National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for faultless underground nuclear

  1. Multinational underground nuclear parks

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Myers, C.W.; Giraud, K.M.

    2013-07-01

    Newcomer countries expected to develop new nuclear power programs by 2030 are being encouraged by the International Atomic Energy Agency to explore the use of shared facilities for spent fuel storage and geologic disposal. Multinational underground nuclear parks (M-UNPs) are an option for sharing such facilities. Newcomer countries with suitable bedrock conditions could volunteer to host M-UNPs. M-UNPs would include back-end fuel cycle facilities, in open or closed fuel cycle configurations, with sufficient capacity to enable M-UNP host countries to provide for-fee waste management services to partner countries, and to manage waste from the M-UNP power reactors. M-UNP potential advantages include: the option for decades of spent fuel storage; fuel-cycle policy flexibility; increased proliferation resistance; high margin of physical security against attack; and high margin of containment capability in the event of beyond-design-basis accidents, thereby reducing the risk of Fukushima-like radiological contamination of surface lands. A hypothetical M-UNP in crystalline rock with facilities for small modular reactors, spent fuel storage, reprocessing, and geologic disposal is described using a room-and-pillar reference-design cavern. Underground construction cost is judged tractable through use of modern excavation technology and careful site selection. (authors)

  2. Last U.S. Underground Nuclear Test Conducted | National Nuclear...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    U.S. Underground Nuclear Test Conducted | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing...

  3. New model more accurately tracks gases for underground nuclear...

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

    underground nuclear explosion detection Scientists have developed a new, more thorough method for detecting underground nuclear explosions by coupling two fundamental...

  4. New model more accurately tracks gases for underground nuclear explosion

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

    detection Model tracks gases for underground nuclear explosion detection New model more accurately tracks gases for underground nuclear explosion detection Scientists have developed a new, more thorough method for detecting underground nuclear explosions by coupling two fundamental elements-seismic models with gas-flow models. December 17, 2015 Los Alamos National Laboratory sits on top of a once-remote mesa in northern New Mexico with the Jemez mountains as a backdrop to research and

  5. Underground Facility at Nevada National Security Site | National Nuclear

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Security Administration Underground Facility at Nevada National Security Site | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases

  6. FIELD INVESTIGATION AT THE FAULTLESS SITE CENTRAL NEVADA TEST

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    FIELD INVESTIGATION AT THE FAULTLESS SITE CENTRAL NEVADA TEST AREA DOEINV/10845--T3 DE93 005915 by JennyB. Chapman, Thdd M. Mihevc and Brad Lyles Water Resources Center Desert Research Institute DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi- bility for the

  7. Underground nuclear energy complexes - technical and economic advantages

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Myers, Carl W; Kunze, Jay F; Giraud, Kellen M; Mahar, James M

    2010-01-01

    Underground nuclear power plant parks have been projected to be economically feasible compared to above ground instalIations. This paper includes a thorough cost analysis of the savings, compared to above ground facilities, resulting from in-place entombment (decommissioning) of facilities at the end of their life. reduced costs of security for the lifetime of the various facilities in the underground park. reduced transportation costs. and reduced costs in the operation of the waste storage complex (also underground). compared to the fair share of the costs of operating a national waste repository.

  8. HYDROGEOLOGIC MONITORING AT TIlE FAULTLESS' SITE,

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    HYDROGEOLOGIC MONITORING AT TIlE FAULTLESS' SITE, -NYE COUNTY, NEVADA By William Thordars~m " . . U. S: GEOLOGl'CAL SURVEY Open-File Report 84-580 ' , ' - ' . " . ':Prepa'i'ed": in coop'e~a'tio'n_'~:ith" the GCP-IS <5 '. , " U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 'Uhder, Interagency Agreement DE~AI08~76DP00474 .. " - ' . :. Lakewood, Colorado 1985 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional

  9. The search for an underground nuclear test

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kramer, David

    2015-02-15

    In a month-long exercise, the on-site inspection capabilities of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization were put to the test.

  10. Caging the dragon: the containment of underground nuclear explosions

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carothers, J.

    1995-06-01

    The science of the containment of U.S. underground tests is documented through a series of interviews of leading containment scientists and engineers.

  11. ENVIRONMENTALMONITORING REPORT FORTRENRVADATEST SITE AND OTRER TEST AREAS USED FOR UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DEZONATIONS

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

    ENVIRONMENTALMONITORING REPORT FORTRENRVADATEST SITE AND OTRER TEST AREAS USED FOR UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DEZONATIONS ' January-December 1972 This work performed under a Memorandum of yi- "h \ -;, Understanding No. AT(26-l)-539. ', * ,",', for the , .; \: , *t a' '_. U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION .-I < . . J c-c I NERC-LV-539-23 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT FOR THE NEVADA TEST SITE AND OTHER TEST AREAS USED FOR UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS January-December 1972 by the National

  12. H FINAL REPORT OF OFF-SITE SURVEILLANCE FOR THE FAULTLESS EVENT,

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    WRHL-Slr i, ' H FINAL REPORT OF OFF-SITE SURVEILLANCE FOR THE FAULTLESS EVENT, January 19. 1968 by the Southwe stern Radiological Health Laboratory Department of Health, Education. and Welfare Public Health Service Consume r Protection and Environmental Health Service April 1969 This surveillance perforrned under a Memorandum of Understanding (No. SF 54 373) for the U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION LEGAL NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of Government sponsored work. Neither the United

  13. Madelyn Creedon visits NNSS U1a underground complex | National Nuclear

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Security Administration NNSS U1a underground complex | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Photo Gallery Jobs Apply

  14. Radionuclide Partitioning in an Underground Nuclear Test Cavity

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rose, T P; Hu, Q; Zhao, P; Conrado, C L; Dickerson, R; Eaton, G F; Kersting, A B; Moran, J E; Nimz, G; Powell, B A; Ramon, E C; Ryerson, F J; Williams, R W; Wooddy, P T; Zavarin, M

    2009-01-09

    In 2004, a borehole was drilled into the 1983 Chancellor underground nuclear test cavity to investigate the distribution of radionuclides within the cavity. Sidewall core samples were collected from a range of depths within the re-entry hole and two sidetrack holes. Upon completion of drilling, casing was installed and a submersible pump was used to collect groundwater samples. Test debris and groundwater samples were analyzed for a variety of radionuclides including the fission products {sup 99}Tc, {sup 125}Sb, {sup 129}I, {sup 137}Cs, and {sup 155}Eu, the activation products {sup 60}Co, {sup 152}Eu, and {sup 154}Eu, and the actinides U, Pu, and Am. In addition, the physical and bulk chemical properties of the test debris were characterized using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Electron Microprobe measurements. Analytical results were used to evaluate the partitioning of radionuclides between the melt glass, rubble, and groundwater phases in the Chancellor test cavity. Three comparative approaches were used to calculate partitioning values, though each method could not be applied to every nuclide. These approaches are based on: (1) the average Area 19 inventory from Bowen et al. (2001); (2) melt glass, rubble, and groundwater mass estimates from Zhao et al. (2008); and (3) fission product mass yield data from England and Rider (1994). The U and Pu analyses of the test debris are classified and partitioning estimates for these elements were calculated directly from the classified Miller et al. (2002) inventory for the Chancellor test. The partitioning results from this study were compared to partitioning data that were previously published by the IAEA (1998). Predictions of radionuclide distributions from the two studies are in agreement for a majority of the nuclides under consideration. Substantial differences were noted in the partitioning values for {sup 99}Tc, {sup 125}Sb, {sup 129}I, and uranium. These differences are attributable to two factors: chemical volatility effects that occur during the initial plasma condensation, and groundwater remobilization that occurs over a much longer time frame. Fission product partitioning is very sensitive to the early cooling history of the test cavity because the decay of short-lived (t{sub 1/2} < 1 hour) fission-chain precursors occurs on the same time scale as melt glass condensation. Fission product chains that include both volatile and refractory elements, like the mass 99, 125, and 129 chains, can show large variations in partitioning behavior depending on the cooling history of the cavity. Uranium exhibits similar behavior, though the chemical processes are poorly understood. The water temperature within the Chancellor cavity remains elevated (75 C) more than two decades after the test. Under hydrothermal conditions, high solubility chemical species such as {sup 125}Sb and {sup 129}I are readily dissolved and transported in solution. SEM analyses of melt glass samples show clear evidence of glass dissolution and secondary hydrothermal mineral deposition. Remobilization of {sup 99}Tc is also expected during hydrothermal activity, but moderately reducing conditions within the Chancellor cavity appear to limit the transport of {sup 99}Tc. It is recommended that the results from this study should be used together with the IAEA data to update the range in partitioning values for contaminant transport models at the Nevada National Security Site (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site).

  15. Modeling to Support Groundwater Contaminant Boundaries for the Shoal Underground Nuclear Test

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    K. Pohlmann; G. Pohll; J. Chapman; A. Hassan; R. Carroll; C. Shirley

    2004-03-01

    The purpose of this work is to characterize groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the Shoal underground nuclear test through numerical modeling using site-specific hydrologic data. The ultimate objective is the development of a contaminant boundary, a model-predicted perimeter defining the extent of radionuclide-contaminated groundwater from the underground test throughout 1,000 years at a prescribed level of confidence. This boundary will be developed using the numerical models described here, after they are approved for that purpose by DOE and NDEP.

  16. Evaluation of groundwater flow and transport at the Shoal underground nuclear test: An interim report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pohll, G.; Chapman, J.; Hassan, A.; Papelis, C.; Andricevic, R.; Shirley, C.

    1998-07-01

    Since 1962, all United States nuclear tests have been conducted underground. A consequence of this testing has been the deposition of large amounts of radioactive materials in the subsurface, sometimes in direct contact with groundwater. The majority of this testing occurred on the Nevada Test Site, but a limited number of experiments were conducted in other locations. One of these is the subject of this report, the Project Shoal Area (PSA), located about 50 km southeast of Fallon, Nevada. The Shoal test consisted of a 12-kiloton-yield nuclear detonation which occurred on October 26, 1963. Project Shoal was part of studies to enhance seismic detection of underground nuclear tests, in particular, in active earthquake areas. Characterization of groundwater contamination at the Project Shoal Area is being conducted by the US Department of Energy (DOE) under the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) with the State of Nevada Department of Environmental Protection and the US Department of Defense (DOD). This order prescribes a Corrective Action Strategy (Appendix VI), which, as applied to underground nuclear tests, involves preparing a Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP), Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD), Corrective Action Plan, and Closure Report. The scope of the CAIP is flow and transport modeling to establish contaminant boundaries that are protective of human health and the environment. This interim report describes the current status of the flow and transport modeling for the PSA.

  17. Underground nuclear power station using self-regulating heat-pipe controlled reactors

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hampel, Viktor E.

    1989-01-01

    A nuclear reactor for generating electricity is disposed underground at the bottom of a vertical hole that can be drilled using conventional drilling technology. The primary coolant of the reactor core is the working fluid in a plurality of thermodynamically coupled heat pipes emplaced in the hole between the heat source at the bottom of the hole and heat exchange means near the surface of the earth. Additionally, the primary coolant (consisting of the working flud in the heat pipes in the reactor core) moderates neutrons and regulates their reactivity, thus keeping the power of the reactor substantially constant. At the end of its useful life, the reactor core may be abandoned in place. Isolation from the atmosphere in case of accident or for abandonment is provided by the operation of explosive closures and mechanical valves emplaced along the hole. This invention combines technology developed and tested for small, highly efficient, space-based nuclear electric power plants with the technology of fast-acting closure mechanisms developed and used for underground testing of nuclear weapons. This invention provides a nuclear power installation which is safe from the worst conceivable reactor accident, namely, the explosion of a nuclear weapon near the ground surface of a nuclear power reactor.

  18. An underground nuclear power station using self-regulating heat-pipe controlled reactors

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hampel, V.E.

    1988-05-17

    A nuclear reactor for generating electricity is disposed underground at the bottom of a vertical hole that can be drilled using conventional drilling technology. The primary coolant of the reactor core is the working fluid in a plurality of thermodynamically coupled heat pipes emplaced in the hole between the heat source at the bottom of the hole and heat exchange means near the surface of the earth. Additionally, the primary coolant (consisting of the working fluid in the heat pipes in the reactor core) moderates neutrons and regulates their reactivity, thus keeping the power of the reactor substantially constant. At the end of its useful life, the reactor core may be abandoned in place. Isolation from the atmosphere in case of accident or for abandonment is provided by the operation of explosive closures and mechanical valves emplaced along the hole. This invention combines technology developed and tested for small, highly efficient, space-based nuclear electric power plants with the technology of fast- acting closure mechanisms developed and used for underground testing of nuclear weapons. This invention provides a nuclear power installation which is safe from the worst conceivable reactor accident, namely, the explosion of a nuclear weapon near the ground surface of a nuclear power reactor. 5 figs.

  19. Underground collocation of nuclear power plant reactors and repository to facilitate the post-renaissance expansion of nuclear power

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Myers, Carl W; Elkins, Ned Z

    2008-01-01

    Underground collocation of nuclear power reactors and the nuclear waste management facilities supporting those reactors, termed an underground nuclear park (UNP), appears to have several advantages compared to the conventional approach to siting reactors and waste management facilities. These advantages include the potential to lower reactor capital and operating cost, lower nuclear waste management cost, and increase margins of physical security and safety. Envirorunental impacts related to worker health, facility accidents, waste transportation, and sabotage and terrorism appear to be lower for UNPs compared to the current approach. In-place decommissioning ofUNP reactors appears to have cost, safety, envirorunental and waste disposal advantages. The UNP approach has the potential to lead to greater public acceptance for the deployment of new power reactors. Use of the UNP during the post-nuclear renaissance time frame has the potential to enable a greater expansion of U.S. nuclear power generation than might otherwise result. Technical and economic aspects of the UNP concept need more study to determine the viability of the concept.

  20. Modeling to Support Groundwater Contaminant Boundaries for the Shoal Underground Nuclear Test

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    K. Pohlmann; G. Pohll; J. Chapman; A. Hassan; R. Carroll; C. Shirley

    2004-03-01

    Groundwater flow and radionuclide transport at the Shoal underground nuclear test are characterized using three-dimensional numerical models, based on site-specific hydrologic data. The objective of this modeling is to provide the flow and transport models needed to develop a contaminant boundary defining the extent of radionuclide-contaminated groundwater at the site throughout 1,000 years at a prescribed level of confidence. This boundary will then be used to manage the Project Shoal Area for the protection of the public and the environment.

  1. Title The Containment of Underground Nuclear Explosions OTA-1SC-414

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Containment of Underground Nuclear Explosions OTA-1SC-414 Author Office of Technology Assessment 101254 Document Date 10/30/89 Document Type Report Recipients U.S. Congress ERC Index number 05.09.298 i Box Number 1712-1; K;Xt«t:II3|8l^ lc]^l<fflRta!to^ O ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD C . I :^*:-jrtf5 . ' \ - \ ..Ok 9Vr - ,-*"**** / tA */ Z .jwttWESr , I 1 "' 1 1 " ^ 3, RETURN TO NV TECHNICAL LIBRAE! ^, - , « * * " * » Office of Technology Assessment Congressional Board of the

  2. Underground Infrastructure Impacts Due to a Surface Burst Nuclear Device in an Urban Canyon Environment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bos, Randall J.; Dey, Thomas N.; Runnels, Scott R.

    2012-07-03

    Investigation of the effects of a nuclear device exploded in a urban environment such as the Chicago studied for this particular report have shown the importance on the effects from the urban canyons so typical of today's urban environment as compared to nuclear test event effects observed at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and the Pacific Testing Area on which many of the typical legacy empirical codes are based on. This report first looks at the some of the data from nuclear testing that can give an indication of the damage levels that might be experienced due to a nuclear event. While it is well known that a above ground blast, even a ground burst, very poorly transmits energy into the ground ( < 1%) and the experimental results discussed here are for fully coupled detonations, these results do indicate a useful measure of the damage that might be expected. The second part of the report looks at effects of layering of different materials that typically would make up the near ground below surface environment that a shock would propagate through. As these simulations support and is widely known in the community, the effects of different material compositions in these layers modify the shock behavior and especially modify the energy dispersal and coupling into the basement structures. The third part of the report looks at the modification of the underground shock effects from a surface burst 1 KT device due to the presence of basements under the Chicago buildings. Without direct knowledge of the basement structure, a simulated footprint of a uniform 20m depth was assumed underneath each of the NGI defined buildings in the above ground environment. In the above ground case, the underground basement structures channel the energy along the line of site streets keeping the shock levels from falling off as rapidly as has been observed in unobstructed detonations. These simulations indicate a falloff of factors of 2 per scaled length as compared to 10 for the unobstructed case. Again, as in the above ground case, the basements create significant shielding causing the shock profile to become more square and reducing the potential for damage diagonal to the line of sight streets. The results for a 1KT device is that the heavily damaged zone (complete destruction) will extend out to 50m from the detonation ({approx}100m for 10KT). The heavily to moderately damaged zone will extend out to 100m ({approx}200m for 10KT). Since the destruction will depend on geometric angle from the detonation and also the variability of response for various critical infrastructure, for planning purposes the area out to 100m from the detonation should be assumed to be non-operational. Specifically for subway tunnels, while not operational, they could be human passable for human egress in the moderately damaged area. The results of the simulations presented in this report indicate only the general underground infrastructure impact. Simulations done with the actual basement geometry would be an important improvement. Equally as important or even more so, knowing the actual underground material configurations and material composition would be critical information to refine the calculations. Coupling of the shock data into structural codes would help inform the emergency planning and first response communities on the impact to underground structures and the state of buildings after the detonation.

  3. Geochemistry research planning for the underground storage of high-level nuclear waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Apps, J.A.

    1983-09-01

    This report is a preliminary attempt to plan a comprehensive program of geochemistry research aimed at resolving problems connected with the underground storage of high-level nuclear waste. The problems and research needs were identified in a companion report to this one. The research needs were taken as a point of departure and developed into a series of proposed projects with estimated manpowers and durations. The scope of the proposed research is based on consideration of an underground repository as a multiple barrier system. However, the program logic and organization reflect conventional strategies for resolving technological problems. The projects were scheduled and the duration of the program, critical path projects and distribution of manpower determined for both full and minimal programs. The proposed research was then compared with ongoing research within DOE, NRC and elsewhere to identify omissions in current research. Various options were considered for altering the scope of the program, and hence its cost and effectiveness. Finally, recommendations were made for dealing with omissions and uncertainties arising from program implementation. 11 references, 6 figures, 4 tables.

  4. Nuclear Dynamics Consequence Analysis (NDCA) for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel in an Underground Geologic Repository - Volume 3: Appendices

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Taylor, L.L.; Wilson, J.R.; Sanchez, L.C.; Aguilar, R.; Trellue, H.R.; Cochrane, K.; Rath, J.S.

    1998-10-01

    The United States Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management's (DOE/EM's) National Spent Nuclear Fuel Program (NSNFP), through a collaboration between Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), is conducting a systematic Nuclear Dynamics Consequence Analysis (NDCA) of the disposal of SNFs in an underground geologic repository sited in unsaturated tuff. This analysis is intended to provide interim guidance to the DOE for the management of the SNF while they prepare for final compliance evaluation. This report presents results from a Nuclear Dynamics Consequence Analysis (NDCA) that examined the potential consequences and risks of criticality during the long-term disposal of spent nuclear fuel owned by DOE-EM. This analysis investigated the potential of post-closure criticality, the consequences of a criticality excursion, and the probability frequency for post-closure criticality. The results of the NDCA are intended to provide the DOE-EM with a technical basis for measuring risk which can be used for screening arguments to eliminate post-closure criticality FEPs (features, events and processes) from consideration in the compliance assessment because of either low probability or low consequences. This report is composed of an executive summary (Volume 1), the methodology and results of the NDCA (Volume 2), and the applicable appendices (Volume 3).

  5. Assessment of hydrologic transport of radionuclides from the Gnome underground nuclear test site, New Mexico

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Earman, S.; Chapman, J.; Pohlmann, K.; Andricevic, R.

    1996-09-01

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is operating an environmental restoration program to characterize, remediate, and close non-Nevada Test Site locations that were used for nuclear testing. Evaluation of radionuclide transport by groundwater from these sites is an important part of the preliminary site risk analysis. These evaluations are undertaken to allow prioritization of the test areas in terms of risk, provide a quantitative basis for discussions with regulators and the public about future work at the sites, and provide a framework for assessing data needs to be filled by site characterization. The Gnome site in southeastern New Mexico was the location of an underground detonation of a 3.5-kiloton nuclear device in 1961, and a hydrologic tracer test using radionuclides in 1963. The tracer test involved the injection of tritium, {sup 90}Sr, and {sup 137}Cs directly into the Culebra Dolomite, a nine to ten-meter-thick aquifer located approximately 150 in below land surface. The Gnome nuclear test was carried out in the Salado Formation, a thick salt deposit located 200 in below the Culebra. Because salt behaves plastically, the cavity created by the explosion is expected to close, and although there is no evidence that migration has actually occurred, it is assumed that radionuclides from the cavity are released into the overlying Culebra Dolomite during this closure process. Transport calculations were performed using the solute flux method, with input based on the limited data available for the site. Model results suggest that radionuclides may be present in concentrations exceeding drinking water regulations outside the drilling exclusion boundary established by DOE. Calculated mean tritium concentrations peak at values exceeding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L at distances of up to almost eight kilometers west of the nuclear test.

  6. ENVIRONMENTAL IlONITORING REPORT FOR THE NEVADA TEST SITE AND OTHER TEST AREAS USED FOR UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    IlONITORING REPORT FOR THE NEVADA TEST SITE AND OTHER TEST AREAS USED FOR UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR DETONATIONS January through December 1975 Nonitoring Operations Division Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Las Vegas, Nevada 89114 APRIL 1976 This work performed under a Memorandum of Understanding No. AT(26-1)-539 for the U . S . ENERGY RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION EMSL-LV-5 39-4 May 1976 ENVIRONMENTAL 14ONITORING REPORT FOR THE NEVADA

  7. Microsoft Word - S05767_PostClosureInspRpt.doc

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    ... Three emplacement boreholes, UC-1, UC-3, and UC-4, were drilled at CNTA for underground nuclear weapons testing. On January 19, 1968, the Project Faultless underground nuclear test ...

  8. Evaluation of Cavity Collapse and Surface Crater Formation for Selected Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Underground Nuclear Tests - 2011, Part 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pawloski, G A

    2012-01-30

    This report evaluates collapse evolution for selected Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) underground nuclear tests at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS, formerly called the Nevada Test Site). The work is being done to support several different programs that desire access to the ground surface above expended underground nuclear tests. The programs include: the Borehole Management Program, the Environmental Restoration Program, and the National Center for Nuclear Security Gas-Migration Experiment. Safety decisions must be made before a crater area, or potential crater area, can be reentered for any work. Evaluation of cavity collapse and crater formation is input into the safety decisions. Subject matter experts from the LLNL Containment Program who participated in weapons testing activities perform these evaluations. Information used included drilling and hole construction, emplacement and stemming, timing and sequence of the selected test and nearby tests, geology, yield, depth of burial, collapse times, surface crater sizes, cavity and crater volume estimations, ground motion, and radiological release information. Both classified and unclassified data were reviewed. The evaluations do not include the effects of erosion that may modify the collapse craters over time. They also do not address possible radiation dangers that may be present. Various amounts of information are available for these tests, depending on their age and other associated activities. Lack of data can hamper evaluations and introduce uncertainty. We make no attempt to quantify this uncertainty. Evaluation of Cavity Collapse and Surface Crater Formation for Selected Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Underground Nuclear Tests - 2011 was published on March 2, 2011. This report, considered Part 2 of work undertaken in calendar year 2011, compiles evaluations requested after the March report. The following unclassified summary statements describe collapse evolution and crater stability in response to a recent request to review 6 LLNL test locations in Yucca Flat, Rainier Mesa, and Pahute Mesa. They include: Baneberry in U8d; Clearwater in U12q; Wineskin in U12r, Buteo in U20a and Duryea in nearby U20a1; and Barnwell in U20az.

