Powered by Deep Web Technologies
Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


1

Hanford Federal Facility state of Washington leased land  

SciTech Connect

This report was prepared to provide information concerning past solid and hazardous waste management practices for all leased land at the US DOE Hanford Reservation. This report contains sections including land description; land usage; ground water, air and soil monitoring data; and land uses after 1963. Numerous appendices are included which provide documentation of lease agreements and amendments, environmental assessments, and site surveys.

Not Available

1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

2

U.S. Federal Facility Compliance Agreement for the Hanford Site, February 7, 1994 Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

for Radionuclide for Radionuclide NESHAP State Washington Agreement Type Federal Facility Compliance Agreement Legal Driver(s) CAA Scope Summary Bring DOE's Hanford site into compliance with CAA Parties EPA; DOE; Richland Operations Office (RL) Date 02/07/1994 SCOPE * Bring DOE's Hanford site into compliance with CAA. This Compliance Plan contains a schedule for DOE to evaluate the monitoring systems associated with Designated Stacks to ensure that these systems conform to the standards for continuous monitoring systems in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, Subpart H. ESTABLISHING MILESTONES * Beginning 30 days after the effective date of this Agreement, DOE shall submit quarterly progress reports to EPA until the requirements contained in Amendment A

3

Hanford Site Strategic Facilities Plan: Site planning  

SciTech Connect

This plan revises the Hanford Site Strategic Facilities Plan submitted by Westinghouse Hanford Company in 1988. It separates the Hanford Site facilities into two categories: ''strategically required'' facilities and ''marginal'' facilities. It provides a comparison of future facility requirements against existing capacities and proposed projects to eliminate or consolidate marginal facilities (i.e., those facilities that are not fully utilized or are no longer required to accomplish programmatic missions). The objective is to enhance the operating efficiency of the Hanford Site by maximizing facility use and minimizing unnecessary facility operating and maintenance costs. 11 refs.

1989-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

4

Hanford, WA Selected as Plutonium Production Facility | National Nuclear  

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Hanford, WA Selected as Plutonium Production Facility | National Nuclear Hanford, WA Selected as Plutonium Production Facility | National Nuclear Security Administration Our Mission Managing the Stockpile Preventing Proliferation Powering the Nuclear Navy Emergency Response Recapitalizing Our Infrastructure Continuing Management Reform Countering Nuclear Terrorism About Us Our Programs Our History Who We Are Our Leadership Our Locations Budget Our Operations Media Room Congressional Testimony Fact Sheets Newsletters Press Releases Speeches Events Social Media Video Gallery Photo Gallery NNSA Archive Federal Employment Apply for Our Jobs Our Jobs Working at NNSA Blog Home > About Us > Our History > NNSA Timeline > Hanford, WA Selected as Plutonium Production Facility Hanford, WA Selected as Plutonium Production Facility January 16, 1943 Hanford, WA

5

Final Hanford Offsite Waste Shipment Leaves Idaho Treatment Facility...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Final Hanford Offsite Waste Shipment Leaves Idaho Treatment Facility Final Hanford Offsite Waste Shipment Leaves Idaho Treatment Facility August 18, 2011 - 12:00pm Addthis Idaho...

6

Project Hanford nuclear facilities list and authorization basis information  

SciTech Connect

Rev. 4 documents and updates the Nuclear Facilities list and associated Authorization Basis (AB) information for applicable Project Hanford facilities.

EVANS, C.B.

1999-03-03T23:59:59.000Z

7

Federal Energy Management Program: Federal Facility Annual Energy Reports  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Federal Facility Federal Facility Annual Energy Reports and Performance to someone by E-mail Share Federal Energy Management Program: Federal Facility Annual Energy Reports and Performance on Facebook Tweet about Federal Energy Management Program: Federal Facility Annual Energy Reports and Performance on Twitter Bookmark Federal Energy Management Program: Federal Facility Annual Energy Reports and Performance on Google Bookmark Federal Energy Management Program: Federal Facility Annual Energy Reports and Performance on Delicious Rank Federal Energy Management Program: Federal Facility Annual Energy Reports and Performance on Digg Find More places to share Federal Energy Management Program: Federal Facility Annual Energy Reports and Performance on AddThis.com... Requirements by Subject

8

Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, general information portion  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (document number DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. Both the General Information and Unit-Specific portions of the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application address the content of the Part B permit application guidance prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 1996) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (40 Code of Federal Regulations 270), with additional information needed by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments and revisions of Washington Administrative Code 173-303. Documentation contained in the General Information Portion is broader in nature and could be used by multiple treatment, storage, and/or disposal units (e.g., the glossary provided in this report).

Hays, C.B.

1998-05-19T23:59:59.000Z

9

Hanford Site near-facility environmental monitoring data report for calendar year 1998  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This document summarizes the results of the U.S. Department of Energy's Near-Facility Environmental Monitoring program conducted by Waste Management Federal Services of Hanford, Inc. for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc. for 1998 in the 100,200/600, and 300/400 Areas of the Hanford Site, in southcentral Washington State. Surveillance activities included sampling and analyses of ambient air, surface water, groundwater, soil, sediments, and biota. Also, external radiation measurements and radiological surveys were taken at waste disposal sites, radiologically controlled areas, and roads. These activities were conducted to assess and control the effects of nuclear facilities and waste sites on the local environment. In addition, diffuse sources were monitored to determine compliance with federal, state, and/or local regulations. In general, although effects from nuclear facilities can still be observed on the Hanford Site and radiation levels are slightly elevated when compared to offsite locations, the differences are less than in previous years.

DIEDIKER, L.P.

1999-07-29T23:59:59.000Z

10

HEATER TEST PLANNING FOR THE NEAR SURFACE TEST FACILITY AT THE HANFORD RESERVATION  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Heater Experiment at Hanford. Berkeley, Lawre ;e BerkeleyTest Facility, Hole DC-11, Hanford Reservation. Prepared forof Gable Mountain Basalt Cores, Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

DuBois, A.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

11

Federal Facility Reporting | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Federal Facility Reporting Federal Facility Reporting Federal Facility Reporting October 8, 2013 - 1:59pm Addthis Various legal authorities require agencies to report data on energy and water consumption and resource management efforts within Federal facilities. The Federal Energy Management Program collects this data to assess agency performance toward mandated goals on agency Energy/Sustainability Scorecards and presents it in annual reports to Congress. Find Federal facility reporting information related to: Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, Section 432, Federal Facility Management and Benchmarking Requirements: View information about requirements and data collected to track Federal facility compliance with requirements for performing facility evaluations, implementing and

12

Federal Energy Management Program: Industrial Facilities  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Industrial Facilities to someone by E-mail Share Federal Energy Management Program: Industrial Facilities on Facebook Tweet about Federal Energy Management Program: Industrial...

13

Designation of facility usage categories for Hanford Site facilities  

SciTech Connect

This report summarizes the Hanford Site methodology used to ensure facility compliance with the natural phenomena design criteria set forth in the US Department of Energy Orders and guidance. The current Hanford Site methodology for Usage Category designation is based on an engineered feature's safety function and on the feature's assigned Safety Class. At the Hanford Site, Safety Class assignments are deterministic in nature and are based on teh consequences of failure, without regard to the likelihood of occurrence. The report also proposes a risk-based approach to Usage Category designation, which is being considered for future application at the Hanford Site. To establish a proper Usage Category designation, the safety analysis and engineering design processes must be coupled. This union produces a common understanding of the safety function(s) to be accomplished by the design feature(s) and a sound basis for the assignment of Usage Categories to the appropriate systems, structures, and components. 4 refs., 9 figs., 1 tab.

Woodrich, D.D.; Ellingson, D.R.; Scott, M.A.; Schade, A.R.

1991-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

14

Hanford Facility Annual Dangerous Waste Report Calendar Year 2002  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Hanford CY 2002 dangerous waste generation and management forms. The Hanford Facility Annual Dangerous Waste Report (ADWR) is prepared to meet the requirements of Washington Administrative Code Sections 173-303-220, Generator Reporting, and 173-303-390, Facility Reporting. In addition, the ADWR is required to meet Hanford Facility RCRA Permit Condition I.E.22, Annual Reporting. The ADWR provides summary information on dangerous waste generation and management activities for the Calendar Year for the Hanford Facility EPA ID number assigned to the Department of Energy for RCRA regulated waste, as well as Washington State only designated waste and radioactive mixed waste. The Solid Waste Information and Tracking System (SWITS) database is utilized to collect and compile the large array of data needed for preparation of this report. Information includes details of waste generated on the Hanford Facility, waste generated offsite and sent to Hanford for management, and other waste management activities conducted at Hanford, including treatment, storage, and disposal. Report details consist of waste descriptions and weights, waste codes and designations, and waste handling codes. In addition, for waste shipped to Hanford for treatment and/or disposal, information on manifest numbers, the waste transporter, the waste receiving facility, and the original waste generators are included. In addition to paper copies, electronic copies of the report are also transmitted to the regulatory agency.

FREEMAN, D.A.

2003-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

15

Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Recovery  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Recovery Act Funding Puts U Canyon in Home Stretch of Demolition Preparations Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Recovery Act Funding Puts U Canyon in Home Stretch of Demolition Preparations June 14, 2011 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contacts Andre Armstrong, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (509) 376-6773 Andre_L_Armstrong@rl.gov Geoff Tyree, DOE (509) 376-4171 Geoffrey.Tyree@rl.doe.gov RICHLAND, Wash. - Hanford workers are pouring enough cement-like material to fill six Olympic-size wimming pools in one of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) largest nuclear facilities at the Hanford Site in southeast Washington State to prepare the massive building for demolition.

16

Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Recovery  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Recovery Act Funding Puts U Canyon in Home Stretch of Demolition Preparations Massive Cement Pour into Hanford Site Nuclear Facility Underway: Recovery Act Funding Puts U Canyon in Home Stretch of Demolition Preparations June 14, 2011 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contacts Andre Armstrong, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (509) 376-6773 Andre_L_Armstrong@rl.gov Geoff Tyree, DOE (509) 376-4171 Geoffrey.Tyree@rl.doe.gov RICHLAND, Wash. - Hanford workers are pouring enough cement-like material to fill six Olympic-size wimming pools in one of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) largest nuclear facilities at the Hanford Site in southeast Washington State to prepare the massive building for demolition.

17

Hanford Facility Highlights EM's Success in Meeting Cost and Schedule  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Facility Highlights EM's Success in Meeting Cost and Hanford Facility Highlights EM's Success in Meeting Cost and Schedule Targets Hanford Facility Highlights EM's Success in Meeting Cost and Schedule Targets August 1, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis EM Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Tracy Mustin speaks during the operational kickoff event for the 200 West Pump and Treat System this month. EM Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Tracy Mustin speaks during the operational kickoff event for the 200 West Pump and Treat System this month. An aerial view of the 200 West Pump and Treat System at the Hanford site. An aerial view of the 200 West Pump and Treat System at the Hanford site. EM Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Tracy Mustin speaks during the operational kickoff event for the 200 West Pump and Treat System this month.

18

HANFORD FACILITY ANNUAL DANGEROUS WASTE REPORT CY2005  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Hanford Facility Annual Dangerous Waste Report (ADWR) is prepared to meet the requirements of Washington Administrative Code Sections 173-303-220, Generator Reporting, and 173-303-390, Facility Reporting. In addition, the ADWR is required to meet Hanford Facility RCR4 Permit Condition I.E.22, Annual Reporting. The ADWR provides summary information on dangerous waste generation and management activities for the Calendar Year for the Hanford Facility EPA ID number assigned to the Department of Energy for RCRA regulated waste, as well as Washington State only designated waste and radioactive mixed waste. An electronic database is utilized to collect and compile the large array of data needed for preparation of this report. Information includes details of waste generated on the Hanford Facility, waste generated offsite and sent to Hanford for management, and other waste management activities conducted at Hanford, including treatment, storage, and disposal. Report details consist of waste descriptions and weights, waste codes and designations, and waste handling codes, In addition, for waste shipped to Hanford for treatment and/or disposal, information on manifest numbers, the waste transporter, the waste receiving facility, and the original waste generators are included. In addition to paper copies, the report is also transmitted electronically to a web site maintained by the Washington State Department of Ecology.

SKOLRUD, J.O.

2006-02-15T23:59:59.000Z

19

Hanford Treatment Facility Achieves First Gold Ranking for Sustainable  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Treatment Facility Achieves First Gold Ranking for Treatment Facility Achieves First Gold Ranking for Sustainable Design in EM Complex: New groundwater treatment facility will be Hanford's largest, greenest pump-and-treat system Hanford Treatment Facility Achieves First Gold Ranking for Sustainable Design in EM Complex: New groundwater treatment facility will be Hanford's largest, greenest pump-and-treat system May 1, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis Workers use a lift to access part of the 200 West Groundwater Treatment Facility. Workers use a lift to access part of the 200 West Groundwater Treatment Facility. Pump-and-treat construction managers David Fink (left) and Delise Pargmann (right) review information for the LEED gold certification of the main process building for the 200 West Groundwater Treatment Facility.

20

Hanford Site existing irradiated fuel storage facilities description  

SciTech Connect

This document describes facilities at the Hanford Site which are currently storing spent nuclear fuels. The descriptions provide a basis for the no-action alternatives of ongoing and planned National Environmental Protection Act reviews.

Willis, W.L.

1995-01-11T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


21

Final Hanford Offsite Waste Shipment Leaves Idaho Treatment Facility |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Final Hanford Offsite Waste Shipment Leaves Idaho Treatment Final Hanford Offsite Waste Shipment Leaves Idaho Treatment Facility Final Hanford Offsite Waste Shipment Leaves Idaho Treatment Facility August 18, 2011 - 12:00pm Addthis Idaho State Patrol Troopers Rick Stouse and Tony Anderson inspected the TRUPACTS, containers which contain TRU waste, and trailer containing the final shipment of Hanford offsite waste. The Idaho State Patrol officers have played an important role in AMWTP's success by inspecting every one of AMWTP's nearly 3,900 shipments. Idaho State Patrol Troopers Rick Stouse and Tony Anderson inspected the TRUPACTS, containers which contain TRU waste, and trailer containing the final shipment of Hanford offsite waste. The Idaho State Patrol officers have played an important role in AMWTP's success by inspecting every one of

22

Federal Energy Management Program: Facility Energy Checklist  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Facility Energy Facility Energy Checklist to someone by E-mail Share Federal Energy Management Program: Facility Energy Checklist on Facebook Tweet about Federal Energy Management Program: Facility Energy Checklist on Twitter Bookmark Federal Energy Management Program: Facility Energy Checklist on Google Bookmark Federal Energy Management Program: Facility Energy Checklist on Delicious Rank Federal Energy Management Program: Facility Energy Checklist on Digg Find More places to share Federal Energy Management Program: Facility Energy Checklist on AddThis.com... Project Assistance Training Outreach Awards for Saving Energy Energy Action Month FAQs Facility Checklist Home Energy Checklist Office Checklist Energy Coordinators Commit to Efficiency Facility Energy Checklist This checklist outlines actions that conserve energy within facilities.

23

The Association between Cancers and Low Level Radiation: an evaluation of the epidemiological evidence at the Hanford Nuclear Weapons Facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

indiv. indiv. Gilbertetal. (Hanford & Combined) Gilbertetal.on both radiation and the Hanford facility. The data used toG. Radiation exposures of Hanford workers dying from cancer

Britton, Julie

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

24

Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, PUREX storage tunnels  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (document number DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. The scope of the Unit-Specific Portion is limited to Part B permit application documentation submitted for individual, operating treatment, storage, and/or disposal units, such as the PUREX Storage Tunnels (this document, DOE/RL-90-24). Both the General Information and Unit-Specific portions of the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application address the content of the Part B permit application guidance prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 1996) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (40 Code of Federal Regulations 270), with additional information needs defined by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments and revisions of Washington Administrative Code 173-303. For ease of reference, the Washington State Department of Ecology alpha-numeric section identifiers from the permit application guidance documentation (Ecology 1996) follow, in brackets, the chapter headings and subheadings. A checklist indicating where information is contained in the PUREX Storage Tunnels permit application documentation, in relation to the Washington State Department of Ecology guidance, is located in the Contents Section. Documentation contained in the General Information Portion is broader in nature and could be used by multiple treatment, storage, and/or disposal units (e.g., the glossary provided in the General Information Portion). Wherever appropriate, the PUREX Storage Tunnels permit application documentation makes cross-reference to the General Information Portion, rather than duplicating text. Information provided in this PUREX Storage Tunnels permit application documentation is current as of April 1997.

Price, S.M.

1997-09-08T23:59:59.000Z

25

Hanford Facility Highlights EM's Success in Meeting Cost and Schedule  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Facility Highlights EM's Success in Meeting Cost and Facility Highlights EM's Success in Meeting Cost and Schedule Targets Hanford Facility Highlights EM's Success in Meeting Cost and Schedule Targets August 1, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis EM Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Tracy Mustin speaks during the operational kickoff event for the 200 West Pump and Treat System this month. EM Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Tracy Mustin speaks during the operational kickoff event for the 200 West Pump and Treat System this month. An aerial view of the 200 West Pump and Treat System at the Hanford site. An aerial view of the 200 West Pump and Treat System at the Hanford site. EM Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Tracy Mustin speaks during the operational kickoff event for the 200 West Pump and Treat System this month.

26

Independent Oversight Review, Hanford K Basin and Cold Vacuum Drying Facility- August 2012  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

Review of Hanford K Basin and Cold Vacuum Drying Facility Found Fuel Multi-Canister Overpack Operations

27

Operational Issues at the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility at Hanford  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Operations Hanford Operations Evaluating Operational Issues at the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility at Hanford By Craig H. Benson, PhD, PE; William H. Albright, PhD; and David P. Ray, PE Sponsored by: The Office of Engineering and Technology (EM-20) 17 June 2007 i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 1 Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility 1 Source of Concern 2 LINES OF INQUIRY 2 1. Validate Scope of Identified Problems 2 2. Assess Contractor Evaluation of the Elevated Leachate Level on the Landfill Liner 3 3. Evaluate Adequacy of Landfill Performance in View of the Discovered Falsified Compaction Data and Potential Leachate Level Problems 4

28

Brookhaven National Laboratory Federal Facility Agreement, February...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Brookhaven National Laboratory Agreement Name Brookhaven National Laboratory Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120, February 28, 1992 State New York Agreement Type...

29

Greening Federal Facilities: An Energy, Environmental, and Economic...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

DOEGO-102001-1165 GREENING FEDERAL FACILITIES An Energy, Environmental, and Economic Resource Guide for Federal Facility Managers and Designers SECOND EDITION i Greening Federal...

30

Federal Energy Management Program: Federal Facility Annual Energy Reports  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Annual Energy Reports and Performance Annual Energy Reports and Performance Published Annual Reports Visit the FEMP Library to search for read FEMP Annual Reports to Congress on Federal Government Energy Management. For more information, contact Chris Tremper. The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) offers information and data sets illustrating Federal agencies' annual progress in meeting facility energy goals. Additional detail about each agency's performance can be found in their Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans on the Performance.Gov website. Federal Facility Efficiency Investment and Progress toward Sustainability Goals: Get an overview of Federal progress made in facility energy management and sustainability based on preliminary fiscal year (FY) 2012 reported findings. (For facility-level data reported under Section 432 of EISA, see EISA CTS Reports and Data.)

31

Risk management study for the retired Hanford Site facilities: Qualitative risk evaluation for the retired Hanford Site facilities. Volume 3  

SciTech Connect

This document provides a risk evaluation of the 100 and 200 Area retired, surplus facilities on the Hanford Site. Also included are the related data that were compiled by the risk evaluation team during investigations performed on the facilities. Results are the product of a major effort performed in fiscal year 1993 to produce qualitative information that characterizes certain risks associated with these facilities. The retired facilities investigated for this evaluation are located in the 100 and 200 Areas of the 1,450-km{sup 2} (570-mi{sup 2}) Hanford Site. The Hanford Site is a semiarid tract of land in southeastern Washington State. The nearest population center is Richland, Washington, (population 32,000) 30-km (20 mi) southeast of the 200 Area. During walkdown investigations of these facilities, data on real and potential hazards that threatened human health or safety or created potential environmental release issues were identified by the risk evaluation team. Using these findings, the team categorized the identified hazards by facility and evaluated the risk associated with each hazard. The factors contributing to each risk, and the consequence and likelihood of harm associated with each hazard also are included in this evaluation.

