of closure basis alternatives has been outlined to support the development of retrieval performance evaluation criteria for the AX Farm, and eventual preparation of the SEIS for AX Farm closure. This report documents the results of the Task 4, Waste Inventory study performed to establish the best-basis inventory of waste contaminants for the AX Farm, provides a means of estimating future soil inventories, and provides data for estimating the nature and extent of contamination (radionuclide and chemical) resulting from residual tank waste subsequent to retrieval. Included in the report are a best-basis estimate of the existing radionuclide and chemical inventory in the AX Farm Tanks, an estimate of the nature and extent of existing radiological and chemical contamination from past leaks, a best-basis estimate of the radionuclide and chemical inventory in the AX Farm Tanks after retrieval of 90 percent, 99 percent, and 99.9 percent of the waste, and an estimate of the nature and extent of radionuclide and chemical contamination resulting from retrieval of waste for an assumed leakage from the tanks during retrieval.

  15. Environmental challenges facing military base closures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pomerleau, N.M.; Cunanan, P.P.; Lingo, R.

    1995-12-01

    Environmental remediation activities at military bases mandated for closure or realignment pose unique technical and managerial challenges to meet statutory requirements and community interests. Past industrial activities at Department of Army installations involving weapons development, testing, and repairs present extremely diverse problems for cleanup. The combination of environmental and defense statutory requirements present even greater challenges to assure that remediation activities are accelerated to render bases available for early re-use. The inclusion of bases on the National Priorities List and the need to consider socio-economic factors in identifying alternative uses of military bases and public involvement become significant factors in environment decisionmaking. Specific statutory authorities enable military facilities to identify uncontaminated parcels and allow property to be deeded, upon demonstration that an approved remedy is operating properly and successfully, while long-term cleanup of the entire installation continues. Successful cleanup strategies also require effective communication with public and disparate community interest groups. To speed the economic recovery of communities with closing military bases, the Clinton Administration has pledged to reduce the delays normally associated with environmental remediation activities. This article examines four core issues in the decontamination process: complexities associated with accelerating remediation activities at Army installations; managing the process within the constraints of limited resources; the public`s early involvement in shaping environmental contamination. The complexities presented by closing military bases and assuring environmental compliance have resulted in the development and implementation of several innovative methods that may prove useful to non-defense environmental situations. Examples of these methods and a discussion of strategies will be presented.

  16. The Fernald Closure Project: Lessons Learned

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Murphy, Cornelius M.; Carr, Dennis

    2008-01-15

    For nearly 37 years, the U.S. Department of Energy site at Fernald - near Cincinnati, Ohio - produced 230,000 metric tons (250,000 short tons) of high-purity, low-enriched uranium for the U.S. Defense Program, generating more than 5.4 million metric tons (6 million short tons) of liquid and solid waste as it carried out its Cold War mission. The facility was shut down in 1989 and clean up began in 1992, when Fluor won the contract to clean up the site. Cleaning up Fernald and returning it to the people of Ohio was a $4.4 billion mega environmental-remediation project that was completed in October 2006. Project evolved through four phases: - Conducting remedial-investigation studies to determine the extent of damage to the environment and groundwater at, and adjacent to, the production facilities; - Selecting cleanup criteria - final end states that had to be met that protect human health and the environment; - Selecting and implementing the remedial actions to meet the cleanup goals; - Executing the work in a safe, compliant and cost-effective manner. In the early stages of the project, there were strained relationships - in fact total distrust - between the local community and the DOE as a result of aquifer contamination and potential health effects to the workers and local residents. To engage citizens and interested stakeholders groups in the decision-making process, the DOE and Fluor developed a public-participation strategy to open the channels of communication with the various parties: site leadership, technical staff and regulators. This approach proved invaluable to the success of the project, which has become a model for future environmental remediation projects. This paper will summarize the history and shares lessons learned: the completion of the uranium-production mission to the implementation of the Records of Decision defining the cleanup standards and the remedies achieved. Lessons learned fall into ten categories: - Regulatory approach with end-state determinations; - Interaction with stakeholders; - The balanced approach - on-site and off-site waste-disposal alternatives; - The contracting model; - Site safety performance; - Effectiveness of cleanup remedies; - Worker training and transition; - Client interface; - Cost and schedule performance; - Legacy management. Lessons learned can be applied: While each site and project has its own issues, the various lessons learned from the Fernald Closure Project, when taken from a global perspective, can be applied to similar efforts so that pitfalls are avoided and efficiencies realized.

  17. Laser Facilities

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Laser Facilities Current Schedule of Experiments Operation Schedule Janus Titan Europa COMET Facility Floorplan

  18. Extender for securing a closure

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Thomas, II, Patrick A.

    2012-10-02

    An apparatus for securing a closure such as door or a window that opens and closes by movement relative to a fixed structure such as a wall or a floor. Many embodiments provide a device for relocating a padlock from its normal location where it secures a fastener (such as a hasp) to a location for the padlock that is more accessible for locking and unlocking the padlock. Typically an extender is provided, where the extender has a hook at a first end that is disposed through the eye of the staple of the hasp, and at an opposing second end the extender has an annulus, such as a hole in the extender or a loop or ring affixed to the extender. The shackle of the padlock may be disposed through the annulus and may be disposed through the eye of a second staple to secure the door or window in a closed or open position. Some embodiments employ a rigid sheath to enclose at least a portion of the extender. Typically the rigid sheath has an open state where the hook is exposed outside the sheath and a closed state where the hook is disposed within the sheath.

  19. Cavity closure arrangement for high pressure vessels

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Amtmann, Hans H. (San Diego, CA)

    1981-01-01

    A closure arrangement for a pressure vessel such as the pressure vessel of a high temperature gas-cooled reactor wherein a liner is disposed within a cavity penetration in the reactor vessel and defines an access opening therein. A closure is adapted for sealing relation with an annular mounting flange formed on the penetration liner and has a plurality of radially movable locking blocks thereon having outer serrations adapted for releasable interlocking engagement with serrations formed internally of the upper end of the penetration liner so as to effect high strength closure hold-down. In one embodiment, ramping surfaces are formed on the locking block serrations to bias the closure into sealed relation with the mounting flange when the locking blocks are actuated to locking positions.