  9. Subsurface Completion Report for Amchitka Underground Nuclear Test Sites: Long Shot, Milrow, and Cannikin, Rev. No.: 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Echelard, Tim

    2006-09-01

    Three underground nuclear tests were conducted on Amchitka Island, Alaska, in 1965, 1969, and 1971. The effects of the Long Shot, Milrow, and Cannikin tests on the environment were extensively investigated during and following the detonations, and the area continues to be monitored today. This report is intended to document the basis for the Amchitka Underground Nuclear Test Sites: Long Shot, Milrow, and Cannikin (hereafter referred to as ''Amchitka Site'') subsurface completion recommendation of No Further Remedial Action Planned with Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance, and define the long-term surveillance and maintenance strategy for the subsurface. A number of factors were considered in evaluating and selecting this recommendation for the Amchitka Site. Historical studies and monitoring data, ongoing monitoring data, the results of groundwater modeling, and the results of an independent stakeholder-guided scientific investigation were also considered in deciding the completion action. Water sampling during and following the testing showed no indication that radionuclides were released to the near surface, or marine environment with the exception of tritium, krypton-85, and iodine-131 found in the immediate vicinity of Long Shot surface ground zero. One year after Long Shot, only tritium was detectable (Merritt and Fuller, 1977). These tritium levels, which were routinely monitored and have continued to decline since the test, are above background levels but well below the current safe drinking water standard. There are currently no feasible means to contain or remove radionuclides in or around the test cavities beneath the sites. Surface remediation was conducted in 2001. Eleven drilling mud pits associated with the Long Shot, Milrow and Cannikin sites were remediated. Ten pits were remediated by stabilizing the contaminants and constructing an impermeable cap over each pit. One pit was remediated by removing all of the contaminated mud for consolidation in another pit. In addition to the mud pits, the hot mix plant was also remediated. Ongoing monitoring data does not indicate that radionuclides are currently seeping into the marine environment. Additionally, the groundwater modeling results indicate no seepage is expected for tens to thousands of years. If seepage does occur in the future, however, the rich, diverse ecosystems around the island could be at risk, as well as people eating foods from the area. An independent science study was conducted by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) in accordance with the Amchitka Independent Science Plan (2003). The study report was published on August 1, 2005. The CRESP study states ''our geophysical and biological analyses did not find evidence of risk from radionuclides from the consumption of marine foods, nor indication of any current radionuclide contaminated migration into the marine environment from the Amchitka test shots''. The study also found evidence supporting the groundwater modeling conclusions of very slow contaminant transport (CRESP, 2005). While no further action is recommended for the subsurface of the Amchitka Site, long-term stewardship of Amchitka Island will be instituted and will continue into the future. This will include institutional controls management and enforcement, post-completion monitoring, performance of five-year reviews, public participation, and records management. Long-term stewardship will be the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management. The Department of Energy is recommending completion of the investigation phase of the Amchitka Sites. The recommended remedy for the Amchitka Site is No Further Action with Long-Term Monitoring and Surveillance. The future long-term stewardship actions will be governed by a Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance Plan. This Plan is currently being developed with input from the State, landowner, and other interested or affected stakeholders.

  10. Evaluation of Cavity Collapse and Surface Crater Formation at the Norbo Underground Nuclear Test in U8c, Nevada Nuclear Security Site, and the Impact on Stability of the Ground Surface

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pawloski, G A

    2012-06-18

    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Containment Program performed a review of nuclear test-related data for the Norbo underground nuclear test in U8c to assist in evaluating this legacy site as a test bed for application technologies for use in On-Site Inspections (OSI) under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. This request is similar to one made for the Salut site in U8c (Pawloski, 2012b). Review of the Norbo site is complicated because the test first exhibited subsurface collapse, which was not unusual, but it then collapsed to the surface over one year later, which was unusual. Of particular interest is the stability of the ground surface above the Norbo detonation point. Proposed methods for on-site verification include radiological signatures, artifacts from nuclear testing activities, and imaging to identify alteration to the subsurface hydrogeology due to the nuclear detonation. Aviva Sussman from the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has also proposed work at this site. Both proposals require physical access at or near the ground surface of specific underground nuclear test locations at the Nevada Nuclear Security Site (NNSS), formerly the Nevada Test Site (NTS), and focus on possible activities such as visual observation, multispectral measurements, and shallow and deep geophysical surveys.

  11. EM Takes Safe, Unique Approach to Underground Demolition at Hanford...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    largest of Hanford's experimental reactors used for developing and testing alternative fuels for the commercial nuclear power industry. Preparations to remove the underground...

  12. Evaluation of Cavity Collapse and Surface Crater Formation at the Salut Underground Nuclear Test in U20ak, Nevada National Security Site, and the Impact of Stability of the Ground Surface

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pawloski, G A

    2012-04-25

    At the request of Jerry Sweeney, the LLNL Containment Program performed a review of nuclear test-related data for the Salut underground nuclear test in U20ak to assist in evaluating this legacy site as a test bed for application technologies for use in On-Site Inspections (OSI) under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Review of the Salut site is complicated because the test experienced a subsurface, rather than surface, collapse. Of particular interest is the stability of the ground surface above the Salut detonation point. Proposed methods for on-site verification include radiological signatures, artifacts from nuclear testing activities, and imaging to identify alteration to the subsurface hydrogeologogy due to the nuclear detonation. Sweeney's proposal requires physical access at or near the ground surface of specific underground nuclear test locations at the Nevada Nuclear Test Site (NNSS, formerly the Nevada Test Site), and focuses on possible activities such as visual observation, multispectral measurements, and shallow, and deep geophysical surveys.

  13. Evaluation of the Non-Transient Hydrologic Source Term from the CAMBRIC Underground Nuclear Test in Frenchman Flat, Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tompson, A B; Maxwell, R M; Carle, S F; Zavarin, M; Pawloski, G A; Shumaker, D E

    2005-08-05

    Hydrologic Source Term (HST) calculations completed in 1998 at the CAMBRIC underground nuclear test site were LLNL's first attempt to simulate a hydrologic source term at the NTS by linking groundwater flow and transport modeling with geochemical modeling (Tompson et al., 1999). Significant effort was applied to develop a framework that modeled in detail the flow regime and captured all appropriate chemical processes that occurred over time. However, portions of the calculations were simplified because of data limitations and a perceived need for generalization of the results. For example: (1) Transient effects arising from a 16 years of pumping at the site for a radionuclide migration study were not incorporated. (2) Radionuclide fluxes across the water table, as derived from infiltration from a ditch to which pumping effluent was discharged, were not addressed. (3) Hydrothermal effects arising from residual heat of the test were not considered. (4) Background data on the ambient groundwater flow direction were uncertain and not represented. (5) Unclassified information on the Radiologic Source Term (RST) inventory, as tabulated recently by Bowen et al. (2001), was unavailable; instead, only a limited set of derived data were available (see Tompson et al., 1999). (6) Only a small number of radionuclides and geochemical reactions were incorporated in the work. (7) Data and interpretation of the RNM-2S multiple well aquifer test (MWAT) were not available. As a result, the current Transient CAMBRIC Hydrologic Source Term project was initiated as part of a broader Phase 2 Frenchman Flat CAU flow and transport modeling effort. The source term will be calculated under two scenarios: (1) A more specific representation of the transient flow and radionuclide release behavior at the site, reflecting the influence of the background hydraulic gradient, residual test heat, pumping experiment, and ditch recharge, and taking into account improved data sources and modeling approaches acquired or developed since the previous work (as in Pawloski et al., 2001, at the CHESHIRE site). This will be referred to as the transient CAMBRIC source term. (2) A generic release model made under steady-state flow conditions, in the absence of any transient effect, at the same site with the same RST for use in the development of simple release models at the other nine underground test sites in the Frenchman Flat CAU. This will be referred to as the steady state (non-transient) source term. The purpose of this report is to summarize the results of our steady state source term simulations. Additional details pertaining to these results, the transient model results, and the overall strategy, rationale, and assumptions used in the models will be documented in a separate report.

  14. Underground infrastructure damage for a Chicago scenario

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dey, Thomas N; Bos, Rabdall J

    2011-01-25

    Estimating effects due to an urban IND (improvised nuclear device) on underground structures and underground utilities is a challenging task. Nuclear effects tests performed at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) during the era of nuclear weapons testing provides much information on how underground military structures respond. Transferring this knowledge to answer questions about the urban civilian environment is needed to help plan responses to IND scenarios. Explosions just above the ground surface can only couple a small fraction of the blast energy into an underground shock. The various forms of nuclear radiation have limited penetration into the ground. While the shock transmitted into the ground carries only a small fraction of the blast energy, peak stresses are generally higher and peak ground displacement is lower than in the air blast. While underground military structures are often designed to resist stresses substantially higher than due to the overlying rocks and soils (overburden), civilian structures such as subways and tunnels would generally only need to resist overburden conditions with a suitable safety factor. Just as we expect the buildings themselves to channel and shield air blast above ground, basements and other underground openings as well as changes of geology will channel and shield the underground shock wave. While a weaker shock is expected in an urban environment, small displacements on very close-by faults, and more likely, soils being displaced past building foundations where utility lines enter could readily damaged or disable these services. Immediately near an explosion, the blast can 'liquefy' a saturated soil creating a quicksand-like condition for a period of time. We extrapolate the nuclear effects experience to a Chicago-based scenario. We consider the TARP (Tunnel and Reservoir Project) and subway system and the underground lifeline (electric, gas, water, etc) system and provide guidance for planning this scenario.

  15. Vitrified underground structures

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Murphy, Mark T. (Kennewick, WA); Buelt, James L. (Richland, WA); Stottlemyre, James A. (Richland, WA); Tixier, Jr., John S. (Richland, WA)

    1992-01-01

    A method of making vitrified underground structures in which 1) the vitrification process is started underground, and 2) a thickness dimension is controlled to produce substantially planar vertical and horizontal vitrified underground structures. Structures may be placed around a contaminated waste site to isolate the site or may be used as aquifer dikes.

  16. Going underground. [Review

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1980-10-01

    Underground space is increasingly used for energy-saving and secure storage that is often less expensive and more aesthetically pleasing than conventional facilities. Petroleum, pumped hydro, water, and sewage are among the large-scale needs that can be met by underground storage. Individual buildings can store chilled water underground for summer cooling. Windowless aboveground buildings are suitable and even more efficient if they are underground. The discovery of ancient underground cities indicates that the concept can be reapplied to relieve urban centers and save energy as is already done to a large extent in China and elsewhere. A national commitment to solar energy will benefit from increased use of underground space. Kansas City is among several cities which are developing the subsurface with success, businesses and schools having found the underground environment to have many benefits. More construction experience is needed, however, to help US lenders overcome their reluctance to finance earth-sheltered projects. (DCK)

  17. DOE - NNSA/NFO -- Photo Library Underground Testing

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

    Underground Testing NNSA/NFO Language Options U.S. DOE/NNSA - Nevada Field Office Photo Library - Underground Testing Between 1951 and 1992, 828 underground nuclear tests were conducted in specially drilled shafts, horizontal tunnels and craters at the Nevada National Security Site. Most vertical shaft tests assisted in the development of new weapon systems. Horizontal tunnel tests occurred to evaluate the effects (radiation, ground shock) of various weapons on military hardware and systems.

  18. PNNL offers 'virtual tour' of Shallow Underground Laboratory | National

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Nuclear Security Administration offers 'virtual tour' of Shallow Underground Laboratory | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters

  19. 'Underground battery' could store renewable energy, sequester CO2 |

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    National Nuclear Security Administration 'Underground battery' could store renewable energy, sequester CO2 | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter Youtube Flickr RSS People Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Library Bios Congressional Testimony Fact

  20. Underground pumped hydroelectric storage

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Allen, R.D.; Doherty, T.J.; Kannberg, L.D.

    1984-07-01

    Underground pumped hydroelectric energy storage was conceived as a modification of surface pumped storage to eliminate dependence upon fortuitous topography, provide higher hydraulic heads, and reduce environmental concerns. A UPHS plant offers substantial savings in investment cost over coal-fired cycling plants and savings in system production costs over gas turbines. Potential location near load centers lowers transmission costs and line losses. Environmental impact is less than that for a coal-fired cycling plant. The inherent benefits include those of all pumped storage (i.e., rapid load response, emergency capacity, improvement in efficiency as pumps improve, and capacity for voltage regulation). A UPHS plant would be powered by either a coal-fired or nuclear baseload plant. The economic capacity of a UPHS plant would be in the range of 1000 to 3000 MW. This storage level is compatible with the load-leveling requirements of a greater metropolitan area with population of 1 million or more. The technical feasibility of UPHS depends upon excavation of a subterranean powerhouse cavern and reservoir caverns within a competent, impervious rock formation, and upon selection of reliable and efficient turbomachinery - pump-turbines and motor-generators - all remotely operable.

  1. Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Compared with 5-Year Range Graph...

  2. Microsoft Word - WIPP Updates_Underground Recovery Process Begins

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

    5DR0314 / 002NWPR0314 NWP Media Contacts: Donavan Mager Nuclear Waste Partnership LLC (575) 234-7586 www.wipp.energy.gov For Immediate Release WIPP UPDATES: Underground Recovery Process Begins Initial Results Show no Airborne Radioactive Contamination in Underground Shafts CARLSBAD, N.M., March 9 - Nuclear Waste Partnership (NWP), the management and operations contractor at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), has initiated the first phase of an

  3. Builders go underground

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McGrath, D.J.

    1982-01-01

    The appeal of earth-sheltered housing increased last year when 1000 new underground houses brought the national total to about 5000. Innovative construction and management techniques help, such as the Terra-Dome's moldset and equipment, which the company sells to builders under a license arrangement. Attention is given to aesthetic appeal as well as to energy savings. The Everstrong company builds all-wood underground houses to cut down on humidity and increase resistance to natural disasters. Tight mortgage money has been a serious problem for underground as well as conventional builders. (DCK)

  4. Underground and Ventilation System

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

    Tour Oct. 16th CBFO's Joe Franco and EM's Mark Whitney discuss WIPP underground layout NWP's John Vandekraats describes roof bolting www.energy.govEM 7 Message from DOE...

  5. Midwest Underground Technology | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Technology Jump to: navigation, search Name Midwest Underground Technology Facility Midwest Underground Technology Sector Wind energy Facility Type Small Scale Wind...

  6. Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Figure Working Gas in Underground Storage Compared with 5-Year Range Graph....

  7. Dynamic Underground Stripping Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Udell, K.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D.; Udell, K.

    1992-01-01

    LLNL is collaborating with the UC Berkeley College of Engineering to develop and demonstrate a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called ``Dynamic Stripping`` to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it will combine steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. In the first 8 months of the project, a Clean Site engineering test was conducted to prove the field application of the techniques before moving the contaminated site in FY 92.

  8. DOE - NNSA/NFO -- EM Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project

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

    Groundwater NNSA/NFO Language Options U.S. DOE/NNSA - Nevada Field Office Click to subscribe to NNSS News Groundwater Characterization Environmental Restoration photo Click here to learn about ongoing groundwater characterization activities at the Nevada National Security Site via a video on our YouTube channel. Click here to open an interactive map that shows deep sub-surface contamination sites identified as a result of historic underground nuclear testing. From 1951 to 1992, 828 underground

  9. Economical wind protection - underground

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kiesling, E.W.

    1980-01-01

    Earth-sheltered buildings inherently posess near-absolute occupant protection from severe winds. They should sustain no structural damage and only minimal facial damage. Assuming that the lower-hazard risk attendant to this type of construction results in reduced insurance-premium rates, the owner accrues economic benefits from the time of construction. Improvements to aboveground buildings, in contrast, may not yield early economic benefits in spite of a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio. This, in addition to sensitivity to initial costs, traditionalism in residential construction, and lack of professional input to design, impede the widespread use of underground improvements and the subsequent economic losses from severe winds. Going underground could reverse the trend. 7 references.

  10. Underground waste barrier structure

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Saha, Anuj J. (Hamburg, NY); Grant, David C. (Gibsonia, PA)

    1988-01-01

    Disclosed is an underground waste barrier structure that consists of waste material, a first container formed of activated carbonaceous material enclosing the waste material, a second container formed of zeolite enclosing the first container, and clay covering the second container. The underground waste barrier structure is constructed by forming a recessed area within the earth, lining the recessed area with a layer of clay, lining the clay with a layer of zeolite, lining the zeolite with a layer of activated carbonaceous material, placing the waste material within the lined recessed area, forming a ceiling over the waste material of a layer of activated carbonaceous material, a layer of zeolite, and a layer of clay, the layers in the ceiling cojoining with the respective layers forming the walls of the structure, and finally, covering the ceiling with earth.

  11. The Sanford underground research facility at Homestake

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Heise, J.

    2014-06-24

    The former Homestake gold mine in Lead, South Dakota is being transformed into a dedicated laboratory to pursue underground research in rare-process physics, as well as offering research opportunities in other disciplines such as biology, geology and engineering. A key component of the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) is the Davis Campus, which is in operation at the 4850-foot level (4300 m.w.e) and currently hosts three projects: the LUX dark matter experiment, the MAJORANA DEMONSTRATOR neutrinoless double-beta decay experiment and the CUBED low-background counter. Plans for possible future experiments at SURF are well underway and include long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments, future dark matter experiments as well as nuclear astrophysics accelerators. Facility upgrades to accommodate some of these future projects have already started. SURF is a dedicated facility with significant expansion capability.

  12. WIPP Begins Underground Decontamination Activities

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

    used underground to direct or block ventilation flow in open panels. It is a low permeability polyethylene (plastic) cloth. These activities will continue for the next several...

  13. Underground house book

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Campbell, S.

    1980-01-01

    Aesthetics, attitudes, and acceptance of earth-covered buildings are examined initially, followed by an examination of land, money, water, earth, design, heat, and interior factors. Contributions made by architect Frank Lloyd Wright are discussed and reviewed. Contemporary persons, mostly designers, who contribute from their experiences with underground structures are Andy Davis; Rob Roy; Malcolm Wells; John Barnard, Jr.; Jeff Sikora; and Don Metz. A case study to select the site, design, and prepare to construct Earthtech 6 is described. Information is given in appendices on earth-protected buildings and existing basements; financing earth-sheltered housing; heating-load calculations and life-cycle costing; and designer names and addresses. (MCW)

  14. Hydrologic resources management program and underground test area operable unit fy 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, D. F., LLNL

    1998-05-01

    This report present the results of FY 1997 technical studies conducted by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) as part of the Hydrology and Radionuclide Migration Program (HRMP) and Underground Test Area Operable Unit (UGTA). The HRMP is sponsored by the US Department of Energy to assess the environmental (radiochemical and hydrologic) consequences of underground nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site.

  15. California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) California Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  16. WPCF Underground Injection Control Disposal Permit Evaluation...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    WPCF Underground Injection Control Disposal Permit Evaluation and Fact Sheet Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Report: WPCF Underground Injection...

  17. Washington Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  18. Mississippi Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  19. Pennsylvania Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May...

  20. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Previous Articles Previous Articles Estimates of Peak Underground Working Gas Storage Capacity in the United States, 2009 Update (Released, 8312009) Estimates of Peak Underground...

  1. The WIPP Underground Ventilation System

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

    the ventilation system provides a continuous flow of fresh air to the underground tunnels and rooms that make up the disposal facility at WIPP. Air is supplied to the...

  2. Workers Adjust Ventilation in WIPP Underground

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

    29, 2014 Workers Adjust Ventilation in WIPP Underground On May 28, WIPP workers entered the underground facility to adjust the ventilation system. While underground, they adjusted a regulator on a bulkhead door and closed and taped doors at another underground location to allow more air flow through Panel 7 and better ventilation control in preparation for the planned filter change. Geotechnical experts also conducted underground inspections at several locations to make sure the ground was still

  3. Microsoft Word - 2006 Final CNTA Field Data Report.doc

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    49 Hydrologic Data and Evaluation for Wells Near the Faultless Underground Nuclear Test, Central Nevada Test Area Prepared by Brad Lyles, Phil Oberlander, David Gillespie, Dee Donithan, and Jenny Chapman submitted to Nevada Site Office National Nuclear Security Administration U.S. Department of Energy Las Vegas, Nevada May 2006 Publication No. 45219 Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily

  4. Microsoft Word - 45196.doc

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    24 Contaminant Boundary at the Faultless Underground Nuclear Test Prepared by Greg Pohll, Karl Pohlmann, Jeff Daniels, Ahmed Hassan and Jenny Chapman submitted to Nevada Site Office National Nuclear Security Administration U.S. Department of Energy Las Vegas, Nevada APRIL 2003 Publication No. 45196 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,

  5. Underground Coal Gasification Program

    Energy Science and Technology Software Center (OSTI)

    1994-12-01

    CAVSIM is a three-dimensional, axisymmetric model for resource recovery and cavity growth during underground coal gasification (UCG). CAVSIM is capable of following the evolution of the cavity from near startup to exhaustion, and couples explicitly wall and roof surface growth to material and energy balances in the underlying rubble zones. Growth mechanisms are allowed to change smoothly as the system evolves from a small, relatively empty cavity low in the coal seam to a large,more » almost completely rubble-filled cavity extending high into the overburden rock. The model is applicable to nonswelling coals of arbitrary seam thickness and can handle a variety of gas injection flow schedules or compositions. Water influx from the coal aquifer is calculated by a gravity drainage-permeation submodel which is integrated into the general solution. The cavity is considered to consist of up to three distinct rubble zones and a void space at the top. Resistance to gas flow injected from a stationary source at the cavity floor is assumed to be concentrated in the ash pile, which builds up around the source, and also the overburden rubble which accumulates on top of this ash once overburden rock is exposed at the cavity top. Char rubble zones at the cavity side and edges are assumed to be highly permeable. Flow of injected gas through the ash to char rubble piles and the void space is coupled by material and energy balances to cavity growth at the rubble/coal, void/coal and void/rock interfaces. One preprocessor and two postprocessor programs are included - SPALL calculates one-dimensional mean spalling rates of coal or rock surfaces exposed to high temperatures and generates CAVSIM input: TAB reads CAVSIM binary output files and generates ASCII tables of selected data for display; and PLOT produces dot matrix printer or HP printer plots from TAB output.« less

  6. Logistics background study: underground mining

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hanslovan, J. J.; Visovsky, R. G.