Coles, G.A.; Shultz, M.V.; Taylor, W.E.

1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

32

Agencies Decide to Dig Up Contaminated Soil at Hanford Site - Federal and  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Agencies Decide to Dig Up Contaminated Soil at Hanford Site - Agencies Decide to Dig Up Contaminated Soil at Hanford Site - Federal and state agencies determine cleanup plans for four areas near central Hanford Agencies Decide to Dig Up Contaminated Soil at Hanford Site - Federal and state agencies determine cleanup plans for four areas near central Hanford October 7, 2011 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contacts Geoff Tyree, DOE Geoffrey.Tyree@rl.doe.gov 509-376-4171 Emerald Laija, EPA Laija.Emerald@epamail.epa.gov 509-376-4919 Dieter Bohrmann, Ecology Dieter.Bohrmann@ecy.wa.gov 509-372-7954 RICHLAND, Wash. -The Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in coordination with the Washington Department of Ecology, have made plans for remediating contaminated soil at four locations in the center of the Hanford Site. The agencies have chosen

33

Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application, 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application documentation consists of both Part A and a Part B permit application documentation. An explanation of the Part A revisions associated with this treatment and storage unit, including the current revision, is provided at the beginning of the Part A section. Once the initial Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit is issued, the following process will be used. As final, certified treatment, storage, and/or disposal unit-specific documents are developed, and completeness notifications are made by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology, additional unit-specific permit conditions will be incorporated into the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit through the permit modification process. All treatment, storage, and/or disposal units that are included in the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application will operate under interim status until final status conditions for these units are incorporated into the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit. The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application, 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility contains information current as of May 1, 1993.

Not Available

1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

34

Greening Federal Facilities: An Energy, Environmental, and Economic  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Greening Federal Facilities: An Energy, Environmental, and Economic Greening Federal Facilities: An Energy, Environmental, and Economic Resource Guide for Federal Facility managers and Designers; Second Edition Greening Federal Facilities: An Energy, Environmental, and Economic Resource Guide for Federal Facility managers and Designers; Second Edition A nuts-and-bolts resource guide compiled to increase energy and resource efficiency, cut waste, and improve the performance of Federal buildings and facilities. Greening Federal Facilities: An Energy, Environmental, and Economic Resource Guide for Federal Facility managers and Designers; Second Edition More Documents & Publications From Tragedy to Triumph - Resources for Rebuilding Green after Disaster, EERE (Fact Sheet) Rebuilding It Better; BTI-Greensburg, John Deere Dealership (Brochure)

35

Federal Energy Management Program: Facility Energy Decision System...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Facility Energy Decision System Software to someone by E-mail Share Federal Energy Management Program: Facility Energy Decision System Software on Facebook Tweet about Federal...

36

Federal Facilities Maintenance, Repair Report Calls for Action  

SciTech Connect

This article is an overview of a recent report by the Federal Facilities Council on "Predicting Outcomes from Investments in Maintenance and Repair of Federal Facilities."

Bartlett, Rosemarie

2012-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

37

Federal Facility Agreement for the Oak Ridge Reservation, January...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Federal Facility Agreement for the Oak Ridge Reservation State Tennessee Agreement Type Federal Facility Agreement Legal Driver(s) CERCLA Scope Summary Establish a procedure...

38

Federal Facility Agreement for the Laboratory for Energy-Related...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Energy Related Health Research Agreement Name Federal Facility Agreement for the Laboratory for Energy- Related Health Research State California Agreement Type Federal Facility...

39

Weldon Spring Federal Facility Agreement, January 28, 1992 Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Weldon Spring Site Agreement Name First Amended Federal Facility Agreement Cercla-VII-85- F-0057 State Missouri Agreement Type Federal Facility Agreement Legal Driver(s) CERCLA...

40

Agreement on New Commitments for Hanford Tank Waste Cleanup Sent to Federal  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Agreement on New Commitments for Hanford Tank Waste Cleanup Sent to Agreement on New Commitments for Hanford Tank Waste Cleanup Sent to Federal Judge Agreement on New Commitments for Hanford Tank Waste Cleanup Sent to Federal Judge October 6, 2010 - 12:00am Addthis RICHLAND, Wash. - The U.S. Department of Energy and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) jointly filed a motion today in U.S. District Court asking the court to approve and enter a judicial consent decree that imposes a new, enforceable, and achievable schedule for cleaning up waste from Hanford's underground tanks. The settlement also includes new milestones in the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), an administrative order between DOE, Ecology, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which governs cleanup at DOE's Hanford Site. "Today's agreement represents an important milestone in the ongoing cleanup

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


41

PRELIMINARY THERMAL AND THERMOMECH-ANICAL MODELING FOR THE NEAR SURFACE TEST FACILITY HEATER EXPERIMANTS AT HANFORD: Appendix D  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Heater Experiments at Hanford V O L U M E II (Appendix D) TENG-48 and for Rockwell Hanford Operations — a Department ofFACILITY HEATER EXPERIMENTS AT HANFORD Volume 2 (Appendix D)

Chan, T.

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

42

Hanford site near-facility environmental monitoring annual report, calendar year 1996  

SciTech Connect

This document summarizes the results of the near-facility environmental monitoring results for 1996 in the 100, 200/600, and 300/400 areas of the Hanford Site in south-central Washington State. Surveillance activities included sampling and analyses of ambient air, surface water, groundwater, soil, sediments, and biota. Also, external radiation measurements and radiological surveys were taken at waste disposal sites, radiologically controlled areas, and roads. These activities were conducted to assess and control the effects of nuclear facilities and waste sites on the local environment. The monitoring implements applicable portions of DOE Orders 5400.1 (DOE 1988a), 5400.5 (DOE 1990), and 5820.2A (DOE 1988b); Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 246-247; and Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, Subpart H (EPA 1989). In addition, diffuse sources were monitored to determine compliance with federal, state, and/or local regulations. In general, although effects from nuclear facilities can still be observed on the Hanford Site and radiation levels were slightly elevated when compared to offsite locations, the differences are less than in previous years.

Perkins, C.J.

1997-08-05T23:59:59.000Z

43

Environmental Justice and Federal Facilities: Recommendations for Improving Stakeholder Relations Between Federal Facilities and Enviornmental Justice Communities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

J J FEDERAL FACILITIES R IMPROVING S R BETWEEN FEDERAL F E JUSTICE COMMUNITIES October 2004 Prepared by the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee Federal Facilities Working Group NVIRONMENTAL USTICE AND ECOMMENDATIONS FOR TAKEHOLDER ELATIONS ACILITIES AND NVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND FEDERAL FACILITIES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING STAKEHOLDER RELATIONS BETWEEN FEDERAL FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES October 2004 Prepared by the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee Federal Facilities Working Group ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Federal Facilities Working Group of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council's (NEJAC) Waste and Facility Siting Subcommittee wishes to acknowledge and thank the organizations and individuals

44

List of currently classified documents relative to Hanford Production Facilities Operations originated on the Hanford Site between 1961 and 1972  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has declared that all Hanford plutonium production- and operations-related information generated between 1944 and 1972 is declassified. Any documents found and deemed useful for meeting Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction (HEDR) objectives may be declassified with or without deletions in accordance with DOE guidance by Authorized Derivative Declassifiers. The September 1992, letter report, Declassifications Requested by the Technical Steering Panel of Hanford Documents Produced 1944--1960, (PNWD-2024 HEDR UC-707), provides an important milestone toward achieving a complete listing of documents that may be useful to the HEDR Project. The attached listing of approximately 7,000 currently classified Hanford-originated documents relative to Hanford Production Facilities Operations between 1961 and 1972 fulfills TSP Directive 89-3. This list does not include such titles as the Irradiation Processing Department, Chemical Processing Department, and Hanford Laboratory Operations monthly reports generated after 1960 which have been previously declassified with minor deletions and made publicly available. Also Kaiser Engineers Hanford (KEH) Document Control determined that no KEH documents generated between January 1, 1961 and December 31, 1972 are currently classified. Titles which address work for others have not been included because Hanford Site contractors currently having custodial responsibility for these documents do not have the authority to determine whether other than their own staff have on file an appropriate need-to-know. Furthermore, these documents do not normally contain information relative to Hanford Site operations.

Not Available

1993-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

45

Decontamination and decommissioning assessment for the Waste Incineration Facility (Building 232-Z) Hanford Site, [Hanford], WA  

SciTech Connect

Building 232-Z is an element of the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) located in the 200 West Area of the Hanford Site. From 1961 until 1972, plutonium-bearing combustible materials were incinerated in the building. Between 1972 and 1983, following shutdown of the incinerator, the facility was used for waste segregation activities. The facility was placed in retired inactive status in 1984 and classified as a Limited Control Facility pursuant to DOE Order 5480.5, Safety of Nuclear Facilities, and 6430.1A, General Design Criteria. The current plutonium inventory within the building is estimated to be approximately 848 grams, the majority of which is retained within the process hood ventilation system. As a contaminated retired facility, Building 232-Z is included in the DOE Surplus Facility Management Program. The objective of this Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) assessment is to remove Building 232-Z, thereby elmininating the radiological and environmental hazards associated with the plutonium inventory within the structure. The steps to accomplish the plan objectives are: (1) identifying the locations of the most significant amounts of plutonium, (2) removing residual plutonium, (3) removing and decontaminating remaining building equipment, (4) dismantling the remaining structure, and (5) closing out the project.

Dean, L.N. [Advanced Sciences, Inc., (United States)

1994-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

46

Hanford  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Hanford Cleanup Site The Hanford Site mission focuses on environmental restoration, waste management, related scientific and environmental research and development of radioactive...

47

The Association between Cancers and Low Level Radiation: an evaluation of the epidemiological evidence at the Hanford Nuclear Weapons Facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

and Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant. Rad Res 1989;120:19-Evidence at the Hanford Nuclear Weapons Facility MASTERAT T H E HANFORD NUCLEAR WEAPONS FACILITY JULIE BRITTON

Britton, Julie

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

48

HEATER TEST PLANNING FOR THE NEAR SURFACE TEST FACILITY AT THE HANFORD RESERVATION  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

B. C. , 1978. Report on Hydrofracturing Tests for In SituStress Measurements, Near Surface Test Facility, Hole DC-11,Layout for Hanford Near-Surface Test Facility. Submitted to

DuBois, A.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

49

Hanford Site waste tank farm facilities design reconstitution program plan  

SciTech Connect

Throughout the commercial nuclear industry the lack of design reconstitution programs prior to the mid 1980`s has resulted in inadequate documentation to support operating facilities configuration changes or safety evaluations. As a result, many utilities have completed or have ongoing design reconstitution programs and have discovered that without sufficient pre-planning their program can be potentially very expensive and may result in end-products inconsistent with the facility needs or expectations. A design reconstitution program plan is developed here for the Hanford waste tank farms facility as a consequence of the DOE Standard on operational configuration management. This design reconstitution plan provides for the recovery or regeneration of design requirements and basis, the compilation of Design Information Summaries, and a methodology to disposition items open for regeneration that were discovered during the development of Design Information Summaries. Implementation of this plan will culminate in an end-product of about 30 Design Information Summary documents. These documents will be developed to identify tank farms facility design requirements and design bases and thereby capture the technical baselines of the facility. This plan identifies the methodology necessary to systematically recover documents that are sources of design input information, and to evaluate and disposition open items or regeneration items discovered during the development of the Design Information Summaries or during the verification and validation processes. These development activities will be governed and implemented by three procedures and a guide that are to be developed as an outgrowth of this plan.

Vollert, F.R.

1994-09-06T23:59:59.000Z

50

Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Closure Plan - Plutonium Finishing Plant Treatment Unit Glovebox HA-20MB  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This closure plan describes the planned activities and performance standards for closing the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) glovebox HA-20MB that housed an interim status ''Resource Conservation and Recovery Act'' (RCRA) of 1976 treatment unit. This closure plan is certified and submitted to Ecology for incorporation into the Hanford Facility RCRA Permit (HF RCRA Permit) in accordance with Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement; TPA) Milestone M-83-30 requiring submittal of a certified closure plan for ''glovebox HA-20MB'' by July 31, 2003. Glovebox HA-20MB is located within the 231-5Z Building in the 200 West Area of the Hanford Facility. Currently glovebox HA-20MB is being used for non-RCRA analytical purposes. The schedule of closure activities under this plan supports completion of TPA Milestone M-83-44 to deactivate and prepare for dismantlement the above grade portions of the 234-5Z and ZA, 243-Z, and 291-Z and 291-Z-1 stack buildings by September 30, 2015. Under this closure plan, glovebox HA-20MB will undergo clean closure to the performance standards of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-303-610 with respect to all dangerous waste contamination from glovebox HA-20MB RCRA operations. Because the intention is to clean close the PFP treatment unit, postclosure activities are not applicable to this closure plan. To clean close the unit, it will be demonstrated that dangerous waste has not been left at levels above the closure performance standard for removal and decontamination. If it is determined that clean closure is not possible or is environmentally impractical, the closure plan will be modified to address required postclosure activities. Because dangerous waste does not include source, special nuclear, and by-product material components of mixed waste, radionuclides are not within the scope of this documentation. Any information on radionuclides is provided only for general knowledge. Clearance form only sent to RHA.

PRIGNANO, A.L.

2003-06-25T23:59:59.000Z

51

HANFORD FACILITY ANNUAL DANGEROUS WASTE REPORT CY2003 [SEC 1 & 2  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Hanford Facility Annual Dangerous Waste Report (ADWR) is prepared to meet the requirements of Washington Administrative Code Sections 173-303-220, Generator Reporting, and 173-303-390, Facility Reporting. In addition, the ADWR is required to meet Hanford Facility RCRA Permit Condition I.E.22, Annual Reporting. The ADWR provides summary information on dangerous waste generation and management activities for the Calendar Year for the Hanford Facility EPA ID number assigned to the Department of Energy for RCRA regulated waste, as well as Washington State only designated waste and radioactive mixed waste. The Solid Waste Information and Tracking System (SWITS) database is utilized to collect and compile the large array of data needed for preparation of this report. Information includes details of waste generated on the Hanford Facility, waste generated offsite and sent to Hanford for management, and other waste management activities conducted at Hanford, including treatment, storage, and disposal. Report details consist of waste descriptions and weights, waste codes and designations, and waste handling codes. In addition, for waste shipped to Hanford for treatment and or disposal, information on manifest numbers, the waste transporter, the waste receiving facility, and the original waste generators are included. In addition to paper copies, the report is also transmitted electronically to a web site maintained by the Washington State Department of Ecology.

FREEMAN, D.A.

2004-02-17T23:59:59.000Z

52

Procuring Solar Energy: A Guide for Federal Facility Decision Makers  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Procuring Solar Energy: A Guide for Federal Facility Decision Makers SEPTEMBER 2010 Solar Energy: www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx PROCURING SOLAR ENERGY: A GUIDE FOR FEDERAL FACILITY DECISION MAKERS #12;September 2010 3 Procuring Solar Energy: A Guide for Federal Facility Decision Makers Blaise

53

Federal Finance Facilities Available for Energy Efficiency Upgrades  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Finance Facilities Finance Facilities Available for Energy Efficiency Upgrades and Clean Energy Deployment A Guide for State, Local & Tribal Leaders and their Partners August 28, 2013 2 Contents 1 Foreword ................................................................................................................................... 5 2 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 6 3 Federal Finance Facilities At-A-Glance ................................................................................... 7 3.1 Matrix of Federal Finance Facilities by Type and Agency .............................................. 7 4 Profiles of Federal Finance Facilities Available for Clean Energy .......................................... 8

54

Federal Facility Annual Energy Reports and Performance | Department of  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Laws & Regulations » Facility Reporting » Federal Facility Annual Laws & Regulations » Facility Reporting » Federal Facility Annual Energy Reports and Performance Federal Facility Annual Energy Reports and Performance October 8, 2013 - 2:09pm Addthis Agencies are required to report annual progress made toward energy- and water-reduction goals. Agencies are required to report annual progress made toward energy- and water-reduction goals. The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) offers information and data sets illustrating Federal agencies' annual progress in meeting facility energy goals. Additional detail about each agency's performance can be found in their Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans on the Performance.Gov website. Federal Facility Efficiency Investment and Progress toward Sustainability Goals: Get an overview of Federal progress made in facility energy

55

Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 432: Federal Facility  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 432: Federal Facility Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 432: Federal Facility Management and Benchmarking Requirements Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 432: Federal Facility Management and Benchmarking Requirements October 8, 2013 - 2:02pm Addthis Section 432 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires agencies to report Federal facility energy and water use. Section 432 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires agencies to report Federal facility energy and water use. The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) is responsible for tracking Federal agency progress toward meeting Section 432 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 for Federal facility energy and water management and benchmarking. The EISA 432 Compliance Tracking System (EISA 432 CTS) tracks agency

56

Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 432: Federal Facility  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Facility Reporting » Energy Independence and Facility Reporting » Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 432: Federal Facility Management and Benchmarking Requirements Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 432: Federal Facility Management and Benchmarking Requirements October 8, 2013 - 2:02pm Addthis Section 432 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires agencies to report Federal facility energy and water use. Section 432 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires agencies to report Federal facility energy and water use. The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) is responsible for tracking Federal agency progress toward meeting Section 432 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 for Federal facility energy and water management and benchmarking.

57

MRAP MONTICELLO PROJECTS FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT REPORT  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

MRAP MRAP MONTICELLO PROJECTS FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT REPORT May/June 2005 Report Period: May 1 -June 30, 2005 DOE Project Coordinator: Art Kleinrath HIGHLIGHTS DOE constmction, as identified in the Millsite Restoration Plan, was substantially completed on June 3. Seeding of disturbed areas was completed on June 15. MSG DOE completed constmction of the permeable reactive treatment cell and initiated operations in June. The cell is an enhancement to the existing pe1meable reactive ban·ier and was designed to alleviate ground water mounding. MVP Approximately one cubic yard of contaminated material was identified in a City of Monticello excavation near the golf course. This material was transferred to the Temporary Storage Facility located at the DOE Monticello Office.

58

Analysis of Hanford-based Options for Sustainable DOE Facilities on the West Coast  

SciTech Connect

Large-scale conventional energy projects result in lower costs of energy (COE). This is true for most renewable energy projects as well. The Office of Science is interested in its facilities meeting the renewable energy mandates set by Congress and the Administration. Those facilities on the west coast include a cluster in the Bay Area of California and at Hanford in central Washington State. Land constraints at the California facilities do not permit large scale projects. The Hanford Reservation has land and solar insolation available for a large scale solar project as well as access to a regional transmission system that can provide power to facilities in California. The premise of this study is that a large-scale solar project at Hanford may be able to provide renewable energy sufficient to meet the needs of select Office of Science facilities on the west coast at a COE that is competitive with costs in California despite the lower solar insolation values at Hanford. The study concludes that although the cost of solar projects continues to decline, estimated costs for a large-scale project at Hanford are still not competitive with avoided power costs for Office of Science facilities on the west coast. Further, although it is possible to transmit power from a solar project at Hanford to California facilities, the costs of doing so add additional costs. Consequently, development of a large- scale solar project at Hanford to meet the renewable goals of Office of Science facilities on the west coast is currently uneconomic. This may change as solar costs decrease and California-based facilities face increasing costs for conventional and renewable energy produced in the state. PNNL should monitor those cost trends.

Warwick, William M.

2012-06-30T23:59:59.000Z

59

Project Hanford management contract quality assurance program implementation plan for nuclear facilities  

SciTech Connect

During transition from the Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) Management and Operations (M and O) contract to the Fluor Daniel Hanford (FDH) Management and Integration (M and I) contract, existing WHC policies, procedures, and manuals were reviewed to determine which to adopt on an interim basis. Both WHC-SP-1131,Hanford Quality Assurance Program and Implementation Plan, and WHC-CM-4-2, Quality Assurance Manual, were adopted; however, it was recognized that revisions were required to address the functions and responsibilities of the Project Hanford Management Contract (PHMC). This Quality Assurance Program Implementation Plan for Nuclear Facilities (HNF-SP-1228) supersedes the implementation portion of WHC-SP-1 13 1, Rev. 1. The revised Quality Assurance (QA) Program is documented in the Project Hanford Quality Assurance Program Description (QAPD), HNF-MP-599. That document replaces the QA Program in WHC-SP-1131, Rev. 1. The scope of this document is limited to documenting the nuclear facilities managed by FDH and its Major Subcontractors (MSCS) and the status of the implementation of 10 CFR 830.120, Quality Assurance Requirements, at those facilities. Since the QA Program for the nuclear facilities is now documented in the QAPD, future updates of the information provided in this plan will be by letter. The layout of this plan is similar to that of WHC-SP-1 13 1, Rev. 1. Sections 2.0 and 3.0 provide an overview of the Project Hanford QA Program. A list of Project Hanford nuclear facilities is provided in Section 4.0. Section 5.0 provides the status of facility compliance to 10 CFR 830.120. Sections 6.0, 7.0, and 8.0 provide requested exemptions, status of open items, and references, respectively. The four appendices correspond to the four projects that comprise Project Hanford.