  20. Tank farm stack NESHAP designation determinations. Revision 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Crummel, G.M.

    1996-01-18

    This document provides a determination of the status of Tank Farm Exhausters as regulated by the ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants`` (NESHAP) specified in the 40 Series Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs), Part 61, Subpart H, ``National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities.``

  1. Ohio Closure Projects Ceremony | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Closure Projects Ceremony Ohio Closure Projects Ceremony January 19, 2007 - 9:59am Addthis Remarks for Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman Thank you, Alan Boeckmann for that kind introduction. It is a privilege to be with you today. I am pleased to be joined by my cabinet colleague Stephen Johnson, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It's also good to see Sen. George Voinovich. Senator, thank you for your leadership on so many issues critical to America's energy security and for

  2. Fiscalini Farms Biomass Energy Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    William Stringfellow; Mary Kay Camarillo; Jeremy Hanlon; Michael Jue; Chelsea Spier

    2011-09-30

    In this final report describes and documents research that was conducted by the Ecological Engineering Research Program (EERP) at the University of the Pacific (Stockton, CA) under subcontract to Fiscalini Farms LP for work under the Assistance Agreement DE-EE0001895 'Measurement and Evaluation of a Dairy Anaerobic Digestion/Power Generation System' from the United States Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. Fiscalini Farms is operating a 710 kW biomass-energy power plant that uses bio-methane, generated from plant biomass, cheese whey, and cattle manure via mesophilic anaerobic digestion, to produce electricity using an internal combustion engine. The primary objectives of the project were to document baseline conditions for the anaerobic digester and the combined heat and power (CHP) system used for the dairy-based biomass-energy production. The baseline condition of the plant was evaluated in the context of regulatory and economic constraints. In this final report, the operation of the plant between start-up in 2009 and operation in 2010 are documented and an interpretation of the technical data is provided. An economic analysis of the biomass energy system was previously completed (Appendix A) and the results from that study are discussed briefly in this report. Results from the start-up and first year of operation indicate that mesophilic anaerobic digestion of agricultural biomass, combined with an internal combustion engine, is a reliable source of alternative electrical production. A major advantage of biomass energy facilities located on dairy farms appears to be their inherent stability and ability to produce a consistent, 24 hour supply of electricity. However, technical analysis indicated that the Fiscalini Farms system was operating below capacity and that economic sustainability would be improved by increasing loading of feedstocks to the digester. Additional operational modifications, such as increased utilization of waste heat and better documentation of potential of carbon credits, would also improve the economic outlook. Analysis of baseline operational conditions indicated that a reduction in methane emissions and other greenhouse gas savings resulted from implementation of the project. The project results indicate that using anaerobic digestion to produce bio-methane from agricultural biomass is a promising source of electricity, but that significant challenges need to be addressed before dairy-based biomass energy production can be fully integrated into an alternative energy economy. The biomass energy facility was found to be operating undercapacity. Economic analysis indicated a positive economic sustainability, even at the reduced power production levels demonstrated during the baseline period. However, increasing methane generation capacity (via the importation of biomass codigestate) will be critical for increasing electricity output and improving the long-term economic sustainability of the operation. Dairy-based biomass energy plants are operating under strict environmental regulations applicable to both power-production and confined animal facilities and novel approached are being applied to maintain minimal environmental impacts. The use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for nitrous oxide control and a biological hydrogen sulfide control system were tested at this facility. Results from this study suggest that biomass energy systems can be compliant with reasonable scientifically based air and water pollution control regulations. The most significant challenge for the development of biomass energy as a viable component of power production on a regional scale is likely to be the availability of energy-rich organic feedstocks. Additionally, there needs to be further development of regional expertise in digester and power plant operations. At the Fiscalini facility, power production was limited by the availability of biomass for methane generation, not the designed system capacity. During the baseline study period, feedstocks included manure, sudan grass silage, and refused-feed. The ability of the dairy to produce silage in excess of on-site feed requirements limited power production. The availability of biomass energy crops and alternative feedstocks, such as agricultural and food wastes, will be a major determinant to the economic and environmental sustainability of biomass based electricity production.

  3. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 516: Septic Systems and Discharge Points

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2007-02-01

    Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 516 is located in Areas 3, 6, and 22 of the Nevada Test Site. CAU 516 is listed in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order of 1996 as Septic Systems and Discharge Points, and is comprised of six Corrective Action Sites (CASs): {sm_bullet} CAS 03-59-01, Bldg 3C-36 Septic System {sm_bullet} CAS 03-59-02, Bldg 3C-45 Septic System {sm_bullet} CAS 06-51-01, Sump and Piping {sm_bullet} CAS 06-51-02, Clay Pipe and Debris {sm_bullet} CAS 06-51-03, Clean Out Box and Piping {sm_bullet} CAS 22-19-04, Vehicle Decontamination Area The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP)-approved corrective action alternative for CASs 06-51-02 and 22-19-04 is no further action. The NDEP-approved corrective action alternative for CASs 03-59-01, 03-59-02, 06-51-01, and 06-51-03 is clean closure. Closure activities included removing and disposing of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH)-impacted septic tank contents, septic tanks, distribution/clean out boxes, and piping. CAU 516 was closed in accordance with the NDEP-approved CAU 516 Corrective Action Plan (CAP). The closure activities specified in the CAP were based on the recommendations presented in the CAU 516 Corrective Action Decision Document (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office, 2004). This Closure Report documents CAU 516 closure activities. During closure activities, approximately 186 tons of hydrocarbon waste in the form of TPH-impacted soil and debris, as well as 89 tons of construction debris, were generated and managed and disposed of appropriately. Waste minimization techniques, such as field screening of soil samples and the utilization of laboratory analysis to characterize and classify waste streams, were employed during the performance of closure work.