    1982-02-01

    Logistical functions that are normally associated with US underground coal mining are investigated and analyzed. These functions imply all activities and services that support the producing sections of the mine. The report provides a better understanding of how these functions impact coal production in terms of time, cost, and safety. Major underground logistics activities are analyzed and include: transportation and personnel, supplies and equipment; transportation of coal and rock; electrical distribution and communications systems; water handling; hydraulics; and ventilation systems. Recommended areas for future research are identified and prioritized.

  7. Dynamic Underground Stripping Demonstration Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D. ); udel, K. . Dept. of Mechanical Engineering)

    1992-03-01

    LLNL is collaborating with the UC Berkeley College of Engineering to develop and demonstrate a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called Dynamic Stripping'' to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it will combine steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. In the first 8 months of the project, a Clean Site engineering test was conducted to prove the field application of the techniques before moving to the contaminated site in FY 92.

  8. 2009 underground/longwall mining buyer's guide

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2009-06-15

    The guide lists US companies supplying equipment and services to underground mining operations. An index by product category is included.

  9. nuclear

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    2%2A en U.S-, Japan Exchange Best Practices on Nuclear Emergency Response http:nnsa.energy.govmediaroompressreleasesu.s-japan-exchange-best-practices-nuclear-emergency-respon...

  10. High Temperature Superconducting Underground Cable

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Farrell, Roger, A.

    2010-02-28

    The purpose of this Project was to design, build, install and demonstrate the technical feasibility of an underground high temperature superconducting (HTS) power cable installed between two utility substations. In the first phase two HTS cables, 320 m and 30 m in length, were constructed using 1st generation BSCCO wire. The two 34.5 kV, 800 Arms, 48 MVA sections were connected together using a superconducting joint in an underground vault. In the second phase the 30 m BSCCO cable was replaced by one constructed with 2nd generation YBCO wire. 2nd generation wire is needed for commercialization because of inherent cost and performance benefits. Primary objectives of the Project were to build and operate an HTS cable system which demonstrates significant progress towards commercial progress and addresses real world utility concerns such as installation, maintenance, reliability and compatibility with the existing grid. Four key technical areas addressed were the HTS cable and terminations (where the cable connects to the grid), cryogenic refrigeration system, underground cable-to-cable joint (needed for replacement of cable sections) and cost-effective 2nd generation HTS wire. This was the worlds first installation and operation of an HTS cable underground, between two utility substations as well as the first to demonstrate a cable-to-cable joint, remote monitoring system and 2nd generation HTS.

  11. The Sanford Underground Research Facility at Homestake (SURF)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lesko, K. T.

    2015-03-24

    The former Homestake gold mine in Lead, South Dakota is being transformed into a dedicated laboratory to pursue underground research in rare-process physics, as well as offering research opportunities in other disciplines. A key component of the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) is the Davis Campus, which is in operation at the 4850-foot level (4300 m.w.e) and currently hosts three projects: the LUX dark matter experiment, the Majorana Demonstrator neutrinoless double-beta decay experiment and the Berkeley and CUBED low-background counters. Plans for possible future experiments at SURF are well underway and include long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments, future dark matter experiments as well as nuclear astrophysics accelerators. Facility upgrades to accommodate some of these future projects have already started. SURF is a dedicated facility with significant expansion capability. These plans include a Generation-2 Dark Matter experiment and the US flagship neutrino experiment, LBNE.

  12. The Sanford Underground Research Facility at Homestake (SURF)

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Lesko, K. T.

    2015-03-24

    The former Homestake gold mine in Lead, South Dakota is being transformed into a dedicated laboratory to pursue underground research in rare-process physics, as well as offering research opportunities in other disciplines. A key component of the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF) is the Davis Campus, which is in operation at the 4850-foot level (4300 m.w.e) and currently hosts three projects: the LUX dark matter experiment, the Majorana Demonstrator neutrinoless double-beta decay experiment and the Berkeley and CUBED low-background counters. Plans for possible future experiments at SURF are well underway and include long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments, future dark mattermore » experiments as well as nuclear astrophysics accelerators. Facility upgrades to accommodate some of these future projects have already started. SURF is a dedicated facility with significant expansion capability. These plans include a Generation-2 Dark Matter experiment and the US flagship neutrino experiment, LBNE.« less

  13. Sandia Energy - Study Could Help Improve Nuclear Waste Repositories

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

    underground clay formations for nuclear waste disposal, because clay offers low permeability and high radionuclide retention. Even when a repository isn't sited in clay,...

  14. Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility

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

    Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility Biomass 2014 Demand-Developing Biomarkets Fostering Technology Adoption I: Building the Market for Renewables with High Octane Fuels July 29, 2014 Ryan Haerer EPA Office of Underground Storage Tanks 1 Storing High Octane Fuels in Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)  Mid range E20-E30 high octane fuels being considered as possible path forward  Storing high octane ethanol blended fuels will require careful consideration of material

  15. The Underground Corrosion of Selected Type 300 Stainless Steels After 34 Years

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    T. S. Yoder; M. K. Adler Flitton

    2009-03-01

    Recently, interest in long-term underground corrosion has greatly increased because of the ongoing need to dispose of nuclear waste. Additionally, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires disposal of high-level nuclear waste in an underground repository. Current contaminant release and transport models use limited available short-term underground corrosion rates when considering container and waste form degradation. Consequently, the resulting models oversimplify the complex mechanisms of underground metal corrosion. The complexity of stainless steel corrosion mechanisms and the processes by which corrosion products migrate from their source are not well depicted by a corrosion rate based on general attack. The research presented here is the analysis of austenitic stainless steels after 33 years of burial. In this research, the corrosion specimens were analyzed using applicable ASTM standards as well as microscopic and X-ray examination to determine the mechanisms of underground stainless steel corrosion. As presented, the differences in the corrosion mechanisms vary with the type of stainless steel and the treatment of the samples. The uniqueness of the long sampling time allows for further understanding of the actual stainless steel corrosion mechanisms, and when applied back into predictive models, will assist in reduction of the uncertainty in parameters for predicting long-term fate and transport.

  16. Hawaii Underground Injection Control Permitting Webpage | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Permitting Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Hawaii Underground Injection Control Permitting Webpage Author State of Hawaii...

  17. Cryogenic slurry for extinguishing underground fires

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Chaiken, Robert F. (Pittsburgh, PA); Kim, Ann G. (Pittsburgh, PA); Kociban, Andrew M. (Wheeling, WV); Slivon, Jr., Joseph P. (Tarentum, PA)

    1994-01-01

    A cryogenic slurry comprising a mixture of solid carbon dioxide particles suspended in liquid nitrogen is provided which is useful in extinguishing underground fires.

  18. Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Capacity Peak Underground Working Natural Gas Storage Capacity Released: September 3, 2010 for data as of April 2010 Next Release: August 2011 References Methodology Definitions...

  19. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release...

  20. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release...

  1. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9...

  2. Oregon Underground Injection Control Registration Geothermal...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Form: Oregon Underground Injection Control Registration Geothermal Heating Systems (DEQ Form UICGEO-1004(f)) Abstract Required...

  3. Oregon Underground Injection Control Registration Application...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Form: Oregon Underground Injection Control Registration Application Fees (DEQ Form UIC 1003-GIC) Abstract Required fees and form...

  4. Washington Environmental Permit Handbook - Underground Injection...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Injection Control Registration webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Washington Environmental Permit Handbook -...

  5. Oregon Underground Injection Control Program Authorized Injection...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Oregon Underground Injection Control Program Authorized Injection Systems Webpage Author Oregon Department of...

  6. ,"Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  7. ,"California Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  8. ,"Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  9. ,"Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  10. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  11. ,"Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  12. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals ...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  13. ,"Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  14. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  15. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  16. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  17. ,"Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  18. ,"Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  19. ,"Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  20. ,"Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  1. ,"Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  2. ,"Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  3. ,"Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  4. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  5. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  6. ,"Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  7. ,"Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  8. ,"Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  9. ,"Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  10. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data...

  11. Weekly Working Gas in Underground Storage

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

    company data. Notes: This table tracks U.S. natural gas inventories held in underground storage facilities. The weekly stocks generally are the volumes of working gas as...

  12. Westinghouse Again Recognized For Safe Underground Operations...

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

    and operating contractor for DOE at WIPP. The company's underground operations include mining, hoisting, maintenance, engineering and other related activities. The Certificate of...

  13. ,"Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity "

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ...orcapaepg0sacmmcfm.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity " "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NGMEP...

  14. Advantages of co-located spent fuel reprocessing, repository and underground reactor facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mahar, James M.; Kunze, Jay F.; Wes Myers, Carl; Loveland, Ryan

    2007-07-01

    The purpose of this work is to extend the discussion of potential advantages of the underground nuclear park (UNP) concept by making specific concept design and cost estimate comparisons for both present Generation III types of reactors and for some of the modular Gen IV or the GNEP modular concept. For the present Gen III types, we propose co-locating reprocessing and (re)fabrication facilities along with disposal facilities in the underground park. The goal is to determine the site costs and facility construction costs of such a complex which incorporates the advantages of a closed fuel cycle, nuclear waste repository, and ultimate decommissioning activities all within the UNP. Modular power generation units are also well-suited for placement underground and have the added advantage of construction using current and future tunnel boring machine technology. (authors)

  15. Underground storage tank management plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1994-09-01

    The Underground Storage Tank (UST) Management Program at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant was established to locate UST systems in operation at the facility, to ensure that all operating UST systems are free of leaks, and to establish a program for the removal of unnecessary UST systems and upgrade of UST systems that continue to be needed. The program implements an integrated approach to the management of UST systems, with each system evaluated against the same requirements and regulations. A common approach is employed, in accordance with Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) regulations and guidance, when corrective action is mandated. This Management Plan outlines the compliance issues that must be addressed by the UST Management Program, reviews the current UST inventory and compliance approach, and presents the status and planned activities associated with each UST system. The UST Management Plan provides guidance for implementing TDEC regulations and guidelines for petroleum UST systems. (There are no underground radioactive waste UST systems located at Y-12.) The plan is divided into four major sections: (1) regulatory requirements, (2) implementation requirements, (3) Y-12 Plant UST Program inventory sites, and (4) UST waste management practices. These sections describe in detail the applicable regulatory drivers, the UST sites addressed under the Management Program, and the procedures and guidance used for compliance with applicable regulations.

  16. Twenty Years of Underground Research at Canada's URL

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chandler, N. A.

    2003-02-27

    Construction of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's (AECL's) Underground Research Laboratory (URL) began in 1982. The URL was designed to address the needs of the Canadian nuclear fuel waste management program. Over the years, a comprehensive program of geologic characterization and underground hydrogeologic, geotechnical and geomechanical projects have been performed, many of which are ongoing. The scientific work at the URL has evolved through a number of different phases to meet the changing needs of Canada's waste management program. The various phases of the URL have included siting, site evaluation, construction and operation. Collaboration with international organizations is encouraged at the URL, with the facility being a centre of excellence in an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) network of underground facilities. One of AECL's major achievements of the past 20 year program has been the preparation and public defense of a ten-volume Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a conceptual deep geologic repository. Completion of this dissertation on the characterization, construction and performance modeling of a conceptual repository in the granite rock of the Canadian Shield was largely based on work conducted at the URL. Work conducted over the seven years since public defense of the EIS has been directed towards developing those engineering and performance assessment tools that would be required for implementation of a deep geologic repository. The URL continues to be a very active facility with ongoing experiments and demonstrations performed for a variety of Canadian and international radioactive waste management organizations.

  17. DOE - Office of Legacy Management -- Hoe Creek Underground Coal...

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    Hoe Creek Underground Coal Gasification Site - 045 FUSRAP Considered Sites Site: Hoe Creek Underground Coal Gasification Site (045) Designated Name: Alternate Name: Location: ...

  18. Montana Underground Storage Tanks Webpage | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Storage Tanks Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Montana Underground Storage Tanks Webpage Abstract Provides overview...

  19. Alaska Underground Storage Tanks Website | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Storage Tanks Website Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Alaska Underground Storage Tanks Website Author Division of Spill...

  20. Hawaii Department of Health Underground Storage Tank Webpage...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Storage Tank Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Hawaii Department of Health Underground Storage Tank Webpage Abstract...

  1. Montana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  2. Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Flow...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Flow and Transport Modeling - ... Video Presentation PDF icon Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) ...

  3. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1...

  4. Nevada Underground Tank Program Webpage | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Tank Program Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Nevada Underground Tank Program Webpage Abstract Provides overview of...

  5. New Mexico Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  6. EPA - Underground Injection Control Classes of Wells webpage...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Injection Control Classes of Wells webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: EPA - Underground Injection Control Classes of...

  7. Idaho Underground Injection Control Program Webpage | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Injection Control Program Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Idaho Underground Injection Control Program Webpage...

  8. Vermont Underground Injection Control Rule | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Injection Control Rule Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: Vermont Underground Injection Control...

  9. Kansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  10. West Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May...

  11. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage...

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

    Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year...

  12. Indiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  13. Oregon Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  14. Arkansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  15. Alaska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  16. Oklahoma Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  17. Nebraska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  18. Eastern Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net...

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

    Eastern Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Eastern Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

  19. Michigan Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  20. Minnesota Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  1. Utah Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  2. Missouri Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  3. Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  4. Maryland Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  5. Wyoming Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  6. Ohio Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  7. South Central Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume ...

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

    South Central Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar...

  8. Western Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net...

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

    Western Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Western Consuming Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

  9. Illinois Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  10. Iowa Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  11. Kentucky Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  12. Texas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  13. Louisiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  14. Alabama Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul...

  15. AGA Producing Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    AGA Producing Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic...

  16. South Central Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    Central Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year...

  17. New York Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) New York Working Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  18. NAC - 534 Underground Water and Wells | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    - 534 Underground Water and Wells Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: NAC - 534 Underground Water and...

  19. Picture of the Week: From nuclear weapons testing to stockpile...

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

    9 From nuclear weapons testing to stockpile stewardship On Sept. 23, 1992, the last full-scale underground test of a nuclear weapon was conducted by Los Alamos National Lab at the ...

  20. The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Two of the most important characteristics of an underground storage reservoir are its capacity to hold natural gas for future use and the rate at which gas inventory can be...

  1. False Radiological Alarm in WIPP Underground

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

    At approximately 7:40 a.m. Mountain Time today, a portable continuous air monitor (CAM) alarm activated in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) underground. Shortly after...

  2. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Citygate Price Residential Price Commercial Price Industrial Price Electric Power Price Gross Withdrawals Gross Withdrawals From Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Oil Wells Gross Withdrawals From Shale Gas Wells Gross Withdrawals From Coalbed Wells Repressuring Nonhydrocarbon Gases Removed Vented and Flared Marketed Production NGPL Production, Gaseous Equivalent Dry Production Imports By Pipeline LNG Imports Exports Exports By Pipeline LNG Exports Underground Storage Capacity Gas in Underground

  3. Dynamic underground stripping demonstration project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Newmark, R.L.

    1992-04-01

    LLNL is collaborating with the UC Berkeley College of Engineering to develop and demonstrate a system of thermal remediation techniques for rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called dynamic stripping to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it will combine steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. In the first eight months of the project, a Clean Site engineering test was conducted to prove the field application of the techniques. Tests then began on the contaminated site in FY 1992. This report describes the work at the Clean Site, including design and performance criteria, test results, interpretations, and conclusions. We fielded 'a wide range of new designs and techniques, some successful and some not. In this document, we focus on results and performance, lessons learned, and design and operational changes recommended for work at the contaminated site. Each section focuses on a different aspect of the work and can be considered a self-contained contribution.

  4. Underground pipe inspection device and method

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Germata, Daniel Thomas (Wadsworth, IL)

    2009-02-24

    A method and apparatus for inspecting the walls of an underground pipe from inside the pipe in which an inspection apparatus having a circular planar platform having a plurality of lever arms having one end pivotably attached to one side of the platform, having a pipe inspection device connected to an opposite end, and having a system for pivoting the lever arms is inserted into the underground pipe, with the inspection apparatus oriented with the planar platform disposed perpendicular to the pipe axis. The plurality of lever arms are pivoted toward the inside wall of the pipe, contacting the inside wall with each inspection device as the apparatus is conveyed along a length of the underground pipe.

  5. Method for making generally cylindrical underground openings

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Routh, J.W.

    1983-05-26

    A rapid, economical and safe method for making a generally cylindrical underground opening such as a shaft or a tunnel is described. A borehole is formed along the approximate center line of where it is desired to make the underground opening. The borehole is loaded with an explodable material and the explodable material is detonated. An enlarged cavity is formed by the explosive action of the detonated explodable material forcing outward and compacting the original walls of the borehole. The enlarged cavity may be increased in size by loading it with a second explodable material, and detonating the second explodable material. The process may be repeated as required until the desired underground opening is made. The explodable material used in the method may be free-flowing, and it may be contained in a pipe.

  6. Potential underground risks associated with CAES.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kirk, Matthew F.; Webb, Stephen Walter; Broome, Scott Thomas; Pfeifle, Thomas W.; Grubelich, Mark Charles; Bauer, Stephen J.

    2010-10-01

    CAES in geologic media has been proposed to help 'firm' renewable energy sources (wind and solar) by providing a means to store energy when excess energy was available, and to provide an energy source during non-productive renewable energy time periods. Such a storage media may experience hourly (perhaps small) pressure swings. Salt caverns represent the only proven underground storage used for CAES, but not in a mode where renewable energy sources are supported. Reservoirs, both depleted natural gas and aquifers represent other potential underground storage vessels for CAES, however, neither has yet to be demonstrated as a functional/operational storage media for CAES.

  7. Cost and code study of underground buildings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sterling, R.L.

    1981-01-01

    Various regulatory and financial implications for earth-sheltered houses and buildings are discussed. Earth-sheltered houses are covered in the most detail including discussions of building-code restrictions, HUD Minimum Property Standards, legal aspects, zoning restrictions, taxation, insurance, and home financing. Examples of the initial-cost elements in earth-sheltered houses together with projected life-cycle costs are given and compared to more-conventional energy-conserving houses. For larger-scale underground buildings, further information is given on building code, fire protection, and insurance provisions. Initial-cost information for five large underground buildings is presented together with energy-use information where available.

  8. RCW - 90.76 Underground Storage Tanks | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    - 90.76 Underground Storage Tanks Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: RCW - 90.76 Underground Storage...

  9. Notification for Underground Storage Tanks (EPA Form 7530-1)...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Notification for Underground Storage Tanks (EPA Form 7530-1) Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Form: Notification for Underground Storage Tanks...

  10. WAC - 173-360 Underground Storage Tank Regulations | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    60 Underground Storage Tank Regulations Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: WAC - 173-360 Underground Storage...

  11. Visit to the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2009-03-31

    U.S. Department of Energy scientists and administrators join members of the National Science Foundation and South Dakotas Sanford Underground Laboratory for the deepest journey yet to the proposed site of the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL).

  12. Visit to the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2009-01-01

    U.S. Department of Energy scientists and administrators join members of the National Science Foundation and South Dakotas Sanford Underground Laboratory for the deepest journey yet to the proposed site of the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL).

  13. Visit to the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory

    ScienceCinema (OSTI)

    None

    2010-01-08

    U.S. Department of Energy scientists and administrators join members of the National Science Foundation and South Dakotas Sanford Underground Laboratory for the deepest journey yet to the proposed site of the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory (DUSEL).

  14. NM Underground Storage Tank Registration | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Underground Storage Tank Registration Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- OtherOther: NM Underground Storage Tank RegistrationLegal...

  15. Accident Investigation of the February 5, 2014, Underground Salt...

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

    5, 2014, Underground Salt Haul Truck Fire at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Carlsbad NM Accident Investigation of the February 5, 2014, Underground Salt Haul Truck Fire at the...

  16. WAC - 173-218 Underground Injection Control Program | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    8 Underground Injection Control Program Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: WAC - 173-218 Underground Injection...

  17. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million...

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

    Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun...

  18. NMSA 72-12 Underground Waters | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    12 Underground Waters Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- StatuteStatute: NMSA 72-12 Underground WatersLegal Abstract New Mexico...

  19. NRS Chapter 534 - Underground Water and Wells | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    - Underground Water and Wells Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- StatuteStatute: NRS Chapter 534 - Underground Water and WellsLegal...

  20. Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility | Department of

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

    Energy Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility Breakout Session 1C-Fostering Technology Adoption I: Building the Market for Renewables with High Octane Fuels Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility Ryan Haerer, Program Analyst, Alternative Fuels, Office of Underground Storage Tanks, Environmental Protection Agency PDF icon haerer_biomass_2014.pdf More Documents & Publications Regulatory and Commercial

  1. Sandia Energy - Storing Hydrogen Underground Could Boost Transportatio...

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

    Storing Hydrogen Underground Could Boost Transportation, Energy Security Home Infrastructure Security Energy Transportation Energy Facilities Capabilities News News & Events...

  2. Pore Models Track Reactions in Underground Carbon Capture

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

    Pore Models Track Reactions in Underground Carbon Capture Pore Models Track Reactions in Underground Carbon Capture September 25, 2014 trebotich2 Computed pH on calcite grains at 1 micron resolution. The iridescent grains mimic crushed material geoscientists extract from saline aquifers deep underground to study with microscopes. Researchers want to model what happens to the crystals' geochemistry when the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is injected underground for sequestration. Image courtesy of

  3. Underground natural gas storage reservoir management

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ortiz, I.; Anthony, R.

    1995-06-01

    The objective of this study is to research technologies and methodologies that will reduce the costs associated with the operation and maintenance of underground natural gas storage. This effort will include a survey of public information to determine the amount of natural gas lost from underground storage fields, determine the causes of this lost gas, and develop strategies and remedial designs to reduce or stop the gas loss from selected fields. Phase I includes a detailed survey of US natural gas storage reservoirs to determine the actual amount of natural gas annually lost from underground storage fields. These reservoirs will be ranked, the resultant will include the amount of gas and revenue annually lost. The results will be analyzed in conjunction with the type (geologic) of storage reservoirs to determine the significance and impact of the gas loss. A report of the work accomplished will be prepared. The report will include: (1) a summary list by geologic type of US gas storage reservoirs and their annual underground gas storage losses in ft{sup 3}; (2) a rank by geologic classifications as to the amount of gas lost and the resultant lost revenue; and (3) show the level of significance and impact of the losses by geologic type. Concurrently, the amount of storage activity has increased in conjunction with the net increase of natural gas imports as shown on Figure No. 3. Storage is playing an ever increasing importance in supplying the domestic energy requirements.

  4. 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.

  5. Rotary steerable motor system for underground drilling

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Turner, William E.; Perry, Carl A.; Wassell, Mark E.; Barbely, Jason R.; Burgess, Daniel E.; Cobern, Martin E.

    2010-07-27

    A preferred embodiment of a system for rotating and guiding a drill bit in an underground bore includes a drilling motor and a drive shaft coupled to drilling motor so that drill bit can be rotated by the drilling motor. The system further includes a guidance module having an actuating arm movable between an extended position wherein the actuating arm can contact a surface of the bore and thereby exert a force on the housing of the guidance module, and a retracted position.

  6. Rotary steerable motor system for underground drilling

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Turner, William E.; Perry, Carl A.; Wassell, Mark E.; Barbely, Jason R.; Burgess, Daniel E.; Cobern, Martin E.