Bibb, E.K.

1997-10-15T23:59:59.000Z

60

Federal Facility Consolidated Annual Reporting Requirements | Department of  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Facility Reporting » Federal Facility Facility Reporting » Federal Facility Consolidated Annual Reporting Requirements Federal Facility Consolidated Annual Reporting Requirements October 8, 2013 - 2:07pm Addthis Section 548(a) of National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NEPCA, 42 U.S.C. 8258(a)) requires each Federal agency to submit to the U.S. Department of Energy an annual report describing activities to meet the energy management requirements of Section 543 of NECPA (42 U.S.C. 8253). Information and data collected from the agencies will be used to develop DOE's Annual Report to Congress on Federal Government Energy Management. Annual GHG and Sustainability Data Report for FY 2013 Reporting The Federal Energy Management Program's (FEMP) Annual GHG and Sustainability Data Report, Version 4.2 is to be used by top-tier Federal

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


61

Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities | Department of  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities October 4, 2013 - 4:41pm Addthis The Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities provides significant financial evidence from research findings and case studies that sustainable design is a smart business choice. The 20-page brochure and the full document provide data and information indicating that sustainable design does not have to increase first costs and yields economic, social, and environmental benefits to building owners and society. Read the Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities brochure. Download the Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities full document. Contact For additional information about the Business Case for Sustainable Design

62

MSG MONTICELLO PROJECTS FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT REPORT  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

November/December 2004 November/December 2004 Report Period: November 1- December 31, 2004 DOE Project Coordinator: Art Kleinrath HIGHLIGHTS The Program Directive for the wildlife survey is on schedule for completion by January 15. Comments from the Biological Technical Assistance group have been incorporated. MRAP A punchlist of mill site restoration items was prepared. DOE and the City of Monticello have agreed upon which entity will perform each item on the punchlist. MVP No significant activities to report. FF A Monthly Report November- December 2004 Page 2 of5 STATUS MONTICELLO PROJECTS FEDERAL FACILITIES AGREEMENT REPORT November/December 2004 Report Period: November 1- December 31, 2004 DOE Project Coordinator: Art Kleinrath Operable Units I and II DOE and the City of Monticello (City) are exploring the possibility of transferring the former

63

Strategic Energy and Water Resource Planning for Federal Facilities  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

310 Strategic Resource Planning Leading by example, saving energy and taxpayer dollars in federal facilities Bringing you a prosperous future where energy is clean, abundant,...

64

Toxic Substances Control Act Uranium Enrichment Federal Facilities...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

McCall, Jr. http:www.em.doe.govffaaortsca.html 4252001 Toxic Substances Control Act Uranium Enrichment Federal Facilities Compliance Agree.. Page 12 of 26 Deputy Assistant...

65

Toxic Substances Control Act Uranium Enrichment Federal Facilities...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Toxic Substance Control Act Uranium Enrichment Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (TSCA-UE- FFCA), February 20, 1992 State Kentucky Agreement Type Compliance Agreement Legal...

66

Toxic Substances Control Act Uranium Enrichment Federal Facilities...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Toxic Substance Control Act Uranium Enrichment Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (TSCA-UE- FFCA), February 20, 1992 State Ohio Agreement Type Compliance Agreement Legal...

67

Sanitary Waste Water Treatment System for the Hanford Decontamination Laundry Facility  

SciTech Connect

This is an engineering report for the Decontamination Laundry Facility (DLF) which will be located in the 200 East Area of the Hanford Site. The proposed Sanitary Waste Treatment System is new and does not involve interfacing with existing sanitary waste treatment systems. It will utilize a subsurface soil absorption system (SSAS), which are frequently used to dispose of sanitary waste water from facilities at the Hanford Site, since a majority of its` facilities are located in remote areas. Construction of the DLF is scheduled to start in 1992 and startup of the DLF is planned during the summer of 1994.

Yanochko, R.M.

1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

68

Sanitary Waste Water Treatment System for the Hanford Decontamination Laundry Facility  

SciTech Connect

This is an engineering report for the Decontamination Laundry Facility (DLF) which will be located in the 200 East Area of the Hanford Site. The proposed Sanitary Waste Treatment System is new and does not involve interfacing with existing sanitary waste treatment systems. It will utilize a subsurface soil absorption system (SSAS), which are frequently used to dispose of sanitary waste water from facilities at the Hanford Site, since a majority of its' facilities are located in remote areas. Construction of the DLF is scheduled to start in 1992 and startup of the DLF is planned during the summer of 1994.

Yanochko, R.M.

1992-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

69

Idaho Site Launches Startup of Waste Treatment Facility Following Federal  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Launches Startup of Waste Treatment Facility Following Launches Startup of Waste Treatment Facility Following Federal Inspection, DOE Milestone Idaho Site Launches Startup of Waste Treatment Facility Following Federal Inspection, DOE Milestone April 23, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis A controlled, phased startup of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit began today after the facility passed a federal inspection. A controlled, phased startup of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit began today after the facility passed a federal inspection. A view of the interior of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit. A view of the interior of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit. A controlled, phased startup of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit began today after the facility passed a federal inspection. A view of the interior of the Integrated Waste

70

Idaho Site Launches Startup of Waste Treatment Facility Following Federal  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Idaho Site Launches Startup of Waste Treatment Facility Following Idaho Site Launches Startup of Waste Treatment Facility Following Federal Inspection, DOE Milestone Idaho Site Launches Startup of Waste Treatment Facility Following Federal Inspection, DOE Milestone April 23, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis A controlled, phased startup of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit began today after the facility passed a federal inspection. A controlled, phased startup of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit began today after the facility passed a federal inspection. A view of the interior of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit. A view of the interior of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit. A controlled, phased startup of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit began today after the facility passed a federal inspection. A view of the interior of the Integrated Waste

71

Greening Federal Facilities: An Energy, Environmental, and Economic Resource Guide for Federal Facility managers and Designers; Second Edition  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

FEDERAL FACILITIES FEDERAL FACILITIES An Energy, Environmental, and Economic Resource Guide for Federal Facility Managers and Designers SECOND EDITION DOE/GO-102001-1165 Section DOE/GO-102001-1165 NREL/BK-710-29267 May 2001 i Greening Federal Facilities An Energy, Environmental, and Economic Resource Guide for Federal Facility Managers and Designers SECOND EDITION "Then I say the earth belongs to each ... generation during its course, fully and in its own right, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence." Thomas Jefferson, September 6, 1789 Produced for: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Federal Energy Management Program Produced by: BuildingGreen, Inc., Brattleboro, Vermont Under:

72

Federal Finance Facilities Available for Energy Efficiency Upgrades and  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Federal Finance Facilities Available for Energy Efficiency Upgrades Federal Finance Facilities Available for Energy Efficiency Upgrades and Clean Energy Deployment Federal Finance Facilities Available for Energy Efficiency Upgrades and Clean Energy Deployment "Federal Finance Facilities Available for Energy Efficiency Upgrades and Clean Energy Deployment" is a resource guide that lists the various federal financing programs for which energy efficiency and clean energy qualify - meant to make it easier for state, local and tribal leaders, along with their partners in the private sector, to find capital for energy efficiency and clean energy projects. This first-edition guide is a product of a cooperative effort among seven federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation and Treasury, along with the

73

Federal Finance Facilities Available for Energy Efficiency Upgrades and  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Federal Finance Facilities Available for Energy Efficiency Upgrades Federal Finance Facilities Available for Energy Efficiency Upgrades and Clean Energy Deployment Federal Finance Facilities Available for Energy Efficiency Upgrades and Clean Energy Deployment "Federal Finance Facilities Available for Energy Efficiency Upgrades and Clean Energy Deployment" is a resource guide that lists the various federal financing programs for which energy efficiency and clean energy qualify - meant to make it easier for state, local and tribal leaders, along with their partners in the private sector, to find capital for energy efficiency and clean energy projects. This first-edition guide is a product of a cooperative effort among seven federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation and Treasury, along with the

74

Monticello Mill site Federal Facility Agreement, December 22, 1988  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

: Monticello Vicinity Properties NPL Site and Monticello Millsite Federal Facility AgreemPage 1 of 36 : Monticello Vicinity Properties NPL Site and Monticello Millsite Federal Facility AgreemPage 1 of 36 EM Home | Regulatory Compliance | Environmental Compliance Agreements Monticello (Utah) Site: Monticello Vicinity Properties NPL Site and Monticello Millsite Federal Facility Agreement Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120, December 22, 1988 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VIII and THE STATE OF UTAH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IN THE MATTER: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MONTICELLO (UTAH) SITE: MONTICELLO VICINITY PROPERTIES NPL SITE and MONTICELLO MILLSITE Federal Facility Agreement pursuant to Section 120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and ) FEDERAL FACILITY ) AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO

75

Facility preparations for the initial International Atomic Energy Agency Inpsection of Hanford Site excess material  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

In September 1993 President Clinton offered to place excess US nuclear materials under IAEA safeguards. In January 1994, the Hanford Site was identified as the second site in the US to be prepared for placement on the eligibility list for LAEA safeguards selection. Planning and preparation started at Hanford in February 1994. The PFP mission is to provide safe storage of Category 1 and 2 special nuclear material (SNM) and laboratory support to the Hanford Site. The mission includes the stabilizing and packaging of SNM for temporary storage sufficient to support the deactivation and cleanup function of the facility. The storage of Category 1 and 2 SNM at this facility indirectly supports national security interests, and safe storage is accomplished in a manner that ensures the health and safety of the public and employees are not compromised. The PFP is located in the approximate center of the Hanford Site inside the 200 West Area. The PFP is within a designated protected area (PA) and is located approximately 10.5 km from the Columbia River and 34 km northwest of the Richland city limits. The, Hanford Site is located in Southeastern Washington and has been associated with plutonium production since the mid 1940s. Excess plutonium oxide has been placed under IAEA safeguards in a phased approach at the PFP`s Plutonium Storage Vault. This paper is an overview and summary of the many tasks required to meet IAEA safeguards requirements.

Johnson, W.C. [USDOE Richland Operations Office, WA (United States); Scott, D.D.; Bartlett, W.D.; Delegard, C.H.; McRae, L.P.; Six, D.E. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States); Amacker, O.P. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States)

1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

76

Manhattan Project buildings and facilities at the Hanford Site: A construction history  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This document thoroughly examines the role that the Hanford Engineer Works played in the Manhattan project. The historical aspects of the buildings and facilities are characterized. An in depth look at the facilities, including their functions, methods of fabrication and appearance is given for the 100 AREAS, 200 AREAS, 300 AREAS, 500, 800 and 900 AREAS, 600 AREA, 700 AREA, 1100 AREA and temporary construction structures.

Gerber, M.S.

1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

77

Cooperative fish-rearing programs in Hanford Site excess facilities  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

In, 1993, two successful fish-rearing pilot projects were conducted in Hanford Site 100 K Area water treatment pools (K Pools) that are excess to the US Department of Energy needs. Beginning this spring, two larger cooperative fish programs will be undertaken in the K Pools. One program will involve the Yakama Indian Nation, which will rear, acclimate, and release 500,000 fall chinook salmon. The other program involves the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, which will rear warm-water specie (walleye and channel catfish) for planting in state lakes. Renewed economic vitality is the goal expected from these and follow-on fish programs.

Herborn, D.I.; Anderson, B.N.

1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

78

Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Manual  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY FEDERAL REVIEW GROUP MANUAL REVISION 3 JUNE 2008 (This page intentionally left blank) Low-Level JVllsfe Disposal Fllcili~l' Federal Review Group il1allUlli Revision 3, June 200S Concurrence The Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Manual, Revision 3, is approved for use as of the most recent date below. Date Chair, Low-Level Waste Disposal Federal Review Group Andrew WalJo, 1II Deputy Director, Otlice of Nuclear Safety, Quality Assurance, and Environment Department of Energy OHlce of Health, Safety, and Security e C. WilJiams Associate Administrator for Infrastructure and Environment National Nuclear Security Administration Low-Level 'Vaste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group J1aJll/ai

79

Renewable energy technologies for federal facilities. Passive solar design  

SciTech Connect

Renewable energy technologies for federal facilities using passive solar designs are presented. More than one million residences and 1, 700 commercial buildings across the U.S. now employ passive solar designs.

1996-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

80

Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Manual  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

This Revision 3 of the Low-Level Waste Disposal  Facility Federal Review Group (LFRG) Manual was prepared primarily to include review criteria for the review of transuranic (TRU) waste disposal...

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


81

DOE/EA-1660: Combined Community Communications Facility and Infrastructure Cleanup on the Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Land's Ecology Reserve, Hanford Site, Richland, WA (07/20/09)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

July 2009 July 2009 DOE/EA-1660F Environmental Assessment Combined Community Communications Facility and Infrastructure Cleanup on the Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office Richland, Washington 99352 Final Environmental Assessment July 2009 Sum-1 Summary Introduction. This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides information and analyses of proposed U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) activities associated with consolidating existing communications operations and removing excess facilities and infrastructure within the Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology Reserve (ALE) at the Hanford Site near the City of Richland, Washington. Purpose and Need. To meet long-term federal agency missions, DOE needs to reduce indirect costs and

82

Waste Treatment Facility Passes Federal Inspection, Completes Final  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Waste Treatment Facility Passes Federal Inspection, Completes Final Waste Treatment Facility Passes Federal Inspection, Completes Final Milestone, Begins Startup Waste Treatment Facility Passes Federal Inspection, Completes Final Milestone, Begins Startup April 23, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contact Erik Simpson, 208-390-9464 Danielle Miller, 208-526-5709 The Idaho site today initiated the controlled, phased startup of a new waste treatment facility scheduled to begin treating 900,000 gallons of radioactive liquid waste stored in underground tanks at a former Cold War spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility next month. A U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) operational readiness review team (made up of Subject Matter Experts across the country) in early April identified a dozen issues for the cleanup contractor CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC (CWI) to

83

Readiness Assessment Plan, Hanford 200 areas treated effluent disposal facilities  

SciTech Connect

This Readiness Assessment Plan documents Liquid Effluent Facilities review process used to establish the scope of review, documentation requirements, performance assessment, and plant readiness to begin operation of the Treated Effluent Disposal system in accordance with DOE-RLID-5480.31, Startup and Restart of Facilities Operational Readiness Review and Readiness Assessments.

Ulmer, F.J.

1995-02-06T23:59:59.000Z

84

Criticality Safety Evaluation of Hanford Tank Farms Facility  

SciTech Connect

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

WEISS, E.V.

2000-12-15T23:59:59.000Z

85

Federal Energy Management Program: Facility Energy Checklist  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Facility Energy Checklist Facility Energy Checklist This checklist outlines actions that conserve energy within facilities. For Your Buildings Lower thermostat settings. Match HVAC schedules to occupancy schedules. Lower setback temperatures. Optimize morning warmup and night setback controls. Reduce/eliminate major sources of infiltration. Install a desiccant dehumidification system. Minimize use of outside air for process ventilation. Educate employees on building systems and energy efficiency measures. Check/adjust combustion efficiency of gas-fired equipment. Minimize the use of gas-fired refrigeration equipment. Check for ways to control solar gain to reduce the cooling load on buildings, including cool roofs or solar shading on windows PDF Install revolving doors. Install energy-efficient lighting and occupancy sensors.

86

Summary - Operational Issues at the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) at Hanford  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

ERDF ERDF ETR Report Date: June 2007 ETR-6 United States Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) External Technical Review of the Operational Issues at the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility(ERDF) at Hanford Why DOE-EM Did This Review The ERDF is a large- scale disposal facility authorized to receive waste from Hanford cleanup activities. It contains double-lined cells with a RCRA Subtitle C- type liner and leachate collection system. By 2007, 6.8 million tons of waste with 39,000 Curies of radioactivity had been placed in the ERDF. In 2006, events occurred that affected the operation of the automatic leachate transfer pumps and a technician confessed to having not performed compaction tests and to falsification of the data.

87

1997 evaluation of tritium removal and mitigation technologies for Hanford Site wastewaters  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report contains results of a biennial assessment of tritium separation technology and tritium nitration techniques for control of tritium bearing wastewaters at the Hanford Site. Tritium in wastewaters at Hanford have resulted from plutonium production, fuel reprocessing, and waste handling operations since 1944. this assessment was conducted in response to the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order.

Jeppson, D.W.; Biyani, R.K.; Duncan, J.B.; Flyckt, D.L.; Mohondro, P.C.; Sinton, G.L.

1997-07-24T23:59:59.000Z

88

MSG MONTICELLO PROJECTS FEDERAL FACILITIES AGREEMENT REPORT  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

FACILITIES AGREEMENT REPORT FACILITIES AGREEMENT REPORT Report Period: October 1- December 31, 2005 DOE Project Coordinator: Ray Plieness HIGHLIGHTS The Final Report-2005 Avian Wetland Surveys at the Monticello Mill Tailings Site and the Final Report-Monticello Mill Tailings Site Macroinvertebrate Sampling for 2005 were transmitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) on December 13. These reports are required under the Monticello Mill Tailings Site Operable Unit III Post-Record of Decision Monitoring Plan, Section 6.0 Biomonitoring Plan, to determine whether selenium levels are present in environmental media at concentrations that could cause adverse effects on ecological receptors. MRAP The draft-flnal2005 Annual Inspection of the Monticello Mill Tailings (USDOE) and

89

Federal Facilities Liaison Weighs in on EM Achievements, Challenges at  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Federal Facilities Liaison Weighs in on EM Achievements, Challenges Federal Facilities Liaison Weighs in on EM Achievements, Challenges at Savannah River Site Federal Facilities Liaison Weighs in on EM Achievements, Challenges at Savannah River Site December 27, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis Shelly Wilson, third from right, participates in a roundtable discussion at the Intergovernmental Meeting with the DOE in New Orleans this month. Also pictured are Maryland Delegate Sally Jameson, left to right, Office of River Protection Deputy Manager Stacy Charboneau, Willie Preacher, Director of DOE-related projects for Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and Eddy County, N.M., Commissioner Roxanne Lara. Shelly Wilson, third from right, participates in a roundtable discussion at the Intergovernmental Meeting with the DOE in New Orleans this month. Also

90

Federal Facility Agreement for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Federal Facility Agreement for the Paducah Gaseous Federal Facility Agreement for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant State Kentucky Agreement Type Federal Facility Agreement Legal Driver(s) CERCLA/RCRA Scope Summary Ensure that the environmental impacts of activities at the Site are investigated and appropriate response actions are taken. Parties U.S. DOE; Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet; U.S. EPA Date 2/01/1998 SCOPE * Ensure all releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants are addressed to achieve comprehensive remediation of the site. * Establish a procedural framework and schedule for developing, implementing, and monitoring response actions in accordance with CERCLA, RCRA, and Kentucky Law. * Facilitate cooperation, exchange of information, and participation of the Parties and

91

Federal Facilities Liaison Weighs in on EM Achievements, Challenges at  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Federal Facilities Liaison Weighs in on EM Achievements, Challenges Federal Facilities Liaison Weighs in on EM Achievements, Challenges at Savannah River Site Federal Facilities Liaison Weighs in on EM Achievements, Challenges at Savannah River Site December 27, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis Shelly Wilson, third from right, participates in a roundtable discussion at the Intergovernmental Meeting with the DOE in New Orleans this month. Also pictured are Maryland Delegate Sally Jameson, left to right, Office of River Protection Deputy Manager Stacy Charboneau, Willie Preacher, Director of DOE-related projects for Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and Eddy County, N.M., Commissioner Roxanne Lara. Shelly Wilson, third from right, participates in a roundtable discussion at the Intergovernmental Meeting with the DOE in New Orleans this month. Also

92

SRS - Area Completion Projects - Federal Facility Agreement and Supporting  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

5/2013 5/2013 SEARCH GO spacer Administrative Record File/Information Repository File Federal Facility Agreement and Supporting Documentation General Information and Technologies Public Involvement Home SRS Home Area Completion Projects Federal Facility Agreement and Supporting Documentation * Federal Facility Agreement -The document that directs the comprehensive remediation of the Savannah River Site Appendix Affected by Modification: Appendix D Issuance of EPA and SCDHEC approved Revision.0 Appendix D for Fiscal Year 2013 (Print Date: 08/27/2013). The SCDHEC provided a comment on the Revision 0 Appendix D for Fiscal Year 2013 (Print Date: 08/27/2013) on Spetember 26, 2013. The EPA provided conditional approval, pending resolution of the SCDHEC's comment, of theRevision 0 Appendix D for Fiscal Year 2013 (Print Date: 08/27/2013) on October 30, 2013.

