National Library of Energy BETA

Sample records for faultless underground nuclear

  1. LUNA: Nuclear astrophysics underground

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Best, A.

    2015-02-24

    Underground nuclear astrophysics with LUNA at the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso spans a history of 20 years. By using the rock overburden of the Gran Sasso mountain chain as a natural cosmic-ray shield very low signal rates compared to an experiment on the surface can be tolerated. The cross sectons of important astrophysical reactions directly in the stellar energy range have been successfully measured. In this proceeding we give an overview over the key accomplishments of the experiment and an outlook on its future with the expected addition of an additional accelerator to the underground facilities, enabling the coverage of a wider energy range and the measurement of previously inaccessible reactions.

  2. 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)

  3. FIELD INVESTIGATION AT THE FAULTLESS SITE CENTRAL NEVADA TEST

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    FIELD INVESTIGATION AT THE FAULTLESS SITE CENTRAL NEVADA TEST AREA DOEINV10845--T3 DE93 ... at the Faultless Site Central Nevada Test Area An evaluation of groundwater ...

  4. 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...

  5. HYDROGEOLOGIC MONITORING AT TIlE FAULTLESS' SITE,

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    ...---... 21 Chemical and radiochemical monitoring---...at and near Faultless site---... 17 Chemical and radiochemical analyses of water from ...

  6. 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...

  7. 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

  8. United States Marks 20 Years without Underground Nuclear Explosive Testing

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

    | National Nuclear Security Administration United States Marks 20 Years without Underground Nuclear Explosive Testing September 21, 2012 WASHINGTON, DC -- Twenty years ago, on September 23, 1992, the United States conducted its last underground nuclear explosive test. Since then, the United States has developed the capability to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of its stockpile through the use of state-of-the-art technology and research while maintaining a moratorium on nuclear

  9. 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.

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

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Security Administration Underground Facility at Nevada National Security Site The U1a Complex is an underground laboratory at the Nevada National Security Site used for dynamic experiments with special nuclear material (SNM) and other weapon materials. The Complex provides an infrastructure of high-bandwidth diagnostics, data acquisition, timing and firing, control and monitor systems capable of supporting experiments designed to acquire information on fundamental materials properties,

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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).

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  1. 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.

  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. Geotechnical studies relevant to the containment of underground nuclear explosions at the Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Heuze, F.E.

    1982-05-01

    The Department of Energy and the Department of Defense are actively pursuing a program of nuclear weapons testing by underground explosions at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). Over the past 11 years, scores of tests have been conducted and the safety record is very good. In the short run, emphasis is put on preventing the release of radioactive materials into the atmosphere. In the long run, the subsidence and collapse of the ground above the nuclear cavities also are matters of interest. Currently, estimation of containment is based mostly on empiricism derived from extensive experience and on a combination of physical/mechanical testing and numerical modeling. When measured directly, the mechanical material properties are obtained from short-term laboratory tests on small, conventional samples. This practice does not determine the large effects of scale and time on measured stiffnesses and strengths of geological materials. Because of the limited data base of properties and in situ conditions, the input to otherwise fairly sophisticated computer programs is subject to several simplifying assumptions; some of them can have a nonconservative impact on the calculated results. As for the long-term, subsidence and collapse phenomena simply have not been studied to any significant degree. This report examines the geomechanical aspects of procedures currently used to estimate containment of undergroung explosions at NTS. Based on this examination, it is concluded that state-of-the-art geological engineering practice in the areas of field testing, large scale laboratory measurements, and numerical modeling can be drawn upon to complement the current approach.

  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. Hydrothermal Alteration of Glass from Underground Nuclear Tests: Formation and Transport of Pu-clay Colloids at the Nevada National Security Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zavarin, M.; Zhao, P.; Joseph, C.; Begg, J.; Boggs, M.; Dai, Z.; Kersting, A. B.

    2015-05-27

    The testing of nuclear weapons at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), formerly the Nevada Test Site (NTS), has led to the deposition of substantial quantities of plutonium into the environment. Approximately 2.8 metric tons (3.1×104 TBq) of Pu were deposited in the NNSS subsurface as a result of underground nuclear testing. While 3H is the most abundant anthropogenic radionuclide deposited in the NNSS subsurface (4.7×106 TBq), plutonium is the most abundant from a molar standpoint. The only radioactive elements in greater molar abundance are the naturally occurring K, Th, and U isotopes. 239Pu and 240Pu represent the majority of alpha-emitting Pu isotopes. The extreme temperatures associated with underground nuclear tests and the refractory nature of Pu results in most of the Pu (98%) being sequestered in melted rock, referred to as nuclear melt glass (Iaea, 1998). As a result, Pu release to groundwater is controlled, in large part, by the leaching (or dissolution) of nuclear melt glass over time. The factors affecting glass dissolution rates have been studied extensively. The dissolution of Pu-containing borosilicate nuclear waste glasses at 90ºC has been shown to lead to the formation of dioctahedral smectite colloids. Colloid-facilitated transport of Pu at the NNSS has been observed. Recent groundwater samples collected from a number of contaminated wells have yielded a wide range of Pu concentrations from 0.00022 to 2.0 Bq/L. While Pu concentrations tend to fall below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for drinking water (0.56 Bq/L), we do not yet understand what factors limit the Pu concentration or its transport behavior. To quantify the upper limit of Pu concentrations produced as a result of melt glass dissolution and determine the nature of colloids and Pu associations, we performed a 3 year nuclear melt glass dissolution experiment across a range of temperatures (25-200 °C) that represent hydrothermal conditions representative of the underground nuclear test cavities (when groundwater has re-saturated the nuclear melt glass and glass dissolution occurs). Colloid loads and Pu concentrations were monitored along with the mineralogy of both the colloids and the secondary mineral phases. The intent was to establish an upper limit for Pu concentrations at the NNSS, provide context regarding the Pu concentrations observed at the NNSS to date and the Pu concentrations that may be observed in the future. The results provide a conceptual model for the risks posed by Pu migration at the NNSS.