    2008-06-24

    A preferred embodiment of a system for rotating and guiding a drill bit in an underground bore includes a drilling motor and a drive shaft coupled to drilling motor so that drill bit can be rotated by the drilling motor. The system further includes a guidance module having an actuating arm movable between an extended position wherein the actuating arm can contact a surface of the bore and thereby exert a force on the housing of the guidance module, and a retracted position.

  7. Underground Test Area Quality Assurance Project Plan Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Irene Farnham

    2011-05-01

    This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) provides the overall quality assurance (QA) program requirements and general quality practices to be applied to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) Underground Test Area (UGTA) Sub-Project (hereafter the Sub-Project) activities. The requirements in this QAPP are consistent with DOE Order 414.1C, Quality Assurance (DOE, 2005); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Modeling (EPA, 2002); and EPA Guidance on the Development, Evaluation, and Application of Environmental Models (EPA, 2009). The QAPP Revision 0 supersedes DOE--341, Underground Test Area Quality Assurance Project Plan, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Revision 4.

  8. TITLE

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    Watec Resources Canter 1 I EVALUATION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AND TRANSPORT AT THE FAULTLESS UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR TEST, CENTRAL NEVADA TEST AREA I prepared by I Karl P o h l m a ~ , Jenny Chapman, Ahmed Hassan, and Charalambos Papelis ! submitted to Nevada Operations M c e U.S. Department of Energy SEPTEMBER 1999 Publication No. 45165 @ C F J C This report uas prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Department of

  9. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Underground Natural Gas Storage

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

    Facilities Map Storage > U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities Map About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities, Close of 2007 more recent map U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities, 2008 The EIA has determined that the informational map displays here do not raise security concerns, based on the application of the Federal Geographic Data Committee's

  10. Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 331 428 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Wisconsin Underground Natural Gas

  11. DOE - Office of Legacy Management -- Hoe Creek Underground Coal

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    Gasification Site - 045 Hoe Creek Underground Coal Gasification Site - 045 FUSRAP Considered Sites Site: Hoe Creek Underground Coal Gasification Site (045) Designated Name: Alternate Name: Location: Evaluation Year: Site Operations: Site Disposition: Radioactive Materials Handled: Primary Radioactive Materials Handled: Radiological Survey(s): Site Status: The Hoe Creek Underground Gasification site occupies 80 acres of land located in Campbell County, Wyoming. The site was used to

  12. Reaching Underground Sources (from MIT Energy Initiative's Energy...

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

    Reaching Underground Sources (from MIT Energy Initiative's Energy Futures, Spring 2012) American Fusion News Category: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Link: Reaching ...

  13. WSDE Underground Storage Tank Program webpage | Open Energy Informatio...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: WSDE Underground Storage Tank Program webpage Author Washington State Department of Ecology Published...

  14. EA-1943: Long Baseline Neutrino Facility/Deep Underground Neutrino...

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

    May 27, 2015 EA-1943: Draft Environmental Assessment Long Baseline Neutrino FacilityDeep Underground Neutrino Experiment (LBNFDUNE) at Fermilab, Batavia, Illinois and the...

  15. Hawaii Underground Injection Control Program Webpage | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Program Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Hawaii Underground Injection Control Program Webpage Author State of Hawaii Department...

  16. Oregon Underground Injection Control Program Webpage | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Oregon Underground Injection Control Program Webpage Abstract Provides overview of regulations...

  17. Utah Underground Storage Tank Installation Permit | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Storage Tank Installation Permit Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Form: Utah Underground Storage Tank Installation Permit Form Type Application...

  18. Utah Division of Environmental Response and Remediation Underground...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Environmental Response and Remediation Underground Storage Tank Branch Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Utah Division of...

  19. Analysis of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Underground and...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) Analysis of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Underground and MgO Samples by the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) This...

  20. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release...

  1. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)",1,"Annual",2014 ,"Release Date:","9...

  2. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Total Underground Storage",6,"Monthly","72015","01151973" ,"Data 2","Change in Working Gas from Same Period Previous Year",2,"Monthly","72015","01151973" ,"Release...

  3. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators",3,"Annual",2014,"06301935" ,"Release Date:","09302015" ,"Next Release Date:","10302015" ,"Excel File...

  4. Utah Underground Injection Control Program Webpage | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Injection Control Program Webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: Utah Underground Injection Control Program Webpage Abstract Provides...

  5. Oregon Fees for Underground Injection Control Program Fact Sheet...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Fees for Underground Injection Control Program Fact Sheet Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library PermittingRegulatory Guidance - Supplemental Material:...

  6. Hawaii Underground Injection Control Permit Packet | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    PermittingRegulatory Guidance - Supplemental Material: Hawaii Underground Injection Control Permit PacketPermittingRegulatory GuidanceSupplemental Material Author State of...

  7. EPA - Ground Water Discharges (EPA's Underground Injection Control...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Ground Water Discharges (EPA's Underground Injection Control Program) webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site: EPA - Ground Water...

  8. WSDE Underground Injection Control Well Registration Form | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Injection Control Well Registration Form Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Permit ApplicationPermit Application: WSDE Underground...

  9. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  10. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015"...

  11. South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  12. ,"Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015"...

  13. ,"Midwest Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  14. North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2...

  15. ,"East Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  16. ,"New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015" ,"Next...

  17. ,"Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015"...

  18. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015" ,"Next...

  19. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015"...

  20. ,"Mountain Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  1. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Of Series","Frequency","Latest Data for" ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","102015" ,"Release Date:","12312015" ,"Next...

  2. ,"Pacific Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ,"Worksheet Name","Description"," Of Series","Frequency","Latest...

  3. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Regional/State Underground...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    ... Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Source: Energy Information Administration, GasTran Natural Gas Transportation Information System, Underground Natural Gas Storage ...

  4. Additions to natural gas in underground storage to be nearly...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Additions to natural gas in underground storage to be nearly 50% higher this summer Although it's still spring, natural gas supply companies and utilities are already preparing for ...

  5. $50 and up underground house book

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Oehler, M.

    1981-01-01

    Earth-sheltered housing can be livable, compatible with nature, and inexpensive. Plans and designs for low-cost houses that are integrated with their environment make up most of this book. The author begins by outlining 23 advantages of underground housing and describing the histories of several unconventional buildings in the $50 to $500 price range. He also suggests where building materials can be bought and scrounged, describes construction techniques, and explains how to cope with building codes. Sketches, floorplans, and photographs illustrate the text. 8 references, 4 tables. (DCK)

  6. Method of locating underground mines fires

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Laage, Linneas (Eagam, MN); Pomroy, William (St. Paul, MN)

    1992-01-01

    An improved method of locating an underground mine fire by comparing the pattern of measured combustion product arrival times at detector locations with a real time computer-generated array of simulated patterns. A number of electronic fire detection devices are linked thru telemetry to a control station on the surface. The mine's ventilation is modeled on a digital computer using network analysis software. The time reguired to locate a fire consists of the time required to model the mines' ventilation, generate the arrival time array, scan the array, and to match measured arrival time patterns to the simulated patterns.

  7. 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.'

  8. Using {sup 222}Rn as a tracer of geophysical processes in underground environments

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lacerda, T.; Anjos, R. M.; Silva, A. A. R. da; Yoshimura, E. M.

    2014-11-11

    Radon levels in two old mines in San Luis, Argentina, are reported and analyzed. These mines are today used for touristic visitation. Our goal was to assess the potential use of such radioactive noble gas as tracer of geological processes in underground environments. CR-39 nuclear track detectors were used during the winter and summer seasons. The findings show that the significant radon concentrations reported in this environment are subject to large seasonal modulations, due to the strong dependence of natural ventilation on the variations of outside temperature. The results also indicate that radon pattern distribution appear as a good method to localize unknown ducts, fissures or secondary tunnels in subterranean environments.

  9. MODELING UNDERGROUND STRUCTURE VULNERABILITY IN JOINTED ROCK

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    R. SWIFT; D. STEEDMAN

    2001-02-01

    The vulnerability of underground structures and openings in deep jointed rock to ground shock attack is of chief concern to military planning and security. Damage and/or loss of stability to a structure in jointed rock, often manifested as brittle failure and accompanied with block movement, can depend significantly on jointed properties, such as spacing, orientation, strength, and block character. We apply a hybrid Discrete Element Method combined with the Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics approach to simulate the MIGHTY NORTH event, a definitive high-explosive test performed on an aluminum lined cylindrical opening in jointed Salem limestone. Representing limestone with discrete elements having elastic-equivalence and explicit brittle tensile behavior and the liner as an elastic-plastic continuum provides good agreement with the experiment and damage obtained with finite-element simulations. Extending the approach to parameter variations shows damage is substantially altered by differences in joint geometry and liner properties.

  10. Hazard index for underground toxic material

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, C.F.; Cohen, J.J.; McKone, T.E.

    1980-06-01

    To adequately define the problem of waste management, quantitative measures of hazard must be used. This study reviews past work in the area of hazard indices and proposes a geotoxicity hazard index for use in characterizing the hazard of toxic material buried underground. Factors included in this index are: an intrinsic toxicity factor, formulated as the volume of water required for dilution to public drinking-water levels; a persistence factor to characterize the longevity of the material, ranging from unity for stable materials to smaller values for shorter-lived materials; an availability factor that relates the transport potential for the particular material to a reference value for its naturally occurring analog; and a correction factor to accommodate the buildup of decay progeny, resulting in increased toxicity.

  11. Report on technical feasibility of underground pumped hydroelectric storage in a marble quarry site in the Northeast United States

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chas. T. Main, Inc.

    1982-03-01

    The technical and economic aspects of constructing a very high head underground hydroelectric pumped storage were examined at a prefeasibility level. Excavation of existing caverns in the West Rutland Vermont marble quarry would be used to construct the underground space. A plant capacity of 1200 MW and 12 h of continuous capacity were chosen as plant operating conditions. The site geology, plant design, and electrical and mechanical equipment required were considered. The study concluded that the cost of the 1200 MW underground pumped storage hydro electric project at this site even with the proposed savings from marketable material amounts to between $581 and $595 per kilowatt of installed capacity on a January 1982 pricing level. System studies performed by the planning group of the New England Power System indicate that the system could economically justify up to about $442 per kilowatt on an energy basis with no credit for capacity. To accommodate the plant with the least expensive pumping energy, a coal and nuclear generation mix of approximately 65% would have to be available before the project becomes feasible. It is not expected that this condition can be met before the year 2000 or beyond. It is therefore concluded that the West Rutland underground pumped storage facility is uneconomic at this time. Several variables however could have marked influence on future planning and should be examined on periodic basis.

  12. Section 53: Consideration of Underground Sources of Drinking Water

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

    Underground Sources of Drinking Water (40 CFR § 194.53) United States Department of Energy Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Carlsbad Field Office Carlsbad, New Mexico Compliance Recertification Application 2014 Consideration of Underground Sources of Drinking Water (40 CFR § 194.53) Table of Contents 53.0 Consideration of Underground Sources of Drinking Water (40 CFR § 194.53) 53.1 Requirements 53.2 Background 53.3 1998 Certification Decision 53.4 Changes in the CRA-2004 53.5 EPA's Evaluation of

  13. Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 123 366 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  14. Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 33 27 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Georgia Underground Natural Gas Storage -

  15. Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 112 395 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  16. Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 166 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  17. Overview of the Dynamic Underground Stripping demonstration project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D.; Udell, K.

    1992-08-01

    Dynamic Underground Stripping is a limited-scope demonstration of a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called ``Dynamic Stripping`` to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it combines steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. The system is targeted toward the removal of free-phase organics of all kinds. The LLNL gasoline spill is a convenient test site because much of the gasoline has been trapped below the water table, mimicking the behavior of dense organic liquids.

  18. Dynamic underground stripping to remediate a deep hydrocarbon spill

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yow, J.L. Jr.; Aines, R.D.; Newmark, R.L.

    1995-09-01

    Dynamic Underground Stripping is a combination of in situ steam injection, electrical resistance heating, and fluid extraction for rapid removal and recovery of subsurface contaminants such as solvents or fuels. Underground imaging and other measurement techniques monitor the system in situ for process control. Field tests at a deep gasoline spill at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory recovered over 26,500 liters (7000 gallons) of gasoline during several months of field operations. Preliminary analysis of system cost and performance indicate that Dynamic Underground Stripping compares favorably with conventional pump-and-treat methods and vacuum extraction schemes for removing non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) such as gasoline from deep subsurface plumes.

  19. Overview of the Dynamic Underground Stripping demonstration project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D. ); Udell, K. . Dept. of Mechanical Engineering)

    1992-08-01

    Dynamic Underground Stripping is a limited-scope demonstration of a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called Dynamic Stripping'' to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it combines steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. The system is targeted toward the removal of free-phase organics of all kinds. The LLNL gasoline spill is a convenient test site because much of the gasoline has been trapped below the water table, mimicking the behavior of dense organic liquids.

  20. Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Flow and Transport Modeling – Approach and Example

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Flow and Transport Modeling – Approach and Example

  1. Preliminary Notice of Violation, Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC |

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC Preliminary Notice of Violation, Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC February 18, 2016 Worker Safety and Health and Nuclear Safety Enforcement Preliminary Notice of Violation issued to Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC relating to an underground truck fire and a radiological release that occurred at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan On February 18, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Enterprise Assessments' Office of Enforcement issued

  2. Title 18 Alaska Administrative Code Chapter 78 Underground Storage...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    8 Underground Storage Tanks Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: Title 18 Alaska Administrative Code Chapter 78...

  3. ARM 17-56 - Underground Storage Tanks Petroleum and Chemical...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    6 - Underground Storage Tanks Petroleum and Chemical Substance Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: ARM 17-56 -...

  4. 30 TAC, part 1, chapter 334 Underground storage tanks general...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    34 Underground storage tanks general provisions Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: 30 TAC, part 1, chapter 334...

  5. Underground barrier construction apparatus with soil-retaining shield

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gardner, B.M.; Smith, A.M.; Hanson, R.W.; Hodges, R.T.

    1998-08-04

    An apparatus is described for building a horizontal underground barrier by cutting through soil and depositing a slurry, preferably one which cures into a hardened material. The apparatus includes a digging means for cutting and removing soil to create a void under the surface of the ground, a shield means for maintaining the void, and injection means for inserting barrier-forming material into the void. In one embodiment, the digging means is a continuous cutting chain. Mounted on the continuous cutting chain are cutter teeth for cutting through soil and discharge paddles for removing the loosened soil. This invention includes a barrier placement machine, a method for building an underground horizontal containment barrier using the barrier placement machine, and the underground containment system. Preferably the underground containment barrier goes underneath and around the site to be contained in a bathtub-type containment. 17 figs.

  6. Underground barrier construction apparatus with soil-retaining shield

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gardner, Bradley M. (Idaho Falls, ID); Smith, Ann Marie (Pocatello, ID); Hanson, Richard W. (Spokane, WA); Hodges, Richard T. (Deer Park, WA)

    1998-01-01

    An apparatus for building a horizontal underground barrier by cutting through soil and depositing a slurry, preferably one which cures into a hardened material. The apparatus includes a digging means for cutting and removing soil to create a void under the surface of the ground, a shield means for maintaining the void, and injection means for inserting barrier-forming material into the void. In one embodiment, the digging means is a continuous cutting chain. Mounted on the continuous cutting chain are cutter teeth for cutting through soil and discharge paddles for removing the loosened soil. This invention includes a barrier placement machine, a method for building an underground horizontal containment barrier using the barrier placement machine, and the underground containment system. Preferably the underground containment barrier goes underneath and around the site to be contained in a bathtub-type containment.

  7. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    012015 7:00:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NA1393NUS2","NA1392NUS2","NA1391NUS2","NGAEP...

  8. ,"Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"1012015 11:00:54 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070TX2"...

  9. Title 40 CFR 144 Underground Injection Control Program | Open...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    44 Underground Injection Control Program Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- Federal RegulationFederal Regulation: Title 40 CFR 144...

  10. ,"Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"01292016 2:35:48 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070KS2"...

  11. ,"U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity"

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    012015 7:00:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NGAEPG0SACW0NUSMMCF","NA1394NUS8"...

  12. Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0...

  13. Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0...

  14. Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 134,707 134,707...

  15. Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 21,300 21,300...

  16. Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 7,622 14,197...

  17. Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 46,944 46,944...

  18. Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0...

  19. Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 21,600 21,600...

  20. Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 46,677 46,677...

  1. Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 74,572 74,572...

  2. Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 105,889 105,889...

  3. Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) ...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 8,882...

  4. Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 8,081...

  5. Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 395,529 395,529...

  6. Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 115,418...

  7. Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 4,655 4,655...

  8. North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  9. New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3...

  10. Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 27,491...

  11. Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990...

  12. South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7...

  13. Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 338,916 338,916...

  14. New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  15. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8...

  16. Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 499 497...

  17. Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 31,205 31,205...

  18. Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 100,467...

  19. Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 19,202 19,202...

  20. Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 8,676...

  1. Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 167,385 163,458...

  2. Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 3,291 3,291 3,291...

  3. Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 12,862 9,993...

  4. Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 46,050...

  5. Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 262,136...

  6. Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 880 880 880 880...

  7. Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 55,226...

  8. Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 27,312 27,312...

  9. Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 153,933 153,933...

  10. Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 129,245...

  11. Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 3,705 2,366...

  12. Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 4,303...

  13. Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 39,062 39,062...

  14. Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 8,956...

  15. Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0...

  16. Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 33,234...

  17. Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Percent) Colorado Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 -4.5...

  18. New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 88,911 88,911...

  19. New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Percent) New York Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1991 9.4...

  20. Underground Flow Measurement and Particle Release Test | Department of

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Energy Underground Flow Measurement and Particle Release Test Underground Flow Measurement and Particle Release Test This document was used to determine facts and conditions during the Department of Energy Accident Investigation Board's investigation into the radiological release event at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Additional documents referenced and listed in the Phase 2 Radiological Release Event at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant on February 14, 2014, report in Attachment F.

  1. Underground radio technology saves miners and emergency response personnel

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

    Underground radio technology saves miners and emergency response personnel Underground radio technology saves miners and emergency response personnel Founded through LANL, Vital Alert Technologies, Inc. (Vital Alert) has launched a wireless, two-way real-time voice communication system that is effective through 1,000+ feet of solid rock. April 3, 2012 Vital Alert's C1000 mine and tunnel radios use magnetic induction, advanced digital communications techniques and ultra-low frequency transmission

  2. Respiratory Protection Requirements Reduced in Parts of WIPP Underground

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

    WIPP UPDATE: January 29, 2016 Respiratory Protection Requirements Reduced in Parts of WIPP Underground As a result of radiological risk mitigation efforts by WIPP Radiological Control teams, this week requirements for respiratory protection were lifted for a significant portion of the WIPP underground. The change in respiratory protection requirements applies to all areas south of S-2520 and represents a significant milestone in the contamination mitigation efforts. While the use of protective

  3. Heat transfer model of above and underground insulated piping systems

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

    (Conference) | SciTech Connect Heat transfer model of above and underground insulated piping systems Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Heat transfer model of above and underground insulated piping systems × You are accessing a document from the Department of Energy's (DOE) SciTech Connect. This site is a product of DOE's Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) and is provided as a public service. Visit OSTI to utilize additional information resources in energy science

  4. EIA - Natural Gas Pipeline Network - Underground Natural Gas Storage

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

    Storage About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 2007/2008 with selected updates Underground Natural Gas Storage Overview | Regional Breakdowns Overview Underground natural gas storage provides pipelines, local distribution companies, producers, and pipeline shippers with an inventory management tool, seasonal supply backup, and access to natural gas needed to avoid imbalances between receipts and deliveries on a pipeline network. There are three

  5. Emissions and Durability of Underground Mining Diesel Particulate Filter

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

    Applications | Department of Energy Durability of Underground Mining Diesel Particulate Filter Applications Emissions and Durability of Underground Mining Diesel Particulate Filter Applications Presentation given at DEER 2006, August 20-24, 2006, Detroit, Michigan. Sponsored by the U.S. DOE's EERE FreedomCar and Fuel Partnership and 21st Century Truck Programs. PDF icon 2006_deer_rubeli.pdf More Documents & Publications Testing an Active Diesel Particulate Filter on a 2-Cycle Marine

  6. Bubblers Speed Nuclear Waste Processing at SRS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2010-11-14

    At the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding has supported installation of bubbler technology and related enhancements in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). The improvements will accelerate the processing of radioactive waste into a safe, stable form for storage and permit expedited closure of underground waste tanks holding 37 million gallons of liquid nuclear waste.

  7. Bubblers Speed Nuclear Waste Processing at SRS

    ScienceCinema (OSTI)

    None

    2014-08-06

    At the Department of Energy's Savannah River Site, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding has supported installation of bubbler technology and related enhancements in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). The improvements will accelerate the processing of radioactive waste into a safe, stable form for storage and permit expedited closure of underground waste tanks holding 37 million gallons of liquid nuclear waste.

  8. Seismic signals from underground cavity collapses and other mining-related failures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Walter, W.R.; Heuze, F.; Dodge, D.

    1997-07-01

    The sudden collapse of man-made underground cavities have generated seismic signals as large as magnitude 5.4. Collapses are just one of the many types of mining associated seismicity including coalbumps and rockbursts which need to be identified and distinguished from potential clandestine nuclear explosions under the recently signed Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Collapses, coalbumps and rockbursts are of concern for seismically monitoring a CTBT for a number of reasons. First, they can look like explosions when using some seismic discriminant measures, such M{sub s}:m{sub b}, M{sub o}: m{sub b}, regional P/S ratios and depth. Second, underground nuclear explosions themselves produce cavities that might collapse, possibly aiding in the detection of a clandestine event. Finally, because all mine-related events occur in the vicinity of underground cavities, they may come under special scrutiny because of the concern that very large, specially constructed cavities could be used to evasively decouple a clandestine test. For these reasons mine-related seismicity in both active and former mining regions have the potential to be false alarms under a CTBT. We are investigating techniques to identify collapses, either directly via waveform modeling, or indirectly by combining several seismic discriminants. We are also investigating the source mechanisms of coalbumps and collapses to better understand the performance of seismic discriminants for these events. In particular we have found similarities in point source models of some longwall coalbumps, room- and-pillar mine collapses and NTS nuclear explosion cavity collapses. In order to understand coalbumps we are analyzing events from central Utah recorded at regional distances in Utah and Nevada including at the auxiliary station ELK. Some of these have anomalous, explosion- like high frequency P/S ratios. We are combining this new study with results from previous field work done in 1995 at a Colorado long-wall coal mining operation. Similarly to longwall coal mines in Utah and elsewhere, this Colorado mine completely excavates a 3m high coal seam in 250 m wide panels leaving the material above unsupported. The roof material above the excavated seam eventually collapses resulting in seismic events.