93

DEMOLITION OF HANFORDS 232-Z WASTE INCINERATION FACILITY  

SciTech Connect

The 232-Z Plutonium Incinerator Facility was a small, highly alpha-contaminated, building situated between three active buildings located in an operating nuclear complex. Approximately 500 personnel worked within 250 meters (800 ft) of the structure and expectations were that the project would neither impact plant operations nor result in any restrictions when demolition was complete. Precision demolition and tight controls best describe the project. The team used standard open-air demolition techniques to take the facility to slab-on-grade. Several techniques were key to controlling contamination and confining it to the demolition area: spraying fixatives before demolition began; using misting systems, frequently applying fixatives, and using a methodical demolition sequence and debris load-out process. Detailed air modeling was done before demolition to determine necessary facility source-term levels, establish radiological boundaries, and confirm the adequacy of the proposed demolition approach. By only removing the major source term in equipment, HEPA filters, gloveboxes, and the like, and leaving fixed contamination on the walls, ceilings and floors, the project showed considerable savings and reduced worker hazards and exposure. The ability to perform this demolition safely and without the spread of contamination provides confidence that similar operations can be performed successfully. By removing the major source terms, fixing the remaining contamination in the building, and using controlled demolition and contamination control techniques, similar structures can be demolished cost effectively and safely.

LLOYD, E.R.

2006-11-21T23:59:59.000Z

94

Plutonium production story at the Hanford site: processes and facilities history  

SciTech Connect

This document tells the history of the actual plutonium production process at the Hanford Site. It contains five major sections: Fuel Fabrication Processes, Irradiation of Nuclear Fuel, Spent Fuel Handling, Radiochemical Reprocessing of Irradiated Fuel, and Plutonium Finishing Operations. Within each section the story of the earliest operations is told, along with changes over time until the end of operations. Chemical and physical processes are described, along with the facilities where these processes were carried out. This document is a processes and facilities history. It does not deal with the waste products of plutonium production.

Gerber, M.S., Westinghouse Hanford

1996-06-20T23:59:59.000Z

95

Waste immobilization demonstration program for the Hanford Site`s Mixed Waste Facility  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This paper presents an overview of the Waste Receiving and Processing facility, Module 2A> waste immobilization demonstration program, focusing on the cooperation between Hanford Site, commercial, and international participants. Important highlights of the development and demonstration activities is discussed from the standpoint of findings that have had significant from the standpoint of findings that have had significant impact on the evolution of the facility design. A brief description of the future direction of the program is presented, with emphasis on the key aspects of the technologies that call for further detailed investigation.

Burbank, D.A.; Weingardt, K.M.

1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

96

Monticello Mill site Federal Facility Agreement, December 22, 1988 Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Monticello Monticello Agreement Name Monticello (Utah) Site: Monticello Vicinity Properties NPL Site and Monticello Millsite Federal Facility Agreement Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120, December 22, 1988 State Utah Agreement Type Federal Facility Agreement Legal Driver(s) CERCLA Scope Summary Establish a procedural framework and schedule for developing, implementing, and monitoring appropriate response actions at the Site Parties DOE; US EPA; State of Utah Department of Environmental Health Date 12/22/1988 SCOPE * Identify Interim Remedial Action (IRA) alternatives, if any, which are appropriate at the Site prior to the implementation of final remedial actions for the Site. * Evaluate all past investigative and response actions taken at the Site and documented

97

Strengthening Line Management Oversight and Federal Monitoring of Nuclear Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

14 14 Strengthening Line Management Oversight and Federal Monitoring of Nuclear Facilities Standard Review Plan Commercial Grade Dedication (CGD) August 2013 2 of 14 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT Standard Review Plan (SRP) Commercial Grade Dedication (CGD) Applicability CD-0 CD-1 CD-2 CD-3 CD-4 Operation Post Operation August 2013 3 of 14 Table of Contents Objective ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Overview of Commercial Grade Dedication for Nuclear Facilities .............................................................. 4 Requirements ................................................................................................................................................ 5

98

Hanford Site Solid Waste Acceptance Criteria  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This manual defines the Hanford Site radioactive, hazardous, and sanitary solid waste acceptance criteria. Criteria in the manual represent a guide for meeting state and federal regulations; DOE Orders; Hanford Site requirements; and other rules, regulations, guidelines, and standards as they apply to acceptance of radioactive and hazardous solid waste at the Hanford Site. It is not the intent of this manual to be all inclusive of the regulations; rather, it is intended that the manual provide the waste generator with only the requirements that waste must meet in order to be accepted at Hanford Site TSD facilities.

Not Available

1993-11-17T23:59:59.000Z

99

Federal Facility Efficiency Investment and Progress toward Sustainability Goals  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

1 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) Chris Tremper, Program Analyst chris.tremper@ee.doe.gov 202-586-7632 Federal Facility Efficiency Investment and Progress toward Sustainability Goals July 31, 2013 Overall Facility Goal Progress, FY 2012 Goal/Requirement for FY 2012 FY 2012 Federal Performance E.O. 13423/EISA: Reduce energy intensity (Btu/GSF) by 21% compared to 2003; 30% reduction required in FY 2015. Government decreased energy intensity by 20.6% in FY 2012 relative to FY 2003 17 of 24 Scorecard agencies achieved the goal. EPACT 2005/E.O. 13423: Use renewable electric energy equivalent to at least 5% of total electricity use; at least half of which must come from sources developed after January 1,

100

Federal Facility Efficiency Investment and Progress toward Sustainability Goals  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

1 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) Chris Tremper, Program Analyst chris.tremper@ee.doe.gov 202-586-7632 Federal Facility Efficiency Investment and Progress toward Sustainability Goals July 31, 2013 Overall Facility Goal Progress, FY 2012 Goal/Requirement for FY 2012 FY 2012 Federal Performance E.O. 13423/EISA: Reduce energy intensity (Btu/GSF) by 21% compared to 2003; 30% reduction required in FY 2015. Government decreased energy intensity by 20.6% in FY 2012 relative to FY 2003 17 of 24 Scorecard agencies achieved the goal. EPACT 2005/E.O. 13423: Use renewable electric energy equivalent to at least 5% of total electricity use; at least half of which must come from sources developed after January 1,

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


101

The Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

F F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M FEDERAL FACILITIES SUSTAINABLE DESIGN The Business Case for IN U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Bringing you a prosperous future where energy is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable The Business Case for SUSTAINABLE DESIGN On the cover: National Institutes of Health, Louis Stokes Laboratories/Building 50, Bethesda, MD Sandia National Laboratories' Process and Environmental Technology Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM Zion National Park Visitors Center, Springdale, UT IN FEDERAL FACILITIES Preface The ethic of good economic and environmental stewardship is well established in the Federal government. ce to the sustainable use of natural resources runs deep. et, as concerns about the environmental and societal

102

The Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

F F E D E R A L E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M FEDERAL FACILITIES SUSTAINABLE DESIGN The Business Case for IN U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Bringing you a prosperous future where energy is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable The Business Case for SUSTAINABLE DESIGN On the cover: National Institutes of Health, Louis Stokes Laboratories/Building 50, Bethesda, MD Sandia National Laboratories' Process and Environmental Technology Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM Zion National Park Visitors Center, Springdale, UT IN FEDERAL FACILITIES Preface The ethic of good economic and environmental stewardship is well established in the Federal government. ce to the sustainable use of natural resources runs deep. et, as concerns about the environmental and societal

103

PRELIMINARY THERMAL AND THERMOMECHANICAL MODELING FOR THE NEAR SURFACE TEST FACILITY HEATER EXPERIMENTS AT HANFORD  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Isotherms in Vertical Plane, Hanford Full-Scale Experiment:Isotherms in Vertical Plane, Hanford Full-Scale Experiment:Isotherms in Vertical Plane, Hanford Full-Scale Experiment:

chan, T.

2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

104

Rough order of magnitude cost estimate for immobilization of 50 MT of plutonium sharing existing facilities at Hanford with pit disassembly {ampersand} conversion facility: alternative 11  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of this Cost Estimate Report is to identify preliminary capital and operating costs for a facility to immobilize 50 metric tons (nominal) of plutonium as a ceramic in an existing facility at Hanford, the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility (FMEF). The Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF), which is being costed in a separate report by LANL, will also be located in the FMEF in this co-location option.

DiSabatino, A., LLNL

1998-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

105

The Federal Reserve’s Primary Dealer Credit Facility.” Unpublished paper, Federal Reserve Bank of  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

As liquidity conditions in the “repo market”—the market where broker-dealers obtain financing for their securities—deteriorated following the near-bankruptcy of Bear Stearns in March 2008, the Federal Reserve took the step of creating a special facility to provide overnight loans to dealers that have a trading relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Six months later, in the wake of new strains in the repo market, the Fed expanded the facility by broadening the types of collateral accepted for loans. Both initiatives were designed to help restore the orderly functioning of the market and to prevent the spillover of distress to other financial firms. On March 16, 2008, at the height of the Bear Stearns crisis, the Federal Reserve Board granted the Federal Reserve Bank of New York the authority to establish the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF). The facility allows primary dealers—banks and securities broker-dealers that trade U.S. government and other securities with market participants and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York—to borrow from the New York Fed on a collateralized basis in times of market stress. 1 By extension, this provision of credit is designed to ease liquidity pressures in the broader “repo market, ” the secured funding market where primary dealers and others normally obtain much of the financing for their securities holdings. In the days leading up to the Fed’s action, access to repo financing had narrowed sharply, and the Fed recognized the need to provide dealers with an alternate source of funds. This edition of Current Issues offers an overview of the Primary Dealer Credit Facility. We consider the events that led to the creation of the facility—chiefly, the 2008 Bear Stearns turmoil and the liquidity strains that developed in the overnight repo market—and the reasons for the expansion of the facility in September 2008. 2 In addition, we discuss the economics of the facility in relation to the Federal Reserve’s role as lender of last resort. Also considered are issues relating to the supervision of financial institutions and the risk of moral hazard that have been raised following the launch of the PDCF. 3

Tobias Adrian; Christopher R. Burke; James J. Mcandrews

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

106

Savannah River Site Federal Facility Agreement, January 15, 1993 Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Site Site Agreement Name Savannah River Site Federal Facility Agreement Under Section 120 of CERCLA, January 15, 1993 State South Carolina Agreement Type Federal Facility Agreement Legal Driver(s) CERCLA Scope Summary Ensure that the environmental impacts associated with past and present activities at the Savannah River Site are thoroughly investigated and that appropriate response actions are taken to protect the public health, welfare, and the environment. Parties DOE; US EPA; South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) Date 1/15/1993 SCOPE * Ensure that the environmental impacts associated with past and present activities at the Savannah River Site are thoroughly investigated and that appropriate response actions are taken to protect the public health, welfare, and the environment.

107

Mound Plant Federal Facility Agreement, July 15, 1993 Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region V United States Environmental Protection Agency Region V and the State of Ohio Federal Facility Agreement State Ohio Agreement Type Federal Facility Agreement Legal Driver(s) CERCLA Scope Summary DOE shall identify Interim Remedial Actions (IRAs) alternatives and implement US EPA and OEPA approved remedies for the site in accordance with CERCLA Parties EPA; Ohio EPA (OEPA); DOE Date 07/15/1993 SCOPE * Identify Interim Remedial Action (IRA) alternatives which include Remedial Investigations (RI) and Feasibility Studies (FS); design and implement US EPA and OEPA approved remedies for the Mound site in accordance with CERCLA. ESTABLISHING MILESTONES * After approval of remedial design and action plans, DOE shall prepare and provide to U.S. EPA and OEPA written monthly progress reports.

108

Implementing Water Conservation Goals at Federal Facilities: Lessons Learned  

SciTech Connect

Executive Order 13123 (June 1999) directed Federal agencies to improve water-use efficiency at government-owned facilities. The order required agencies to determine their water consumption and establish a goal for reducing it. Under the leadership of the Department of Energy's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) and National Renewal Energy Laboratory (NREL), representatives from several agencies established a working group to recommend guidelines and methods for improving water efficiency. Some agencies were already implementing effective conservation measures. However, many agencies lacked ways to determine how much water they were using or what it cost. In 1999, FEMP established methods agencies can use to identify baseline water usage and set reasonable water efficiency improvement goals. As a result, 10 Best Management Practices (BMPs), similar to those established by the California Urban Water Conservation Council, were developed for Federal water efficiency. The Federal BMPs focus on office water use, landscaping, heating and cooling, leak detection, and education. They emphasize flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and creativity. This paper describes these methods for determining baseline usage, selecting appropriate BMPs for a facility, and meeting efficiency goals. It also includes lessons learned throughout the process.

Tanner, S.; Braver, D.

2001-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

109

1999 Report on Hanford Site land disposal restriction for mixed waste  

SciTech Connect

This report was submitted to meet the requirements of Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) Milestone M-26-011. This milestone requires the preparation of an annual report that covers characterization, treatment, storage, minimization, and other aspects of managing land-disposal-restricted mixed waste at the Hanford Facility.

BLACK, D.G.

1999-03-25T23:59:59.000Z

110

Waste treatment facility passes federal inspection, completes final  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

23, 2012 23, 2012 Media Contact: Danielle Miller, 208-526-5709 Erik Simpson, 208-390-9464 Waste treatment facility passes federal inspection, completes final milestone, begins startup The Idaho site today initiated the controlled, phased startup of a new waste treatment facility scheduled to begin treating 900,000 gallons of radioactive liquid waste stored in underground tanks at a former Cold War spent nuclear fuel reprocessing facility next month. An exterior view of the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit A U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) operational readiness review team (made up of Subject Matter Experts across the country) in early April identified a dozen issues for the cleanup contractor CH2M-WG Idaho, LLC (CWI) to resolve before the 53,000-square-foot Integrated Waste Treatment Unit

111

Geochemical Data Package for the 2005 Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. (CH2M HILL) is designing and assessing the performance of an integrated disposal facility (IDF) to receive low-level waste (LLW), mixed low-level waste (MLLW), immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW), and failed or decommissioned melters. The CH2M HILL project to assess the performance of this disposal facility is the Hanford IDF Performance Assessment (PA) activity. The goal of the Hanford IDF PA activity is to provide a reasonable expectation that the disposal of the waste is protective of the general public, groundwater resources, air resources, surface-water resources, and inadvertent intruders. Achieving this goal will require prediction of contaminant migration from the facilities. This migration is expected to occur primarily via the movement of water through the facilities, and the consequent transport of dissolved contaminants in the vadose zone to groundwater where contaminants may be re-introduced to receptors via drinking water wells or mixing in the Columbia River. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) assists CH2M HILL in their performance assessment activities. One of the PNNL tasks is to provide estimates of the geochemical properties of the materials comprising the IDF, the disturbed region around the facility, and the physically undisturbed sediments below the facility (including the vadose zone sediments and the aquifer sediments in the upper unconfined aquifer). The geochemical properties are expressed as parameters that quantify the adsorption of contaminants and the solubility constraints that might apply for those contaminants that may exceed solubility constraints. The common parameters used to quantify adsorption and solubility are the distribution coefficient (Kd) and the thermodynamic solubility product (Ksp), respectively. In this data package, we approximate the solubility of contaminants using a more simplified construct, called the solution concentration limit, a constant value. The Kd values and solution concentration limits for each contaminant are direct inputs to subsurface flow and transport codes used to predict the performance of the IDF system. In addition to the best-estimate Kd values, a reasonable conservative value and a range are provided. The data package does not list estimates for the range in solubility limits or their uncertainty. However, the data package does provide different values for both the Kd values and solution concentration limits for different spatial zones in the IDF system and does supply time-varying Kd values for the cement solidified waste. The Kd values and solution concentration limits presented for each contaminant were previously presented in a report prepared by Kaplan and Serne (2000) for the 2001 ILAW PA, and have been updated to include applicable data from investigations completed since the issuance of that report and improvements in our understanding of the geochemistry specific to Hanford. A discussion is also included of the evolution of the Kd values recommended from the original 1999 ILAW PA through the 2001 ILAW and 2003 Supplement PAs to the current values to be used for the 2005 IDF PA for the key contaminants of concern: Cr(VI), nitrate, 129I, 79Se, 99Tc, and U(VI). This discussion provides the rationale for why certain Kd have changed with time.

Krupka, Kenneth M.; Serne, R JEFFREY.; Kaplan, D I.

2004-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

112

Distributed Energy Resources at Federal Facilities. Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) Technical Assistance Fact Sheet  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

This two-page overview describes how the use of distributed energy resources at Federal facilities is being supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). Distributed energy resources include both existing and emerging energy technologies: advanced industrial turbines and microturbines; combined heat and power (CHP) systems; fuel cells; geothermal systems; natural gas reciprocating engines; photovoltaics and other solar systems; wind turbines; small, modular biopower; energy storage systems; and hybrid systems. DOE FEMP is investigating ways to use these alternative energy systems in government facilities to meet greater demand, to increase the reliability of the power-generation system, and to reduce the greenhouse gases associated with burning fossil fuels.

Pitchford, P.

2001-07-16T23:59:59.000Z

113

Audit Report: Modular Office Facilities for Recovery Act Program Activities at the Hanford Site, OAS-RA-13-04  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector General Office of Audits and Inspections Audit Report Modular Office Facilities for Recovery Act Program Activities at the Hanford Site OAS-RA-L-13-04 July 2013 Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 July 9, 2013 MEMORANDUM FOR THE MANAGER, RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE FROM: David Sedillo, Director Western Audits Division Office of Inspector General SUBJECT: INFORMATION: Audit Report on "Modular Office Facilities for Recovery Act Program Activities at the Hanford Site" BACKGROUND The Department of Energy's Richland Operations Office (Richland) awarded a contract, effective October 1, 2008, to CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) to remediate select portions of the Hanford Site's Central Plateau. As part of the American Recovery and

114

Testing Promising Technologies: A Role for Federal Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

I S T R A T I O N I S T R A T I O N Testing Promising Technologies: A Role for Federal Facilities Presented to: Federal Utility Partnership Working Group April 18, 2011 Presented by: Jack Callahan, P.E., CEM, CMVP Emerging Technology Program Manager BPA Energy Efficiency B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N Overview of Presentation  Overview of BPA's efforts on emerging technologies (E3T)  Review some technologies  What BPA provides  How you can participate 2 B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

115

Review of the Hanford Site K-West Annex Facility Layup Program...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

HSS Independent Activity Report - Rev. 0 Report Number: HIAR-Hanford-2013-06-10 Site: Hanford Site Subject: Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency...

116

Review of the Hanford Site K-West Annex Facility Layup Program for Construction Suspension/Delay, June 2013  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

HSS Independent Activity Report - HSS Independent Activity Report - Rev. 0 Report Number: HIAR-Hanford-2013-06-10 Site: Hanford Site Subject: Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Activity Report for the Review of the Hanford Site K-West Annex Facility Layup Program for Construction Suspension/Delay Dates of Activity : June 10, 2013 Report Preparer: Joseph Lenahan Activity Description/Purpose: 1. Perform an inspection of the project site to examine the contractor's actions to protect completed work from deteriorating during the current suspension of construction work activities. 2. Inspect storage areas to determine if construction materials are stored in a manner that will prevent deterioration during possible long-term storage while construction work is suspended.

117

Review of the Hanford Site K-West Annex Facility Layup Program for Construction Suspension/Delay, June 2013  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

HSS Independent Activity Report - HSS Independent Activity Report - Rev. 0 Report Number: HIAR-Hanford-2013-06-10 Site: Hanford Site Subject: Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Activity Report for the Review of the Hanford Site K-West Annex Facility Layup Program for Construction Suspension/Delay Dates of Activity : June 10, 2013 Report Preparer: Joseph Lenahan Activity Description/Purpose: 1. Perform an inspection of the project site to examine the contractor's actions to protect completed work from deteriorating during the current suspension of construction work activities. 2. Inspect storage areas to determine if construction materials are stored in a manner that will prevent deterioration during possible long-term storage while construction work is suspended.