  4. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 536: Area 3 Release Site, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2007-06-01

    Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 536 is located in Area 3 of the Nevada Test Site. CAU 536 is listed in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order of 1996 as Area 3 Release Site, and comprises a single Corrective Action Site (CAS): {sm_bullet} CAS 03-44-02, Steam Jenny Discharge The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP)-approved corrective action alternative for CAS 03-44-02 is clean closure. Closure activities included removing and disposing of total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH)- and polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)-impacted soil, soil impacted with plutonium (Pu)-239, and concrete pad debris. CAU 536 was closed in accordance with the NDEP-approved CAU 536 Corrective Action Plan (CAP), with minor deviations as approved by NDEP. The closure activities specified in the CAP were based on the recommendations presented in the CAU 536 Corrective Action Decision Document (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office, 2004). This Closure Report documents CAU 536 closure activities. During closure activities, approximately 1,000 cubic yards (yd3) of hydrocarbon waste in the form of TPH- and PAH-impacted soil and debris, approximately 8 yd3 of Pu-239-impacted soil, and approximately 100 yd3 of concrete debris were generated, managed, and disposed of appropriately. Additionally, a previously uncharacterized, buried drum was excavated, removed, and disposed of as hydrocarbon waste as a best management practice. Waste minimization techniques, such as the utilization of laboratory analysis to characterize and classify waste streams, were employed during the performance of closure

  5. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 139: Waste Disposal Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2009-07-31

    Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 139 is identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) as 'Waste Disposal Sites' and consists of the following seven Corrective Action Sites (CASs), located in Areas 3, 4, 6, and 9 of the Nevada Test Site: CAS 03-35-01, Burn Pit; CAS 04-08-02, Waste Disposal Site; CAS 04-99-01, Contaminated Surface Debris; CAS 06-19-02, Waste Disposal Site/Burn Pit; CAS 06-19-03, Waste Disposal Trenches; CAS 09-23-01, Area 9 Gravel Gertie; and CAS 09-34-01, Underground Detection Station. Closure activities were conducted from December 2008 to April 2009 according to the FFACO (1996, as amended February 2008) and the Corrective Action Plan for CAU 139 (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office, 2007b). The corrective action alternatives included No Further Action, Clean Closure, and Closure in Place with Administrative Controls. Closure activities are summarized. CAU 139, 'Waste Disposal Sites,' consists of seven CASs in Areas 3, 4, 6, and 9 of the NTS. The closure alternatives included No Further Action, Clean Closure, and Closure in Place with Administrative Controls. This CR provides a summary of completed closure activities, documentation of waste disposal, and confirmation that remediation goals were met. The following site closure activities were performed at CAU 139 as documented in this CR: (1) At CAS 03-35-01, Burn Pit, soil and debris were removed and disposed as LLW, and debris was removed and disposed as sanitary waste. (2) At CAS 04-08-02, Waste Disposal Site, an administrative UR was implemented. No postings or post-closure monitoring are required. (3) At CAS 04-99-01, Contaminated Surface Debris, soil and debris were removed and disposed as LLW, and debris was removed and disposed as sanitary waste. (4) At CAS 06-19-02, Waste Disposal Site/Burn Pit, no work was performed. (5) At CAS 06-19-03, Waste Disposal Trenches, a native soil cover was installed, and a UR was implemented. (6) At CAS 09-23-01, Area 9 Gravel Gertie, a UR was implemented. (7) At CAS 09-34-01, Underground Detection Station, no work was performed.

  6. Hanford Single-Shell Tank Leak Causes and Locations - 241-SX Farm

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

    2014-01-08

    This document identifies 241-SX Tank Farm (SX Farm) leak causes and locations for the 100 series leaking tanks (241-SX-107, 241-SX-108, 241-SX-109, 241-SX-111, 241-SX-112, 241-SX-113, 241-SX-114, and 241-SX-115) identified in RPP-ENV-39658, Rev. 0, Hanford SX-Farm Leak Assessments Report. This document satisfies the SX Farm portion of the target (T04) in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-045-91F.

  7. Scaled Wind Farm Technology

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Scaled Wind Farm Technology - Sandia Energy Energy Search Icon Sandia Home Locations Contact Us Employee Locator Energy & Climate Secure & Sustainable Energy Future Stationary Power Energy Conversion Efficiency Solar Energy Wind Energy Water Power Supercritical CO2 Geothermal Natural Gas Safety, Security & Resilience of the Energy Infrastructure Energy Storage Nuclear Power & Engineering Grid Modernization Battery Testing Nuclear Fuel Cycle Defense Waste Management Programs

  8. Wind farm electrical system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Erdman, William L.; Lettenmaier, Terry M.

    2006-07-04

    An approach to wind farm design using variable speed wind turbines with low pulse number electrical output. The output of multiple wind turbines are aggregated to create a high pulse number electrical output at a point of common coupling with a utility grid network. Power quality at each individual wind turbine falls short of utility standards, but the aggregated output at the point of common coupling is within acceptable tolerances for utility power quality. The approach for aggregating low pulse number electrical output from multiple wind turbines relies upon a pad mounted transformer at each wind turbine that performs phase multiplication on the output of each wind turbine. Phase multiplication converts a modified square wave from the wind turbine into a 6 pulse output. Phase shifting of the 6 pulse output from each wind turbine allows the aggregated output of multiple wind turbines to be a 24 pulse approximation of a sine wave. Additional filtering and VAR control is embedded within the wind farm to take advantage of the wind farm's electrical impedence characteristics to further enhance power quality at the point of common coupling.

  9. Nuclear Facilities Production Facilities

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Facilities Production Facilities Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000. Sand 2011-4582P. ENERGY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF Gamma Irradiation Facility (GIF) The GIF provides test cells for the irradiation of experiments with high-intensity gamma ray sources. The main features

  10. Accelerating cleanup: Paths to closure

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-06-01

    This report describes the status of Environmental Management`s (EM`s) cleanup program and a direction forward to complete achievement of the 2006 vision. Achieving the 2006 vision results in significant benefits related to accomplishing EM program objectives. As DOE sites accelerate cleanup activities, risks to public health, the environment, and worker safety and health are all reduced. Finding more efficient ways to conduct work can result in making compliance with applicable environmental requirements easier to achieve. Finally, as cleanup activities at sites are completed, the EM program can focus attention and resources on the small number of sites with more complex cleanup challenges. Chapter 1 describes the process by which this report has been developed and what it hopes to accomplish, its relationship to the EM decision-making process, and a general background of the EM mission and program. Chapter 2 describes how the site-by-site projections were constructed, and summarizes, for each of DOE`s 11 Operations/Field Offices, the projected costs and schedules for completing the cleanup mission. Chapter 3 presents summaries of the detailed cleanup projections from three of the 11 Operations/Field Offices: Rocky Flats (Colorado), Richland (Washington), and Savannah River (South Carolina). The remaining eight Operations/Field Office summaries are in Appendix E. Chapter 4 reviews the cost drivers, budgetary constraints, and performance enhancements underlying the detailed analysis of the 353 projects that comprise EM`s accelerated cleanup and closure effort. Chapter 5 describes a management system to support the EM program. Chapter 6 provides responses to the general comments received on the February draft of this document.