  11. 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.

  12. 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...

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. Approximating dose and risk for contaminants in groundwater from the underground nuclear test areas of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Daniels, Jeffrey I.; Chapman, Jenny; Pohlmann, Karl F.

    2015-03-01

    As part of the Environmental Management Program at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), the Underground Test Area (UGTA) Activity investigates the potential impacts of radionuclides that were introduced into groundwater from the underground nuclear tests conducted near or below the NNSS water table between 1951 and 1992. Groundwater models are being used to simulate contaminant transport and forecast contaminant boundaries that encompass areas where the groundwater has a five percent or greater probability of containing contaminants above the Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (SDWA MCLs) at any time during the next 1,000 years. Transport modeling conducted for the Frenchman Flat Corrective Action Unit (CAU) at the NNSS identified the beta/photon-emitting radionuclides tritium (3H), carbon-14 (14C), chlorine-36 (36Cl), technetium-99 (99Tc), and iodine-129 (129I) as having the greatest influence in defining the farthest extent of the modeled CAU contaminant boundary. These same radionuclides are assumed here as the contaminants of concern (COCs) for all underground nuclear tests at the NNSS because models are not yet complete for the other CAUs.Potential public exposure to the COCs will only occur and be of concern if the COCs migrate into the groundwater beneath public or private lands at levels that exceed either individual SDWA MCLs or dose and risk limits. Groundwater flow directions strongly suggest that any contaminant boundary predicted by contaminant fate and transport modeling to overlap public or private lands is more likely to occur to the west and/or southwest of the NNSS and the adjacent Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). Well-established, rural communities exist in these directions. Estimates of representative activity concentrations at the applicable SDWA MCL were developed for the five COCs. It is assumed that these COC concentrations may collectively occur at some public or private location in the future, but that situation does not exist today. These representative activity concentrations are evaluated with respect to conforming collectively to a modern annual committed effective dose (CED) and lifetime excess cancer morbidity risk for a hypothetical reasonably maximally exposed individual (RMEI). This approach goes beyond the SDWA MCL focus of the contaminant boundary because individual COC concentrations may comply with the SDWA MCL but not collectively meet the modern health-protection metrics and the SDWA language, especially if future modeling studies or monitoring activities show multiple radionuclides from different SDWA MCL categories to be COCs. For the drinking water exposure pathway alone, the annual committed effective dose (CED) for the RMEI from all five COCs that are collectively at estimated activity concentrations equal to their SDWA MCL is well below the U.S. Department of Energy health-protective CED limit of 100 millirem (mrem)/yr. This is consistent using both the NNSS unclassified, 1992 decay-corrected radionuclide atom inventory and the atom inventory based on radionuclides measured in groundwater obtained from the ALMENDRO cavity in 2009 to calculate the SDWA MCL activity concentrations in groundwater. The RMEI’s total lifetime excess cancer risk from the drinking water exposure pathway for both atom inventories is within the range of 1 × 10-4 to ≤ 1 × 10-6, which is considered health protective according to modern SDWA MCL regulatory language. The biosphere exposure pathways are drinking water, garden produce, animal products, inadvertent soil ingestion, and indoor and outdoor air inhalation. The exposure parameters for communities west and southwest of the NNSS were developed when the Yucca Mountain high-level, nuclear-waste disposal facility was under consideration. For all biosphere exposure pathways, calculations of the annual CED and lifetime excess cancer morbidity risk for the RMEI revealed that: 1) The annual CED is well within health-protective guidance (<< 100 mremCED/yr) for the COC activity concentrations at the SDWA MCL, regardless of the atom inventory used. 2) The calculated 70-year lifetime excess cancer morbidity risk (6 x 10-5) is within the health-protective range when the five COC activity concentrations are derived using the NNSS 1992 atom inventory, but it is at the upper limit of the acceptable range (1 x 10-4) using the ALMENDRO 2009 atom inventory. 3) Tritium (3H) is the principal COC for producing annual dose and lifetime excess cancer risk, regardless of the atom inventory used. 4) Overall, the drinking water ingestion pathway is the dominant exposure pathway contributing to the total annual CED and lifetime excess cancer risk, followed by eating locally grown produce and animal products. 5) When tritium completely decays (after about 100 years), the RMEI’s lifetime risk will fall well within the health-protective range (i.e., 1 × 10-4 to ≤ 1 × 10-6) and 36Cl will then become the most important contributor to the RMEI’s total annual CED and lifetime excess cancer morbidity risk from eating local produce and animal products. In the event that radionuclide concentrations begin to approach SDWA MCLs, a reasonable risk-management strategy for keeping lifetime risk more in compliance with regulatory guidance would be to use local sources of groundwater that are below SDWA MCLs or to limit the consumption of local produce and animal products that have ingested COC-contaminated groundwater. The viability of the latter strategy increases where the annual CED due to 36Cl approaches that of 3H.The dose and risk values calculated here for an RMEI are specific to the assumption that the five COCs occur in groundwater beneath public or private lands at concentrations that are collectively at the SDWA MCL. Currently, these COCs are essentially absent from groundwater beneath public or private lands beyond the boundaries of the NNSS and NTTR other than at very low, naturally occurring concentrations. The analyses presented here can be readily applied to determine dose and risk for COC concentrations actually measured in future monitoring samples.