118

Weldon Spring Site Federal Facility Agreement UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

Site Site Federal Facility Agreement UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION VII UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN THE MATTER OF: The United States Department of Energy's Weldon Spring Site, St. Charles, Missouri Docket No. CERCLA-07-2006-0161 FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT FOR THE WELDON SPRING SITE Weldon Spring Site Federal Facility Agreement i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.............................................................................................. 1 II. JURISDICTION ...................................................................................................................... 2 III. PARTIES BOUND .................................................................................................................

119

MSGOUID MONTICELLO PROJECTS ·FEDERAL FACILITIES AGREEMENT REPORT  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

MSGOUID MSGOUID MONTICELLO PROJECTS ·FEDERAL FACILITIES AGREEMENT REPORT Report Period: Aprill -June 30, 2006 DOE Project Coordinator: Art Kleinrath HIGHLIGHTS DOE submitted the draft Consolidated LTSM Administrative mid Operating Procedures Manual to EPA and UDEQ on May 4, 2006. Document transmittal met the stipulated penalty milestone of May 6, 2006. Semi-annual ground water and surface water monitoring was completed in May 2006 as scheduled. Three FY 2006 Program Directives were prepared and issued for bio-monitoring tasks to assess selenium accumulation in the environment and identify potential ecological receptors. All field work for FY 2006 bio-monitoring task was completed (five waterfowl surveys in May and June, sediment and surface water sample collection in April for selenium analysis,

120

FEMP Energy Savings Expert Teams (ESET) to Help Federal Facilities Immediately Reduce Demand and Consumption  

SciTech Connect

FEMP offers energy savings expert teams (ESET) assessments for federal facilities as part of a broad strategy to reduce natural gas consumption.

2005-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


121

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

SciTech Connect

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

Girardot, Crystal L. [Washington River Protection Systems, Richland, WA (United States); Harlow, Donald G. [Washington River Protection Systems, Richland, WA (United States)

2013-07-11T23:59:59.000Z

122

1996 Hanford site report on land disposal restrictions for mixed waste  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report was submitted to meet the requirements of Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-26-OIF. This milestone requires the preparation of an annual report that covers characterization, treatment, storage, minimization, and other aspects of land disposal-restricted mixed waste management at the Hanford Site.

Black, D.G.

1996-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

123

CHARACTERIZING DOE HANFORD SITE WASTE ENCAPSULATION STORAGE FACILITY CELLS USING RADBALL  

SciTech Connect

RadBall{trademark} is a novel technology that can locate and quantify unknown radioactive hazards within contaminated areas, hot cells, and gloveboxes. The device consists of a colander-like outer tungsten collimator that houses a radiation-sensitive polymer semi-sphere. The collimator has a number of small holes with tungsten inserts; as a result, specific areas of the polymer are exposed to radiation becoming increasingly more opaque in proportion to the absorbed dose. The polymer semi-sphere is imaged in an optical computed tomography scanner that produces a high resolution 3D map of optical attenuation coefficients. A subsequent analysis of the optical attenuation data using a reverse ray tracing or backprojection technique provides information on the spatial distribution of gamma-ray sources in a given area forming a 3D characterization of the area of interest. RadBall{trademark} was originally designed for dry deployments and several tests, completed at Savannah River National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, substantiate its modeled capabilities. This study involves the investigation of the RadBall{trademark} technology during four submerged deployments in two water filled cells at the DOE Hanford Site's Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility.

Farfan, E.; Coleman, R.

2011-03-31T23:59:59.000Z

124

Hanford Site near-facility environmental monitoring annual report, calendar year 1997  

SciTech Connect

Near-facility environmental monitoring provides a means to measure the impacts of operations, waste management, and remediation activities on the environment adjacent to facilities and ensure compliance with local, state, and federal environmental regulations. Specifically, near-facility environmental monitoring monitors new and existing sites, processes, and facilities for potential impacts and releases; fugitive emissions and diffuse sources associated with contaminated areas, facilities (both active and those undergoing surveillance and maintenance), and environmental restoration activities. External radiation, ambient air particulates, ground and surface water, soil, sediment, and biota (plants and animals) are sampled or monitored. Parameters include, as appropriate, radionuclides; radiation fields; chemical or physical constituents, such as nitrates; pH; and water temperature. All ambient air results were below the US Department of Energy (DOE) Derived Concentration Guides (DCGs). Groundwater concentrations at the two wells at the 107-N Facility were below both the DOE DCG and US Environmental Protection Agency Interim Drinking Water Standards for gamma emitting radionuclides. Soil and vegetation results were generally within historic ranges and mostly below the Accessible Soil Concentration limits (included in HNF-PRO-454, Inactive Waste Sites) with the exception of one soil sampling location at 1 00 N Area. External radiation fields continued an overall downward trend. Surface water disposal unit samples (water, sediment, and aquatic vegetation) showed radionuclide concentrations below their respective DCG and Accessible Soil Concentration limits. The 100 N Area Columbia river shoreline springs results were below DCGs with the exception of one Sr concentration. More than 4,600 ha (11,300 acres) of radiologically controlled areas were surveyed in 1997, approximately the same as in 1996.

Perkins, C.J.

1998-07-28T23:59:59.000Z

125

Hanford Tank Waste Residuals  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Hanford Tank Waste Residuals DOE HLW Corporate Board November 6, 2008 Chris Kemp, DOE ORP Bill Hewitt, YAHSGS LLC Hanford Tanks & Tank Waste * Single-Shell Tanks (SSTs) - ~27 million gallons of waste* - 149 SSTs located in 12 SST Farms - Grouped into 7 Waste Management Areas (WMAs) for RCRA closure purposes: 200 West Area S/SX T TX/TY U 200 East Area A/AX B/BX/BY C * Double-Shell Tanks (DSTs) - ~26 million gallons of waste* - 28 DSTs located in 6 DST Farms (1 West/5 East) * 17 Misc Underground Storage Tanks (MUST) * 43 Inactive MUST (IMUST) 200 East Area A/AX B/BX/BY C * Volumes fluctuate as SST retrievals and 242-A Evaporator runs occur. Major Regulatory Drivers * Radioactive Tank Waste Materials - Atomic Energy Act - DOE M 435.1-1, Ch II, HLW - Other DOE Orders * Hazardous/Dangerous Tank Wastes - Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (TPA) - Retrieval/Closure under State's implementation

126

A brief history of the T Plant facility at the Hanford Site. Addendum 1  

SciTech Connect

T Plant (221-T) was the first and largest of the early chemical separations plants at the Hanford Engineer Works (HEW) (World War II name for the Hanford Site). Officially designated as a Cell Building by the Manhattan Engineer District (MED) of the Army Corps of Engineers (agency responsible for HEW), T Plant served as the headquarters of chemical processing operations at Hanford from its construction until the opening of the REDOX Plant in January 1952. Because it formed a crucial link in the first full-scale plutonium production operations in world history, it meets criteria established in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as a National Historic Structure.

Gerber, M.S.

1994-05-16T23:59:59.000Z

127

The association betweeen cancers and low level radiation: An evaluation of the epidemiological evidence at the Hanford Nuclear Weapons Facility  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Cancer has traditionally been linked to exposure to high doses of radiation, but there is considerable controversy regarding the carcinogenicity of low doses of ionizing radiation in humans. Over the past 30 years there have been 14 studies conducted on employees at the Hanford nuclear weapons facility to investigate the relationship between exposure to low doses of radiation and mortality due to cancer (1-14). Interest in this issue was originally stimulated by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) which was trying to determine whether the linear extrapolation of health effects from high to low dose exposure was accurate. If the risk has been underestimated, then the maximum permissible occupational radiation exposure in the United States had been set too high. Because the health risk associated with low level radiation are unclear and controversial it seems appropriate to review the studies relating to Hanford at this time.

Britton, J. [Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA (United States). School of Public Health]|[Lawrence Berkeley National Lab., CA (United States)

1993-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

128

Hanford Site annual dangerous waste report: Volume 4, Waste Management Facility report, Radioactive mixed waste  

SciTech Connect

This report contains information on radioactive mixed wastes at the Hanford Site. Information consists of shipment date, physical state, chemical nature, waste description, handling method and containment vessel, waste number, waste designation and amount of waste.

NONE

1994-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

129

Rough order of magnitude cost estimate for immobilization of 18.2 MT of plutonium sharing existing facilities at Hanford with pit disassembly {ampersand} conversion facility: alternative 2  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of this Cost Estimate Report is to identify preliminary capital and operating costs for a facility to immobilize 18.2 metric tons (nominal) of plutonium as a ceramic in an existing facility at Hanford, the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility (FMEF). The Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF), which is being costed in a separate report will also be located in the FMEF in this co- location option. The technical engineering data used as the basis for this study is presented in the EIS Data Call Input Report, `Plutonium Immobilization Plant Using Ceramic in Existing Facilities at Hanford.` The FMEF will require minimal facility modifications to accommodate the Plutonium Immobilization Plant (PIP). Adequate space is available within the FMEF for installation of the immobilization process equipment. Facility HVAC, utility, and support systems exist to support the immobilization operations. Building modifications are primarily the removal of the SAF line (gloveboxes and support equipment) on the 70` level and building interior changes. The plutonium immobilization equipment will primarily occupy the 42` and 70` levels of the FMEF, with the same equipment layout as in the sole occupancy case. The Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility would occupy the 21` and O` (Entry) levels. Elements of the FMEF and adjacent Fuel Assembly Area (FAA) that will be shared by PIP and PDCF include shipping and receiving, laboratory, waste handling, security, offices, maintenance shops, SNM storage vault, and utilities. It was assumed that the existing utilities and support systems are adequate or only need minor upgrades to support both the PIP and PDCF. The PIP cost estimate was reconciled with the PDCF cost estimate to confirm the use and costs of shared systems and personnel. The facility design for a 50 metric ton plutonium throughput plant will be used for the 18.2 metric ton facility. Plutonium conversion operations will operate at the same design rate as the 50 metric ton facility over the 10 year operating period. Some of the process equipment will operate for a shorter period of time and fewer operators will be required. The assumptions, missions, design bases, facility and process descriptions, and accident analyses are the same. Therefore it is assumed that the capital cost for the 18.2 metric ton facility is identical to that of the 50 metric ton facility. However, the following operating costs will be less: consumable materials, equipment replacement and maintenance labor, employment requirements, and waste generation.

DiSabatino, A., LLNL

1998-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

130

Testing Promising Technologies: A Role for Federal Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

Presentation covers the testing of promising technologies and is given at the Spring 2011 Federal Utility Partnership Working Group (FUPWG) meeting.

131

Section 6.2 Toilets and Urinals: Greening Federal Facilities...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

there are four common varieties of uri- nals: the siphonic jet urinal, washoutwash-down uri- nals, blowout urinals, and waterless urinals. All of these must meet Federal...

132

Geothermal Heat Pumps Deliver Big Savings for Federal Facilities...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the authoring national laboratory. Geothermal heat pump surface water loops. Geothermal Heat Pumps Deliver Big Savings for Federal...

133

Section 9.7 Employee Incentive Programs: Greening Federal Facilities...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Water Management Awards are presented by DOE in conjunction with the Federal Interagency Energy Policy Committee (the "656" Committee). The program recognizes outstand- ing...

134

Section 2.4 Alternative Financing: Greening Federal Facilities...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

4 Alternative Financing Technical Information FEMP offers technical assistance, training, and guidance manuals to assist Federal agencies in iden- tifying, evaluating, and...

135

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, December 9, 1991  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Engineering Laboratory ("INEL") Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, December 9, 1991 Engineering Laboratory ("INEL") Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, December 9, 1991 EM Home | Regulatory Compliance | Environmental Compliance Agreements Idaho National Engineering Laboratory ("INEL") Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, December 9, 1991 THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION 10, THE STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, AND THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY IN THE MATTER OF: ) FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT ) AND CONSENT ORDER THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ) IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING ) LABORATORY ("INEL"), ) ) Administrative Docket Number: ) 1088-06-120 Idaho Falls, Idaho ) Table of Contents I. Jurisdiction II. Definitions III. Parties IV. Statement Of Purpose

136

DEVELOPMENT OF REMOTE HANFORD CONNECTOR GASKET REPLACEMENT TOOLING FOR THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE'S DEFENSE WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Savannah River Site's (SRS) Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) requested development of tooling for remote replacement of gaskets in mechanical Hanford connectors. The facility has compressed air supply, two master-slave manipulators (MSM's) and a lightweight robotic arm for operation of the remote tools. The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) developed and tested multiple tools to perform the gasket replacement tasks. Separate pneumatic snap-ring removal tools that use the connector skirt as a reaction surface were developed for removal of the snap ring and spent gasket on both vertical and horizontal Hanford connectors. A pneumatic tool that clamps and centers on the jumper pipe ID was developed to simultaneously install the new gasket and snap ring. A pneumatic snap-ring-loading tool was developed that compresses the snap ring and places it in a groove in the installation tool. All of the tools are located on a custom work table with a pneumatic valve station that directs compressed air to the desired tool and vents the tools as needed. The entire system has been successfully tested using MSM's to manipulate the various tools. Deployment of the entire system is expected during FY08. The Hanford connector gasket replacement tooling has been successfully tested using MSM's to manipulate the various tools. Nitric acid is used in many of the decontamination processes performed in the REDC, where the tooling will be deployed. Although most of the tool components were fabricated/purchased with nitric acid and radioactive service in mind, some of the prototype parts must be replaced with parts that are more compatible with nitric acid/radioactive service. Several modifications to the various tools are needed to facilitate maintenance and replacement of failed components. Development of installation tools for replacement of 1-inch, 2-inch and multi-hole gaskets is being considered. Deployment of the existing system in the DWPF REDC is expected during FY08.

Krementz, D

2007-11-27T23:59:59.000Z

137

Federal Technology Alert: Ground-Source Heat Pumps Applied to Federal Facilities--Second Edition  

SciTech Connect

This Federal Technology Alert, which was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Federal Energy Management Programs, provides the detailed information and procedures that a Federal energy manager needs to evaluate most ground-source heat pump applications. This report updates an earlier report on ground-source heat pumps that was published in September 1995. In the current report, general benefits of this technology to the Federal sector are described, as are ground-source heat pump operation, system types, design variations, energy savings, and other benefits. In addition, information on current manufacturers, technology users, and references for further reading are provided.

Hadley, Donald L.

2001-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

138

Hanford ETR Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford Tank  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

ETR Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford ETR Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Technical Review - External Flowsheet Review Team (Technical) Report Hanford ETR Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Technical Review - External Flowsheet Review Team (Technical) Report Full Document and Summary Versions are available for download Hanford ETR Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Technical Review - External Flowsheet Review Team (Technical) Report Summary - Flowsheet for the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant More Documents & Publications Waste Treatment and Immobilation Plant HLW Waste Vitrification Facility

139

Performing Energy Security Assessments - A How-To Guide for Federal Facility Managers  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Performing Energy Security Assessments - Performing Energy Security Assessments - A How-To Guide for Federal Facility Managers ii Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ v 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Facilities to be Assessed...........................................................................................................................1 2. BEGINNING THE ENERGY SECURITY ASSESSMENT PROCESS ............................... 2 2.1 Assign an Energy Security Manager .........................................................................................................2 2.2 Define the Mission of the Installation

140

Performing Energy Security Assessments - A How-To Guide for Federal Facility Managers  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Performing Energy Security Assessments - Performing Energy Security Assessments - A How-To Guide for Federal Facility Managers ii Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ v 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Facilities to be Assessed...........................................................................................................................1 2. BEGINNING THE ENERGY SECURITY ASSESSMENT PROCESS ............................... 2 2.1 Assign an Energy Security Manager .........................................................................................................2 2.2 Define the Mission of the Installation

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


141

Section 1.2 Purpose: Greening Federal Facilities; Second Edition  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

thousand facilities world- wide on behalf of the United States. They can be in- house energy managers, solid waste managers, or oth- ers with similar responsibilities. In the DOD,...

142

Low-Energy Building Design Guidelines: Energy-Efficient Design for New Federal Facilities. Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) Booklet  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Introduction Introduction Incorporating energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainable green design features into all Federal buildings has become a top priority in recent years for facilities managers, designers, contracting officers, and others in government buildings procurement. These progressive design strategies have been formalized through Executive Order 13123 (known as Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management), which was issued on June 3, 1999. There are significant oppor- tunities to accomplish the goals set forth in the executive order, whether in new building design or in the context of renovations. This guidebook addresses the first category-the design process for new Federal facilities. Because energy-efficient buildings reduce both resource depletion and the

143

Comparison of constant-rate pumping test and slug interference test results at the Hanford Site B pond multilevel test facility  

SciTech Connect

Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL), as part of the Hanford Site Ground-Water Surveillance Project, is responsible for monitoring the movement and fate of contamination within the unconfined aquifer to ensure that public health and the environment are protected. To support the monitoring and assessment of contamination migration on the Hanford Site, a sitewide 3-dimensional groundwater flow model is being developed. Providing quantitative hydrologic property data is instrumental in development of the 3-dimensional model. Multilevel monitoring facilities have been installed to provide detailed, vertically distributed hydrologic characterization information for the Hanford Site unconfined aquifer. In previous reports, vertically distributed water-level and hydrochemical data obtained over time from these multi-level monitoring facilities have been evaluated and reported. This report describes the B pond facility in Section 2.0. It also provides analysis results for a constant-rate pumping test (Section 3.0) and slug interference test (Section 4.0) that were conducted at a multilevel test facility located near B Pond (see Figure 1. 1) in the central part of the Hanford Site. A hydraulic test summary (Section 5.0) that focuses on the comparison of hydraulic property estimates obtained using the two test methods is also presented. Reference materials are listed in Section 6.0.

Spane, F.A. Jr.; Thorne, P.D.

1995-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

144

Estimation of natural ground water recharge for the performance assessment of a low-level waste disposal facility at the Hanford Site  

SciTech Connect

In 1994, the Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) initiated the Recharge Task, under the PNL Vitrification Technology Development (PVTD) project, to assist Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) in designing and assessing the performance of a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility for the US Department of Energy (DOE). The Recharge Task was established to address the issue of ground water recharge in and around the LLW facility and throughout the Hanford Site as it affects the unconfined aquifer under the facility. The objectives of this report are to summarize the current knowledge of natural ground water recharge at the Hanford Site and to outline the work that must be completed in order to provide defensible estimates of recharge for use in the performance assessment of this LLW disposal facility. Recharge studies at the Hanford Site indicate that recharge rates are highly variable, ranging from nearly zero to greater than 100 mm/yr depending on precipitation, vegetative cover, and soil types. Coarse-textured soils without plants yielded the greatest recharge. Finer-textured soils, with or without plants, yielded the least. Lysimeters provided accurate, short-term measurements of recharge as well as water-balance data for the soil-atmosphere interface and root zone. Tracers provided estimates of longer-term average recharge rates in undisturbed settings. Numerical models demonstrated the sensitivity of recharge rates to different processes and forecast recharge rates for different conditions. All of these tools (lysimetry, tracers, and numerical models) are considered vital to the development of defensible estimates of natural ground water recharge rates for the performance assessment of a LLW disposal facility at the Hanford Site.

Rockhold, M.L.; Fayer, M.J.; Kincaid, C.T.; Gee, G.W.