  11. Tank farms hazards assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Broz, R.E.

    1994-09-30

    Hanford contractors are writing new facility specific emergency procedures in response to new and revised US Department of Energy (DOE) Orders on emergency preparedness. Emergency procedures are required for each Hanford facility that has the potential to exceed the criteria for the lowest level emergency, an Alert. The set includes: (1) a facility specific procedure on Recognition and Classification of Emergencies, (2) area procedures on Initial Emergency Response and, (3) an area procedure on Protective Action Guidance. The first steps in developing these procedures are to identify the hazards at each facility, identify the conditions that could release the hazardous material, and calculate the consequences of the releases. These steps are called a Hazards Assessment. The final product is a document that is similar in some respects to a Safety Analysis Report (SAR). The document could br produced in a month for a simple facility but could take much longer for a complex facility. Hanford has both types of facilities. A strategy has been adopted to permit completion of the first version of the new emergency procedures before all the facility hazards Assessments are complete. The procedures will initially be based on input from a task group for each facility. This strategy will but improved emergency procedures in place sooner and therefore enhance Hanford emergency preparedness. The purpose of this document is to summarize the applicable information contained within the Waste Tank Facility ``Interim Safety Basis Document, WHC-SD-WM-ISB-001`` as a resource, since the SARs covering Waste Tank Operations are not current in all cases. This hazards assessment serves to collect, organize, document and present the information utilized during the determination process.

  12. Superior Farms | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Windpower Developer Foundation Windpower Energy Purchaser Superior Farms Location Dixon CA Coordinates 38.420103, -121.817506 Show Map Loading map......

  13. Shelburne Farms | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    VT 05482 Product: Shelburne Farms is a membership-supported, nonprofit environmental education center and National Historic Landmark in Shelburne, Vermont Coordinates:...

  14. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 547: Miscellaneous Contaminated Waste Sites, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2012-07-17

    This Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 547, Miscellaneous Contaminated Waste Sites, and provides documentation supporting the completed corrective actions and confirmation that closure objectives for CAU 547 were met. This CR complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Management; the U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management (FFACO, 1996 as amended). CAU 547 consists of the following three Corrective Action Sites (CASs), located in Areas 2, 3, and 9 of the Nevada National Security Site: (1) CAS 02-37-02, Gas Sampling Assembly; (2) CAS 03-99-19, Gas Sampling Assembly; AND (3) CAS 09-99-06, Gas Sampling Assembly Closure activities began in August 2011 and were completed in June 2012. Activities were conducted according to the Corrective Action Decision Document/Corrective Action Plan (CADD/CAP) for CAU 547 (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office [NNSA/NSO], 2011). The recommended corrective action for the three CASs in CAU 547 was closure in place with administrative controls. The following closure activities were performed: (1) Open holes were filled with concrete; (2) Steel casings were placed over vertical expansion joints and filled with cement; (3) Engineered soil covers were constructed over piping and exposed sections of the gas sampling system components; (4) Fencing, monuments, Jersey barriers, radiological postings, and use restriction (UR) warning signs were installed around the perimeters of the sites; (5) Housekeeping debris was picked up from around the sites and disposed; and (6) Radiological surveys were performed to confirm final radiological postings. UR documentation is included in Appendix D. The post-closure plan was presented in detail in the CADD/CAP for CAU 547 and is included as Appendix F of this report. The requirements are summarized in Section 5.2 of this report. The proposed post-closure requirements consist of visual inspections to determine the condition of postings and radiological surveys to verify contamination has not migrated. NNSA/NSO requests the following: (1) A Notice of Completion from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection to NNSA/NSO for closure of CAU 547; and (2) The transfer of CAU 547 from Appendix III to Appendix IV, Closed Corrective Action Units, of the FFACO.

  15. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 537: Waste Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Envirornmental Restoration

    2007-07-01

    Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 537 is identified in the ''Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order'' (FFACO) of 1996 as Waste Sites. CAU 537 is located in Areas 3 and 19 of the Nevada Test Site, approximately 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, and consists of the following two Corrective Action Sites (CASs): CAS 03-23-06, Bucket; Yellow Tagged Bags; and CAS 19-19-01, Trash Pit. CAU 537 closure activities were conducted in April 2007 according to the FFACO and Revision 3 of the Sectored Clean-up Work Plan for Housekeeping Category Waste Sites (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office [NNSA/NSO], 2003). At CAS 03-23-06, closure activities included removal and disposal of a 15-foot (ft) by 15-ft by 8-ft tall wooden shed containing wood and metal debris and a 5-gallon plastic bucket containing deteriorated plastic bags with yellow radioactive contamination tape. The debris was transported to the Area 9 U10c Landfill for disposal after being screened for radiological contamination according to the ''NV/YMP Radiological Control Manual'' (NNSA/NSO, 2004). At CAS 19-19-01, closure activities included segregation, removal, and disposal of non-friable, non-regulated asbestos-containing material (ACM) and construction debris. The ACM was determined to be non-friable by waste characterization samples collected prior to closure activities. The ACM was removed and double-bagged by licensed, trained asbestos workers and transported to the Area 9 U10c Landfill for disposal. Construction debris was transported in end-dump trucks to the Area 9 U10c Landfill for disposal. Closure activities generated sanitary waste/construction debris and ACM. Waste generated during closure activities was appropriately managed and disposed. Waste characterization sample results are included as Appendix A of this report, and waste disposition documentation is included as Appendix B of this report. Copies of the Sectored Housekeeping Site Closure Verification Forms for CAS 03-23-06 and CAS 19-19-01 are included as Appendix C of this report. These forms include before and after photographs of the sites, descriptions and removal status of waste, and waste disposal information. CAU 537, Waste Sites, was closed by characterizing and disposing of debris. The purpose of this CR is to summarize the completed closure activities, document appropriate waste disposal, and confirm that the closure standards were met.