  9. Cryograb: A Novel Approach to the Retrieval of Waste from Underground Storage Tanks - 13501

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    O'Brien, Luke; Baker, Stephen; Bowen, Bob; Mallick, Pramod; Smith, Gary; King, Bill; Judd, Laurie

    2013-07-01

    The UK's National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) is investigating the use of cryogenic technology for the recovery of nuclear waste. Cryograb, freezing the waste on a 'cryo-head' and then retrieves it as a single mass which can then be treated or stabilized as necessary. The technology has a number of benefits over other retrieval approaches in that it minimizes sludge disturbance thereby reducing effluent arising and it can be used to de-water, and thereby reduce the volume of waste. The technology has been successfully deployed for a variety of nuclear and non-nuclear waste recovery operations. The application of Cryograb for the recovery of waste from US underground storage tanks is being explored through a US DOE International Technology Transfer and Demonstration programme. A sample deployment being considered involves the recovery of residual mounds of sludge material from waste storage tanks at Savannah River. Operational constraints and success criteria were agreed prior to the completion of a process down selection exercise which specified the preferred configuration of the cryo-head and supporting plant. Subsequent process modeling identified retrieval rates and temperature gradients through the waste and tank infrastructure. The work, which has been delivered in partnership with US DOE, SRNL, NuVision Engineering and Frigeo AB has demonstrated the technical feasibility of the approach (to TRL 2) and has resulted in the allocation of additional funding from DOE to take the programme to bench and cold pilot-scale trials. (authors)

  10. Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Tour |

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Department of Energy Tour Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Tour Tour Booklet from the Nevada National Security Site Underground Test Area (UGTA) Tour on December 10, 2014 at the Performance and Risk Assessment (P&RA) Community of Practice (CoP) Annual Technical Exchange Meeting. Photos - December 10, 2014 Site Tour of the Nevada National Security Site for participants of the 2014 P&RA CoP Technical Exchange Meeting. PDF icon Nevada National Security Site

  11. Underground CO2 Storage, Natural Gas Recovery Targeted by Virginia

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

    Tech/NETL Research | Department of Energy Underground CO2 Storage, Natural Gas Recovery Targeted by Virginia Tech/NETL Research Underground CO2 Storage, Natural Gas Recovery Targeted by Virginia Tech/NETL Research October 20, 2015 - 8:14am Addthis Researchers from Virginia Tech are injecting CO2 into coal seams in three locations in Buchanan County, Va., as part of an NETL-sponsored CO2 storage research project associated with enhanced gas recovery. Researchers from Virginia Tech are

  12. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 16,327 13,253 15,555 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into

  13. Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 293 769 314 1970's 770 937 1,496 413 403 3,912 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring

  14. Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Feet) Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 119 667 567 1970's 570 841 422 2,881 2,110 1,727 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage

  15. Midwest Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Midwest Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Midwest Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 37.40 45.00 76.80 72.40 37.80 19.80 9.30 5.40 3.90 4.50 12.10 15.50 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  16. Mountain Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Mountain Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Mountain Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 -4.70 13.00 35.00 41.50 36.90 27.10 22.30 18.60 16.40 14.60 18.60 22.30 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W

  17. New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 805 975 1,281 1970's 1,447 1,626 1,765 1,867 3,953 6,378 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  18. North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 97 2,626 2,019 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections

  19. Pacific Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Pacific Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 39.40 137.00 162.70 103.50 62.40 34.80 25.30 14.90 12.90 9.80 8.70 -0.90 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  20. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 97 243 137 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of

  1. South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 48 80 70 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas

  2. South Central Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) South Central Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) South Central Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 24.30 27.20 70.30 75.70 64.30 50.50 39.00 35.90 29.90 21.20 22.90 24.80 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  3. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground Storage

  4. Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 683 740 746 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of

  5. Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Feet) Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 441 1,241 2,017 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators

  6. Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 1,274 1,500 179 1970's 391 189 255 2,012 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections

  7. Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's 980 1,255 878 1970's 602 1,463 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Delaware

  8. East Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) East Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) East Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Percent) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015 18.70 25.80 44.60 46.20 30.10 21.40 13.70 11.10 6.70 2.90 9.90 15.30 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  9. Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Idaho Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's -112 -395 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground

  10. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 120 567 -69 -477 -330 -112 -133 -48 -61 -27 3 387 1991 361 223 96 -160 -257 -312 -291 4 -93 32 77 53 1992 426 123 311 198 -391 -307 -299 -184 -126 4 7 193 1993 395 417 417 41 -331 -358 -426 -134 -248 -87 75 310 1994 497 184 180 145 -342 -374 -371 -207 -150 2 3 68 1995 491 456 246 44 -331 -262

  11. Dynamic Underground Stripping Demonstration Project. Interim progress report, 1991

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aines, R.; Newmark, R.; McConachie, W.; Rice, D.; Ramirez, A.; Siegel, W.; Buettner, M.; Daily, W.; Krauter, P.; Folsom, E.; Boegel, A.J.; Bishop, D.; udel, K.

    1992-03-01

    LLNL is collaborating with the UC Berkeley College of Engineering to develop and demonstrate a system of thermal remediation and underground imaging techniques for use in rapid cleanup of localized underground spills. Called ``Dynamic Stripping`` to reflect the rapid and controllable nature of the process, it will combine steam injection, direct electrical heating, and tomographic geophysical imaging in a cleanup of the LLNL gasoline spill. In the first 8 months of the project, a Clean Site engineering test was conducted to prove the field application of the techniques before moving to the contaminated site in FY 92.

  12. Control Surveys for Underground Construction of the Superconducting Super Collider

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Greening, W.J.Trevor; Robinson, Gregory L.; Robbins, Jeffrey S.; Ruland, Robert E.; /SLAC

    2005-08-16

    Particular care had to be taken in the design and implementation of the geodetic control systems for the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) due to stringent accuracy requirements, the demanding tunneling schedule, long duration and large size of the construction effort of the project. The surveying requirements and the design and implementation of the surface and underground control scheme for the precise location of facilities which include approximately 120 km of bored tunnel are discussed. The methodology used for the densification of the surface control networks, the technique used for the transfer of horizontal and vertical control into the underground facilities, and the control traverse scheme employed in the tunnels is described.

  13. 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

  14. Department of Energy Announces 15 Projects Aimed at Secure Underground

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Storage of CO2 | Department of Energy 15 Projects Aimed at Secure Underground Storage of CO2 Department of Energy Announces 15 Projects Aimed at Secure Underground Storage of CO2 August 11, 2010 - 1:00pm Addthis Washington, DC - U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced today the selection of 15 projects to develop technologies aimed at safely and economically storing carbon dioxide (CO2) in geologic formations. Funded at $21.3 million over three years, today's selections will complement

  15. National Nuclear Security Administration U.S. Department of Energy

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

    U.S. Department of Energy For Immediate Release May 26, 2015 Contact: NNSA Public Affairs, (202) 586-7371 NNSA Conducts Experiment to Improve U.S. Ability to Detect Foreign Nuclear Explosions WASHINGTON, D.C. - Last week, a National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) led- team successfully conducted the fourth in a series of experiments designed to improve our ability to detect underground nuclear explosions. The Source Physics Experiment (SPE-4 Prime) is a fundamental step forward in the

  16. Nuclear Waste Partnership (NWP) Corrective Action Plan - Truck Fire and

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

    Radiological Release Phase I | Department of Energy - Truck Fire and Radiological Release Phase I Nuclear Waste Partnership (NWP) Corrective Action Plan - Truck Fire and Radiological Release Phase I Submittal of the Underground Salt Haul Truck Fire Corrective Action Plan and the Radiological Release Event Corrective Action Plan under Nuclear Waste Partnership LLC Contract DE-EM0001971. PDF icon Nuclear Waste Partnership (NWP) Corrective Action Plan - Truck Fire and Radiological Release Phase

  17. Xenon monitoring and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bowyer, Theodore W.

    2014-05-09

    How do you monitor (verify) a CTBT? It is a difficult challenge to monitor the entire world for nuclear tests, regardless of size. Nuclear tests 'normally' occur underground, above ground or underwater. Setting aside very small tests (let's limit our thinking to 1 kiloton or more), nuclear tests shake the ground, emit large amounts of radioactivity, and make loud noises if in the atmosphere (or hydroacoustic waves if underwater)

  18. Center for Theoretical Underground Physics and Related Areas - CETUP*2013 Summer Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Szczerbinska, Barbara

    2014-06-01

    In response to an increasing interest in experiments conducted at deep underground facilities around the world, in 2010 the theory community has proposed a new initiative - a Center for Theoretical Underground Physics and Related Areas (CETUP*). The main goal of CETUP* is to bring together people with different talents and skills to address the most exciting questions in particle and nuclear physics, astrophysics, geosciences, and geomicrobiology. Scientists invited to participate in the program do not only provide theoretical support to the underground science, they also examine underlying universal questions of the 21st century including: What is dark matter?, What are the masses of neutrinos?, How have neutrinos shaped the evolution of the universe?, How were the elements from iron to uranium made?, What is the origin and thermal history of the Earth? The mission of the CETUP* is to promote an organized research in physics, astrophysics, geoscience, geomicrobiology and other fields related to the underground science via individual and collaborative research in dynamic atmosphere of intense scientific interactions. Our main goal is to bring together scientists scattered around the world, promote the deep underground science and provide a stimulating environment for creative thinking and open communication between researches of varying ages and nationalities. CETUP*2014 included 5 week long program (June 24 July 26, 2013) covering various theoretical and experimental aspects of Dark Matter, Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics. Two week long session focused on Dark Matter (June 24-July 6) was followed by two week long program on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (July 15-26). The VIIth International Conference on Interconnections between Particle Physics and Cosmology (PPC) was sandwiched between these sessions (July 8-13) covering the subjects of dark matter, neutrino physics, gravitational waves, collider physics and other from both theoretical end experimental aspects. PPC was initiated at Texas A&M University in 2007 and travelled to many places which include Geneva, Turin, Seoul (S. Korea) etc. during the last 5 years before coming back to USA. The objectives of CETUP* and PPC were to analyze the connection between dark matter and particle physics models, discuss the connections among dark matter, grand unification models and recent neutrino results and predictions for possible experiments, develop a theoretical understanding of the three-neutrino oscillation parameters, provide a stimulating venue for exchange of scientific ideas among experts in neutrino physics and unification, connect with venues for public education outreach to communicate the importance of dark matter, neutrino research, and support of investment in science education, support mission of the Snowmass meeting and allow for extensive discussions of the ideas crucial for the future of high energy physics. The selected subjects represented the forefront of research topics in particle and nuclear physics, for example: recent precise measurements of all the neutrino mixing angles (that necessitate a theoretical roadmap for future experiments) or understanding of the nature of dark matter (that allows us to comprehend the composition of the cosmos better). All the covered topics are considered as a base for new physics beyond the Standard Model of particle physics.

  19. OAR 340-150 - DEQ Underground Storage Tank Rules | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    150 - DEQ Underground Storage Tank Rules Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: OAR 340-150 - DEQ Underground...

  20. H.A.R. 11-281 - Underground Storage Tanks | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    81 - Underground Storage Tanks Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: H.A.R. 11-281 - Underground Storage...

  1. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage Activity-Injects...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    12:20:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground Storage Activity-Injects (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5440US2" "Date","U.S. Natural Gas Salt Underground...

  2. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage Activity-Net...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground Storage Activity-Net (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5560US2" "Date","U.S. Natural Gas Non-Salt Underground...

  3. H.A.R. 11-23 - Underground Injection Control | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    3 - Underground Injection Control Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: H.A.R. 11-23 - Underground Injection...

  4. UAC R371-7 - Underground Injection Control Program | Open Energy...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    71-7 - Underground Injection Control Program Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: UAC R371-7 - Underground...

  5. U.S. Natural Gas Salt - Underground Storage - Base Gas (Million...

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

    - Underground Storage - Base Gas (Million Cubic Feet) U.S. Natural Gas Salt - Underground Storage - Base Gas (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov...

  6. Decision analysis of Hanford underground storage tank waste retrieval systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Merkhofer, M.W.; Bitz, D.A.; Berry, D.L.; Jardine, L.J.

    1994-05-01

    A decision analysis approach has been proposed for planning the retrieval of hazardous, radioactive, and mixed wastes from underground storage tanks. This paper describes the proposed approach and illustrates its application to the single-shell storage tanks (SSTs) at Hanford, Washington.

  7. ,"Lower 48 States Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    2:42:47 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" "Sourcekey","NGMEPG0SATR48MMCF","NGMEPG0SABR48MMCF","NGMEPG0SAOR48MMCF","NGMEPG0SANR48MMCF","NGM...

  8. Midwest Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 7,437 14,235 22,615 66,408 136,813 155,687 156,839 166,332 149,212 119,162...

  9. East Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage ...

    Annual Energy Outlook [U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)]

    Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 9,107 10,259 22,569 71,857 144,145 132,960 120,491 118,493 122,207 94,669...

  10. South Central Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground...

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 43,713 72,210 68,273 129,736 166,816 139,578 127,533 106,014 152,936 188,366...

  11. Mountain Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage...

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 3,332 3,794 5,368 10,280 21,621 24,914 25,040 22,154 20,026 18,254 8,894...

  12. Numerical Simulations of Leakage from Underground LPG Storage Caverns

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Yamamoto, Hajime; Pruess, Karsten

    2004-09-01

    To secure a stable supply of petroleum gas, underground storage caverns for liquified petroleum gas (LPG) are commonly used in many countries worldwide. Storing LPG in underground caverns requires that the surrounding rock mass remain saturated with groundwater and that the water pressure be higher than the liquid pressure inside the cavern. In previous studies, gas containment criteria for underground gas storage based on hydraulic gradient and pressure have been discussed, but these studies do not consider the physicochemical characteristics and behavior of LPG such as vaporization and dissolution in groundwater. Therefore, while these studies are very useful for designing storage caverns, they do not provide better understanding of the either the environmental effects of gas contamination or the behavior of vaporized LPG. In this study, we have performed three-phase fluid flow simulations of gas leakage from underground LPG storage caverns, using the multiphase multicomponent nonisothermal simulator TMVOC (Pruess and Battistelli, 2002), which is capable of solving the three-phase nonisothermal flow of water, gas, and a multicomponent mixture of volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in multidimensional heterogeneous porous media. A two-dimensional cross-sectional model resembling an actual underground LPG facility in Japan was developed, and gas leakage phenomena were simulated for three different permeability models: (1) a homogeneous model, (2) a single-fault model, and (3) a heterogeneous model. In addition, the behavior of stored LPG was studied for the special case of a water curtain suddenly losing its function because of operational problems, or because of long-term effects such as clogging of boreholes. The results of the study indicate the following: (1) The water curtain system is a very powerful means for preventing gas leakage from underground storage facilities. By operating with appropriate pressure and layout, gas containment can be ensured. (2) However , in highly heterogeneous media such as fractured rock and fault zones, local flow paths within which the gas containment criterion is not satisfied could be formed. To eliminate such zones, treatments such as pre/post grouting or an additional installment of water-curtain boreholes are essential. (3) Along highly conductive features such as faults, even partially saturated zones possess certain effects that can retard or prevent gas leakage, while a fully unsaturated fault connected to the storage cavern can quickly cause a gas blowout. This possibility strongly suggests that ensuring water saturation of the rock surrounding the cavern is a very important requirement. (4) Even if an accident should suddenly impair the water curtain, the gas plume does not quickly penetrate the ground surface. In these simulations, the plume takes several months to reach the ground surface.

  13. Cosmic rays muon flux measurements at Belgrade shallow underground laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Veselinovi?, N. Dragi?, A. Maleti?, D. Jokovi?, D. Savi?, M. Banjanac, R. Udovi?i?, V. Ani?in, I.

    2015-02-24

    The Belgrade underground laboratory is a shallow underground one, at 25 meters of water equivalent. It is dedicated to low-background spectroscopy and cosmic rays measurement. Its uniqueness is that it is composed of two parts, one above ground, the other bellow with identical sets of detectors and analyzing electronics thus creating opportunity to monitor simultaneously muon flux and ambient radiation. We investigate the possibility of utilizing measurements at the shallow depth for the study of muons, processes to which these muons are sensitive and processes induced by cosmic rays muons. For this purpose a series of simulations of muon generation and propagation is done, based on the CORSIKA air shower simulation package and GEANT4. Results show good agreement with other laboratories and cosmic rays stations.

  14. Underground coal gasification: a brief review of current status

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shafirovich, E.; Varma, A.

    2009-09-15

    Coal gasification is a promising option for the future use of coal. Similarly to gasification in industrial reactors, underground coal gasification (UCG) produces syngas, which can be used for power generation or for the production of liquid hydrocarbon fuels and other valuable chemical products. As compared with conventional mining and surface gasification, UCG promises lower capital/operating costs and also has other advantages, such as no human labor underground. In addition, UCG has the potential to be linked with carbon capture and sequestration. The increasing demand for energy, depletion of oil and gas resources, and threat of global climate change lead to growing interest in UCG throughout the world. In this article, we review the current status of this technology, focusing on recent developments in various countries.

  15. Economic comparison of passively conditioned underground houses. Master's thesis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Guy, H.L.

    1981-05-01

    The availability of cheap energy sources and the perfection of inexpensive, convenient heating and cooling systems has made the 'climate controlled' environment an integral and irreversible part of American life. However, the current shortage and high cost of fuel is threatening the quality and perhaps the availability of the climate-controlled environment. To prolong the life of the climate controlled environment, the national policy has been one of promoting conservation of the fuels that are available and promoting alternative energy systems that are often of high technology or of energy intensive materials. Fortunately, a grass roots response to the lack of energy has been an increase in the interest and construction of underground or earth-sheltered housing. The underground house, featuring a covering of earth on walls and roof, offers a high degree of energy conservation through low technology construction and the use of low energy intensive materials.

  16. Midwest Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Midwest Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Midwest Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 900 01/08 820 01/15 750 01/22 710 01/29 661 2010-Feb 02/05 604 02/12 552 02/19 502 02/26 464 2010-Mar 03/05 433 03/12 422 03/19 419 03/26 410 2010-Apr 04/02 410 04/09 429 04/16 444 04/23 462 04/30 480 2010-May

  17. Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 195 01/08 185 01/15 176 01/22 171 01/29 164 2010-Feb 02/05 157 02/12 148 02/19 141 02/26 133 2010-Mar 03/05 129 03/12 127 03/19 126 03/26 126 2010-Apr 04/02 126 04/09 126 04/16 129 04/23 134 04/30 138

  18. New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) New York Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 124,150 116,994 113,349 121,215 131,103 139,757 148,861 155,592 158,419 160,981 150,947 1991 127,051 118,721 114,190 117,571 124,275 132,029 140,317 149,058 157,799 163,054 158,736 151,036 1992 146,171 131,831 119,880 122,969 132,698 142,107 153,543 163,508 169,298 172,708 169,361 158,828 1993 145,521 129,184 118,756

  19. Nonsalt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Nonsalt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2006-Dec 12/29 841 2007-Jan 01/05 823 01/12 806 01/19 755 01/26 716 2007-Feb 02/02 666 02/09 613 02/16 564 02/23 538 2007-Mar 03/02 527 03/09 506 03/16 519 03/23 528 03/30 550 2007-Apr 04/06 560

  20. Nonsalt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Billion Cubic Feet) Nonsalt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Nonsalt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 826 01/08 763 01/15 702 01/22 687 01/29 671 2010-Feb 02/05 624 02/12 573 02/19 521 02/26 496 2010-Mar 03/05 472 03/12 477 03/19 487 03/26 492 2010-Apr 04/02

  1. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 439,384 418,280 409,494 412,498 435,089 454,844 474,266 493,301 510,714 521,774 518,006 489,515 1991 477,781 454,923 439,191 448,258 461,362 490,259 505,168 523,544 538,399 546,343 533,483 506,672 1992 463,200 428,363 392,474 394,514 420,383 452,412 478,259 500,938 516,378 527,568 522,419 491,542 1993 452,510 407,121 368,376

  2. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 296,629 281,511 286,917 279,978 298,202 307,083 317,720 325,432 332,591 338,392 353,804 327,277 1991 283,982 278,961 284,515 298,730 313,114 323,305 324,150 328,823 338,810 342,711 317,072 306,300 1992 288,415 280,038 276,287 282,263 290,192 301,262 318,719 326,705 339,394 346,939 330,861 299,990 1993 275,054 253,724

  3. Pacific Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Pacific Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 456,688 373,776 363,397 402,887 459,189 507,932 533,461 561,487 576,755 604,676 598,236 581,556 2015 535,012 532,186 534,713 552,592 584,491 595,030 603,251 606,862 617,976 638,832 628,206 579,071 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company

  4. Pacific Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Pacific Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Pacific Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 268 01/08 257 01/15 246 01/22 235 01/29 221 2010-Feb 02/05 211 02/12 197 02/19 193 02/26 184 2010-Mar 03/05 182 03/12 176 03/19 179 03/26 185 2010-Apr 04/02 189 04/09 193 04/16 199 04/23 209 04/30 220 2010-May

  5. Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 516,257 477,783 453,124 462,399 511,406 619,401 671,431 711,942 717,828 719,002 665,421 1991 543,808 501,265 471,608 482,628 527,550 545,866 569,927 607,093 651,148 669,612 658,358 627,857 1992 559,416 497,895 441,187 445,158 485,227 535,829 579,713 622,943 665,414 690,920 692,280 650,707 1993 580,189 479,149 417,953

  6. East Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    East Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) East Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 769 01/08 703 01/15 642 01/22 616 01/29 582 2010-Feb 02/05 523 02/12 471 02/19 425 02/26 390 2010-Mar 03/05 349 03/12 341 03/19 334 03/26 336 2010-Apr 04/02 333 04/09 358 04/16 376 04/23 397 04/30 416 2010-May 05/07

  7. Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 1993-Dec 12/31 1,411 1994-Jan 01/07 1,323 01/14 1,199 01/21 1,040 01/28 958 1994-Feb 02/04 838 02/11 728 02/18 665 02/25 627 1994-Mar 03/04 529 03/11 531 03/18 462 03/25 461 1994-Apr 04/01

  8. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 3,117 01/08 2,850 01/15 2,607 01/22 2,521 01/29 2,406 2010-Feb 02/05 2,214 02/12 2,026 02/19 1,853 02/26 1,738 2010-Mar 03/05 1,627 03/12 1,614 03/19 1,626 03/26 1,638 2010-Apr 04/02 1,670 04/09 1,754

  9. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 1993-Dec 12/31 2,322 1994-Jan 01/07 2,186 01/14 2,019 01/21 1,782 01/28 1,662 1994-Feb 02/04 1,470 02/11 1,303 02/18 1,203 02/25 1,149 1994-Mar 03/04 1,015 03/11 1,004 03/18 952 03/25 965 1994-Apr 04/01 953 04/08

  10. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 1,433,462 1,329,400 1,322,914 1,388,877 1,498,496 1,553,493 1,643,445 1,714,361 1,785,350 1,819,344 1,810,791 1,716,773 1995 1,601,428 1,510,175 1,467,414 1,509,666 1,586,445 1,662,195 1,696,619 1,688,515 1,768,189 1,818,098 1,757,160 1,613,046 1996 1,436,765 1,325,994 1,223,139 1,264,513 1,334,894

  11. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    (Million Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 888,010 816,597 813,746 830,132 876,457 908,444 941,985 966,686 1,002,402 1,021,144 997,644 956,234 1995 902,782 884,830 865,309 860,012 897,991 945,183 975,307 986,131 1,011,948 1,032,357 1,033,363 982,781 1996 896,744 853,207 837,980 849,221 885,715 916,778 929,559 928,785

  12. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013 16,578 28,110 27,940 28,524 29,473 30,384 31,284 32,766 34,652 36,346 35,441 34,016 2014 34,240 33,864 34,763 34,644 34,902 36,449 36,705 37,451 38,017 37,911 38,469 39,194 2015 39,008 38,823 38,587 38,405 38,476 38,554 38,725 38,832 38,740 38,792 38,658 38,516 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W