1995-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

145

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Largest Federally-Owned Wind Farm Breaks Ground at U.S. Weapons Largest Federally-Owned Wind Farm Breaks Ground at U.S. Weapons Facility Largest Federally-Owned Wind Farm Breaks Ground at U.S. Weapons Facility August 13, 2013 - 10:54am Addthis News Media Contact (202) 586-4940 WASHINGTON - Building on President Obama's Climate Action Plan, which calls for steady, responsible steps to reduce carbon pollution, the Energy Department today broke ground on the nation's largest federally-owned wind project at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas. Once completed, this five-turbine 11.5 megawatt project will power more than 60 percent of the plant with clean, renewable wind energy and reduce carbon emissions by over 35,000 metric tons per year - equivalent to taking 7,200 cars off the road. The Pantex Plant is the primary site for the assembly, disassembly,

146

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

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Largest Federally-Owned Wind Farm Breaks Ground at U.S. Weapons Largest Federally-Owned Wind Farm Breaks Ground at U.S. Weapons Facility Largest Federally-Owned Wind Farm Breaks Ground at U.S. Weapons Facility August 13, 2013 - 10:54am Addthis News Media Contact (202) 586-4940 WASHINGTON - Building on President Obama's Climate Action Plan, which calls for steady, responsible steps to reduce carbon pollution, the Energy Department today broke ground on the nation's largest federally-owned wind project at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas. Once completed, this five-turbine 11.5 megawatt project will power more than 60 percent of the plant with clean, renewable wind energy and reduce carbon emissions by over 35,000 metric tons per year - equivalent to taking 7,200 cars off the road. The Pantex Plant is the primary site for the assembly, disassembly,

147

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, December 9, 1991 Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order State Idaho Agreement Type Federal Facility Agreement Legal Driver(s) CERCLA Scope Summary Ensure that the environmental impacts associated with releases or hazardous substances are thoroughly investigated and that appropriate response action are taken. Parties DOE; US EPA; State of Idaho Date 12/9/1991 SCOPE * Ensure that the environmental impacts associated with releases or hazardous substances are thoroughly investigated and that appropriate response action are taken. * Establish a procedural framework and schedule for developing, prioritizing, implementing, and monitoring appropriate response actions. * Supersede the Consent Order and Compliance Agreement Docket No. 1086-05-16- 3008/3013, executed on July 10, 1987.

148

Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group (LFRG) | Department  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Program Management » Compliance » Low-Level Waste Program Management » Compliance » Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group (LFRG) Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group (LFRG) The Office of Environmental Management (EM) Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group (LFRG) was established to fulfill the requirements contained in Section I.2.E(1)(a) of the Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and exercised by the senior managers of EM. The LFRG assists EM senior managers in the review of documentation that supports the approval of performance assessments and composite analyses or appropriate Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)documents as described in Section II of the LFRG Charter. Through its efforts, the LFRG supports the issuance

149

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Federal Facility Compliance Order, February 24, 1997 Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Federal Facility Compliance Act Order for Lawrence Federal Facility Compliance Act Order for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Compliance Order HWCA 96/97-5002 State California Agreement Type Federal Facility Agreement Legal Driver(s) FFCAct Scope Summary Require compliance by the DOE with a Site Treatment Plan for the treatment of mixed waste at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Parties DOE; State of California Environmental Protection Agency (Department of Toxic Substances Control) Date 2/24/1997 SCOPE * Require compliance by the DOE with a Site Treatment Plan for the treatment of mixed waste at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. * Address LDR requirements pertaining to storage and treatment of covered waste at LLNL. ESTABLISHING MILESTONES * The Compliance Plan Volume of the STP provides overall schedules for achieving

150

Evaluation of the 183-D Water Filtration Facility for Bat Roosts and Development of a Mitigation Strategy, 100-D Area, Hanford Site  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The 183-D Water Filtration Facility is located in the 100-D Area of the Hanford Site, north of Richland, Washington. It was used to provide filtered water for cooling the 105-D Reactor and supplying fire-protection and drinking water for all facilities in the 100-D Area. The facility has been inactive since the 1980s and is now scheduled for demolition. Therefore, an evaluation was conducted to determine if any part of the facility was being used as roosting habitat by bats.

Lindsey, C. T.; Gano, K. A.; Lucas, J. G.

2011-03-07T23:59:59.000Z

151

Confirmatory radiological survey for the 190-C Main Pumphouse Facility decommissioning at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

An independent assessment of remedial action activities at the 190-C Main Pumphouse Facility at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington has been accomplished by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Assessments Group. The purpose of the assessment was to confirm the site`s compliance with DOE applicable guidelines and provide independent measurements of the activity levels in the 190-C trenches and 105-C process water tunnels. The assessment included reviews of the Decontamination and Decommissioning Plan and data provided in the pre- and post-remedial action surveys. An on-site independent verification survey of the facility was conducted during the period of November 19--21, 1996. The independent verification survey included beta and gamma scans, smears for removable contamination, and direct measurements for beta-gamma activity in the trenches and tunnels. The same measurements and scans, with the addition of alpha measurements, were performed on the floor in the filter repair confinement area. The facility was also spot-checked for direct alpha and beta-gamma activity.

Coleman, R.L. [Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (United States); Forbes, G.H. [Oak Ridge National Lab., Grand Junction, CO (United States). Environmental Technology Section

1997-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

152

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Federal Facility Agreement, June 29, 1992 Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Site 300) Site 300) Agreement Name Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120, June 29, 1992 State California Agreement Type Federal Facility Agreement Legal Driver(s) CERCLA Scope Summary Establish a procedural framework and schedule for developing, implementing, and monitoring appropriate response actions at the Site Parties DOE; USEPA; California Department of Toxic Substances Control; Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Date 6/29/1992 SCOPE * Establish a procedural framework and schedule for developing, implementing, and monitoring appropriate response actions at the Site. * Identify operable units (OUs) which are appropriate at the Site prior to the implementation of final remedial action(s).

153

Federal Facility Compliance Agreement on Storage of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, August 8, 1996  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Facility Compliance Agreement on Storage of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, August.. Page 1 of 18 Facility Compliance Agreement on Storage of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, August.. Page 1 of 18 EM Home | Regulatory Compliance | Environmental Compliance Agreements Federal Facility Compliance Agreement on Storage of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, August 8, 1996 NOTE: As of December 16, 1996, for the Oak Ridge Reservation this National Agreement was superseded by the Oak Ridge Reservation Polychlorinated Biphenyl Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (ORR-PCB-FFCA). The ORR-PCB-FFCA will be available soon. Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Definitions III. Covered Materials IV. Statement of Facts & Conclusions of Law V. Compliance Requirements VI. Submittal and Review of Annual Status Report VII. Notification VIII. Dispute Resolution IX. Extensions

154

Westinghouse Hanford Company operational environmental monitoring annual report, CY 1992  

SciTech Connect

This document presents the results of the Westinghouse Hanford Company near-facility operational environmental monitoring for 1992 in the 100, 200/600, and 300/400 Areas of the Hanford Site, in south-central Washington State in 1992. Surveillance activities included sampling and analyses of ambient air, surface water, groundwater, sediments, soil, and biota. Also, external radiation measurements and radiological surveys were taken at waste disposal sites, radiologically controlled areas, and roads. These activities were conducted to assess and to control the impacts of nuclear facilities and waste sites on the workers and the local environment. Additionally, diffuse sources were monitored to determine compliance with Federal, State, and/or local regulations. In general, although impacts from nuclear facilities are still seen on the Hanford Site and are slightly elevated when compared to offsite, these impacts are less than in previous years.

Schmidt, J.W.; Johnson, A.R.; McKinney, S.M.; Perkins, C.J.

1993-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

155

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

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

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

Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

2013-09-10T23:59:59.000Z

156

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

SciTech Connect

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

Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

2013-07-30T23:59:59.000Z

157

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

SciTech Connect

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

Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

2013-12-02T23:59:59.000Z

158

Front Matter for The Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M FEDERAL FACILITIES SUSTAINABLE DESIGN The Business Case for IN U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Bringing you a prosperous future where energy is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable RESOURCE DOCUMENT The Business Case for SUSTAINABLE DESIGN On the cover: National Institutes of Health, Louis Stokes Laboratories/Building 50, Bethesda, MD Sandia National Laboratories' Process and Environmental Technology Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM Zion National Park Visitors Center, Springdale, UT IN FEDERAL FACILITIES We at the Department of Energy believe there can be a sound business case for the use of sustainable design options, and we encourage all Federal agencies to incorporate these options whenever possible.

159

Front Matter for The Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M FEDERAL FACILITIES SUSTAINABLE DESIGN The Business Case for IN U.S. Department of Energy Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Bringing you a prosperous future where energy is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable RESOURCE DOCUMENT The Business Case for SUSTAINABLE DESIGN On the cover: National Institutes of Health, Louis Stokes Laboratories/Building 50, Bethesda, MD Sandia National Laboratories' Process and Environmental Technology Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM Zion National Park Visitors Center, Springdale, UT IN FEDERAL FACILITIES We at the Department of Energy believe there can be a sound business case for the use of sustainable design options, and we encourage all Federal agencies to incorporate these options whenever possible.

160

GEOHYDROLOGICAL STUDIES FOR NUCLEAR WASTE ISOLATION AT THE HANFORD RESERVATION -- Vol. I: Executive Summary; Vol. II: Final Report  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

NUCLEAR WASTE ISOLATION AT THE HANFORD RESERVATION Volume I:of Washington state." Rockwell Hanford Operations Topicalmodel evaluation at the Hanford nuclear waste facility."

Apps, J.

2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


161

Lessons Learned from the 200 West Pump and Treatment Facility Construction Project at the US DOE Hanford Site - A Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold-Certified Facility  

SciTech Connect

CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) designed, constructed, commissioned, and began operation of the largest groundwater pump and treatment facility in the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) nationwide complex. This one-of-a-kind groundwater pump and treatment facility, located at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Site (Hanford Site) in Washington State, was built to an accelerated schedule with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds. There were many contractual, technical, configuration management, quality, safety, and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) challenges associated with the design, procurement, construction, and commissioning of this $95 million, 52,000 ft groundwater pump and treatment facility to meet DOE’s mission objective of treating contaminated groundwater at the Hanford Site with a new facility by June 28, 2012. The project team’s successful integration of the project’s core values and green energy technology throughout design, procurement, construction, and start-up of this complex, first-of-its-kind Bio Process facility resulted in successful achievement of DOE’s mission objective, as well as attainment of LEED GOLD certification, which makes this Bio Process facility the first non-administrative building in the DOE Office of Environmental Management complex to earn such an award.

Dorr, Kent A.; Ostrom, Michael J.; Freeman-Pollard, Jhivaun R.

2013-01-11T23:59:59.000Z

162

HANFORD CONTAINERIZED CAST STONE FACILITY TASK 1 PROCESS TESTING & DEVELOPMENT FINAL TEST REPORT [SEC 1 & 2  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Laboratory testing and technical evaluation activities on Containerized Cast Stone (CCS) were conducted under the Scope of Work (SOW) contained in CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. (CHG) Contract No. 18548 (CHG 2003a). This report presents the results of testing and demonstration activities discussed in SOW Section 3.1, Task I--''Process Development Testing'', and described in greater detail in the ''Containerized Grout--Phase I Testing and Demonstration Plan'' (CHG, 2003b). CHG (2003b) divided the CCS testing and evaluation activities into six categories, as follows: (1) A short set of tests with simulant to select a preferred dry reagent formulation (DRF), determine allowable liquid addition levels, and confirm the Part 2 test matrix. (2) Waste form performance testing on cast stone made from the preferred DRF and a backup DRF, as selected in Part I, and using low activity waste (LAW) simulant. (3) Waste form performance testing on cast stone made from the preferred DRF using radioactive LAW. (4) Waste form validation testing on a selected nominal cast stone formulation using the preferred DRF and LAW simulant. (5) Engineering evaluations of explosive/toxic gas evolution, including hydrogen, from the cast stone product. (6) Technetium ''getter'' testing with cast stone made with LAW simulant and with radioactive LAW. In addition, nitrate leaching observations were drawn from nitrate leachability data obtained in the course of the Parts 2 and 3 waste form performance testing. The nitrate leachability index results are presented along with other data from the applicable activity categories.

LOCKREM, L.L.

2005-07-13T23:59:59.000Z

163

Readiness plan, Hanford 300 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility: Revision 1  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The 300 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility (TEDF) is designed for the collection, treatment, and eventual disposal of liquid waste from the 300 Area Process Sewer (PS) system. The PS currently discharges water to the 300 Area Process Trenches. Facilities supported total 54 buildings, including site laboratories, inactive buildings, and support facilities. Effluent discharges to the process sewer from within these facilities include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, heat exchangers, floor drains, sinks, and process equipment. The wastewaters go through treatment processes that include iron coprecipitation, ion exchange and ultraviolet oxidation. The iron coprecipitation process is designed to remove general heavy metals. A series of gravity filters then complete the clarification process by removing suspended solids. Following the iron coprecipitation process is the ion exchange process, where a specific resin is utilized for the removal of mercury. The final main unit operation is the ultraviolet destruction process, which uses high power ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide to destroy organic molecules. The objective of this readiness plan is to provide the method by which line management will prepare for a Readiness Assessment (RA) of the TEDF. The self-assessment and RA will assess safety, health, environmental compliance and management readiness of the TEDF. This assessment will provide assurances to both WHC and DOE that the facility is ready to start-up and begin operation.

Storm, S.J.

1994-11-08T23:59:59.000Z

164

Historical Photographs: Hanford Site  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Small Image 1. A facility at Hanford for treating persons injured by embedded radioactive particles (circa 1967). In this shielded operating cell, a mock patient is flanked by a...

165

DEMONSTRATION OF SIMULATED WASTE TRANSFERS FROM TANK AY-102 TO THE HANFORD WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY  

SciTech Connect

In support of Hanford's AY-102 Tank waste certification and delivery of the waste to the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) was tasked by the Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) to evaluate the effectiveness of mixing and transferring the waste in the Double Shell Tank (DST) to the WTP Receipt Tank. This work is a follow-on to the previous 'Demonstration of Internal Structures Impacts on Double Shell Tank Mixing Effectiveness' task conducted at SRNL 1. The objective of these transfers was to qualitatively demonstrate how well waste can be transferred out of a mixed DST tank and to provide insights into the consistency between the batches being transferred. Twelve (12) different transfer demonstrations were performed, varying one parameter at a time, in the Batch Transfer Demonstration System. The work focused on visual comparisons of the results from transferring six batches of slurry from a 1/22nd scale (geometric by diameter) Mixing Demonstration Tank (MDT) to six Receipt Tanks, where the consistency of solids in each batch could be compared. The simulant used in this demonstration was composed of simulated Hanford Tank AZ-101 supernate, gibbsite particles, and silicon carbide particles, the same simulant/solid particles used in the previous mixing demonstration. Changing a test parameter may have had a small impact on total solids transferred from the MDT on a given test, but the data indicates that there is essentially no impact on the consistency of solids transferred batch to batch. Of the multiple parameters varied during testing, it was found that changing the nozzle velocity of the Mixer Jet Pumps (MJPs) had the biggest impact on the amount of solids transferred. When the MJPs were operating at 8.0 gpm (22.4 ft/s nozzle velocity, U{sub o}D=0.504 ft{sup 2}/s), the solid particles were more effectively suspended, thus producing a higher volume of solids transferred. When the MJP flow rate was reduced to 5 gpm (14 ft/s nozzle velocity, U{sub o}D = 0.315 ft{sup 2}/s) to each pump, dead zones formed in the tank, resulting in fewer solids being transferred in each batch to the Receipt Tanks. The larger, denser particles were displaced (preferentially to the smaller particles) to one of the two dead zones and not re-suspended for the duration of the test. As the liquid level dropped in the MDT, re-suspending the particles became less effective (6th batch). The poor consistency of the solids transferred in the 6th batch was due to low liquid level in the MDT, thus poor mixing by the MJPs. Of the twelve tests conducted the best transfer of solids occurred during Test 6 and 8 where the MJP rotation was reduced to 1.0 rpm.

Adamson, D.; Poirier, M.; Steeper, T.

2009-12-03T23:59:59.000Z

166

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

SciTech Connect

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

Girardot, Crystal L.; Harlow, Donald G.

2013-11-19T23:59:59.000Z

167

Lessons Learned From The 200 West Pump And Treatment Facility Construction Project At The US DOE Hanford Site - A Leadership For Energy And Environmental Design (LEED) Gold-Certified Facility  

SciTech Connect

CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) designed, constructed, commissioned, and began operation of the largest groundwater pump and treatment facility in the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) nationwide complex. This one-of-a-kind groundwater pump and treatment facility, located at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Site (Hanford Site) in Washington State, was built in an accelerated manner with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds and has attained Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) GOLD certification, which makes it the first non-administrative building in the DOE Office of Environmental Management complex to earn such an award. There were many contractual, technical, configuration management, quality, safety, and LEED challenges associated with the design, procurement, construction, and commissioning of this $95 million, 52,000 ft groundwater pump and treatment facility. This paper will present the Project and LEED accomplishments, as well as Lessons Learned by CHPRC when additional ARRA funds were used to accelerate design, procurement, construction, and commissioning of the 200 West Groundwater Pump and Treatment (2W P&T) Facility to meet DOE's mission of treating contaminated groundwater at the Hanford Site with a new facility by June 28, 2012.

Dorr, Kent A. [CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, WA (United States); Ostrom, Michael J. [CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, WA (United States); Freeman-Pollard, Jhivaun R. [CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, WA (United States)

2012-11-14T23:59:59.000Z

168

Hanford Site Development Plan  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford Site Development Plan (Site Development Plan) is intended to guide the short- and long-range development and use of the Hanford Site. All acquisition, development, and permanent facility use at the Hanford Site will conform to the approved plan. The Site Development Plan also serves as the base document for all subsequent studies that involve use of facilities at the Site. This revision is an update of a previous plan. The executive summary presents the highlights of the five major topics covered in the Site Development Plan: general site information, existing conditions, planning analysis, Master Plan, and Five-Year Plan. 56 refs., 67 figs., 31 tabs.

Rinne, C.A.; Curry, R.H.; Hagan, J.W.; Seiler, S.W.; Sommer, D.J. (Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (USA)); Yancey, E.F. (Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (USA))

1990-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

169

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ground-water monitoring projects for Hanford Facilities: Progress report for the period July 1 to September 30, 1989 - Volume 1 - Text  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This is Volume 1 of a two-volume document that describes the progress of 14 Hanford Site ground-water monitoring projects for the period July 1 to September 30, 1989. This volume discusses the projects; Volume 2 provides as-built diagrams, completion/inspection reports, drilling logs, and geophysical logs for wells drilled, completed, or logged during this period. Volume 2 can be found on microfiche in the back pocket of Volume 1. The work described in this document is conducted by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory under the management of Westinghouse Hanford Company for the US Department of Energy. Concentrations of ground-water constituents are compared to federal drinking water standards throughout this document for reference purposes. All drinking water supplied from the sampled aquifer meets regulatory standards for drinking water quality.

Smith, R.M.; Bates, D.J.; Lundgren, R.E.

1989-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

170

Hanford Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, Multi-Canister Overpack, Operational Proficiency Demonstration, June 2011  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

6-22 6-22 Site: DOE-Richland Operations Office Subject: Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Activity Report for the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, Multi-Canister Overpack, Operational Proficiency Demonstration Dates of Activity : 06/20/2011 - 06/22/2011 Report Preparer: Jake Wechselberger Activity Description/Purpose: The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Enforcement and Oversight, within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), performed an operational awareness review of the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility, Multi-Canister Overpack, Operational Proficiency Demonstration. Result: During the period June 20-22, 2011, an HSS representative participated in an operational assessment of the Cold Vacuum

171

Paducah DUF6 Conversion Facility: Record of Decision: As Published in the Federal Register  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

54 54 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2004 / Notices accordance with the comprehensive set of DOE requirements and applicable regulatory requirements that have been established to protect public health and the environment. These requirements encompass a wide variety of areas, including radiation protection, facility design criteria, fire protection, emergency preparedness and response, and operational safety requirements. * Cylinder management activities will be conducted in accordance with applicable DOE safety and environmental requirements, including the Cylinder Management Plan. * Temporary impacts on air quality from fugitive dust emissions during reconstruction of cylinder yards or construction of any new facility will be controlled by the best available

172

Federal Facility Compliance Act, Proposed Site Treatment Plan: Background Volume. Executive Summary  

SciTech Connect

This Federal Facility Compliance Act Site Treatment Plan discusses the options of radioactive waste management for Ames Laboratory. This is the background volume which discusses: site history and mission; framework for developing site treatment plans; proposed plan organization and related activities; characterization of mixed waste and waste minimization; low level mixed waste streams and the proposed treatment approach; future generation of TRU and mixed wastes; the adequacy of mixed waste storage facilities; and a summary of the overall DOE activity in the area of disposal of mixed waste treatment residuals.