  17. 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.

  18. System for remote control of underground device

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Brumleve, T.D.; Hicks, M.G.; Jones, M.O.

    1975-10-21

    A system is described for remote control of an underground device, particularly a nuclear explosive. The system includes means at the surface of the ground for transmitting a seismic signal sequence through the earth having controlled and predetermined signal characteristics for initiating a selected action in the device. Additional apparatus, located with or adjacent to the underground device, produces electrical signals in response to the seismic signals received and compares these electrical signals with the predetermined signal characteristics.

  19. 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)

  20. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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...

  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. Plutonium Pits | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Plutonium Pits Plutonium pits are a critical core component of a nuclear weapon. To ensure the reliability, safety, and security of nuclear weapons without underground nuclear ...

  5. Plutonium Pits | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Pits Plutonium pits are a critical core component of a nuclear weapon. To ensure the reliability, safety, and security of nuclear weapons without underground nuclear testing;...

  6. 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...

  7. 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....

  8. 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.

  9. The WIPP Underground Ventilation System

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

    , 2014 The WIPP Underground Ventilation System Since February, there has been considerable coverage about the WIPP Underground Ventilation System. On February 14, the ventilation system worked as designed, protecting human health and the environment. In normal exhaust mode, 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 underground facility, located 2,150 feet below the

  10. Steven Lawrence | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    stewardship and management, nuclear test readiness, crisis management, ... Other positions he has held included Project Operations Team Leader, Underground Test ...

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

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Nuclear Security Administration PNNL offers 'virtual tour' of Shallow Underground Laboratory Friday, January 17, 2014 - 4:07pm For the first time, some of the world's most sensitive radiation detection systems and fundamental physics research can be seen from your desktop computer or mobile device. PNNL recently launched a virtual tour showcasing its Shallow Underground Laboratory (SUL), a facility dedicated in 2011 as part of the $224-million capability replacement project jointly funded by

  12. 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

  13. '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 Wednesday, January 6, 2016 - 2:40pm NNSA Blog This integrated system would store carbon dioxide in an underground reservoir, with concentric rings of horizontal wells confining the pressurized CO2 beneath the caprock. Stored CO2 displaces brine that flows up wells to the surface where it is heated by thermal plants (e.g., solar farms) and reinjected into the reservoir to store thermal

  14. 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.

  15. Underground waste barrier structure

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Saha, Anuj J.; Grant, David C.

    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.

  16. 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.

  17. Working with SRNL - Our Facilities- Ultra Low-Level Underground Counting

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

    Facility Ultra Low-Level Underground Counting Facility Working with SRNL Our Facilities - Ultra Low-Level Underground Counting Facility The Ultra Low-Level Underground Counting Facility is the only facility of its kind in the country. This facility is located 50 feet below ground level, and has four-inch thick walls of pre-nuclear weapons era steel. This allows highly sensitive measurements of ultra-low amounts of environmental radioactivity, free from interference by background radiatio

  18. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

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

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage ... Underground Natural Gas in Storage - All Operators Minnesota Underground Natural Gas ...

  19. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

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

    Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Underground ... Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Texas Underground ...

  20. Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet...

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

    Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage ... Underground Natural Gas in Storage - All Operators Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage - ...

  1. 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)

  2. 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.

  3. Program to characterize US nuclear stockpile declared a success

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kramer, David

    2015-12-15

    Officials say their understanding of nuclear systems is now better than it was during the era of underground testing.

  4. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals ...

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Net ... 7:00:48 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Net ...

  5. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ... 7:00:58 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

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

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage ... 7:00:37 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage ...

  7. ,"Minnesota Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:41 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Minnesota Natural Gas in ...

  8. ,"Michigan Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:40 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Michigan Natural Gas in ...

  9. ,"Louisiana Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:38 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Louisiana Natural Gas in ...

  10. ,"Oklahoma Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:50 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Oklahoma Natural Gas in ...

  11. ,"Tennessee Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:54 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Tennessee Natural Gas in ...

  12. ,"Alaska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:26 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Alaska Natural Gas in ...

  13. ,"Missouri Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:43 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Missouri Natural Gas in ...

  14. ,"Arkansas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:28 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Arkansas Natural Gas in ...

  15. ,"Maryland Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:40 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Maryland Natural Gas in ...

  16. ,"Kansas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:36 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Kansas Natural Gas in ...

  17. ,"Ohio Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:49 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Ohio Natural Gas in ...

  18. ,"Illinois Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:34 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Illinois Natural Gas in ...

  19. ,"Nebraska Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:46 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Nebraska Natural Gas in ...

  20. ,"Wyoming Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:30:00 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Wyoming Natural Gas in ...

  1. ,"Utah Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:56 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Utah Natural Gas in ...

  2. ,"Kentucky Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:37 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Kentucky Natural Gas in ...

  3. ,"Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:57 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Virginia Natural Gas in ...

  4. ,"California Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    ...282016 11:29:29 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","California Natural Gas in ...

  5. ,"Mississippi Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    ...282016 11:29:44 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Mississippi Natural Gas in ...

  6. ,"Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)"

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ... 11:44:46 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

  7. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals...

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage ... AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage ...

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

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage ... 11:44:05 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage ...

  9. Massachusetts Natural Gas Underground Storage Injections All...

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

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

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  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. WIPP Begins Underground Decontamination Activities

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

    Yellow brattice cloth is suspended from the ceiling in this disposal room. It is rolled down to prevent air flow to the room. Brattice cloth also will serve as a barrier to decontaminate floors. WIPP UPDATE: March 13, 2015 WIPP Begins Underground Decontamination Activities Activities are underway in WIPP's underground facility to address the radioactive contamination that remains as a result of the February 14, 2014 event. Employees are using a modified piece of agricultural spraying equipment

  17. 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

  18. Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

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

    Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas Underground ... Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Minnesota ...