  16. Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Q-1 APPENDIX Q LONG-TERM HUMAN HEALTH DOSE AND RISK ANALYSIS This appendix presents methods and results for assessment of potential human health impacts due to releases of radionuclides and chemicals from the high-level radioactive waste tanks, Fast Flux Test Facility decommissioning, and waste management activities over long periods of time following stabilization or closure. Q.1 INTRODUCTION Adverse impacts on human health and the environment may occur over long periods of time following

  17. Closure device for lead-acid batteries

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Ledjeff, Konstantin (Schwalbach, DE)

    1983-01-01

    A closure device for lead-acid batteries includes a filter of granulated activated carbon treated to be hydrophobic combined with means for preventing explosion of emitted hydrogen and oxygen gas. The explosion prevention means includes a vertical open-end tube within the closure housing for maintaining a liquid level above side wall openings in an adjacent closed end tube. Gases vent from the battery through a nozzle directed inside the closed end tube against an impingement surface to remove acid droplets. The gases then flow through the side wall openings and the liquid level to quench any possible ignition prior to entering the activated carbon filter. A wick in the activated carbon filter conducts condensed liquid back to the closure housing to replenish the liquid level limited by the open-end tube.

  18. Post-Closure Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the 1324-N Surface Impoundment and 1324-NA Percolation Pond

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hartman, Mary J.

    2004-04-02

    The 1324-N Surface Impoundment and the 1324-NA Percolation Pond, located in the 100-N Area of the Hanford Site, are regulated under the Resource Consevation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Surface and underground features of the facilities have been removed and laboratory analyses showed that soil met the closure performance standards. These sites have been backfilled and revegetated.

  19. Sludge treatment facility preliminary siting study for the sludge treatment project (A-13B)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    WESTRA, A.G.

    1999-06-24

    This study evaluates various sites in the 100 K area and 200 areas of Hanford for locating a treatment facility for sludge from the K Basins. Both existing facilities and a new standalone facility were evaluated. A standalone facility adjacent to the AW Tank Farm in the 200 East area of Hanford is recommended as the best location for a sludge treatment facility.

  20. ARM - SGP Central Facility

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Central Facility SGP Related Links Virtual Tour Facilities and Instruments Central Facility Boundary Facility Extended Facility Intermediate Facility Radiometric Calibration...

  1. Transportable Vitrification System RCRA Closure Practical Waste Disposition Saves Time And Money

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brill, Angie; Boles, Roger; Byars, Woody

    2003-02-26

    The Transportable Vitrification System (TVS) was a large-scale vitrification system for the treatment of mixed wastes. The wastes contained both hazardous and radioactive materials in the form of sludge, soil, and ash. The TVS was developed to be moved to various United States Department of Energy (DOE) facilities to vitrify mixed waste as needed. The TVS consists of four primary modules: (1) Waste and Additive Materials Processing Module; (2) Melter Module; (3) Emissions Control Module; and (4) Control and Services Module. The TVS was demonstrated at the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) during September and October of 1997. During this period, approximately 16,000 pounds of actual mixed waste was processed, producing over 17,000 pounds of glass. After the demonstration was complete it was determined that it was more expensive to use the TVS unit to treat and dispose of mixed waste than to direct bury this waste in Utah permitted facility. Thus, DOE had to perform a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure of the facility and find a reuse for as much of the equipment as possible. This paper will focus on the following items associated with this successful RCRA closure project: TVS site closure design and implementation; characterization activities focused on waste disposition; pollution prevention through reuse; waste minimization efforts to reduce mixed waste to be disposed; and lessons learned that would be integrated in future projects of this magnitude.

  2. TECHNICAL PEER REVIEW REPORT - YUCCA MOUNTAIN: WASTE PACKAGE CLOSURE CONTROL SYSTEM

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NA

    2005-10-25

    The objective of the Waste Package Closure System (WPCS) project is to assist in the disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and associated high-level wastes (HLW) at the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. Materials will be transferred from the casks into a waste package (WP), sealed, and placed into the underground facility. The SNF/HLW transfer and closure operations will be performed in an aboveground facility. The objective of the Control System is to bring together major components of the entire WPCS ensuring that unit operations correctly receive, and respond to, commands and requests for data. Integrated control systems will be provided to ensure that all operations can be performed remotely. Maintenance on equipment may be done using hands-on or remote methods, depending on complexity, exposure, and ease of access. Operating parameters and nondestructive examination results will be collected and stored as permanent electronic records. Minor weld repairs must be performed within the closure cell if the welds do not meet the inspection acceptance requirements. Any WP with extensive weld defects that require lids to be removed will be moved to the remediation facility for repair.

  3. Revised RCRA closure plan for the Interim Drum Yard (S-030) at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, C.M.

    1994-09-01

    The Interim Drum Yard (IDY) facility is a containerized waste storage area located in the Y-12 exclusion area. It was used to store waste materials which are regulated by RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act); uranyl nitrate solutions were also stored there. The closure plan outlines the actions required to achieve closure of IDY and is being submitted in accordance with TN Rule 1200-1-11.05(7) and 40 CFR 265.110.

  4. Category:Wind Farms | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    in category "Wind Farms" The following 5 pages are in this category, out of 5 total. F Foote Creek Rim Wind Farm M Mountain Wind R Rock River LLC Wind Farm Rolling Hills Wind...

  5. Fiscal Year 2006 Washington Closure Hanford Science & Technology Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    K.J. Kroegler, M. Truex, D.J. McBride

    2006-01-19

    This Washington Closure Hanford science and technology (S&T) plan documents the activities associated with providing S&T support to the River Corridor Closure Project for fiscal year 2006.

  6. Simplicity Energy Farms Inc | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Simplicity Energy Farms, Inc. Place: Englewood, Colorado Zip: 80113 Sector: Solar, Wind energy Product: Colorado-headquartered developer of farm-based solar and wind energy...