  13. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 369,842 350,519 355,192 376,146 401,513 414,633 418,894 421,696 426,235 440,326 397,785 1991 376,267 376,879 359,926 380,826 407,514 431,831 445,387 448,286 448,383 448,081 441,485 417,177 1992 374,166 357,388 341,665 355,718 382,516 404,547 418,501 431,069 445,438 455,642 446,085 390,868 1993 357,095 337,817 348,097

  14. Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 1993-Dec 12/31 570 1994-Jan 01/07 532 01/14 504 01/21 440 01/28 414 1994-Feb 02/04 365 02/11 330 02/18 310 02/25 309 1994-Mar 03/04 281 03/11 271 03/18 284 03/25 303 1994-Apr 04/01 287 04/08 293 04/15 308 04/22

  15. Salt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Salt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Salt Producing Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2006-Dec 12/29 101 2007-Jan 01/05 109 01/12 107 01/19 96 01/26 91 2007-Feb 02/02 78 02/09 63 02/16 52 02/23 54 2007-Mar 03/02 59 03/09 58 03/16 64 03/23 70 03/30 78 2007-Apr 04/06 81 04/13 80 04/20

  16. Salt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Salt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Salt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 159 01/08 123 01/15 91 01/22 102 01/29 108 2010-Feb 02/05 95 02/12 85 02/19 71 02/26 70 2010-Mar 03/05 63 03/12 71 03/19 80 03/26 89 2010-Apr 04/02 101 04/09 112 04/16 120

  17. South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 2010-Jan 01/01 985 01/08 886 01/15 793 01/22 789 01/29 779 2010-Feb 02/05 719 02/12 658 02/19 592 02/26 566 2010-Mar 03/05 535 03/12 548 03/19 567 03/26 581 2010-Apr 04/02 612 04/09 649 04/16 679 04/23 710

  18. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 799 683 623 539 539 539 673 807 919 1,022 1,126 1,127 1999 996 872 741 661 658 802 909 985 1,089 1,194 1,251 1,195 2000 1,031 855 792 729 711 711 711 711 711 760 874 959 2001 963 903 830 761 865 978 1,009 1,072 1,118 1,180 938 937 2002 987 988 990 990 965 962 949 945 942 940 852 852 2003 744

  19. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 456,385 449,625 443,662 508,009 518,658 531,197 544,212 538,450 539,191 556,768 562,961 526,092 1991 444,671 436,508 436,440 453,634 468,302 487,953 491,758 497,878 513,315 517,099 502,004 486,831 1992 455,054 440,895 435,515 438,408 456,948 469,532 491,515 508,950 511,787 516,598 496,232 459,458 1993 414,216 388,921 376,731

  20. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 4,337 4,797 5,190 3,883 309 -4,239 -6,215 -5,199 -5,007 -1,224 242 6,626 1991 3,318 1,714 5,949 3,331 -1,317 -3,831 -4,200 -4,430 -5,275 -1,759 -1,468 598 1992 5,804 2,758 6,690 4,146 368 -2,019 -4,177 -6,286 -5,922 -2,169 3,085 2,582 1993 4,633 7,123 4,322 3,979 -2,860 -5,276 -4,335 -5,066

  1. Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Colorado Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 66,554 61,757 56,567 52,684 52,375 56,614 62,829 68,028 73,035 74,259 80,053 1991 71,524 69,768 62,807 61,367 62,448 66,425 70,705 75,800 80,506 82,065 83,134 82,145 1992 78,319 74,888 68,199 64,030 63,685 65,682 69,830 76,095 82,007 84,134 81,041 78,303 1993 73,838 68,733 66,224 62,799 65,511 70,157

  2. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 7,862 17,834 34,190 160,946 247,849 262,039 269,285 244,910 208,853 134,234 47,094 16,471 1995 13,614 4,932 36,048 85,712 223,991 260,731 242,718 212,493 214,385 160,007 37,788 12,190 1996 12,276 39,022 32,753 130,232 233,717 285,798 303,416 270,223

  3. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 4,737,921 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,501 4,727,446 4,727,446 4,727,446 4,727,509 1995 4,730,109 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,647,791 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 4,593,948 1996 4,593,948

  4. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 530,741 349,007 159,102 30,353 9,093 4,218 8,493 5,462 6,537 22,750 119,120 256,340 1995 419,951 414,116 196,271 76,470 8,845 14,449 13,084 9,496 3,715 25,875 247,765 398,851 1996 435,980 333,314 236,872 66,149 12,958 4,261 2,804 5,141 5,152 24,515 213,277 269,811

  5. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 20,366 29,330 55,297 93,538 129,284 83,943 104,001 98,054 88,961 65,486 49,635 27,285 1995 24,645 25,960 57,833 78,043 101,019 100,926 77,411 54,611 94,759 84,671 40,182 33,836 1996 34,389 48,922 38,040 76,100 98,243 88,202 88,653 109,284 125,616 91,618 37,375

  6. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 2,026,828 2,068,220 2,068,220 2,068,428 2,068,428 2,068,428 2,074,428 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 2,082,928 1995 2,082,928 2,096,611 2,096,611 2,096,176 2,096,176 2,096,176 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 2,090,331 1996 2,095,131 2,106,116

  7. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 201,567 147,250 61,339 23,149 9,789 29,178 13,371 19,352 10,151 24,102 52,809 137,962 1995 166,242 120,089 100,955 31,916 17,279 19,712 35,082 62,364 16,966 33,762 102,735 181,097 1996 223,932 157,642 141,292 36,788 27,665 26,393 32,861 27,599 20,226 34,000 116,431 142,519 1997

  8. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 2,449 542 13,722 29,089 48,055 33,801 35,146 27,858 45,903 22,113 5,766 6,401 1995 2,960 9,426 8,840 10,680 42,987 47,386 37,349 22,868 31,053 25,873 15,711 3,003 1996 2,819 8,696 9,595 20,495 41,216 36,086 25,987 20,787 24,773 17,795 13,530 9,122

  9. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 58,880 70,469 16,774 11,878 2,078 1,522 2,158 2,524 1,024 3,314 29,483 47,719 1995 56,732 27,801 27,857 15,789 4,280 2,252 3,265 11,858 5,401 6,025 14,354 53,469 1996 89,320 52,624 24,847 9,346 4,785 4,298 12,886 21,661 6,866 14,578 24,096 48,438 1997 73,240 41,906

  10. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 2,832 7,609 5,181 -148 -4,486 -4,736 -5,657 -5,928 -3,720 -3,912 1,953 14,310 1991 20,045 9,791 3,415 -1,298 -3,536 -8,983 -5,100 -6,433 -10,675 -10,757 4,997 13,739 1992 18,442 11,535 3,325 -2,061 -7,583 -7,264 -10,141 -10,162 -10,088 -8,683 7,997 18,942 1993 18,991 10,808 2,692 -5,197 -6,482 -7,776 -10,550

  11. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 228,019 220,410 215,229 215,377 219,838 224,572 230,226 236,154 239,871 243,782 241,829 227,519 1991 225,964 215,495 211,852 213,588 218,084 228,720 234,297 240,868 252,335 263,855 255,740 241,570 1992 221,741 209,087 205,548 208,105 217,022 225,236 236,833 247,704 258,372 267,472 258,308 237,797 1993 218,826

  12. Illinois Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 2,189 271 2,720 9,668 32,390 37,507 29,406 35,531 34,922 20,388 6,532 1,553 1991 4,412 442 309 9,233 31,471 30,144 30,332 35,249 33,602 26,760 7,536 2,741 1992 778 229 589 6,696 32,026 31,485 31,568 35,782 32,858 28,319 7,586 6,487 1993 219 53 1,527 13,439 36,040 35,265 34,281 36,399 41,709

  13. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 39,109 51,391 35,669 13,364 1,516 4,750 12 27 1,385 1,696 5,938 42,293 1991 65,386 48,510 25,682 6,674 811 346 1,587 1,192 705 370 25,094 36,854 1992 58,896 43,677 25,836 15,274 864 1,625 3,428 469 396 2,165 21,849 48,535 1993 63,970 53,167 29,844 11,425 51 20 1,197 6 285 458 19,007 48,889 1994 81,206 49,934

  14. Midwest Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Midwest Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,721,231 2,723,336 2,725,497 2,725,535 2015 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,725,587 2,716,587 2,715,888 2,717,255 2,718,087 2,718,087 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable;

  15. Pacific Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Pacific Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 4,011 3,540 14,172 43,546 58,466 51,172 32,264 32,879 23,448 31,224 15,841 14,871 2015 5,947 15,411 23,160 28,448 37,851 21,448 19,718 17,633 22,413 27,233 13,622 8,742 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  16. South Central Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,578,946 2,577,866 2,578,498 2,578,547 2,590,575 2,599,184 2,611,335 2,616,178 2,612,570 2,613,746 2,635,148 2,634,993 2015 2,631,717 2,630,903 2,631,616 2,631,673 2,631,673 2,631,444 2,631,444 2,631,444 2,636,984 2,637,895 2,637,895 2,640,224 - = No Data Reported; -- =

  17. East Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    East Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) East Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 1,564,431 1,384,611 1,278,438 1,325,067 1,461,469 1,587,627 1,694,199 1,802,786 1,919,116 2,005,935 1,944,986 1,855,842 2015 1,646,880 1,452,241 1,354,893 1,424,602 1,568,074 1,690,349 1,779,707 1,884,448 1,978,322 2,037,633 2,032,760 1,975,139 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  18. East Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) East Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) East Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 237,678 179,804 106,232 -46,858 -136,399 -125,529 -106,553 -108,445 -116,239 -86,683 61,045 89,203 2015 206,803 194,649 98,736 -69,755 -143,443 -121,935 -90,489 -104,741 -93,904 -59,311 4,874 57,566 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W =

  19. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 406,358 395,084 390,792 397,000 415,841 433,111 451,251 467,272 480,567 484,278 484,868 464,807 1991 434,160 413,996 410,940 418,771 433,924 450,027 464,274 474,984 483,421 487,004 475,927 453,446 1992 423,942 396,889 367,681 369,328 393,606 411,353 433,399 452,065 465,496 478,316 472,378 449,402 1993 417,527 374,171

  20. Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Cubic Feet) Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Year-Month Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value End Date Value 1993-Dec 12/31 341 1994-Jan 01/07 331 01/14 316 01/21 303 01/28 290 1994-Feb 02/04 266 02/11 246 02/18 228 02/25 212 1994-Mar 03/04 206 03/11 201 03/18 205 03/25 202 1994-Apr 04/01 201 04/08

  1. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Feet) Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 849,115 666,248 313,952 100,096 58,314 80,472 115,649 125,989 55,418 51,527 183,799 473,674 2012 619,332 515,817 205,365 126,403 73,735 90,800 129,567 133,919 66,652 85,918 280,933 489,707 2013 792,541 646,938 480,974 134,926 48,708 68,483 98,656 101,571 66,276 84,336 364,579 806,265 2014

  2. Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Total Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 50,130 81,827 167,632 312,290 457,725 420,644 359,267 370,180 453,548 436,748 221,389 90,432 2012 74,854 56,243 240,351 263,896 357,965 323,026 263,910 299,798 357,109 327,767 155,554 104,953 2013 70,853 41,928 100,660 271,236 466,627 439,390 372,472

  3. Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 8,842,950 8,854,720 8,854,720 8,882,728 8,905,843 8,919,139 8,922,097 8,940,010 8,979,317 8,991,571 8,990,535 8,992,535 2013 8,965,468 8,971,280 8,986,201 8,988,916 9,020,589 9,027,650 9,033,704 9,048,658 9,087,425 9,093,741 9,090,861 9,089,358 2014 9,081,309 9,080,229 9,080,862 9,080,910

  4. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 2,439 -2,074 8,109 -669 -7,057 -14,173 -13,823 -13,760 -14,705 -15,181 -9,069 7,072 1991 48,879 30,368 10,947 -7,292 -19,263 -22,117 -11,877 -6,029 -18,632 -23,315 12,743 30,577 1992 42,343 24,031 10,774 -719 -19,021 -18,063 -13,811 -13,386 -16,545 -18,911 5,495 31,771 1993 42,366 38,260 19,889

  5. Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Louisiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 377,554 379,627 371,519 372,188 379,245 393,418 407,240 421,000 435,705 450,886 459,955 452,883 1991 405,740 373,892 361,085 367,797 387,769 411,591 425,349 435,719 453,303 477,425 464,906 433,184 1992 387,456 358,639 345,049 348,097 369,129 388,728 403,713 413,375 432,171 452,989 447,115 411,919 1993

  6. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Lower 48 States Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 798,985 584,421 146,319 -212,194 -399,411 -340,172 -243,618 -244,191 -398,130 -385,221 -37,590 383,241 2012 544,477 459,574 -34,987 -137,493 -284,231 -232,226 -134,343 -165,879 -290,456 -241,849 125,379 384,754 2013 721,687 605,009 380,314 -136,310

  7. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 3,632 10,174 5,905 2,064 -587 5,106 -11,583 -12,116 -15,641 -6,679 -4,510 21,682 1991 15,396 3,617 5,383 1,973 -6,552 -7,261 -2,559 -6,977 -10,203 -10,235 8,913 -2,317 1992 4,420 13,082 9,031 4,821 -2,161 -2,319 -4,255 -11,527 -10,142 -3,672 9,027 12,181 1993 19,567 16,242 5,193 -3,008 -23,351 -11,578 -5,301

  8. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 245,145 234,971 229,066 227,002 227,589 232,695 244,279 256,395 272,036 278,715 307,106 283,959 1991 247,980 246,067 240,702 238,606 244,878 254,222 257,114 260,728 271,373 282,551 273,225 274,836 1992 267,254 254,115 244,632 239,589 241,818 244,415 248,599 260,231 270,362 273,183 262,414 247,855 1993

  9. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 7,009 -3,443 1,276 -952 -4,745 -5,360 -7,787 -7,006 -7,202 -3,309 4,438 5,964 1991 6,950 3,513 2,589 -3,809 -2,358 -3,297 -5,327 -3,162 -3,437 460 6,590 2,686 1992 1,568 1,211 4,848 1,675 1,236 -1,546 -3,544 -1,610 -4,201 -10,704 1,514 2,982 1993 5,891 11,750 10,031 793 -6,525 -7,919 -7,627

  10. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 167,899 166,624 167,576 172,320 177,680 185,467 192,473 199,674 202,983 198,545 192,581 1991 183,697 180,169 176,535 181,119 183,491 186,795 192,143 195,330 198,776 198,351 191,831 189,130 1992 189,866 188,587 183,694 182,008 180,781 182,342 185,893 187,501 191,689 202,391 200,871 197,857 1993 192,736

  11. 200-Area plateau inactive miscellaneous underground storage tanks locations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brevick, C.H.

    1997-12-01

    Fluor Daniel Northwest (FDNW) has been tasked by Lockheed Martin Hanford Corporation (LMHC) to incorporate current location data for 64 of the 200-Area plateau inactive miscellaneous underground storage tanks (IMUST) into the centralized mapping computer database for the Hanford facilities. The IMUST coordinate locations and tank names for the tanks currently assigned to the Hanford Site contractors are listed in Appendix A. The IMUST are inactive tanks installed in underground vaults or buried directly in the ground within the 200-East and 200-West Areas of the Hanford Site. The tanks are categorized as tanks with a capacity of less than 190,000 liters (50,000 gal). Some of the IMUST have been stabilized, pumped dry, filled with grout, or may contain an inventory or radioactive and/or hazardous materials. The IMUST have been out of service for at least 12 years.

  12. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 36,920 51,120 32,950 3,696 -30,874 -32,757 -29,394 -35,504 -33,537 -18,692 -594 40,741 1991 60,973 48,068 25,373 -2,559 -30,660 -29,798 -28,745 -34,057 -32,897 -26,390 17,558 34,113 1992 58,118 43,448 25,247 8,578 -31,163 -29,861 -28,140 -35,313 -32,462 -26,155 14,263 42,048 1993 63,751 53,114

  13. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 806,109 754,941 721,785 717,863 749,618 782,498 812,054 847,731 881,760 900,526 903,640 870,265 1991 801,635 753,141 727,699 720,275 751,641 781,883 810,535 844,477 877,485 904,206 885,341 851,258 1992 791,129 743,484 716,909 709,150 742,812 774,578 805,097 843,543 878,334 905,597 887,454 844,108 1993

  14. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 4,651 3,709 1,605 -345 -1,751 -1,651 -2,257 -3,691 -4,174 -2,532 -744 3,768 1991 6,551 4,615 3,305 598 -1,770 -1,016 -2,813 -3,797 -4,467 -4,105 -802 4,626 1992 6,794 4,606 4,104 500 -1,206 -2,563 -5,123 -4,107 -5,203 -2,936 2,364 3,610 1993 5,575 5,021 2,557 -390 -1,247 -2,094 -4,346 -4,412

  15. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 96,943 93,233 91,600 91,945 93,696 95,361 97,632 101,323 105,497 108,028 108,772 105,317 1991 99,409 90,625 87,381 86,706 88,659 89,700 93,022 97,673 102,161 119,470 106,066 101,121 1992 94,379 89,893 85,767 85,259 86,457 88,999 94,154 98,267 103,478 106,422 103,871 100,288 1993 95,109 90,016 87,368

  16. Midwest Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Midwest Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Midwest Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 1,955,319 1,742,978 1,640,311 1,681,894 1,816,029 1,970,375 2,124,374 2,287,540 2,434,709 2,544,399 2,469,652 2,351,566 2015 2,114,435 1,841,510 1,747,800 1,804,413 1,933,388 2,061,375 2,180,135 2,319,930 2,461,785 2,582,258 2,578,620 2,475,469 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  17. Midwest Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Midwest Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Midwest Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 296,063 212,159 102,669 -41,683 -133,848 -154,212 -153,935 -163,132 -147,193 -111,005 74,778 118,280 2015 236,452 272,661 93,536 -56,557 -129,063 -127,490 -118,778 -139,059 -141,004 -122,971 3,645 102,720 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  18. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 7,755 -319 -769 -4,788 -4,824 -3,171 -6,320 -4,873 -3,975 -3,382 -486 -5,646 1991 12,024 5,196 450 -6,146 -4,093 -3,178 -2,054 -2,102 -5,101 -3,107 7,864 6,130 1992 9,794 1,362 2,086 -106 -3,896 -7,931 -4,165 -297 -6,250 -267 998 6,940 1993 5,799 8,091 5,644 -2,656 -7,032 -4,628 -5,330 -3,295

  19. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 79,285 79,603 80,373 85,161 89,985 93,156 99,475 104,348 108,323 111,705 112,191 106,545 1991 91,368 86,763 86,679 92,641 96,297 98,701 100,991 103,104 108,211 112,270 104,184 98,741 1992 89,008 87,873 85,498 85,665 89,979 94,898 99,555 100,116 106,504 107,770 107,015 100,433 1993 94,466 86,908

  20. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -1,536 2,285 -251 -1,109 5 5 6 -282 -506 -221 -9 288 1991 163 1,790 1,053 -2,136 -683 -89 -295 -302 -212 -219 -199 12 1992 1,498 1,199 330 -1,570 -427 -146 -266 -218 -208 -191 8 7 1993 1,091 1,811 1,085 -1,551 -1,049 -451 -102 -317 -206 -215 122 -149 1994 1,266 530 278 2,155 -1,454 -1,355 -316

  1. Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Missouri Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 29,681 27,396 27,647 28,756 28,751 28,746 28,740 29,021 29,527 29,748 29,757 29,469 1991 29,271 27,475 26,419 28,555 29,238 29,338 29,633 29,935 30,147 30,365 30,564 30,552 1992 29,054 27,856 27,527 29,097 29,524 29,671 29,937 30,155 30,363 30,554 30,546 30,539 1993 29,448 27,637 26,552 28,101 29,150

  2. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 3,955 3,294 1,294 1,004 378 -993 -2,139 -2,068 -2,648 -1,258 1,500 4,819 1991 4,869 1,410 1,308 79 -1,225 -1,235 -1,711 -1,438 -120 1,379 2,875 3,548 1992 3,412 2,207 484 -63 -1,517 -714 -1,026 -766 280 1,357 3,347 5,601 1993 5,100 4,420 2,759 1,710 1,157 685 -1,169 -302 -453 88 4,106 3,207 1994

  3. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 293,785 290,491 289,197 288,193 293,815 288,808 290,947 293,015 295,663 296,921 295,421 290,602 1991 289,270 287,858 286,548 286,491 287,718 288,959 290,667 292,107 292,226 290,844 288,112 284,559 1992 281,148 279,325 278,909 279,042 280,038 280,751 281,777 282,543 282,117 280,760 277,412 271,811 1993

  4. Mountain Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Mountain Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Mountain Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 558,453 523,122 503,750 502,309 519,323 541,977 562,863 580,527 598,135 610,882 598,284 573,155 2015 552,277 537,185 537,004 539,816 558,882 578,300 595,505 610,816 626,924 638,383 633,170 611,934 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  5. Mountain Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Mountain Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Mountain Regions Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 36,887 35,320 19,358 1,434 -16,967 -22,706 -21,457 -17,858 -17,611 -12,768 12,630 22,941 2015 20,797 15,081 34 -2,853 -19,103 -19,419 -17,214 -15,317 -16,112 -11,462 5,213 21,235 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  6. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 2,250 -3,160 -1,104 -732 -2,557 -1,057 -2,100 -2,660 -2,435 -1,237 2,125 991 1991 3,005 3,196 1,559 -903 -1,520 -1,590 -1,392 -2,061 -2,084 -800 -334 1,070 1992 3,314 5,269 2,840 958 -3,527 -2,867 -1,942 -2,546 -2,204 -1,333 -544 2,249 1993 4,189 5,170 2,455 613 -2,168 -1,119 -1,074 -1,646 -2,502

  7. Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 50,980 47,820 48,924 49,656 52,214 53,271 55,370 58,030 60,465 61,702 59,577 58,586 1991 55,450 52,159 50,537 51,458 52,941 54,594 55,998 58,233 60,342 61,017 61,304 61,207 1992 56,350 51,413 48,752 47,855 51,162 53,850 55,670 58,057 60,123 61,373 61,882 59,775 1993 56,503 52,155 50,240 49,746 51,939

  8. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 59,681 58,564 23,810 7,859 -48,468 -64,734 -75,437 -70,900 -52,873 -19,714 10,727 70,637 1991 116,396 63,462 23,719 -25,279 -47,963 -57,062 -58,225 -46,233 -27,703 -32,872 56,578 74,384 1992 82,535 72,236 62,627 -507 -43,850 -66,808 -73,161 -67,079 -67,401 -28,345 47,094 84,911 1993 96,216

  9. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 706,889 648,325 624,515 616,656 665,124 729,161 807,726 878,119 930,596 949,922 938,864 867,940 1991 743,402 679,102 654,930 682,092 729,387 786,753 845,224 891,823 911,554 952,843 894,499 818,602 1992 733,877 658,347 592,859 592,608 637,515 705,740 780,590 849,043 917,537 946,090 899,631 810,348 1993

  10. Method for recovering oil from an underground formation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hesselink, F.T.; Saidi, A.M.

    1982-12-21

    Method for recovering oil from an underground formation consisting of blocks of relatively low permeability with an oilwet pore space containing oil surrounded by a fracture network of relatively high permeability by supplying to the fracture network an aqueous solution of a surfactant adapted for decreasing the surface tension between water and oil and displacing the oil from the oil-wet pore space of the blocks.