  19. Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) ... Underground Working Natural Gas in Storage - All Operators Texas Underground Natural Gas ...

  20. 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

  1. 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,

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Inertial Confinement Fusion | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    and scientific understanding in high energy density physics (HEDP) necessary to ensure a safe, secure, and effective nuclear weapons stockpile without underground testing. ...

  5. Underground Storage Tanks: New Fuels and Compatibility

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    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

  6. ,"Texas Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...010TX2","N5020TX2","N5070TX2","N5050TX2","N5060TX2" "Date","Texas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)","Texas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Texas ...

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Underground Storage of Carbon Dioxide-as a Solid | U.S. DOE Office of

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

    Security Administration Underground Facility at Nevada National Security Site The U1a Complex is an underground laboratory at the Nevada National Security Site used for dynamic experiments with special nuclear material (SNM) and other weapon materials. The Complex provides an infrastructure of high-bandwidth diagnostics, data acquisition, timing and firing, control and monitor systems capable of supporting experiments designed to acquire information on fundamental materials properties,

  10. NNSA Releases Report on Plans for Future of the Nuclear Weapons...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    ... complex consists of the eight major facilities across the country that work together to keep the nation's nuclear stockpile safe and reliable without underground nuclear testing. ...

  11. 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...

  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. 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.

  14. 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...

  15. ,"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...

  16. ,"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...

  17. ,"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...

  18. ,"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...

  19. ,"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...

  20. ,"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...

  1. ,"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...

  2. ,"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...

  3. ,"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...

  4. ,"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...

  5. ,"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...

  6. ,"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...

  7. ,"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...

  8. ,"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...

  9. ,"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...

  10. ,"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...

  11. ,"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...

  12. ,"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...

  13. ,"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...

  14. ,"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...

  15. ,"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...

  16. ,"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...

  17. ,"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...

  18. ,"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...

  19. ,"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...

  20. ,"Minnesota Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030mn2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

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

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030mo2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  2. ,"Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030ok2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  3. ,"Utah Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030ut2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  4. ,"Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030va2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  5. ,"Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030tn2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  6. ,"Maryland Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030md2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  7. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030wa2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  8. ,"Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030mt2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  9. ,"Pennsylvania Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)...

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030pa2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  10. ,"Oregon Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030or2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  11. ,"Nebraska Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030ne2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  12. ,"Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030mi2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  13. ,"Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030ms2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  14. ,"Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)"

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030oh2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

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

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030tx2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

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

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030wy2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  17. 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...

  18. ,"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...

  19. ,"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...

  20. 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...

  1. 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.

  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. 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...

  7. ,"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...

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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,...

  11. ,"Underground Natural Gas Storage by Storage Type"

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

    Sourcekey","N5030US2","N5010US2","N5020US2","N5070US2","N5050US2","N5060US2" "Date","U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)","U.S. Total Natural Gas in Underground...

  12. 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)

  13. 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.

  14. Nuclear Detonation Detection | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Nuclear Detonation Detection NNSA builds the nation's operational sensors that monitor the entire planet from space to detect and report surface, atmospheric, or space nuclear detonations; produces and updates the regional geophysical datasets enabling operation of the nation's ground-based seismic monitoring networks to detect and report underground detonations; and conducts research and development on nuclear detonation forensics, improvements in satellite operational systems to meet future

  15. 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...

  16. 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: ...

  17. 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...

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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) ...

  1. ,"West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf...

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

    Data for" ,"Data 1","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ... AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity ...

  2. 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...

  3. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million...

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

    Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct...

  4. 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...

  5. Pore Models Track Reactions in Underground Carbon Capture

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

    extract from saline aquifers deep underground. The goal is to learn what will happen when fluids pass through the material should power plants inject carbon dioxide underground. ...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. 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...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. 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...

  9. 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...

  10. 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...

  11. 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...

  12. 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...

  13. 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...

  14. 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...

  15. Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility / Deep Underground Neutrino Project...

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

    Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility Deep Underground Neutrino Project (LBNF-DUNE) Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility Deep Underground Neutrino Project (LBNF-DUNE) Long-Baseline ...

  16. 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...

  17. ,"Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"1012015 11:00:57 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Washington Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070WA2"...

  18. ,"California Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"01292016 2:35:44 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: California Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070CA2"...

  19. 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.

  20. Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (Summary)

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

    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

  1. Department of Energy FILE& National Nuclear Secur~ty Administration

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    FILE& National Nuclear Securty Administration Nevada Site Office 2005 M U 22 AII 9 5 ... Salmon Site location) 2. Two underground nuclear tests conducted by DOE during the 1960's, ...

  2. Preliminary Notice of Violation, Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    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 Plant

  3. Limited Test Ban Treaty Signed | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Limited Test Ban Treaty Signed Limited Test Ban Treaty Signed Washington, DC The United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union sign the Limited Test Ban Treaty prohibiting underwater, atmospheric, and outer space nuclear tests. Nuclear testing continues underground

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. ,"Midwest Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    ...282016 11:29:21 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Midwest Region Natural Gas ...

  9. ,"AGA Eastern Consuming Region Underground Natural Gas Storage...

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

    ...282016 11:29:24 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","AGA Eastern Consuming Region ...

  10. ,"West Virginia Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    ...282016 11:29:59 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","West Virginia Natural Gas in ...