  7. Craig Wind Farm Ltd | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Craig Wind Farm Ltd Jump to: navigation, search Name: Craig Wind Farm Ltd Place: United Kingdom Sector: Wind energy Product: This organisation is a special purpose vehicle (SPV)...

  8. Wind Farm Capital | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Farm Capital Jump to: navigation, search Name: Wind Farm Capital Place: Connecticut Sector: Wind energy Product: US-based company that buys wind leases from farmers and landowners,...

  9. YUCCA MOUNTAIN WASTE PACKAGE CLOSURE SYSTEM

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    G. Housley; C. Shelton-davis; K. Skinner

    2005-08-26

    The method selected for dealing with spent nuclear fuel in the US is to seal the fuel in waste packages and then to place them in an underground repository at the Yucca Mountain Site in Nevada. This article describes the Waste Package Closure System (WPCS) currently being designed for sealing the waste packages.

  10. RECENT PROGRESS IN DOE WASTE TANK CLOSURE

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Langton, C

    2008-02-01

    The USDOE complex currently has over 330 underground storage tanks that have been used to process and store radioactive waste generated from the production of weapons materials. These tanks contain over 380 million liters of high-level and low-level radioactive waste. The waste consists of radioactively contaminated sludge, supernate, salt cake or calcine. Most of the waste exists at four USDOE locations, the Hanford Site, the Savannah River Site, the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center and the West Valley Demonstration Project. A summary of the DOE tank closure activities was first issued in 2001. Since then, regulatory changes have taken place that affect some of the sites and considerable progress has been made in closing tanks. This paper presents an overview of the current regulatory changes and drivers and a summary of the progress in tank closures at the various sites over the intervening six years. A number of areas are addressed including closure strategies, characterization of bulk waste and residual heel material, waste removal technologies for bulk waste, heel residuals and annuli, tank fill materials, closure system modeling and performance assessment programs, lessons learned, and external reviews.

  11. Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, River Corridor Closure Project

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    - June 2012 | Department of Energy River Corridor Closure Project - June 2012 Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, River Corridor Closure Project - June 2012 June 2012 Evaluation to determine whether River Corridor Closure Project is continuing to perform at a level deserving DOE-VPP Star recognition. The Team conducted its review during June 11 - 14, 2012 to determine whether Washington Closure Hanford, LLC is continuing to perform at a level deserving DOE-VPP Star recognition. PDF

  12. Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, Washington Closure Hanford VPP

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Report - March 2009 | Department of Energy Closure Hanford VPP Report - March 2009 Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, Washington Closure Hanford VPP Report - March 2009 March 2009 Evaluation to determine whether Washington Closure Hanford, LLC is continuing to perform at a level deserving DOE-VPP Star recognition. The Team conducted its review during March 23-April 3, 2009 to determine whether Washington Closure Hanford, LLC is continuing to perform at a level deserving DOE-VPP Star

  13. Washington Closure Hanford: Ten Years of River Corridor Cleanup |

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Department of Energy Washington Closure Hanford: Ten Years of River Corridor Cleanup Washington Closure Hanford: Ten Years of River Corridor Cleanup December 17, 2015 - 12:30pm Addthis Contract-Timeline-E1511010_4-B_756px.jpg This timeline shows contractor Washington Closure Hanford's accomplishments over the past 10 years through its River Corridor Closure Contract. Addthis Related Articles EM Update Newsletter Spotlights River Corridor Cleanup at Hanford Site River Corridor Achievements

  14. April 29, 2004: Fernald Closure Site | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    9, 2004: Fernald Closure Site April 29, 2004: Fernald Closure Site April 29, 2004: Fernald Closure Site April 29, 2004 Demolition crews bring down the Pilot Plant at DOE's Fernald Closure Site in Ohio. The plant was the last to be torn down of ten former uranium production complexes that produced high purity uranium metal from 1951 to 1989 to support the nation's weapons production needs. Environmental cleanup work at the site is projected to be completed in 2006

  15. Independent Oversight Special Review, Rocky Flats Closure Project Site -

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    April 2001 | Department of Energy Rocky Flats Closure Project Site - April 2001 Independent Oversight Special Review, Rocky Flats Closure Project Site - April 2001 April 2001 Special Review of the Rocky Flats Closure Project Site This report provides the results of a Special Review at the Rocky Flats Closure Project that was performed U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Independent Environment, Safety, and Health Oversight. The Special Review was conducted in February and March 2001

  16. Wheelabrator Sherman Energy Facility Biomass Facility | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Sherman Energy Facility Biomass Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Wheelabrator Sherman Energy Facility Biomass Facility Facility Wheelabrator Sherman Energy Facility Sector...

  17. Huntington Resource Recovery Facility Biomass Facility | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Resource Recovery Facility Biomass Facility Jump to: navigation, search Name Huntington Resource Recovery Facility Biomass Facility Facility Huntington Resource Recovery Facility...

  18. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 130: Storage Tanks Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alfred Wickline

    2009-03-01

    This Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 130: Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. This CR complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Management; U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management. The corrective action sites (CASs) within CAU 130 are located within Areas 1, 7, 10, 20, 22, and 23 of the Nevada Test Site. Corrective Action Unit 130 is comprised of the following CASs: • 01-02-01, Underground Storage Tank • 07-02-01, Underground Storage Tanks • 10-02-01, Underground Storage Tank • 20-02-03, Underground Storage Tank • 20-99-05, Tar Residue • 22-02-02, Buried UST Piping • 23-02-07, Underground Storage Tank This CR provides documentation supporting the completed corrective action investigations and provides data confirming that the closure objectives for CASs within CAU 130 were met. To achieve this, the following actions were performed: • Reviewed the current site conditions, including the concentration and extent of contamination. • Implemented any corrective actions necessary to protect human health and the environment. • Properly disposed of corrective action and investigation-derived wastes. From August 4 through September 30, 2008, closure activities were performed as set forth in the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration Plan for CAU 130, Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. The purposes of the activities as defined during the data quality objectives process were: • Determine whether contaminants of concern (COCs) are present. • If COCs are present, determine their nature and extent, implement appropriate corrective actions, confirm that no residual contamination is present, and properly dispose of wastes. Constituents detected during the closure activities were evaluated against final action levels to identify COCs for CAU 130. Assessment of the data generated from closure activities indicates that no further action is necessary because no COCs were identified at any CAU 130 CAS. Debris removal from these CASs was considered a best management practice because no contamination was detected. The DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office provides the following recommendations: • No further corrective action is required at all CAU 130 CASs. • A Notice of Completion to DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office, is requested from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection for closure of CAU 130. • Corrective Action Unit 130 should be moved from Appendix III to Appendix IV of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order.