  11. Methodology for EIA Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Estimates

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

    Methodology for EIA Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Estimates Latest Update: November 16, 2015 This report consists of the following sections: Survey and Survey Processing - a description of the survey and an overview of the program Sampling - a description of the selection process used to identify companies in the survey Estimation - how the regional estimates are prepared from the collected data Computing the Five-year Averages, Maxima, Minima, and Year-Ago Values for the Weekly Natural

  12. Revision Policy for EIA Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Estimates

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

    Revision Policy for EIA Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Estimates Latest Update: November 16, 2015 This report consists of the following sections: General EIA Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report Revisions Policy - a description of how revisions to the Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report estimates may occur EIA Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report Policy to Allow Unscheduled Release of Revisions - a description of the policy that will be implemented in the event of an out-of-cycle release

  13. Corrective Action Plan for Corrective Action Unit 262: Area 25 Septic Systems and Underground Discharge Point, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    K. B. Campbell

    2002-06-01

    This Corrective Action Plan (CAP) provides selected corrective action alternatives and proposes the closure methodology for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 262, Area 25 Septic Systems and Underground Discharge Point. CAU 262 is identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) of 1996. Remediation of CAU 262 is required under the FFACO. CAU 262 is located in Area 25 of the Nevada Test Site (NTS), approximately 100 kilometers (km) (62 miles [mi]) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The nine Corrective Action Sites (CASs) within CAU 262 are located in the Nuclear Rocket Development Station complex. Individual CASs are located in the vicinity of the Reactor Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly (R-MAD); Engine Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly (E-MAD); and Test Cell C compounds. CAU 262 includes the following CASs as provided in the FFACO (1996); CAS 25-02-06, Underground Storage Tank; CAS 25-04-06, Septic Systems A and B; CAS 25-04-07, Septic System; CAS 25-05-03, Leachfield; CAS 25-05-05, Leachfield; CAS 25-05-06, Leachfield; CAS 25-05-08, Radioactive Leachfield; CAS 25-05-12, Leachfield; and CAS 25-51-01, Dry Well. Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the locations of the R-MAD, the E-MAD, and the Test Cell C CASs, respectively. The facilities within CAU 262 supported nuclear rocket reactor engine testing. Activities associated with the program were performed between 1958 and 1973. However, several other projects used the facilities after 1973. A significant quantity of radioactive and sanitary waste was produced during routine operations. Most of the radioactive waste was managed by disposal in the posted leachfields. Sanitary wastes were disposed in sanitary leachfields. Septic tanks, present at sanitary leachfields (i.e., CAS 25-02-06,2504-06 [Septic Systems A and B], 25-04-07, 25-05-05,25-05-12) allowed solids to settle out of suspension prior to entering the leachfield. Posted leachfields do not contain septic tanks. All CASs located in CAU 262 are inactive or abandoned. However, some leachfields may still receive liquids from runoff during storm events. Results from the 2000-2001 site characterization activities conducted by International Technology (IT) Corporation, Las Vegas Office are documented in the Corrective Action Investigation Report for Corrective Action Unit 262: Area 25 Septic Systems and Underground Discharge Point, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. This document is located in Appendix A of the Corrective Action Decision Document for CAU 262. Area 25 Septic Systems and Underground Discharge Point, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. (DOE/NV, 2001).

  14. The Underground Test Area Project of the Nevada Test Site: Building Confidence in Groundwater Flow and Transport Models at Pahute Mesa Through Focused Characterization Studies

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pawloski, G A; Wurtz, J; Drellack, S L

    2009-12-29

    Pahute Mesa at the Nevada Test Site contains about 8.0E+07 curies of radioactivity caused by underground nuclear testing. The Underground Test Area Subproject has entered Phase II of data acquisition, analysis, and modeling to determine the risk to receptors from radioactivity in the groundwater, establish a groundwater monitoring network, and provide regulatory closure. Evaluation of radionuclide contamination at Pahute Mesa is particularly difficult due to the complex stratigraphy and structure caused by multiple calderas in the Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field and overprinting of Basin and Range faulting. Included in overall Phase II goals is the need to reduce the uncertainty and improve confidence in modeling results. New characterization efforts are underway, and results from the first year of a three-year well drilling plan are presented.

  15. Nuclear Science

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

    Nuclear Science Nuclear Science Experimental and theoretical nuclear research carried out at NERSC is driven by the quest for improving our understanding of the building blocks of...

  16. The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage - U.S. Energy Information

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Administration The Basics of Underground Natural Gas Storage Release Date: November 16, 2015 Natural gas-a colorless, odorless, gaseous hydrocarbon-may be stored in a number of different ways. It is most commonly held in inventory underground under pressure in three types of facilities. These underground facilities are depleted reservoirs in oil and/or natural gas fields, aquifers, and salt cavern formations. Natural gas is also stored in liquid or gaseous form in above-ground tanks. Each

  17. Revitalized Board Lays Out New Path amid EM's Recent Underground Tank

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Waste Successes | Department of Energy Revitalized Board Lays Out New Path amid EM's Recent Underground Tank Waste Successes Revitalized Board Lays Out New Path amid EM's Recent Underground Tank Waste Successes August 20, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis Cement trucks transport a specially formulated grout that is pumped into two underground waste tanks at the Savannah River Site as part of work to close the massive structures. Cement trucks transport a specially formulated grout that is pumped into

  18. Head of EM Visits Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for First Underground Tour

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Since February Incidents | Department of Energy Visits Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for First Underground Tour Since February Incidents Head of EM Visits Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for First Underground Tour Since February Incidents October 16, 2014 - 12:00pm Addthis CBFO Manager Joe Franco, left, and EM Acting Assistant Secretary Mark Whitney discuss points of interest on a map of the WIPP underground. CBFO Manager Joe Franco, left, and EM Acting Assistant Secretary Mark Whitney discuss

  19. The second-phase development of the China JinPing underground...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    away from the main water transport and auto traffic tunnels. ... well as for geophysicsengineering and other coupled ... Language: English Subject: deep underground laboratory; ...

  20. Tau neutrinos underground: Signals of {nu}{sub {mu}}{yields}...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Tau neutrinos underground: Signals of nusub muyieldsnusub tau oscillations with extragalactic neutrinos Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Tau neutrinos...

  1. Advanced underground Vehicle Power and Control: The locomotive Research Platform

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vehicle Projects LLC

    2003-01-28

    Develop a fuelcell mine locomotive with metal-hydride hydrogen storage. Test the locomotive for fundamental limitations preventing successful commercialization of hydride fuelcells in underground mining. During Phase 1 of the DOE-EERE sponsored project, FPI and its partner SNL, completed work on the development of a 14.4 kW fuelcell power plant and metal-hydride energy storage. An existing battery-electric locomotive with similar power requirements, minus the battery module, was used as the base vehicle. In March 2001, Atlas Copco Wagner of Portland, OR, installed the fuelcell power plant into the base vehicle and initiated integration of the system into the vehicle. The entire vehicle returned to Sandia in May 2001 for further development and integration. Initial system power-up took place in December 2001. A revision to the original contract, Phase 2, at the request of DOE Golden Field Office, established Vehicle Projects LLC as the new prime contractor,. Phase 2 allowed industry partners to conduct surface tests, incorporate enhancements to the original design by SNL, perform an extensive risk and safety analysis, and test the fuelcell locomotive underground under representative production mine conditions. During the surface tests one of the fuelcell stacks exhibited reduced power output resulting in having to replace both fuelcell stacks. The new stacks were manufactured with new and improved technology resulting in an increase of the gross power output from 14.4 kW to 17 kW. Further work by CANMET and Hatch Associates, an engineering consulting firm specializing in safety analysis for the mining industry, both under subcontract to Vehicle Projects LLC, established minimum requirements for underground testing. CANMET upgraded the Programmable Logic Control (PLC) software used to monitor and control the fuelcell power plant, taking into account locomotive operator's needs. Battery Electric, a South Africa manufacturer, designed and manufactured (at no cost to the project) a new motor controller capable of operating the higher rpm motor and different power characteristics of the fuelcells. In early August 2002, CANMET, with the technical assistance of Nuvera Fuel Cells and Battery Electric, installed the new PLC software, installed the new motor controller, and installed the new fuelcell stacks. After minor adjustments, the fuelcell locomotive pulled its first fully loaded ore cars on a surface track. The fuelcell-powered locomotive easily matched the battery powered equivalent in its ability to pull tonnage and equaled the battery-powered locomotive in acceleration. The final task of Phase 2, testing the locomotive underground in a production environment, occurred in early October 2002 in a gold mine. All regulatory requirements to allow the locomotive underground were completed and signed off by Hatch Associates prior to going underground. During the production tests, the locomotive performed flawlessly with no failures or downtime. The actual tests occurred during a 2-week period and involved moving both gold ore and waste rock over a 1,000 meter track. Refueling, or recharging, of the metal-hydride storage took place on the surface. After each shift, the metal-hydride storage module was removed from the locomotive, transported to surface, and filled with hydrogen from high-pressure tanks. The beginning of each shift started with taking the fully recharged metal-hydride storage module down into the mine and re-installing it onto the locomotive. Each 8 hour shift consumed approximately one half to two thirds of the onboard hydrogen. This indicates that the fuelcell-powered locomotive can work longer than a similar battery-powered locomotive, which operates about 6 hours, before needing a recharge.

  2. Ground movements associated with large-scale underground coal gasification

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Siriwardane, H.J.; Layne, A.W.

    1989-09-01

    The primary objective of this work was to predict the surface and underground movement associated with large-scale multiwell burn sites in the Illinois Basin and Appalachian Basin by using the subsidence/thermomechanical model UCG/HEAT. This code is based on the finite element method. In particular, it can be used to compute (1) the temperature field around an underground cavity when the temperature variation of the cavity boundary is known, and (2) displacements and stresses associated with body forces (gravitational forces) and a temperature field. It is hypothesized that large Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) cavities generated during the line-drive process will be similar to those generated by longwall mining. If that is the case, then as a UCG process continues, the roof of the cavity becomes unstable and collapses. In the UCG/HEAT computer code, roof collapse is modeled using a simplified failure criterion (Lee 1985). It is anticipated that roof collapse would occur behind the burn front; therefore, forward combustion can be continued. As the gasification front propagates, the length of the cavity would become much larger than its width. Because of this large length-to-width ratio in the cavity, ground response behavior could be analyzed by considering a plane-strain idealization. In a plane-strain idealization of the UCG cavity, a cross-section perpendicular to the axis of propagation could be considered, and a thermomechanical analysis performed using a modified version of the two-dimensional finite element code UCG/HEAT. 15 refs., 9 figs., 3 tabs.

  3. Nuclear Physics

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

    Science Programs Office of Science Nuclear Physics science-innovationassetsimagesicon-science.jpg Nuclear Physics Enabling remarkable discoveries and tools that ...

  4. Method for maximizing shale oil recovery from an underground formation

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Sisemore, Clyde J. (Livermore, CA)

    1980-01-01

    A method for maximizing shale oil recovery from an underground oil shale formation which has previously been processed by in situ retorting such that there is provided in the formation a column of substantially intact oil shale intervening between adjacent spent retorts, which method includes the steps of back filling the spent retorts with an aqueous slurry of spent shale. The slurry is permitted to harden into a cement-like substance which stabilizes the spent retorts. Shale oil is then recovered from the intervening column of intact oil shale by retorting the column in situ, the stabilized spent retorts providing support for the newly developed retorts.

  5. A Fluka study of underground cosmogenic neutron production

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Empl, A.; Hungerford, E.V.; Jasim, R.; Mosteiro, P. E-mail: evhunger@central.uh.edu E-mail: mosteiro@gmail.com

    2014-08-01

    Neutrons produced by cosmic muon interactions are important contributors to backgrounds in underground detectors when searching for rare events. Typically such neutrons can dominate the background, as they are particularly difficult to shield and detect. Since actual data is sparse and not well documented, simulation studies must be used to design shields and predict background rates. Thus validation of any simulation code is necessary to assure reliable results. This work compares in detail predictions of the FLUKA simulation code to existing data, and uses this code to report a simulation of cosmogenic backgrounds for typical detectors embedded in a water tank with liquid scintillator shielding.

  6. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's -16,327 -13,253 -15,555 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas

  7. Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's -174 -102 253 1970's -200 -96 -1,074 2,468 1,707 -2,185 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring

  8. EXO project equipment successfully placed underground at WIPP

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

    DOE Carlsbad Field Office (505) 234-7327 Dennis.hurtt@wipp.ws http://www.wipp.energy.gov U.S. Department of Energy Carlsbad Field Office Waste Isolation Pilot Plant P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, New Mexico 88221 DOENews For Immediate Release EXO project equipment successfully placed underground at WIPP Carlsbad, NM July 24, 2007 - The first two clean room modules for the Enriched Xenon Observatory (EXO) project have been successfully placed in the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation

  9. Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Connecticut Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's -242 501 1,271 1990's 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of

  10. Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Delaware Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1960's -294 -245 699 1970's 211 -189 -255 -549 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net

  11. Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Georgia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's -90 -339 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from

  12. Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Wisconsin Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals All Operators (Million Cubic Feet) Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 1970's -166 331 428 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 2/29/2016 Next Release Date: 3/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from

  13. Nevada Na onal Security Site U.S. Department of Energy, Na onal Nuclear Security Administra on Nevada Field Office

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

    Wells Sampled On and Near the Nevada Na onal Security Site U.S. Department of Energy, Na onal Nuclear Security Administra on Nevada Field Office Stages of an Underground Nuclear Test An underground nuclear explosion vaporizes the surrounding rock resul ng in a cavity. As the remaining rock cools, melt glass forms and se les to the bo om of the cavity. This may lead to a collapse of the cavity which forms a depression on the surface, or a subsidence crater. Explosion Explosion Cavity Cavity Forms

  14. Chemical tailoring of steam to remediate underground mixed waste contaminents

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Aines, Roger D. (Livermore, CA); Udell, Kent S. (Berkeley, CA); Bruton, Carol J. (Livermore, CA); Carrigan, Charles R. (Tracy, CA)

    1999-01-01

    A method to simultaneously remediate mixed-waste underground contamination, such as organic liquids, metals, and radionuclides involves chemical tailoring of steam for underground injection. Gases or chemicals are injected into a high pressure steam flow being injected via one or more injection wells to contaminated soil located beyond a depth where excavation is possible. The injection of the steam with gases or chemicals mobilizes contaminants, such as metals and organics, as the steam pushes the waste through the ground toward an extraction well having subatmospheric pressure (vacuum). The steam and mobilized contaminants are drawn in a substantially horizontal direction to the extraction well and withdrawn to a treatment point above ground. The heat and boiling action of the front of the steam flow enhance the mobilizing effects of the chemical or gas additives. The method may also be utilized for immobilization of metals by using an additive in the steam which causes precipitation of the metals into clusters large enough to limit their future migration, while removing any organic contaminants.

  15. Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 82,538 81,491 81,181 82,095 83,472 85,002 83,477 83,923 85,020 84,918 81,317 1991 79,407 78,372 77,653 78,788 81,843 83,985 83,721 83,657 84,562 84,253 83,847 81,475 1992 79,888 78,880 78,837 79,448 81,080 83,708 85,758 86,968 88,154 87,853 85,260 81,824 1993 78,414 76,448 75,412 76,380 79,328 82,649 85,226 87,084 88,593

  16. New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 32,289 31,416 31,096 32,921 25,403 33,699 37,281 40,474 42,033 45,200 46,210 43,675 1991 40,230 38,226 36,059 39,127 42,052 45,061 46,102 44,144 46,786 46,696 46,457 47,414 1992 45,395 44,683 43,948 42,349 42,253 42,795 40,695 42,640 43,838 46,401 45,364 45,776 1993 43,130 38,966 38,843 35,916 38,621 39,842 40,111 37,793

  17. Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 6,996 5,657 4,959 6,140 7,648 8,892 9,656 10,292 10,664 10,853 10,808 10,057 1991 8,982 8,017 6,250 5,271 5,985 7,539 8,997 10,089 10,763 11,102 11,125 10,638 1992 9,070 7,530 5,944 5,502 7,074 8,614 9,809 10,819 11,272 11,445 10,346 9,766 1993 7,848 6,452 5,724 5,298 6,942 8,240 9,421 10,463 11,041 11,531 10,800 9,697 1994

  18. Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Alabama Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1995 1,379 1,377 1,113 1,113 1,140 1,182 1,218 1,436 2,028 1,955 1,766 1,365 1996 1,311 1,014 852 1,006 1,373 2,042 2,247 2,641 3,081 3,198 3,069 2,309 1997 1,778 1,594 1,619 1,749 2,020 2,113 2,156 2,443 2,705 2,956 2,713 2,713 1998 1,963 1,775 1,527 1,772 1,917 2,540 2,531 2,730 2,329 2,942 2,943 2,805 1999 1,992 1,878 1,566

  19. Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Arkansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 27,878 27,848 27,810 27,846 27,946 28,419 28,946 29,427 29,707 29,734 29,656 29,429 1991 27,498 27,132 26,811 26,616 26,747 27,086 27,573 27,587 27,587 27,587 26,958 26,294 1992 25,642 25,124 24,681 24,523 24,507 25,016 25,868 26,532 26,966 26,770 26,404 25,781 1993 25,148 24,276 23,798 23,676 22,852 22,866 22,856 22,856

  20. Evaluation of energy system analysis techniques for identifying underground facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    VanKuiken, J.C.; Kavicky, J.A.; Portante, E.C.

    1996-03-01

    This report describes the results of a study to determine the feasibility and potential usefulness of applying energy system analysis techniques to help detect and characterize underground facilities that could be used for clandestine activities. Four off-the-shelf energy system modeling tools were considered: (1) ENPEP (Energy and Power Evaluation Program) - a total energy system supply/demand model, (2) ICARUS (Investigation of Costs and Reliability in Utility Systems) - an electric utility system dispatching (or production cost and reliability) model, (3) SMN (Spot Market Network) - an aggregate electric power transmission network model, and (4) PECO/LF (Philadelphia Electric Company/Load Flow) - a detailed electricity load flow model. For the purposes of most of this work, underground facilities were assumed to consume about 500 kW to 3 MW of electricity. For some of the work, facilities as large as 10-20 MW were considered. The analysis of each model was conducted in three stages: data evaluation, base-case analysis, and comparative case analysis. For ENPEP and ICARUS, open source data from Pakistan were used for the evaluations. For SMN and PECO/LF, the country data were not readily available, so data for the state of Arizona were used to test the general concept.

  1. Iowa Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 1,740 243 1,516 3,236 5,817 8,184 5,657 5,928 4,903 4,971 1,423 854 1991 1,166 155 231 1,829 4,897 8,985 6,518 8,058 11,039 10,758 2,782 860 1992 488 43 1,246 3,184 7,652 7,568 11,453 11,281 11,472 9,000 1,228 1,203 1993 0 0 733 5,547 6,489 7,776 10,550 10,150 12,351 8,152 2,437 0 1994 0 75 1,162 3,601 7,153

  2. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 4,572 7,852 6,697 3,087 1,330 3,447 0 0 1,184 1,059 3,376 15,164 1991 21,211 9,946 3,646 531 1,361 3 1,418 1,626 364 1 7,779 14,600 1992 18,930 11,578 4,571 1,123 69 303 1,312 1,119 1,384 318 9,224 20,145 1993 18,991 10,808 3,425 351 7 0 0 8 0 681 9,089 17,647 1994 21,064 11,248 4,523 1,052 1 15 2 2 3 444 9,436

  3. Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 59,806 56,937 55,229 54,606 57,328 55,249 67,314 75,921 83,365 86,778 66,668 58,461 1991 61,574 54,369 50,745 51,761 54,314 60,156 66,484 70,498 74,646 75,367 70,399 63,453 1992 59,541 59,119 59,059 60,896 64,403 67,171 70,690 75,362 78,483 79,756 74,021 67,181 1993 61,308 56,251 52,595 52,028 58,713 65,349 69,968 75,120 80,183

  4. Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1998 3,654 3,215 2,903 3,108 3,416 3,720 3,906 4,241 4,507 4,731 4,691 4,330 1999 4,004 3,548 3,215 3,397 3,666 3,872 4,078 4,280 4,691 4,792 4,599 4,118 2000 3,398 3,283 3,289 3,456 3,735 3,941 4,160 4,366 4,357 4,785 4,434 3,720 2001 3,183 3,135 2,844 3,275 3,788 4,180 4,424 4,728 4,988 5,013 5,073

  5. Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 30,182 26,557 24,604 23,665 1,893 26,305 29,242 32,180 33,249 33,454 33,535 30,308 1991 27,857 27,753 24,809 27,642 29,164 31,880 34,018 33,957 33,952 32,912 33,952 33,494 1992 31,565 28,585 28,004 27,127 28,479 29,654 30,679 32,137 33,333 32,774 32,112 28,315 1993 24,875 21,529 22,758 23,761 28,291 29,157 31,305 31,925

  6. Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Wyoming Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 84,808 83,269 82,768 83,325 84,578 85,786 88,481 93,162 94,241 91,519 89,490 1991 88,736 88,074 88,116 88,232 88,856 90,844 93,067 94,814 95,931 96,017 94,024 91,897 1992 89,501 87,487 86,672 86,591 86,973 87,552 88,718 88,823 89,685 88,636 86,873 83,311 1993 79,912 77,520 77,152 77,647 78,635 80,704 82,755 84,356 85,549

  7. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 6,363 5,796 5,866 6,343 6,672 6,784 6,916 6,964 7,025 7,052 7,050 6,662 1991 6,206 5,968 5,862 6,017 6,274 6,586 6,878 6,869 6,962 6,928 6,846 6,789 1992 6,341 6,211 5,883 5,675 6,064 6,371 6,668 6,848 6,974 6,970 6,962 6,759 1993 6,363 5,945 5,527 5,479 5,796 6,140 6,549 6,678 6,916 6,999 6,923 6,612

  8. Thermal cleanups using dynamic underground stripping and hydrous pyrolysis oxidation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Aines, R D; Knauss, K; Leif, R; Newmark, R L

    1999-05-01

    In the early 1990s, in collaboration with the School of Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory developed dynamic underground stripping (DUS), a method for treating subsurface contaminants with heat that is much faster and more effective than traditional treatment methods. more recently, Livermore scientists developed hydrous pyrolysis/oxidation (HPO), which introduces both heat and oxygen to the subsurface to convert contaminants in the ground to such benign products as carbon dioxide, chloride ion, and water. This process has effectively destroyed all contaminants it encountered in laboratory tests. With dynamic underground stripping, the contaminants are vaporized and vacuumed out of the ground, leaving them still to be destroyed elsewhere. Hydrous pyrolysis/oxidation technology takes the cleanup process one step further by eliminating the treatment, handling, and disposal requirements and destroying the contamination in the ground. When used in combination, HPO is especially useful in the final polishing of a site containing significant free-product contaminant, once the majority of the contaminant has been removed.