  11. ,"New York Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators"

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

    ...282016 11:29:48 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... York Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","New York Natural Gas in ...

  12. ,"Mountain Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    ...282016 11:29:22 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Mountain Region Natural Gas ...

  13. ,"Pacific Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    ...282016 11:29:26 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","Pacific Region Natural Gas ...

  14. ,"AGA Western Consuming Region Underground Natural Gas Storage...

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

    ...282016 11:29:25 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","AGA Western Consuming Region ...

  15. ,"East Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    ...282016 11:29:19 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","East Region Natural Gas in ...

  16. ,"AGA Producing Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All...

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

    ...282016 11:29:23 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","AGA Producing Region Natural ...

  17. ,"South Central Region Underground Natural Gas Storage - All...

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

    ...282016 11:29:20 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Total Underground Storage" ... Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (MMcf)","South Central Region Natural ...

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

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

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

    AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070VA2" "Date","Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net ...

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

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

    "Back to Contents","Data 1: West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070WV2" "Date","West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage ...

  3. ,"New Mexico Underground Natural Gas Storage - All Operators...

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

    ...,"N5020NM2","N5070NM2","N5050NM2","N5060NM2" "Date","New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)","New Mexico Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) ...

  4. ,"New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals...

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

    AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070NM2" "Date","New Mexico Natural Gas Underground Storage Net ...

  5. Lower 48 States Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion...

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

    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...

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

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

    in Underground Storage (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 ...

  7. Progress Continues Toward Closure of Two Underground Waste Tanks...

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

    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 ...

  8. 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...

  9. Tennessee Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic...

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

    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...

  10. 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).

  11. 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).

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

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

    AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070OK2" "Date","Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Net ...

  13. Reaching Underground Sources (from MIT Energy Initiative's Energy Futures,

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

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

  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. 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...

  16. 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).

  17. 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...

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

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

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

  19. 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...

  20. Underground Energy Storage Program. 1983 annual summary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kannberg, L.D.

    1984-06-01

    The Underground Energy Storage Program approach, structure, history, and milestones are described. Technical activities and progress in the Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage and Compressed Air Energy Storage components of the program are then summarized, documenting the work performed and progress made toward resolving and eliminating technical and economic barriers associated with those technologies. (LEW)

  1. 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.

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

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    ... be made by weighing the costs of an unintentional release ... on-site radiation monitoring, and operation of base camps. ... am begin measuring wind direction and speed to ; ...

  3. Shaping the future of nuclear detection | National Nuclear Security

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Administration Shaping the future of nuclear detection Thursday, July 3, 2014 - 10:59am Learning techniques to combat nuclear trafficking, touring the world's first plutonium production reactor, and spending time analyzing radiation detection methods in a state-of-the-art underground laboratory are not opportunities available to most students. These are just a few of the activities that students recently participated in at the third annual Radiation Detection for Nuclear Security Summer

  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.

    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.

  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.

    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.

  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. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Wisconsin Underground Natural Gas

  9. Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility / Deep Underground Neutrino Project

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    (LBNF-DUNE) | Department of Energy Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility / Deep Underground Neutrino Project (LBNF-DUNE) Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility / Deep Underground Neutrino Project (LBNF-DUNE) Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility / Deep Underground Neutrino Project (LBNF-DUNE) Chris Mossey, Deputy Lab Director (Fermi) and Project Director for LBNF-DUNE March 23, 2016 PDF icon Presentation More Documents & Publications EA-1943: Final Environmental Assessment EA-1943: Draft Environmental

  10. 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

  11. DOE - Office of Legacy Management -- Los Alamos Underground Med Pipelines -

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    NM 02 Los Alamos Underground Med Pipelines - NM 02 FUSRAP Considered Sites Site: Los Alamos Underground Med Pipelines ( NM.02 ) Eliminated - Remedial action being performed by the Los Alamos Area Office of the DOE Albuquerque Operations Office Designated Name: Not Designated Alternate Name: Los Alamos County Industrial Waste Lines NM.02-1 Location: Los Alamos , New Mexico NM.02-1 Evaluation Year: 1986 NM.02-1 Site Operations: From 1952 to 1965, underground pipelines or industrial waste lines

  12. WIPP Installs Underground Personnel Notification and Tracking System

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

    1, 2016 WIPP Installs Underground Personnel Notification and Tracking System A new underground Wireless Notification and Tracking System (WNTS) has been installed at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) that allows for two-way communication for both talk and text, audible and flashing alarms and allows personnel to immediately signal the Central Monitoring Room (CMR) in the event of an emergency. It also provides real-time tracking of all personnel entering the WIPP underground. "I'm

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

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

    Facilities Map 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 Guidelines for

  14. East Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    NA Not Available; W Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 03312016 Next Release Date: 04292016 Referring Pages: Underground Base

  15. Pacific Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas)...

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

    NA Not Available; W Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 03312016 Next Release Date: 04292016 Referring Pages: Underground Base

  16. Midwest Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas)...

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

    NA Not Available; W Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 03312016 Next Release Date: 04292016 Referring Pages: Underground Base

  17. Mountain Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas...

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

    NA Not Available; W Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 03312016 Next Release Date: 04292016 Referring Pages: Underground Base

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

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

    ... to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 03312016 Next Release Date: 04292016 Referring Pages: Underground Base Natural Gas in Storage - All Operators ...

  19. AGA Western Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage...

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

    NA Not Available; W Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 03312016 Next Release Date: 04292016 Referring Pages: Underground Base

  20. Lower 48 States Total Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base...

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

    NA Not Available; W Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 03312016 Next Release Date: 04292016 Referring Pages: Underground Base

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

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

    Accident Investigation of the February 5, 2014, Underground Salt Haul Truck Fire at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Carlsbad NM March 26, 2014 Accident Investigation of the ...