  19. Permanent Closure of the TAN-664 Underground Storage Tank

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bradley K. Griffith

    2011-12-01

    This closure package documents the site assessment and permanent closure of the TAN-664 gasoline underground storage tank in accordance with the regulatory requirements established in 40 CFR 280.71, 'Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of Underground Storage Tanks: Out-of-Service UST Systems and Closure.'

  20. ROCKY FLATS CLOSURE PROJECT EM, AUG 2006 | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    ROCKY FLATS CLOSURE PROJECT EM, AUG 2006 ROCKY FLATS CLOSURE PROJECT EM, AUG 2006 PDF icon Rocky Flats Closure Project-Lessons Learned-August 2006.pdf More Documents & Publications Rocky Flats Overview Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance at Rocky Flats: Early Experiences and Lessons Learned WC_1995_010__PETITION_FOR_CLASS_WAIVER_for_KAISER_HILL_CO_In.pdf

  1. Washington Closure Hanford: Cleanup Progress Along Hanford's River Corridor

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    | Department of Energy from the 2015 DOE National Cleanup Workshop by Scott Sax, President, Washington Closure Hanford. PDF icon Washington Closure Hanford: Cleanup Progress Along Hanford's River Corridor More Documents & Publications 2014 Congressional Nuclear Cleanup Caucus Briefings 2013 Congressional Nuclear Cleanup Caucus Briefings Voluntary Protection Program Onsite Review, River Corridor Closure Project - June 2012

  2. Closure Report Central Nevada Test Area Subsurface Corrective Action Unit 443 January 2016

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Findlay, Rick

    2015-11-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) prepared this Closure Report for the subsurface Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 443 at the Central Nevada Test Area (CNTA), Nevada, Site. CNTA was the site of a 0.2- to 1-megaton underground nuclear test in 1968. Responsibility for the site’s environmental restoration was transferred from the DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada Field Office to LM on October 1, 2006. The environmental restoration process and corrective action strategy for CAU 443 are conducted in accordance with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO 1996, as amended 2011) and all applicable Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) policies and regulations. This Closure Report provides justification for closure of CAU 443 and provides a summary of completed closure activities; describes the selected corrective action alternative; provides an implementation plan for long-term monitoring with well network maintenance and approaches/policies for institutional controls (ICs); and presents the contaminant, compliance, and use-restriction boundaries for the site.

  3. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 523: Housekeeping Waste, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office; Bechtel Nevada

    2003-11-01

    This closure report documents the closure activities conducted for Corrective Action Unit 523: Housekeeping Waste, Nevada Test Site, Nevada.

  4. Tools for Closure Project and Contract Management: Development of the Rocky Flats Integrated Closure Project Baseline

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gelles, C. M.; Sheppard, F. R.

    2002-02-26

    This paper details the development of the Rocky Flats Integrated Closure Project Baseline - an innovative project management effort undertaken to ensure proactive management of the Rocky Flats Closure Contract in support of the Department's goal for achieving the safe closure of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) in December 2006. The accelerated closure of RFETS is one of the most prominent projects within the Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management program. As the first major former weapons plant to be remediated and closed, it is a first-of-kind effort requiring the resolution of multiple complex technical and institutional challenges. Most significantly, the closure of RFETS is dependent upon the shipment of all special nuclear material and wastes to other DOE sites. The Department is actively working to strengthen project management across programs, and there is increasing external interest in this progress. The development of the Rocky Flats Integrated Closure Project Baseline represents a groundbreaking and cooperative effort to formalize the management of such a complex project across multiple sites and organizations. It is original in both scope and process, however it provides a useful precedent for the other ongoing project management efforts within the Environmental Management program.

  5. The Long Island Solar Farm

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Long Island Solar Farm May 2013 The Long Island Solar Farm Technical Report DOE/GO-102013-3914 * May 2013 by Robert S. Anders, M.A. Presidential Management Fellow Brookhaven National Laboratory U.S. Department of Energy i Abstract In November 2011, a utility-scale solar array became operational in the most unlikely of places, at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Eastern Long Island, New York. The Long Island Solar Farm project came together as a joint effort of five very different interest

  6. First Draft Performance Assessment for the H-Area Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site - Part 1

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    SRR-CWDA-2010-00128 Revision 0 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT for the H-AREA TANK FARM at the SAVANNAH RIVER SITE March 2011 Prepared by: Savannah River Remediation LLC Closure & Waste Disposal Authority Aiken, SC 29808 Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract No. DE-AC09-09SR22505 Performance Assessment for the SRR-CWDA-2010-00128 H-Area Tank Farm at the Revision 0 Savannah River Site March 2011 Page ii of 864 REVISION SUMMARY REV. # DESCRIPTION DATE OF ISSUE 0a Initial issue to DOE-SR

  7. Byron Extended Facility

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Byron Extended Facility Map

  8. Ashton Extended Facility

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Ashton Extended Facility Map

  9. EIS-0458: Proposed Loan Guarantee to Support Construction and Startup of the Topaz Solar Farm, San Luis Obispo County, CA

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EIS evaluates the environmental impacts from DOE’s proposal to issue a federal loan guarantee to Royal Bank of Scotland to provide funding to Topaz Solar Farms, LLC, to construct and start up the Topaz Solar Farm, a nominal 550-megawatt photovoltaic solar energy generating facility. The facility would be located in unincorporated eastern San Luis Obispo County, California, approximately one mile north of the community of California Valley, California, and six miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument.