  9. Underground Test Area Activity Quality Assurance Plan Nevada National Security Site, Nevada. Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Farnham, Irene; Krenzien, Susan

    2012-10-01

    This Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) provides the overall quality assurance (QA) requirements and general quality practices to be applied to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) Underground Test Area (UGTA) activities. The requirements in this QAP are consistent with DOE Order 414.1C, Quality Assurance (DOE, 2005); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Modeling (EPA, 2002); and EPA Guidance on the Development, Evaluation, and Application of Environmental Models (EPA, 2009). NNSA/NSO, or designee, must review this QAP every two years. Changes that do not affect the overall scope or requirements will not require an immediate QAP revision but will be incorporated into the next revision cycle after identification. Section 1.0 describes UGTA objectives, participant responsibilities, and administrative and management quality requirements (i.e., training, records, procurement). Section 1.0 also details data management and computer software requirements. Section 2.0 establishes the requirements to ensure newly collected data are valid, existing data uses are appropriate, and environmental-modeling methods are reliable. Section 3.0 provides feedback loops through assessments and reports to management. Section 4.0 provides the framework for corrective actions. Section 5.0 provides references for this document.

  10. Underground storage tank integrated demonstration: Evaluation of pretreatment options for Hanford tank wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lumetta, G.J.; Wagner, M.J.; Colton, N.G.; Jones, E.O.

    1993-06-01

    Separation science plays a central role inn the pretreatment and disposal of nuclear wastes. The potential benefits of applying chemical separations in the pretreatment of the radioactive wastes stored at the various US Department of Energy sites cover both economic and environmental incentives. This is especially true at the Hanford Site, where the huge volume (>60 Mgal) of radioactive wastes stored in underground tanks could be partitioned into a very small volume of high-level waste (HLW) and a relatively large volume of low-level waste (LLW). The cost associated with vitrifying and disposing of just the HLW fraction in a geologic repository would be much less than those associated with vitrifying and disposing of all the wastes directly. Futhermore, the quality of the LLW form (e.g., grout) would be improved due to the lower inventory of radionuclides present in the LLW stream. In this report, we present the results of an evaluation of the pretreatment options for sludge taken from two different single-shell tanks at the Hanford Site-Tanks 241-B-110 and 241-U-110 (referred to as B-110 and U-110, respectively). The pretreatment options examined for these wastes included (1) leaching of transuranic (TRU) elements from the sludge, and (2) dissolution of the sludge followed by extraction of TRUs and {sup 90}Sr. In addition, the TRU leaching approach was examined for a third tank waste type, neutralized cladding removal waste.

  11. Underground Test Area Activity Quality Assurance Plan Nevada National Security Site, Nevada. Revision 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Krenzien, Susan; Farnham, Irene

    2015-06-01

    This Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) provides the overall quality assurance (QA) requirements and general quality practices to be applied to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) Underground Test Area (UGTA) activities. The requirements in this QAP are consistent with DOE Order 414.1D, Change 1, Quality Assurance (DOE, 2013a); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans for Modeling (EPA, 2002); and EPA Guidance on the Development, Evaluation, and Application of Environmental Models (EPA, 2009). If a participants requirement document differs from this QAP, the stricter requirement will take precedence. NNSA/NFO, or designee, must review this QAP every two years. Changes that do not affect the overall scope or requirements will not require an immediate QAP revision but will be incorporated into the next revision cycle after identification. Section 1.0 describes UGTA objectives, participant responsibilities, and administrative and management quality requirements (i.e., training, records, procurement). Section 1.0 also details data management and computer software requirements. Section 2.0 establishes the requirements to ensure newly collected data are valid, existing data uses are appropriate, and environmental-modeling methods are reliable. Section 3.0 provides feedback loops through assessments and reports to management. Section 4.0 provides the framework for corrective actions. Section 5.0 provides references for this document.

  12. Wireless Transmission of Monitoring Data out of an Underground Repository: Results of Field Demonstrations Performed at the HADES Underground Laboratory - 13589

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Schroeder, T.J.; Rosca-Bocancea, E.; Hart, J.

    2013-07-01

    As part of the European 7. framework project MoDeRn, Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group (NRG) performed experiments in order to demonstrate the feasibility of wireless data transmission through the subsurface over large distances by low frequency magnetic fields in the framework of the geological disposal of radioactive waste. The main objective of NRG's contribution is to characterize and optimize the energy use of this technique within the specific context of post-closure monitoring of a repository. For that, measurements have been performed in the HADES Underground Research Laboratory (URL) located at Mol, Belgium, at 225 m depth. The experimental set-up utilizes a loop antenna for the transmitter that has been matched to the existing infrastructure of the HADES. Between 2010 and 2012 NRG carried out several experiments at the HADES URL in order to test the technical set-up and to characterize the propagation behavior of the geological medium and the local background noise pattern. Transmission channels have been identified and data transmission has been demonstrated at several frequencies, with data rates up to 10 bit/s and bit error rates <1%. A mathematical model description that includes the most relevant characteristics of the transmitter, transmission path, and receiver has been developed and applied to analyze possible options to optimize the set-up. With respect to the energy-efficiency, results so far have shown that data transmission over larger distances through the subsurface is a feasible option. To support the conclusions on the energy need per bit of transmitted data, additional experiments are foreseen. (authors)

  13. Nuclear Forensics

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

    Nuclear Forensics AMS is a Powerful Tool for Nuclear Forensics Nuclear forensics, which can be applied to both interdicted materials and debris from a nuclear explosion, is the application of laboratory analysis and interpretation to provide technical conclusions (provenance, design, etc.) about a nuclear device or interdicted nuclear material. Nuclear forensic analysts can build confidence in their conclusions by employing multiple signatures that collectively minimize the subset of possible

  14. Permanent Closure of MFC Biodiesel Underground Storage Tank 99ANL00013

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kerry L. Nisson

    2012-10-01

    This closure package documents the site assessment and permanent closure of the Materials and Fuels Complex biodiesel underground storage tank 99ANL00013 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.

  15. Underground Test Area Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Quality Assurance Report Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Krenzien, Susan; Marutzky, Sam

    2014-01-01

    This report is required by the Underground Test Area (UGTA) Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) and identifies the UGTA quality assurance (QA) activities for fiscal year (FY) 2013. All UGTA organizationsU.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO); Desert Research Institute (DRI); Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL); Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL); Navarro-Intera, LLC (N-I); National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec); and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)conducted QA activities in FY 2013. The activities included conducting assessments, identifying findings and completing corrective actions, evaluating laboratory performance, and publishing documents. In addition, integrated UGTA required reading and corrective action tracking was instituted.

  16. Underground Test Area Fiscal Year 2012 Annual Quality Assurance Report Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, Revision 0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Farnham, Irene; Marutzky, Sam

    2013-01-01

    This report is mandated by the Underground Test Area (UGTA) Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and identifies the UGTA quality assurance (QA) activities for fiscal year (FY) 2012. All UGTA organizationsU.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO); Desert Research Institute (DRI); Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL); Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL); Navarro-Intera, LLC (N-I); National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec); and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)conducted QA activities in FY 2012. The activities included conducting assessments, identifying findings and completing corrective actions, evaluating laboratory performance, revising the QAPP, and publishing documents. In addition, processes and procedures were developed to address deficiencies identified in the FY 2011 QAPP gap analysis.

  17. FY-92 Report

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    FY-92 Report on the Isotope Hydrology Characterization of the Faultless Test Site, Nye County, Nevada by M. L. Davisson G. 1. Nimz G. B. Hudson D. K. Smith J. H. Rego J. M. Kenneally Nuclear Chemistry Division Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory MASTER 1 ABSTRACT Recent sampling and isotopic analysis of groundwater by LLNL at the Faultless test site in Hot Creek Valley, Nevada, and close examination of previous hydrochemistry measurements by the USGS show that the similar Na-HC03 groundwater

  18. The Use of Underground Research Laboratories to Support Repository Development Programs. A Roadmap for the Underground Research Facilities Network.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MacKinnon, Robert J.

    2015-10-26

    Under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), nationally developed underground research laboratories (URLs) and associated research institutions are being offered for use by other nations. These facilities form an Underground Research Facilities (URF) Network for training in and demonstration of waste disposal technologies and the sharing of knowledge and experience related to geologic repository development, research, and engineering. In order to achieve its objectives, the URF Network regularly sponsors workshops and training events related to the knowledge base that is transferable between existing URL programs and to nations with an interest in developing a new URL. This report describes the role of URLs in the context of a general timeline for repository development. This description includes identification of key phases and activities that contribute to repository development as a repository program evolves from an early research and development phase to later phases such as construction, operations, and closure. This information is cast in the form of a matrix with the entries in this matrix forming the basis of the URF Network roadmap that will be used to identify and plan future workshops and training events.

  19. National Center for Nuclear Security - NCNS

    ScienceCinema (OSTI)

    None

    2015-01-09

    As the United States embarks on a new era of nuclear arms control, the tools for treaty verification must be accurate and reliable, and must work at stand-off distances. The National Center for Nuclear Security, or NCNS, at the Nevada National Security Site, is poised to become the proving ground for these technologies. The center is a unique test bed for non-proliferation and arms control treaty verification technologies. The NNSS is an ideal location for these kinds of activities because of its multiple environments; its cadre of experienced nuclear personnel, and the artifacts of atmospheric and underground nuclear weapons explosions. The NCNS will provide future treaty negotiators with solid data on verification and inspection regimes and a realistic environment in which future treaty verification specialists can be trained. Work on warhead monitoring at the NCNS will also support future arms reduction treaties.

  20. National Center for Nuclear Security - NCNS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2014-11-12

    As the United States embarks on a new era of nuclear arms control, the tools for treaty verification must be accurate and reliable, and must work at stand-off distances. The National Center for Nuclear Security, or NCNS, at the Nevada National Security Site, is poised to become the proving ground for these technologies. The center is a unique test bed for non-proliferation and arms control treaty verification technologies. The NNSS is an ideal location for these kinds of activities because of its multiple environments; its cadre of experienced nuclear personnel, and the artifacts of atmospheric and underground nuclear weapons explosions. The NCNS will provide future treaty negotiators with solid data on verification and inspection regimes and a realistic environment in which future treaty verification specialists can be trained. Work on warhead monitoring at the NCNS will also support future arms reduction treaties.

  1. The second-phase development of the China JinPing underground laboratory

    DOE Public Access Gateway for Energy & Science Beta (PAGES Beta)

    Li, Jianmin; Ji, Xiangdong; Haxton, Wick; Wang, Joseph S.Y.

    2015-03-24

    During 2013-2015 an expansion of the China JinPing underground Laboratory (CJPL) will be undertaken along a main branch of a bypass tunnel in the JinPing tunnel complex. This second phase of CJPL will increase laboratory space to approximately 96,000 m³, which can be compared to the existing CJPL-I volume of ~ 4,000 m³. One design configuration has eight additional hall spaces, each over 60 m long and approximately 12 m in width, with overburdens of about 2.4 km of rock, oriented parallel to and away from the main water transport and auto traffic tunnels. There are additional possibilities for furthermore » expansions at a nearby second bypass tunnel and along the entrance and exit branches of both bypass tunnels, potentially leading to an expanded CJPL comparable in size to Gran Sasso. Concurrent with the excavation activities, planning is underway for dark matter and other rare-event detectors, as well as for geophysics/engineering and other coupled multi-disciplinary sensors. In the town meeting on 8 September, 2013 at Asilomar, CA, associated with the 13th International Conference on Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics (TAUP), presentations and panel discussions addressed plans for one-ton expansions of the current CJPL germanium detector array of the China Darkmatter EXperiment (CDEX) collaboration and of the duel-phase xenon detector of the Panda-X collaboration, as well as possible new detector initiatives for dark matter studies, low-energy solar neutrino detection, neutrinoless double beta searches, and geoneutrinos. JinPing was also discussed as a site for a low-energy nuclear astrophysics accelerator. Geophysics/engineering opportunities include acoustic and micro-seismic monitoring of rock bursts during and after excavation, coupled-process in situ measurements, local, regional, and global monitoring of seismically induced radon emission, and electromagnetic signals. Additional ideas and projects will likely be developed in the next few years, driven by China’s domestic needs and by international experiments requiring access to very great depths.« less

  2. First Dark Matter Search Results from a 4-kg CF$_3$I Bubble Chamber Operated in a Deep Underground Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Behnke, E.; Behnke, J.; Brice, S.J.; Broemmelsiek, D.; Collar, J.I.; Conner, A.; Cooper, P.S.; Crisler, M.; Dahl, C.E.; Fustin, D.; Grace, E.; /Indiana U., South Bend /Fermilab

    2012-04-01

    New data are reported from the operation of a 4.0 kg CF{sub 3}I bubble chamber in the 6800 foot deep SNOLAB underground laboratory. The effectiveness of ultrasound analysis in discriminating alpha decay background events from single nuclear recoils has been confirmed, with a lower bound of >99.3% rejection of alpha decay events. Twenty single nuclear recoil event candidates and three multiple bubble events were observed during a total exposure of 553 kg-days distributed over three different bubble nucleation thresholds. The effective exposure for single bubble recoil-like events was 437.4 kg-days. A neutron background internal to the apparatus, of known origin, is estimated to account for five single nuclear recoil events and is consistent with the observed rate of multiple bubble events. This observation provides world best direct detection constraints on WIMP-proton spin-dependent scattering for WIMP masses >20 GeV/c{sup 2} and demonstrates significant sensitivity for spin-independent interactions.

  3. Working with SRNL - Our Facilities- Ultra Low-Level Underground...

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

    of pre-nuclear weapons era steel. This allows highly sensitive measurements of ultra-low amounts of environmental radioactivity, free from interference by background radiation...

  4. Proceedings of the ninth annual underground coal gasification symposium

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wieber, P.R.; Martin, J.W.; Byrer, C.W.

    1983-12-01

    The Ninth Underground Coal Gasification Symposium was held August 7 to 10, 1983 at the Indian Lakes Resort and Conference Center in Bloomingdale, Illinois. Over one-hundred attendees from industry, academia, National Laboratories, State Government, and the US Government participated in the exchange of ideas, results and future research plans. Representatives from six countries including France, Belgium, United Kingdom, The Netherlands, West Germany, and Brazil also participated by presenting papers. Fifty papers were presented and discussed in four formal sessions and two informal poster sessions. The presentations described current and future field testing plans, interpretation of field test data, environmental research, laboratory studies, modeling, and economics. All papers were processed for inclusion in the Energy Data Base.

  5. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 905,018 584,386 467,210 599,207 831,273 1,086,355 1,342,894 1,578,648 1,775,994 1,885,465 1,819,517 1,589,500 1995 1,206,116 814,626 663,885 674,424 850,290 1,085,760 1,300,439 1,487,188 1,690,456 1,811,013 1,608,177 1,232,901 1996 812,303 520,053 341,177 397,770 612,572 890,243

  6. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Producing Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 393,598 297,240 289,617 356,360 461,202 516,155 604,504 678,168 747,928 783,414 775,741 673,670 1995 549,759 455,591 416,294 457,969 533,496 599,582 638,359 634,297 713,319 766,411 700,456 552,458 1996 369,545 263,652 195,447 224,002 279,731 339,263 391,961 474,402 578,991 638,500 562,097

  7. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 1,226,103 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1,232,392 1995 1,232,392 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,233,637 1,243,137 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1996 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446 1,237,446

  8. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1994 280,414 208,968 200,997 216,283 261,894 293,909 326,049 349,274 387,670 405,477 381,931 342,394 1995 288,908 270,955 251,410 246,654 284,291 328,371 362,156 372,718 398,444 418,605 419,849 366,944 1996 280,620 236,878 221,371 232,189 268,812 299,619 312,736 313,747 330,116

  9. Montana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Montana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 184,212 180,918 178,620 181,242 179,235 181,374 183,442 187,348 185,848 181,029 1991 179,697 178,285 176,975 176,918 178,145 179,386 181,094 182,534 182,653 181,271 178,539 174,986 1992 111,256 109,433 109,017 109,150 110,146 110,859 111,885 112,651 112,225 110,868 107,520 101,919 1993 96,819 92,399 89,640 87,930

  10. California Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 1991 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 243,944 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 1992 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 248,389 250,206 1993 250,206 250,206

  11. Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working Gas from Same Month Previous Year (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 -2,863 -1,902 -2,297 -1,134 -1,671 -1,997 -907 -144 629 992 2,290 1,354 1991 30,778 27,964 37,141 36,920 15,424 -18,322 -46,969 -63,245 -61,004 -48,820 -54,587 -34,458 1992 6,870 -8,479 -43,753 -43,739 -33,236 -8,601 3,190 9,732 8,583 15,815

  12. South Central Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    (Million Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 668,540 452,778 337,592 426,793 560,429 666,015 755,579 806,418 929,012 1,090,604 1,084,413 1,044,833 2015 831,268 576,019 574,918 749,668 920,727 1,002,252 1,050,004 1,095,812 1,206,329 1,321,297 1,332,421 1,303,737 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld

  13. Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Feet) Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Pennsylvania Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 352,686 352,686 352,686 351,920 352,686 352,686 353,407 353,407 353,407 353,407 359,236 358,860 1991 349,459 348,204 334,029 335,229 353,405 349,188 350,902 352,314 353,617 354,010 353,179 355,754 1992 358,198 353,313 347,361 341,498 344,318 347,751 357,498 358,432 359,300 359,504 359,321 362,275 1993 362,222 358,438

  14. West Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Indexed Site

    Cubic Feet) Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) West Virginia Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 95,718 84,444 80,152 86,360 105,201 122,470 139,486 155,506 168,801 172,513 172,198 155,477 1991 102,542 81,767 79,042 86,494 101,636 117,739 132,999 142,701 151,152 154,740 143,668 121,376 1992 87,088 60,200 32,379 33,725 57,641 75,309 97,090 115,537 128,969 141,790 135,853 143,960 1993 112,049 69,593

  15. Method and apparatus for constructing an underground barrier wall structure

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Dwyer, Brian P.; Stewart, Willis E.; Dwyer, Stephen F.

    2002-01-01

    A method and apparatus for constructing a underground barrier wall structure using a jet grout injector subassembly comprising a pair of primary nozzles and a plurality of secondary nozzles, the secondary nozzles having a smaller diameter than the primary nozzles, for injecting grout in directions other than the primary direction, which creates a barrier wall panel having a substantially uniform wall thickess. This invention addresses the problem of the weak "bow-tie" shape that is formed during conventional jet injection when using only a pair of primary nozzles. The improvement is accomplished by using at least four secondary nozzles, of smaller diameter, located on both sides of the primary nozzles. These additional secondary nozzles spray grout or permeable reactive materials in other directions optimized to fill in the thin regions of the bow-tie shape. The result is a panel with increased strength and substantially uniform wall thickness.

  16. nuclear security

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    3%2A en Shaping the future of nuclear detection http:nnsa.energy.govblogshaping-future-nuclear-detection

    Learning techniques to combat nuclear trafficking, touring the...

  17. Underground Storage Tank Integrated Demonstration (UST-ID). Technology summary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-02-01

    The DOE complex currently has 332 underground storage tanks (USTs) that have been used to process and store radioactive and chemical mixed waste generated from weapon materials production. Very little of the over 100 million gallons of high-level and low-level radioactive liquid waste has been treated and disposed of in final form. Two waste storage tank design types are prevalent across the DOE complex: single-shell wall and double-shell wall designs. They are made of stainless steel, concrete, and concrete with carbon steel liners, and their capacities vary from 5000 gallons (19 m{sup 3}) to 10{sup 6} gallons (3785 m{sup 3}). The tanks have an overburden layer of soil ranging from a few feet to tens of feet. Responding to the need for remediation of tank waste, driven by Federal Facility Compliance Agreements (FFCAs) at all participating sites, the Underground Storage Tank Integrated Demonstration (UST-ID) Program was created by the US DOE Office of Technology Development in February 1991. Its mission is to focus the development, testing, and evaluation of remediation technologies within a system architecture to characterize, retrieve, treat to concentrate, and dispose of radioactive waste stored in USTs at DOE facilities. The ultimate goal is to provide safe and cost-effective solutions that are acceptable to the public and the regulators. The UST-ID has focused on five DOE locations: the Hanford Site, which is the host site, in Richland, Washington; the Fernald Site in Fernald, Ohio; the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho; the Oak Ridge Reservation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the Savannah River Site in Savannah River, South Carolina.

  18. Proceedings of the seventh symposium on containment of underground nuclear explosions. Volume 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Olsen, C.W.

    1993-12-31

    This is Volume 2 of two unclassified volumes of a meeting of workers at all levels in the science and technology of containment. Papers on containment and related geological, geophysical, engineering, chemical, and computational topics were included. Particular topics in this volume include: Low-yield test beds, modeling and residual stress, material properties, collapse phenomena and shock diagnostics, stemming practices and performance, geophysics, and geosciences and weapons destruction. Individual papers are indexed separately on the data base.

  19. Proceedings of the seventh symposium on containment of underground nuclear explosions. Volume 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Olsen, C.W.

    1993-12-31

    This is Volume 1 of two unclassified volumes of a meeting of workers at all levels in the science and technology of containment. Papers on containment and related geological, geophysical, engineering, chemical, and computational topics were included. Particular topics included in this volume are: General containment,tunnel and LOS topics, cavity conditions, and LYNER and chemical kiloton. Individual papers are indexed separately on the data base.

  20. Neptunium Transport Behavior in the Vicinity of Underground Nuclear Tests at the Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zhao, P; Tinnacher, R M; Zavarin, M; Williams, R W; Kersting, A B

    2010-12-03

    We used short lived {sup 239}Np as a yield tracer and state of the art magnetic sector ICP-MS to measure ultra low levels of {sup 237}Np in a number of 'hot wells' at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), formerly known as the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The results indicate that {sup 237}Np concentrations at the Almendro, Cambric, Dalhart, Cheshire and Chancellor sites, are in the range of 3 x 10{sup -5} to 7 x 10{sup -2} pCi/L and well below the MCL for alpha emitting radionuclides (15 pCi/L) (EPA, 2009). Thus, while Np transport is believed to occur at the NNSS, activities are expected to be well below the regulatory limits for alpha-emitting radionuclides. We also compared {sup 237}Np concentration data to other radionuclides, including tritium, {sup 14}C, {sup 36}Cl, {sup 99}Tc, {sup 129}I, and plutonium, to evaluate the relative {sup 237}Np transport behavior. Based on isotope ratios relative to published unclassified Radiologic Source Terms (Bowen et al., 1999) and taking into consideration radionuclide distribution between melt glass, rubble and groundwater (IAEA, 1998), {sup 237}Np appears to be substantially less mobile than tritium and other non-sorbing radionuclides, as expected. However, this analysis also suggests that {sup 237}Np mobility is surprisingly similar to that of plutonium. The similar transport behavior of Np and Pu can be explained by one of two possibilities: (1) Np(IV) and Pu(IV) oxidation states dominate under mildly reducing NNSS groundwater conditions resulting in similar transport behavior or (2) apparent Np transport is the result of transport of its parent {sup 241}Pu and {sup 241}Am isotopes and subsequent decay to {sup 237}Np. Finally, measured {sup 237}Np concentrations were compared to recent Hydrologic Source Term (HST) models. The 237Np data collected from three wells in Frenchman Flat (RNM-1, RNM-2S, and UE-5n) are in good agreement with recent HST transport model predictions (Carle et al., 2005). The agreement provides confidence in the results of the predictive model. The comparison to Cheshire HST model predictions (Pawloski et al, 2001) is somewhat ambiguous due to the low concentration resolution of the particle transport model.