  2. 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...

  3. ,"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...

  4. ,"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...

  5. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    ...dnavnghistn5070us2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ...

  6. ,"Midwest Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf...

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

    Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at ...dnavnghistn5030852m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

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

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

    ,"Data 1","U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)",1,"Monthly","22016" ...dnavnghistn5030us2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

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

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

    ,"Data 1","U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity",3,"Monthly","22016","115...ngstorcapdcunusm.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

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

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030ny2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  10. ,"Pacific Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf...

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

    Pacific Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or ...dnavnghistn5030912m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

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

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

    Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or tab at bottom for data" ...dnavnghistn5030wv2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  12. ,"Mountain Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf...

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

    Mountain Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (MMcf)" ,"Click worksheet name or ...dnavnghistn5030862m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ...

  13. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf...

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

    ...dnavnghistn5070us2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" ...

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

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

    RegionalState Underground Natural Gas Storage Table About U.S. Natural Gas Pipelines - Transporting Natural Gas based on data through 20072008 with selected updates Regional ...

  15. 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...

  16. ,"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...

  17. ,"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...

  18. 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...

  19. 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...

  20. 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...

  1. 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:...

  2. 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...

  3. 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...

  4. 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...

  5. 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...

  6. 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...

  7. Underground Energy Storage Program. 1984 annual summary

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kannberg, L.D.

    1985-06-01

    Underground Energy Storage (UES) Program activities during the period from April 1984 through March 1985 are briefly described. Primary activities in seasonal thermal energy storage (STES) involved field testing of high-temperature (>100/sup 0/C (212/sup 0/F)) aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES) at St. Paul, laboratory studies of geochemical issues associated with high-temperatures ATES, monitoring of chill ATES facilities in Tuscaloosa, and STES linked with solar energy collection. The scope of international activities in STES is briefly discussed.

  8. 100-N Area underground storage tank closures

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rowley, C.A.

    1993-08-01

    This report describes the removal/characterization actions concerning underground storage tanks (UST) at the 100-N Area. Included are 105-N-LFT, 182-N-1-DT, 182-N-2-DT, 182-N-3-DT, 100-N-SS-27, and 100-N-SS-28. The text of this report gives a summary of remedial activities. In addition, correspondence relating to UST closures can be found in Appendix B. Appendix C contains copies of Unusual Occurrence Reports, and validated sampling data results comprise Appendix D.

  9. $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)

  10. Method of locating underground mines fires

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Laage, Linneas; Pomroy, William

    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.

  11. fusion | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    fusion Inertial Confinement Fusion The Office of ICF provides experimental capabilities and scientific understanding in high energy density physics (HEDP) necessary to ensure a safe, secure, and effective nuclear weapons stockpile without underground testing. The demonstration of laboratory ignition and its use to support the

  12. 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.'

  13. education | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    Home education Shaping the future of nuclear detection Learning techniques to combat nuclear trafficking, touring the world's first plutonium production reactor, and spending time analyzing radiation detection methods in a state-of-the-art underground laboratory are not opportunities available to most students. These are just a few of the activities... Sandia hosts tribal colleges and university students Sandia National Laboratories recently hosted students from various tribal colleges and

  14. 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.

  15. Quantum cryptography over underground optical fibers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hughes, R.J.; Luther, G.G.; Morgan, G.L.; Peterson, C.G.; Simmons, C.

    1996-05-01

    Quantum cryptography is an emerging technology in which two parties may simultaneously generated shared, secret cryptographic key material using the transmission of quantum states of light whose security is based on the inviolability of the laws of quantum mechanics. An adversary can neither successfully tap the key transmissions, nor evade detection, owing to Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle. In this paper the authors describe the theory of quantum cryptography, and the most recent results from their experimental system with which they are generating key material over 14-km of underground optical fiber. These results show that optical-fiber based quantum cryptography could allow secure, real-time key generation over ``open`` multi-km node-to-node optical fiber communications links between secure ``islands.``

  16. 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.

  17. Weekly Working Gas in Underground Storage

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

    Working Gas in Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet) Period: Weekly Download Series History Download Series History Definitions, Sources & Notes Definitions, Sources & Notes Region 04/15/16 04/22/16 04/29/16 05/06/16 05/13/16 05/20/16 View History Total Lower 48 States 2,484 2,557 2,625 2,681 2,754 2,825 2010-2016 East 408 431 454 468 490 511 2010-2016 Midwest 538 554 566 582 606 629 2010-2016 Mountain 152 155 157 161 166 171 2010-2016 Pacific 271 277 284 288 293 298 2010-2016 South

  18. 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.

  19. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  20. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  1. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Georgia Underground Natural Gas Storage -

  2. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Addition of Safe Havens Increases WIPP Underground Safety

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

    WIPP UPDATE: November 24, 2015 Addition of Safe Havens Increases WIPP Underground Safety The WIPP site has made significant safety improvements. Recently, eight underground safe havens (or refuge chambers) were delivered to the site and will be downloaded into the WIPP underground prior to the restart of waste disposal operations. The safe havens are about 28 feet long, 8 feet wide and 7.25 feet high and weigh approximately 19,000 pounds. Each unit is equipped to house 20 people for at least 36

  7. 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.

  8. SPE-4 Prime | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    SPE-4 Prime NNSA Conducts Experiment to Improve U.S. Ability to Detect Foreign Nuclear Explosions 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 U.S. effort

  9. 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

  10. Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working...

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

    Percent) Minnesota 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 -9.2 ...

  11. Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working...

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

    Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota 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 ...