1995-03-24T23:59:59.000Z

173

MONTICELLO NPL SITES Minutes and Action Items of the Federal Facilities Agreement Meeting  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

Minutes and Action Items of the Federal Facilities Agreement Meeting Minutes and Action Items of the Federal Facilities Agreement Meeting September 16 and 17,2008 Meeting Location U.S. Department of Energy Site Office, Monticello, Utah Meeting Attendees Jalena Dayvault- U.S. Department of Energy Tim Bartlett- S.M. Stoller Todd Moon- S.M. Stoller Linda Sheader- S. M. Stoller Paul Wetherstein- S.M. Stoller Brent Everett- Utah Department of Environmental Quality Duane Mortensen- Utah Department of Environmental Quality Paul Mushovic- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Rob Stites- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (participated by phone) Christina Wilson- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (participated by phone) Meeting topics and discussion points are summarized under the headings listed below. The agenda and copies of handouts presented during the meeting are attached to this report.

174

Geothermal Heat Pumps Deliver Big Savings for Federal Facilities - Technology Focus  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

EE-0291 EE-0291 Internet: www.eere.energy.gov/femp/ No portion of this publication may be altered in any form without prior written consent from the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the authoring national laboratory. Geothermal heat pump surface water loops. Geothermal Heat Pumps Deliver Big Savings for Federal Facilities An update on geothermal heat pump technologies and the Super ESPC Energy-efficiency improvements at federal facilities must enhance support for the agency's critical missions while also saving energy and money. Geothermal heat pumps (GHPs, also known as ground-source heat pumps or GeoExchange systems) can do both, and can help meet energy-conservation, emissions-reduction, and renewable-energy goals. GHP technology is now well known as a proven, reliable, efficient, and

175

The Oak Ridge Reservation PCB Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement, October 28, 1996 Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Compliance Agreement Between The United States Compliance Agreement Between The United States Department of Energy and The United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 - Toxic Substances Control Act (Also Known As The Oak Ridge Reservation Polychlorinated Biphenyl Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement (ORR-PCB-FFCA)) State Tennessee Agreement Type Federal Facility Agreement Legal Driver(s) TSCA Scope Summary Bring DOE's Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) into compliance with TSCA and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 761, "Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions" Parties DOE; US EPA Date 10/28/1996 SCOPE * Bring DOE's Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) into compliance with TSCA and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 761, "Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

176

Demand Response in the U.S. - Key trends and federal facility participation  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

in the U.S. in the U.S. Key trends and federal facility participation Phil Coleman Lawrence Berkeley National Lab FUPWG Williamsburg Meeting November 19, 2008 OUTLINE * Demand response defined * Current status in U.S. * Key trends - Increasing opportunities in "economic" DR - Rise of DR in "capacity" markets - Rise of dynamic pricing - Rise of automated DR ("auto-DR") * Federal participation is small - why? * Ramping up federal participation Demand Response * Def.: A short-term decrease in electrical consumption by end-use customers due to either a) increased electricity prices, or b) incentive payments (triggered by high wholesale market prices or compromised grid reliability). * DR participation can be either through load curtailment (short-term

177

Hanford recycling  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This paper is a study of the past and present recycling efforts on the Hanford site and options for future improvements in the recycling program. Until 1996, recycling goals were voluntarily set by the waste generators: this year, DOE has imposed goals for all its sites to accomplish by 1999. Hanford is presently meeting the voluntary site goals, but may not be able to meet all the new DOE goals without changes to the program. Most of these new DOE goals are recycling goals: * Reduce the generation of radioactive (low-level) waste from routine operations 50 percent through source reduction and recycling. * Reduce the generation of low-level mixed waste from routine operations 50 percent through source reduction and recycling. * Reduce the generation of hazardous waste from routine operations 50 percent through source reduction and recycling. * Recycle 33 percent of the sanitary waste from all operations. * Increase affirmative procurement of EPA-designated recycled items to 100 percent. The Hanford recycling program has made great strides-there has been a 98 percent increase in the amount of paper recycled since its inception in 1990. Hanford recycles paper, chemicals cardboard, tires, oil, batteries, rags, lead weights, fluorescent tubes, aerosol products, concrete, office furniture, computer software, drums, toner cartridges, and scrap metal. Many other items are recycled or reused by individual groups on a one time basis without a formal contract. Several contracts are closed-loop contracts which involve all parts of the recycle loop. Considerable savings are generated from recycling, and much more is possible with increased attention and improvements to this program. General methods for improving the recycling program to ensure that the new goals can be met are: a Contract and financial changes 0 Tracking database and methods improvements 0 Expanded recycling efforts. Specifically, the Hanford recycling program would be improved by: 0 Establishing one overall DOE recycling contract at the Hanford site and a central group to control the contract. 0 Using a BOA or MTS contract as a way to get proceeds from recycling back to site facilities to provide incentives for recycling. . Upgrading tracking mechanisms to track and recycle construction waste which is presently buried in onsite pits. . Establishing contract performance measures which hold each project accountable for specific waste reduction goals. * Recycling and reusing any material or equipment possible as buildings are dismantled.

Leonard, I.M.

1996-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

178

Buildings Energy Data Book: 4.2 Federal Buildings and Facilities Characteristics  

Buildings Energy Data Book (EERE)

2 Federal Buildings and Facilities Characteristics 2 Federal Buildings and Facilities Characteristics March 2012 4.2.1 Federal Building Gross Floorspace, by Year and Agency Fiscal Year Agency FY 1985 3.37 DOD 63% FY 1986 3.38 USPS 10% FY 1987 3.40 GSA 6% FY 1988 3.23 VA 5% FY 1989 3.30 DOE 3% FY 1990 3.40 Other 13% FY 1991 3.21 Total 100% FY 1992 3.20 FY 1993 3.20 FY 1994 3.11 FY 1995 3.04 FY 1996 3.03 FY 1997 3.02 FY 1998 3.07 FY 1999 3.07 FY 2000 3.06 FY 2001 3.07 FY 2002 3.03 FY 2003 3.04 FY 2004 2.97 FY 2005 2.96 FY 2006 3.10 FY 2007 3.01 Note(s): Source(s): 2007 Percent of Floorspace (10^9 SF) Total Floorspace The Federal Government owns/operates over 500,000 buildings, including 422,000 housing structures (for the military) and 51,000 nonresidential buildings. DOE/FEMP, Annual Report to Congress on FEMP FY 2007, Jan. 2010, Table 1, p. 13; DOE/FEMP, Annual Report to Congress on FEMP, Nov. 2008, Table

179

THE DEACTIVATION DECONTAMINATION & DECOMMISSIONING OF THE PLUTONIUM FINISHING PLANT (PFP) A FORMER PLUTONIUM PROCESSING FACILITY AT DOE HANFORD SITE  

SciTech Connect

The Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) was constructed as part of the Manhattan Project during World War II. The Manhattan Project was developed to usher in the use of nuclear weapons to end the war. The primary mission of the PFP was to provide plutonium used as special nuclear material (SNM) for fabrication of nuclear devices for the war effort. Subsequent to the end of World War II, the PFP's mission expanded to support the Cold War effort through plutonium production during the nuclear arms race and later the processing of fuel grade mixed plutonium-uranium oxide to support DOE's breeder reactor program. In October 1990, at the close of the production mission for PFP, a shutdown order was prepared by the Department of Energy (DOE) in Washington, DC and issued to the Richland DOE field office. Subsequent to the shutdown order, a team from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) analyzed the hazards at PFP associated with the continued storage of certain forms of plutonium solutions and solids. The assessment identified many discrete actions that were required to stabilize the different plutonium forms into stable form and repackage the material in high integrity containers. These actions were technically complicated and completed as part of the PFP nuclear material stabilization project between 1995 and early 2005. The completion of the stabilization project was a necessary first step in deactivating PFP. During stabilization, DOE entered into negotiations with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Washington and established milestones for the Deactivation and Decommissioning (D&D) of the PFP. The DOE and its contractor, Fluor Hanford (Fluor), have made great progress in deactivating, decontaminating and decommissioning the PFP at the Hanford Site as detailed in this paper. Background information covering the PFP D&D effort includes descriptions of negotiations with the State of Washington concerning consent-order milestones, milestones completed to date, and the vision of bringing PFP to slab-on-grade. Innovative approaches in planning and regulatory strategies, as well new technologies from within the United States and from other countries and field decontamination techniques developed by workforce personnel, such as the ''turkey roaster'' and the ''lazy Susan'' are covered in detail in the paper. Critical information on issues and opportunities during the performance of the work such as concerns regarding the handling and storage of special nuclear material, concerns regarding criticality safety and the impact of SNM de-inventory at PFP are also provided. The continued success of the PFP D&D effort is due to the detailed, yet flexible, approach to planning that applied innovative techniques and tools, involved a team of experienced independent reviewers, and incorporated previous lessons learned at the Hanford site, Rocky Flats, and commercial nuclear D&D projects. Multi-disciplined worker involvement in the planning and the execution of the work has produced a committed workforce that has developed innovative techniques, resulting in safer and more efficient work evolutions.

CHARBONEAU, S.L.

2006-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

180

THE DEACTIVATION DECONTAMINATION & DECOMMISSIONING OF THE PLUTONIUM FINISHING PLANT (PFP) A FORMER PLUTONIUM PROCESSING FACILITY AT DOE HANFORD SITE  

SciTech Connect

The Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) was constructed as part of the Manhattan Project during World War II. The Manhattan Project was developed to usher in the use of nuclear weapons to end the war. The primary mission of the PFP was to provide plutonium used as special nuclear material (SNM) for fabrication of nuclear devices for the war effort. Subsequent to the end of World War II, the PFP's mission expanded to support the Cold War effort through plutonium production during the nuclear arms race and later the processing of fuel grade mixed plutonium-uranium oxide to support DOE's breeder reactor program. In October 1990, at the close of the production mission for PFP, a shutdown order was prepared by the Department of Energy (DOE) in Washington, DC and issued to the Richland DOE field office. Subsequent to the shutdown order, a team from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) analyzed the hazards at PFP associated with the continued storage of certain forms of plutonium solutions and solids. The assessment identified many discrete actions that were required to stabilize the different plutonium forms into stable form and repackage the material in high integrity containers. These actions were technically complicated and completed as part of the PFP nuclear material stabilization project between 1995 and early 2005. The completion of the stabilization project was a necessary first step in deactivating PFP. During stabilization, DOE entered into negotiations with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Washington and established milestones for the Deactivation and Decommissioning (D&D) of the PFP. The DOE and its contractor, Fluor Hanford (Fluor), have made great progress in deactivating, decontaminating and decommissioning the PFP at the Hanford Site as detailed in this paper. Background information covering the PFP D&D effort includes descriptions of negotiations with the State of Washington concerning consent-order milestones, milestones completed to date, and the vision of bringing PFP to slab-on-grade. Innovative approaches in planning and regulatory strategies, as well new technologies from within the United States and from other countries and field decontamination techniques developed by workforce personnel, such as the ''turkey roaster'' and the ''lazy Susan'' are covered in detail in the paper. Critical information on issues and opportunities during the performance of the work such as concerns regarding the handling and storage of special nuclear material, concerns regarding criticality safety and the impact of SNM de-inventory at PFP are also provided. The continued success of the PFP D&D effort is due to the detailed, yet flexible, approach to planning that applied innovative techniques and tools, involved a team of experienced independent reviewers, and incorporated previous lessons learned at the Hanford site, Rocky Flats, and commercial nuclear D&D projects. Multi-disciplined worker involvement in the planning and the execution of the work has produced a committed workforce that has developed innovative techniques, resulting in safer and more efficient work evolutions.

CHARBONEAU, S.L.

2006-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


181

Restructuring, Tight Budgets and Executive Order 13123 Create New Incentives to Reduce Waste in Federal Industrial Facilities  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

This paper discusses the positive impact that electric utility industry restructuring, a reduction in the size of government operations, and the recent Presidential Executive Order 13123 should have on energy use in Federal industrial facilities. The Federal government is the single largest U.S. consumer of energy. Federal industrial and energy intensive operations cost the taxpayer $600 million in FY 1998 and were exempt from mandatory energy reduction goals. Executive Order 13123 requires Federal agencies to reduce energy consumption in industrial and laboratory facilities by 25% by 2010 relative to 1990 levels and sets mandatory goals for energy intensive operations.

Verdict, M. E.

2000-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

182

Hanford - Reports  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Construction Quality, August 2013 Review of the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant...

183

Mixed waste solidification testing on polymer and cement-based waste forms in support of Hanford`s WRAP 2A facility  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

A testing program has been conducted by the Westinghouse Hanford Company to confirm the baseline waste form selection for use in Waste Receiving and Processing (WRAP) Module 2A. WRAP Module 2A will provide treatment required to properly dispose of containerized contact-handled, mixed low-level waste at the US Department of Energy Hanford Site in south-central Washington State. Solidification/stabilization has been chosen as the appropriate treatment for this waste. This work is intended to test cement-based, thermosetting polymer, and thermoplastic polymer solidification media to substantiate the technology approach for WRAP Module 2A. Screening tests were performed using the major chemical constituent of each waste type to measure the gross compatibility with the immobilization media and to determine formulations for more detailed testing. Surrogate materials representing each of the eight waste types were prepared in the laboratory. These surrogates were then solidified with the selected immobilization media and subjected to a battery of standard performance tests. Detailed discussion of the laboratory work and results are contained in this report.

Burbank, D.A. Jr.; Weingardt, K.M.

1993-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

184

Hanford K-Basin Sludge Characterization Overview February 2005  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

Hanford K-Basin Sludge Characterization Overview February 2005 1 Hanford K-Basin Sludge Characterization Overview February 2005 1. Summary The Hanford K-East and K-West Basins were used to store of the irradiated fuel reprocessing facility at Hanford (the PUREX facility) the N-Reactor irradiated fuel remained

185

Technology Potential of Thermal Energy Storage (TES) Systems in Federal Facilities  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Thermal energy storage reduces electric costs by shifting chilling activities to off-peak times. Water is chilled or ice is made during the night to either replace or augment operation of cooling equipment during the day. Off-peak demand and consumption rates produce significant dollar savings. TES requires favorable electric rate structures, available space to house the associated equipment, and either variation in buildings cooling loads or favorable climatic conditions. TES can be implemented anywhere cooling loads can be shifted to off-peak hours with the best applications being office buildings, hospitals, and schools. Most TES projects are implemented in conjunction with an existing cooling system expansion, replacement of older cooling equipment, or new construction, thus reducing energy costs, consumption, and demand. Various options are available for funding TES projects in Federal facilities, including direct agency funding, capital improvement funds, utility financing, and alternative financing. The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) should promote TES through demonstrations, success stories, and by distributing the FEMP Technology Alert (March 2000). Federal Facilities should, as standard practice, evaluate TES options whenever a chiller retrofit or replacement is performed.

Chvala, William D.

2002-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

186

TRACKING CLEAN UP AT HANFORD  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, known as the ''Tri-Party Agreement'' (TPA), is a legally binding agreement among the US Department of Energy (DOE), The Washington State Department of Ecology, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for cleaning up the Hanford Site. Established in the 1940s to produce material for nuclear weapons as part of the Manhattan Project, Hanford is often referred to as the world's large environmental cleanup project. The Site covers more than 580 square miles in a relatively remote region of southeastern Washington state in the US. The production of nuclear materials at Hanford has left a legacy of tremendous proportions in terms of hazardous and radioactive waste. From a waste-management point of view, the task is enormous: 1700 waste sites; 450 billion gallons of liquid waste; 70 billion gallons of contaminated groundwater; 53 million gallons of tank waste; 9 reactors; 5 million cubic yards of contaminated soil; 22 thousand drums of mixed waste; 2.3 tons of spent nuclear fuel; and 17.8 metric tons of plutonium-bearing material and this is just a partial listing. The agreement requires that DOE provide the results of analytical laboratory and non-laboratory tests/readings to the lead regulatory agency to help guide then in making decisions. The agreement also calls for each signatory to preserve--for at least ten years after the Agreement has ended--all of the records in it, or its contractors, possession related to sampling, analysis, investigations, and monitoring conducted. The Action Plan that supports the TPA requires that Ecology and EPA have access to all data that is relevant to work performed, or to be performed, under the Agreement. Further, the Action Plan specifies two additional requirements: (1) that EPA, Ecology and their respective contractor staffs have access to all the information electronically, and (2) that the databases are accessible to, and used by, all personnel doing TPA-related work. The Hanford Environmental Databases document and track the progress of Site cleanup--Hanford Environmental Information System (HEIS), Hanford Well Information Data System (HWIS), the Waste Information Data System (WIDS), and the Hanford Geographic Information System (HGIS). HEIS contains the date, time, location, and results from samples taken during activities such as field investigations and groundwater monitoring. HWIS contains the details of the wells and boreholes on the Site. WIDS tracks the waste sites--from discovery through cleanup. Each of the databases is supported by several applications for entering or retrieving information. HGIS keeps track of the locations for waste (WIDS) sites, wells and boreholes, and other sampling site locations. Of the applications used to extract data from the Environmental Databases, the Hanford Map Portal (QMAP) is the newest, and perhaps the most efficient. QMAP combines the HGIS spatial information with the information from the other databases so that users may browse to, or query, the waste site or well of interest. A query of a waste site or well engages QMAP to find the object and then the user may access the appropriate database. This paper describes the Environmental Databases and their maintenance, as well as the applications used to access them. Collectively, these databases are a critical element in formally documenting the work and associated decisions made during the cleanup of Hanford.

CONNELL, C.W.

2005-05-27T23:59:59.000Z

187

California Federal Facilities: Rate-Responsive Buidling Operating for Deeper Cost and Energy Savings  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Rouggly, energy manager at SSA's Frank Hagel Federal Building in Richmond Rouggly, energy manager at SSA's Frank Hagel Federal Building in Richmond California, reports that the facility garnered $35,000 in credits in 2011 on PG&E's Peak Day Pricing (PDP) tariff. "Frankly I was stunned! It's getting a lot of positive attention with our management," said Rouggly. "We were able to drop 400 kW by pre-cooling the building and shutting down one chiller during peak events. We also turned off 2 of our 8 elevators and reduced lighting in corridors to emergency levels. We got about $100 per day just for being on the program, but the big credits we earned were for trimming demand and reducing kWh during peak events." Rouggly plans to increase curtailment efforts further this summer. Dynamic pricing electricity tariffs,

188

HANFORD REGULATORY EXPERIENCE REGULATION AT HANFORD A CASE STUDY  

SciTech Connect

Hanford has played a pivotal role in the United States' defense for more than 60 years, beginning with the Manhattan Project in the 1940s. During its history, the Hanford Site has had nine reactors producing plutonium for the United States' nuclear weapons program. All the reactors were located next to the Columbia River and all had associated low-level radioactive and hazardous waste releases. Site cleanup, which formally began in 1989 with the signing of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, also known as the Tri-Party Agreement, involves more than 1,600 waste sites and burial grounds, and the demolition of more than 1,500buildings and structures, Cleanup is scheduled to be complete by 2035. Regulatory oversight of the cleanup is being performed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Revised Code of Washington, 'Hazardous Waste Management.' Cleanup of the waste sites and demolition of the many buildings and structures generates large volumes of contaminated soil, equipment, demolition debris, and other wastes that must be disposed of in a secure manner to prevent further environmental degradation. From a risk perspective, it is essential the cleanup waste be moved to a disposal facility located well away from the Columbia River. The solution was to construct very large engineered landfill that meets all technical regulatory requirements, on the Hanford Site Central Plateau approximately 10kilometers from the river and 100metersabovegroundwater. This landfill, called the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility or ERDF is a series of cells, each 150x 300 meters wide at the bottom and 20 meters deep. This paper looks at the substantive environmental regulations applied to ERDF, and how the facility is designed to protect the environment and meet regulatory requirements. The paper describes how the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE),EPA, and Ecology interact in its regulation. In addition, the response to a recent $1 million regulatory fine is described to show actual interactions and options in this aspect of the regulatory process. The author acknowledges the significant contributions by Messrs. Clifford Clark and Owen Robertson. Ms. Nancy Williams provided graphics support and Ms. Laurie Kraemer edited the report.