  10. User Facilities

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    User Facilities User Facilities User facility agreements allow Los Alamos partners and other entities to conduct research at our unique facilities. In 2011, LANL hosted more than 1,200 users at CINT, LANSCE, and NHMFL. Users came from across the DOE complex, from international academia, and from industrial companies from 45 states across the U.S. Unique world-class user facilities foster rich research opportunities Through its technology transfer efforts, LANL can implement user facility

  11. Mobile Facility

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    2009-2010 Shouxian, China, 2008 Black Forest, Germany, 2007 Niamey, Niger, 2006 Point Reyes, California, 2005 Mobile Facilities Pictured here in Gan, the second mobile facility...

  12. 2009 Performance Assessment for the Saltstone Disposal Facility |

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Department of Energy Performance Assessment for the Saltstone Disposal Facility 2009 Performance Assessment for the Saltstone Disposal Facility This Performance Assessment (PA) for the Savannah River Site (SRS) was prepared to support the operation and eventual closure of the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). This PA was prepared to demonstrate compliance with the pertinent requirements of the United States Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, Change 1, Radioactive Waste Management,

  13. Interim Safety Basis for Fuel Supply Shutdown Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BENECKE, M.W.

    2000-09-07

    This ISB, in conjunction with the IOSR, provides the required basis for interim operation or restrictions on interim operations and administrative controls for the facility until a SAR is prepared in accordance with the new requirements or the facility is shut down. It is concluded that the risks associated with tha current and anticipated mode of the facility, uranium disposition, clean up, and transition activities required for permanent closure, are within risk guidelines.

  14. First Draft Performance Assessment for the H-Area Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site - Part 2

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    8 of 864 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Performance Assessment (PA) for the Savannah River Site (SRS) was prepared to support the eventual removal from service of the H-Area Tank Farm (HTF) underground radioactive waste tanks and ancillary equipment. This PA provides the technical basis and results to be used in subsequent documents to demonstrate compliance with the pertinent requirements identified below for removal from service and eventual final closure of the HTF. ï‚· U.S. Department of Energy

  15. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 124, Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada with Errata Sheet, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alfred Wickline

    2008-01-01

    This Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 124, Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site (NTS), Nevada. This report complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada; U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Management; U.S. Department of Defense; and DOE, Legacy Management (FFACO, 1996; as amended January 2007). This CR provides documentation and justification for the closure of CAU 124 without further corrective action. This justification is based on process knowledge and the results of the investigative activities conducted in accordance with the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan for Corrective Action Unit 124: Storage Tanks, Nevada Test Site, Nevada (NNSA/NSO, 2007). The SAFER Plan provides information relating to site history as well as the scope and planning of the investigation. Therefore, this information will not be repeated in this CR.

  16. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 481: Area 12 T-Tunnel Conditional Release Storage Yard, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2008-11-01

    Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 481 is identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) as Area 12 T-Tunnel Conditional Release Storage Yard. CAU 481 is located in Area 12 of the Nevada Test Site, which is approximately 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. This CAU consists of one Corrective Action Site (CAS), CAS 12-42-05, Housekeeping Waste. CAU 481 closure activities were conducted by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency from August 2007 through July 2008 according to the FFACO and Revision 3 of the Sectored Clean-up Work Plan for Housekeeping Category Waste Sites. Closure activities included removal and disposal of construction debris and low-level waste. Drained fluids, steel, and lead was recycled as appropriate. Waste generated during closure activities was appropriately managed and disposed.

  17. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 538: Spill Sites, Nevada Test Site, Nevada with ROTC-1, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alfred Wickline

    2007-02-01

    This Closure Report (CR) presents information supporting the closure of Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 538, Spill Sites, located at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) in Nevada. This CR complies with the requirements of the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) (1996) that was agreed to by the State of Nevada, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Defense. The corrective action sites (CASs) within CAU 538 are located within Areas 2, 3, 6, 12, and 23 of the NTS. The purpose of this CR is to provide documentation for the absence of contamination or that the closure objectives have been met for each CAS within CAU 538.

  18. Carsten Farms | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    energy Facility Type Commercial Scale Wind Facility Status In Service Location Shelby IA Coordinates 41.4013022, -94.60524023 Show Map Loading map... "minzoom":false,"mappi...

  19. Microsoft Word - 13-NEAC-Plant-Closures

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Nuclear Engineering Engineering Physics Engineering Mechanics Astronautics November 20, 2013 To: Richard Meserve, NEAC Chair From: Michael Corradini, NEAC Subcommittee Chair Re: Nuclear Reactor Technology Subcommittee Meeting on Nuclear Plant Closures The Nuclear Reactor Technology (NRT) Subcommittee has historically examined the research and development activities within the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) as they relate to nuclear reactor technologies; i.e., reactor design, reactor

  20. Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 151: Septic Systems and Discharge Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2008-04-01

    Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 151 is identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) as Septic Systems and Discharge Area. CAU 151 consists of the following eight Corrective Action Sites (CASs), located in Areas 2, 12, and 18 of the Nevada Test Site, approximately 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada: (1) CAS 02-05-01, UE-2ce Pond; (2) CAS 12-03-01, Sewage Lagoons (6); (3) CAS 12-04-01, Septic Tanks; (4) CAS 12-04-02, Septic Tanks; (5) CAS 12-04-03, Septic Tank; (6) CAS 12-47-01, Wastewater Pond; (7) CAS 18-03-01, Sewage Lagoon; and (8) CAS 18-99-09, Sewer Line (Exposed). CAU 151 closure activities were conducted according to the FFACO (FFACO, 1996; as amended February 2008) and the Corrective Action Plan for CAU 151 (U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office, 2007) from October 2007 to January 2008. The corrective action alternatives included no further action, clean closure, and closure in place with administrative controls. CAU 151 closure activities are summarized in Table 1. Closure activities generated liquid remediation waste, sanitary waste, hydrocarbon waste, and mixed waste. Waste generated was appropriately managed and disposed. Waste that is currently staged onsite is being appropriately managed and will be disposed under approved waste profiles in permitted landfills. Waste minimization activities included waste characterization sampling and segregation of waste streams. Some waste exceeded land disposal restriction limits and required offsite treatment prior to disposal. Other waste meeting land disposal restrictions was disposed of in appropriate onsite or offsite landfills. Waste disposition documentation is included as Appendix C.