  12. 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...

  13. 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 -...

  14. 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...

  15. California Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working...

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

    Percent) California 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 5.1 ...

  16. California Natural Gas in Underground Storage - Change in Working...

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

    Million Cubic Feet) California 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 ...

  17. ,"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...

  18. ,"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"...

  19. ,"U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)"

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

    ...dnavnghistn5060us2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5060US2...

  20. ,"U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

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

    ...dnavnghistn5290us2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290US2" ...

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

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

    ...dnavnghistn5060us2m.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: U.S. Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5060US2...

  2. ,"U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)...

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

    ...dnavnghistn5290us2a.htm" ,"Source:","Energy Information Administration" ,"For Help, ... 1: U.S. Total Natural Gas Underground Storage Capacity (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5290US2" ...

  3. AGA Producing Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity...

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

    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...

  4. AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) AGA Eastern Consuming Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec...

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

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

    292016 12:05:02 AM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: U.S. Underground Natural Gas Storage Capacity" "Sourcekey","N5290US2","NA1393NUS2","NA1392NUS2","NA1391NUS2","NGA...

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

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

    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 ...

  7. 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 ...

  8. 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 ...

  9. 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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Minnesota Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 1,708 ...

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

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Indiana Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 22,371 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

  16. 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 ...

  17. 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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Iowa Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 74,086 66,477 ...

  1. 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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

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

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

    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 ...

  6. 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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Kentucky Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 58,567 ...

  11. 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 ...

  12. Illinois Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million...

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 571,959 571,959 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

  15. Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Michigan Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 311,360 ...

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

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 65,683 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Kansas Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Base Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 179,462 179,462 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

  1. 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 ...

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

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

    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 ...

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

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) California Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 125,898 ...

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

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

    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 ...

  5. Illinois Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million...

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

    Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Illinois Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas) (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1990 234,149 ...

  6. 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...

  7. 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...

  8. Underground barrier construction apparatus with soil-retaining shield

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Gardner, Bradley M.; Smith, Ann Marie; Hanson, Richard W.; Hodges, Richard T.

    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.

  9. 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.

  10. ,"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"...

  11. Second Panel of Disposal Rooms Completed in WIPP Underground

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

    Second Panel of Disposal Rooms Completed in WIPP Underground CARLSBAD, N.M., October 13, ... Crews working in two shifts completed mining Panel 2 weeks ahead of schedule and under ...

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

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

    ,,"(202) 586-8800",,,"01292016 2:35:47 PM" "Back to Contents","Data 1: Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Net Withdrawals (MMcf)" "Sourcekey","N5070KS2"...

  13. Underground-Energy-Storage Program, 1982 annual report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kannberg, L.D.

    1983-06-01

    Two principal underground energy storage technologies are discussed--Seasonal Thermal Energy Storage (STES) and Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES). The Underground Energy Storage Program objectives, approach, structure, and milestones are described, and technical activities and progress in the STES and CAES areas are summarized. STES activities include aquifer thermal energy storage technology studies and STES technology assessment and development. CAES activities include reservoir stability studies and second-generation concepts studies. (LEW)

  14. New Texas Oil Project Will Help Keep Carbon Dioxide Underground |

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

    Department of Energy Texas Oil Project Will Help Keep Carbon Dioxide Underground New Texas Oil Project Will Help Keep Carbon Dioxide Underground February 5, 2013 - 12:05pm Addthis The Air Products and Chemicals hydrogen production facilities in Port Arthur, Texas, is funded by the Energy Department through the 2009 Recovery Act. It is managed by the Office of Fossil Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory. | Photo credit Air Products and Chemicals hydrogen production facilities.

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

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

    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

  16. nuclear bombs | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    nuclear bombs

  17. nuclear fusion | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    nuclear fusion

  18. nuclear reactors | National Nuclear Security Administration

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    nuclear reactors

  19. NNSA Sites Host Head of Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty...

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

    General Stephen L. Davis standing in a pipe in a test tunnel that was formerly used for underground nuclear explosive testing at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). Dr. ...

  20. EM Shares Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Lessons Learned with Nuclear Energy Agency

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    PARIS – EM officials shared lessons learned from the 2014 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant underground fire and radiological release with the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Division of Radiological Protection and Radioactive Waste Management in a seminar in Paris recently.

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

    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 Nevada Test Site. The test, code named "Divider," was the last of 1,030 nuclear tests carried out by the U.S. July 26, 2015 From nuclear weapons testing to stockpile stewardship x View larger version On Sept. 23, 1992, the last full-scale underground test of a nuclear weapon was conducted by Los Alamos

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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)

  6. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of

  7. Rhode Island Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) 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 Year-9 1970's 91 654 678 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Rhode

  8. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas

  9. South Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) 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 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 42 53 116 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators South Carolina

  10. 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) 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 2016 32.10 77.70 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  11. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into Underground Storage

  12. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of

  13. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators

  14. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections

  15. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators Delaware

  16. 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 2016 17.50 41.40 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  17. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Net Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground

  18. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date:

  19. New Jersey Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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 Year-9 1960's 811 968 1,075 1970's 1,008 1,469 1,785 1,463 3,329 2,509 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground

  20. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections

  1. North Carolina Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) 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 Year-8 Year-9 1970's 2,483 1,910 1990's 0 0 0 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Release Date: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage - All Operators North

  2. 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 2016 0.10 -3.90 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  3. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Withdrawals of Natural Gas from Underground Storage

  4. 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 2016 23.60 75.90 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  5. 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 2016 19.40 24.20 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet)

    Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (EIA)

    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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into

  9. 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

  10. 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: 4/29/2016 Next Release Date: 5/31/2016 Referring Pages: Injections of Natural Gas into

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

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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...

  17. 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...

  18. DOE Completes Disposal Operations In Panel 5 of the WIPP Underground...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Disposal Operations In Panel 5 of the WIPP Underground DOE Completes Disposal Operations In Panel 5 of the WIPP Underground August 15, 2011 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contact Deb Gill ...

  19. East Region Natural Gas in Underground Storage (Working Gas)...

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

    East 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 451,335 271,801 167,715 213,475 349,739 ...

  20. 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...

  1. 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...

  2. Underground Test Area Subproject Project Management Plan, Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    1998-06-03

    This Project Management Plan (PMP) describes the manner in which the US Department of Energy Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) will manage the Underground Test Area (UGTA) Subproject at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). It provides the basic guidance for implementation and the organizational structure for meeting the UGTA objectives.

  3. 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.

  4. ,"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...

  5. 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

  6. 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)

  7. 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.

  8. Madelyn Creedon visits NNSS U1a underground complex | National...

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    experiments and to improve the conditional codes that help assure the safety and reliability of the nuclear stockpile without nuclear weapons testing. In the photo, from left to ...

  9. Salt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion

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

    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

  10. South Central 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) South Central Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 43,713 72,210 68,273 129,736 166,816 139,578 127,533 106,014 152,936 188,366 105,938 79,339 2015 42,402 27,815 109,364 202,417 199,245 125,159 103,901 98,174 147,861 157,461 91,849 81,946 2016 39,777 68,898 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  11. 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 2016 2,634,512 2,644,516 -

  12. South Central Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 371,260 289,618 183,273 39,605 32,953 29,651 35,762 50,673 28,279 26,329 112,590 119,365 2015 256,423 283,344 112,986 27,466 25,868 43,144 55,962 51,969 37,838 41,062 79,913 115,758 2016 247,173 142,745 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to

  13. South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic

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

    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

  14. Ohio Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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

  15. Oklahoma Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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

  16. Pacific Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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 2016 535,527 521,897 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  17. South Central Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) South Central Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 1,719,230 1,501,862 1,386,639 1,476,237 1,609,924 1,719,264 1,809,652 1,864,897 1,989,374 2,150,785 2,144,710 2,104,699 2015 1,889,028 1,633,827 1,629,734 1,804,453 1,977,770 2,061,225 2,109,107 2,154,799 2,265,050 2,381,950 2,393,620 2,359,631 2016 2,152,101 2,077,659 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not

  18. East Region Natural Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Gas Injections into Underground Storage (Million Cubic Feet) East Region Natural Gas Injections into 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 33,103 25,810 2015 8,423 5,281 16,253 88,445 149,767 130,188 108,787 114,704 101,174 71,777 40,221 27,722 2016 8,190 15,514 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid

  19. East Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) East Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2,200,169 2015 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,197,282 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2,195,132 2016 2,195,132 2,195,132 - = No Data Reported; -- =

  20. East Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) East Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 246,785 190,063 128,801 25,000 7,746 7,431 13,938 10,048 5,968 7,987 94,148 115,013 2015 215,226 199,930 114,989 18,690 6,325 8,253 18,299 9,963 7,271 12,466 45,095 85,288 2016 232,321 162,639 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  1. East Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    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

  2. Michigan Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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 710,139 607,908

  3. Mississippi Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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 80,802 83,305 90,316

  4. Montana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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 266,711 262,291 259,532

  5. Mountain Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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 2016 582,516 569,950 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  6. 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.

  7. Alaska Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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 2016 38,492 38,987 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA

  8. California Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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

  9. East Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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 2016 1,748,494 1,601,601 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not

  10. Illinois Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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 783,875 735,236

  11. Indiana Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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 88,414 89,388 91,515

  12. Iowa Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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 218,826 208,027 205,378

  13. Kansas Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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 229,148 213,533 208,832

  14. Kentucky Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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 192,736 181,774 172,140

  15. Nonsalt South Central Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage

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

    (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

  16. 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 2016 7,399 8,534 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure

  17. Pacific Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million

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

    Cubic Feet) Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Pacific Region Natural Gas Total Underground Storage Capacity (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 676,176 2015 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 679,477 678,273 678,273 678,273 2016 678,273 678,273 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA =

  18. Pacific Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Pacific Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 76,707 86,452 24,564 4,043 2,164 2,455 6,733 4,852 8,180 3,311 22,305 31,554 2015 52,490 18,060 20,604 10,898 5,699 10,860 11,475 13,959 11,378 6,402 24,246 57,876 2016 50,941 22,072 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual

  19. Pacific Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    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

  20. 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

  1. 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

  2. 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 2016 2,718,087 2,718,087 - = No Data

  3. Midwest Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic

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

    Feet) Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Midwest Region Natural Gas Underground Storage Withdrawals (Million Cubic Feet) Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 303,499 226,394 125,284 24,726 2,965 1,475 2,904 3,200 2,019 8,158 110,419 134,700 2015 243,623 277,476 114,530 18,256 3,370 2,601 6,038 3,629 2,226 4,518 49,679 115,760 2016 230,137 164,945 - = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of

  4. Midwest Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic Feet)

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

    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

  5. Mountain Region Natural Gas Working Underground Storage (Billion Cubic

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

    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

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. West Virginia Natural Gas Underground Storage Volume (Million Cubic Feet)

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

    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

  16. Methodology for EIA Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Estimates

    Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (EIA)

    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

  17. Revision Policy for EIA Weekly Underground Natural Gas Storage Estimates

    Weekly Natural Gas Storage Report (EIA)

    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

  18. 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.

  19. 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).

  20. 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.