HAWKINS AR

2007-09-24T23:59:59.000Z

189

HANFORD REGULATORY EXPERIENCE REGULATION AT HANFORD A CASE STUDY  

SciTech Connect

Hanford has played a pivotal role in the United States' defense for more than 60 years, beginning with the Manhattan Project in the 1940s. During its history, the Hanford Site has had nine reactors producing plutonium for the United States' nuclear weapons program. All the reactors were located next to the Columbia River and all had associated low-level radioactive and hazardous waste releases. Site cleanup, which formally began in 1989 with the signing of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, also known as the Tri-Party Agreement, involves more than 1,600 waste sites and burial grounds, and the demolition of more than 1,500buildings and structures, Cleanup is scheduled to be complete by 2035. Regulatory oversight of the cleanup is being performed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology(Ecology) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Revised Code of Washington, 'Hazardous Waste Management.' Cleanup of the waste sites and demolition of the many buildings and structures generates large volumes of contaminated soil, equipment, demolition debris, and other wastes that must be disposed of in a secure manner to prevent further environmental degradation. From a risk perspective, it is essential the cleanup waste be moved to a disposal facility located well away from the Columbia River. The solution was to construct very large engineered landfill that meets all technical regulatory requirements, on the Hanford Site Central Plateau approximately 10kilometers from the river and 100metersabovegroundwater. This landfill, called the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility or ERDF is a series of cells, each 150x 300 meters wide at the bottom and 20 meters deep. This paper looks at the substantive environmental regulations applied to ERDF, and how the facility is designed to protect the environment and meet regulatory requirements. The paper describes how the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE),EPA, and Ecology interact in its regulation. In addition, the response to a recent $1 million regulatory fine is described to show actual interactions and options in this aspect of the regulatory process. The author acknowledges the significant contributions by Messrs. Clifford Clark and Owen Robertson. Ms. Nancy Williams provided graphics support and Ms. Laurie Kraemer edited the report.

HAWKINS AR

2007-09-24T23:59:59.000Z

190

HANFORD SITE CENTRAL PLATEAU CLEANUP COMPLETION STRATEGY  

SciTech Connect

Cleanup of the Hanford Site is a complex and challenging undertaking. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has developed a comprehensive vision for completing Hanford's cleanup mission including transition to post-cleanup activities. This vision includes 3 principle components of cleanup: the {approx}200 square miles ofland adjacent to the Columbia River, known as the River Corridor; the 75 square miles of land in the center of the Hanford Site, where the majority of the reprocessing and waste management activities have occurred, known as the Central Plateau; and the stored reprocessing wastes in the Central Plateau, the Tank Wastes. Cleanup of the River Corridor is well underway and is progressing towards completion of most cleanup actions by 2015. Tank waste cleanup is progressing on a longer schedule due to the complexity of the mission, with construction of the largest nuclear construction project in the United States, the Waste Treatment Plant, over 50% complete. With the progress on the River Corridor and Tank Waste, it is time to place increased emphasis on moving forward with cleanup of the Central Plateau. Cleanup of the Hanford Site has been proceeding under a framework defmed in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement). In early 2009, the DOE, the State of Washington Department of Ecology, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signed an Agreement in Principle in which the parties recognized the need to develop a more comprehensive strategy for cleanup of the Central Plateau. DOE agreed to develop a Central Plateau Cleanup Completion Strategy as a starting point for discussions. This DOE Strategy was the basis for negotiations between the Parties, discussions with the State of Oregon, the Hanford Advisory Board, and other Stakeholder groups (including open public meetings), and consultation with the Tribal Nations. The change packages to incorporate the Central Plateau Cleanup Completion Strategy were signed by the Parties on October 26,2010, and are now in the process of being implemented.

BERGMAN TB

2011-01-14T23:59:59.000Z

191

Annual Hanford Site Environmental Permitting status report  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The information contained in, and/or referenced in, this Annual Hanford Site Environmental Permitting Status Report addresses Permit Condition II.W (Other Permits and/or Approvals) of the Dangerous Waste Portion of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WA7890008967). Condition II.W specifies that the Permittees are responsible for obtaining all other applicable federal, state, and local permits authorizing the development and operation of the Hanford Facility. Condition II.W further specifies that the Permittees are to use their best efforts to obtain such permits. For the purposes of this Permit Condition, ''best efforts'' mean submittal of documentation and/or approval(s) in accordance with schedules specified in applicable regulations, or as determined through negotiations with the applicable regulatory agencies.

SONNICHSEN, J.C.

1999-10-18T23:59:59.000Z

192

Enforcement Letter, Westinghouse Hanford Corporation - September 22, 1995 |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Corporation - September Hanford Corporation - September 22, 1995 Enforcement Letter, Westinghouse Hanford Corporation - September 22, 1995 September 22, 1995 Issued to Westinghouse Hanford Corporation related to Operational Safety Requirements Implementation at the B Plant/Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility at the Hanford Site This letter refers to the Department of Energy's (DOE) evaluation of Westinghouse Hanford Company's (WHC) report of potential noncompliances with the requirements of 10 CFR 830.120 (Quality Assurance Requirements) at the Hanford B Plant/Waste Encapsulation Facility (WESF). These potential noncompliances were identified by WHC on May 8, 1995, during a self-initiated comprehensive assessment of the facilities Operational Safety Requirements (OSR) program

193

Hanford Emergency Response Plan  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford Emergency Response Plan for the US Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office (RL), incorporates into one document an overview of the emergency management program for the Hanford Site. The program has been developed in accordance with DOE orders, and state and federal regulations to protect worker and public health and safety and the environment in the event of an emergency at or affecting the Hanford Site. This plan provides a description of how the Hanford Site will implement the provisions of DOE 5500 series and other applicable Orders in terms of overall policies and concept of operations. It should be used as the basis, along with DOE Orders, for the development of specific contractor and RL implementing procedures.

Wagoner, J.D.

1994-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

194

Ground-Source Heat Pumps Applied to Federal Facilities, Second Edition  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

and exterior to the facility, are typically less and exterior to the facility, are typically less than those for conventional systems. Potential Application The technology has been shown to be techni- cally valid and economically attractive in many applications. It is efficient and effective. This Federal Technology Alert reports on the collec- tive experience of heat pump users and evalua- tors and provides application guidance. An estimated 400,000 ground-source heat pumps are operating in the private and public sector, although most of these systems operate in resi- dential applications. A ground-source heat pump system can be applied in virtually any category of climate or building. The large num- ber of installations testifies to the stability of this technology. The reported problems can usually be attributed to faulty design or

195

Buildings Energy Data Book: 4.3 Federal Buildings and Facilities Expenditures  

Buildings Energy Data Book (EERE)

2 2 Annual Energy Expenditures per Gross Square Foot of Federal Floorspace Stock, by Year ($2010) FY 1985 2.13 FY 2000 1.36 FY 2001 1.58 FY 2002 1.49 FY 2003 1.45 FY 2004 1.54 FY 2005 1.59 FY 2006 2.01 (1) FY 2007 2.01 Note(s): Source(s): Total Federal buildings and facilities energy expenditures in FY 2006 were $5.79 billion (in $2010). 1) Increase due to change in FEMP categorization of Federal buildings. DOE/FEMP, Annual Report to Congress on FEMP FY 2007, Jan. 2010, Table A-9, p. 97 and Table 1, p. 13; DOE/FEMP, Annual Report to Congress on FEMP, Nov. 2008, Table A-9, p. 78 for energy costs, and Table 1, p. 12 for floorspace for 2006; DOE/FEMP, Annual Report to Congress on FEMP, Sep. 2006, Table A-12, p. 158 for energy costs for 1985-2005; DOE/FEMP, Annual Report on FEMP, Dec. 2002, Table 8-A, p. 61 for 2000; DOE/FEMP, Annual

196

Procuring Solar Energy: A Guide for Federal Facility Decision Makers, September 2010  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

This guide presents an overview of the process for successfully planning for and installing solar technology on a federal site. It is specifically targeted to managers of federal buildings and sites, contracting officers, energy and sustainability officers, and regional procurement managers. The solar project process is outlined in a concise, easy-to-understand, step-by-step format. Information includes a brief overview of legislation and executive orders related to renewable energy and the compelling reasons for implementing a solar project on a federal site. It also includes how to assess a facility to identify the best solar installation site, project recommendations and considerations to help avoid unforeseen issues, and guidance on financing and contracting options. Case studies with descriptions of successful solar deployments across multiple agencies are presented. In addition, detailed information and sample documents for specific tasks are referenced with Web links or included in the appendixes. The guide concentrates on distributed solar generation and not large, centralized solar energy generation.

Stoltenberg, B.; Partyka, E.

2010-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

197

Westinghouse Hanford Company operational environmental monitoring annual report - calendar year 1995  

SciTech Connect

This document summarizes the results of the Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) near-facility operational environmental monitoring for 1995 in the 100, 200/600, and 300/400 Areas of the Hanford Site, in south-central Washington State. Surveillance activities included sampling and analyses of ambient air, surface water,groundwater, soil, sediments, and biota. Also, external radiation measurements and radiological surveys were taken at waste disposal sites, radiologically controlled areas, and roads. These activities were conducted to assess and control the effects of nuclear facilities and waste sites on the local environment. In addition, diffuse sources were monitored to determine compliance with Federal, State, and/or local regulations. In general, although effects from nuclear facilities can still be observed on the Hanford Site and radiation levels are slightly elevated when compared to offsite locations, the differences are less than in previous years.

Schmidt, J.W., Westinghouse Hanford

1996-07-30T23:59:59.000Z

198

Westinghouse Hanford Company operational environmental monitoring annual report, calendar year 1994  

SciTech Connect

This document presents the results of the Westinghouse Hanford Company near-facility operational environmental monitoring for 1994 in the 100, 200/600, and 300/400 Areas of the Hanford Site, in south-central Washington State. Surveillance activities included sampling and analyses of ambient air surface water, groundwater, soil, sediments, and biota. Also, external radiation measurements and radiological surveys were taken at waste disposal sites, radiologically controlled areas, and roads. These activities were conducted to assess and control the effects of nuclear facilities and waste sites on the local environment. In addition, diffuse sources were monitored to determine compliance with Federal, State, and/or local regulations. In general, although effects from nuclear facilities are still seen on the Hanford Site and radiation levels are slightly elevated when compared to offsite locations, the differences are less than in previous years.

Schmidt, J.; Fassett, J.W.; Johnson, A.R.; Johnson, V.G.; Markes, B.M.; McKinney, S.M.; Moss, K.J.; Perkins, C.J.; Richterich, L.R.

1995-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

199

Procuring Stationary Fuel Cells For CHP: A Guide for Federal Facility Decision Makers  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Federal agency leaders are expressing growing interest in using innovative fuel cell combined heat and power (CHP) technology at their sites, motivated by both executive branch sustainability targets and a desire to lead by example in the transition to a clean energy economy. Fuel cell CHP can deliver reliable electricity and heat with 70% to 85% efficiency. Implementing this technology can be a high efficiency, clean energy solution for agencies striving to meet ambitious sustainability requirements with limited budgets. Fuel cell CHP systems can use natural gas or renewable fuels, such as biogas. Procuring Stationary Fuel Cells for CHP: A Guide for Federal Facility Decision Makers presents an overview of the process for planning and implementing a fuel cell CHP project in a concise, step-by-step format. This guide is designed to help agency leaders turn their interest in fuel cell technology into successful installations. This guide concentrates on larger (100 kW and greater) fuel cell CHP systems and does not consider other fuel cell applications such as cars, forklifts, backup power supplies or small generators (<100 kW). Because fuel cell technologies are rapidly evolving and have high up front costs, their deployment poses unique challenges. The electrical and thermal output of the CHP system must be integrated with the building s energy systems. Innovative financing mechanisms allow agencies to make a make versus buy decision to maximize savings. This guide outlines methods that federal agencies may use to procure fuel cell CHP systems with little or no capital investment. Each agency and division, however, has its own set of procurement procedures. This guide was written as a starting point, and it defers to the reader s set of rules if differences exist. The fuel cell industry is maturing, and project developers are gaining experience in working with federal agencies. Technology improvements, cost reductions, and experienced project developers are making fuel cell projects easier to put into service. In this environment, federal decision makers can focus on being smart buyers of fuel cell energy instead of attempting to become experts in fuel cell technology. For agencies that want to pursue a fuel cell CHP this guide presents a four step process for a successful project. 1. Perform a preliminary screening of the energy needs energy costs and incentives. 2. Compare a detailed project plan. 3. Make a financing and contracting decision. 4. Execute the project plan including financing, installation, and operation. The simplest procurement method is designated funding for the outright purchase of the fuel cell CHP system, although this is usually not the most cost-effective option. This guide describes the following financing options: Power purchase agreement Energy savings performance contract Utility energy services contract Enhanced use lease Fuel cell CHP technology can help federal facility managers comply with agency objectives for reducing energy consumption and air pollution emissions. Fuel cells do not generate particulate pollutants, unburned hydrocarbons or the gases that produce acid rain. Fuel cells emit less carbon dioxide (CO2) than other, less efficient technologies and use of renewable fuels can make them carbon neutral. Fuel cell CHP technology can deliver reliable electricity and heat with high efficiency (70% to 85%) in a small physical footprint with little noise, making it a cost-effective option for federal facilities.

Stinton, David P [ORNL; McGervey, Joseph [SRA International, Inc.; Curran, Scott [ORNL

2011-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

200

Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States Department of Energy and the Washington State Department of Ecology for Development of the Hanford Site Tank Closure and Waste Management EIS ("TC&WM EIS")  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

THE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, AND THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE HANFORD SITE TANK CLOSURE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT EIS ("TC&WM EIS") I. INTRODUCTION The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) have mutual responsibilities for accomplishing cleanup of the Hanford Site as well as continuing ongoing waste management activities consistent with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (otherwise called the "Tri-Party Agreement", or "TPA") contains various enforceable milestones that apply to tank waste management activities. DOE is also required to comply with applicable requirements of

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


201

Near-facility environmental monitoring quality assurance project plan  

SciTech Connect

This Quality Assurance Project Plan addresses the quality assurance requirements for the activities associated with the preoperational and near facility environmental monitoring performed by Waste Management Federal Services, Inc., Northwest Operations and supersedes WHC-EP-0538-2. This plan applies to all sampling and monitoring activities performed by waste management Federal Services, Inc., Northwest Operations in implementing facility environmental monitoring at the Hanford Site.

McKinney, S.M.

1997-11-24T23:59:59.000Z

202

Siting the International Linear Collider at Hanford  

SciTech Connect

Review of the proposed International Linear Collider, applications in high energy physics, and evaluation of the Hanford Site as a possible location for siting the facility.

Kouzes, Richard T.; Asner, David M.; Brodzinski, Ronald L.; Fast, James E.; Miley, Harry S.

2012-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

203

Expanded public notice: Washington State notice of intent for corrective action management unit, Hanford Environmental Restoration Disposal  

SciTech Connect

This document is to serve notice of the intent to operate an Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF), adjacent to the 200 West Area of the Hanford Facility, Richland, Washington, as a Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU), in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 264.552. The ERDF CAMU will serve as a management unit for the majority of waste (primarily soil) excavated during remediation of waste management sites on the Hanford Facility. Only waste that originates from the Hanford Facility can be accepted in this ERDF CAMU. The waste is expected to consist of dangerous waste, radioactive waste, and mixed waste. Mixed waste contains radioactive and dangerous components. The primary features of the ERDF could include the following: one or more trenches, rail and tractor/trailer container handling capability, railroads, an inventory control system, a decontamination building, and operational offices.

Not Available

1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

204

Procuring Fuel Cells for Stationary Power: A Guide for Federal Facility Decision Makers  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Procuring Fuel Cells for Stationary Power: Procuring Fuel Cells for Stationary Power: A Guide for Federal Facility Decision Makers OCTOBER 2011 Fuel Cell Technologies Program Oak Ridge National Laboratory 2 October 2011 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily

205

Monticello NPL Sites Federal Facilities Agreement Meeting Minutes & Action Items  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

NPL Sites NPL Sites Federal Facilities Agreement Meeting Minutes & Action Items Location Monticello, Utah- DOE Office of Legacy Management field office Date September 27,2006 Attendees David Bird- Utah Department of Environmental Quality Paul Mushovic- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Att Kleinrath- U.S. Depmtment of Energy Tim Bartlett- S. M. Stoller Meeting topics and discussion points are summarized separately under the headings that follow. Attaclunent 1 to this report includes the agenda and handout materials provided at the meeting. This report also includes disposal cell and Pond 4 leachate collection data (Attachment 2), quarterly site inspection results (Attachment 3), and project schedule and deliverables through the next two qumters (October 2006 through March 2007). With this

206

Ground-Source Heat Pumps Applied to Federal Facilities, Second Edition  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

E E N E R G Y M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M and exterior to the facility, are typically less than those for conventional systems. Potential Application The technology has been shown to be techni- cally valid and economically attractive in many applications. It is efficient and effective. This Federal Technology Alert reports on the collec- tive experience of heat pump users and evalua- tors and provides application guidance. An estimated 400,000 ground-source heat pumps are operating in the private and public sector, although most of these systems operate in resi- dential applications. A ground-source heat pump system can be applied in virtually any category of climate or building. The large num- ber of installations testifies to the stability of this technology. The reported problems can

207

Federal Facility Compliance Agreement on Storage of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, August 8, 1996 Summary  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

on Storage of on Storage of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, August 8, 1996 State Washington Agreement Type Federal Facility Compliance Agreement Legal Driver(s) TSCA Scope Summary Address DOE and the NNPP's inability to comply at this time with the regulations in 40 Parties DOE; US EPA; US Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program (NNPP) Date 8/8/1996 SCOPE * Address DOE and the NNPP's inability to comply at this time with the regulations in 40 CFR 761.65(a), which require polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) stored for disposal to be removed from storage and disposed of within one year of being placed in storage, and the Department of Transportation (DOT) container specifications in 40 CFR 761.65(c)(6). ESTABLISHING MILESTONES * Annually, starting six months after the effective date of this Agreement, DOE and the

208

Federal Facility Compliance Act: Conceptual Site Treatment Plan for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Department of Energy (DOE) is required by section 3021(b) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Federal Facility Compliance Act (the Act), to prepare plans describing the development of treatment capacities and technologies for treating mixed waste. The Act requires site treatment plans (STPs or plans) to be developed for each site at which DOE generates or stores mixed waste and submitted to the State or EPA for approval, approval with modification, or disapproval. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Conceptual Site Treatment Plan (CSTP) is the preliminary version of the plan required by the Act and is being provided to California, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and others for review. A list of the other DOE sites preparing CSTPs is included in Appendix 1.1 of this document. Please note that Appendix 1.1 appears as Appendix A, pages A-1 and A-2 in this document.

Not Available

1993-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

209

Hanford Site | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Site Hanford Site Hanford Site Workers safely demolished a 175-foot-high exhaust stack at the Hanford Site in southeastern Washington state, a project supported by $420,000 in Recovery Act funds Workers safely demolished a 175-foot-high exhaust stack at the Hanford Site in southeastern Washington state, a project supported by $420,000 in Recovery Act funds Slurry pumps are used in the tank farms to pick up liquid and solid particle mixture, or slurry, and provide the force necessary to transport the waste from tank to tank during retrieval operations Slurry pumps are used in the tank farms to pick up liquid and solid particle mixture, or slurry, and provide the force necessary to transport the waste from tank to tank during retrieval operations The Pretreatment Facility control room building pad (foreground) and the Low-Activity Waste Facility (background)

210

Plans and Progress on Hanford MLLW Treatment and Disposal  

SciTech Connect

Mixed low-level waste (MLLW) contains both low-level radioactive materials and low-level hazardous chemicals. The hazardous component of mixed waste has characteristics identified by any or all of the following statutes: the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended; the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976; and Washington State dangerous waste regulations. The Fluor Hanford Waste Management Project (WMP) is responsible for storing, treating, and disposing of solid MLLW, which includes organic and inorganic solids, organics and inorganic lab packs, debris, lead, mercury, long-length equipment, spent melters, and remote-handled (RH) and oversized MLLW. Hanford has 7,000 cubic meters, or about 25%, of the MLLW in storage at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites. Hanford plans to receive 57,000 cubic meters from on-site generators, or about 50% of DOE's newly generated MLLW. In addition, the Hanford Environment Restoration Program and off-site generators having approved Federal Facility Consent Agreement site treatment plans will most likely send 200 cubic meters of waste to be treated and returned to the generators. Volumes of off-site waste receipts will be affected when the MLLW Record of Decision is issued as part of the process for the Hanford Site Solid Waste Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The WMP objective relative to MLLW is to treat and dispose of {approx}8000 cubic meters of existing inventory and newly-generated waste by September 30, 2006.

McDonald, K. M.; Blackford, L. T.; Nester, D. E.; Connolly, R. R.; McKenney, D. E.; Moy, S. K.

2003-02-24T23:59:59.000Z

211

HANFORD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY NEEDS STATEMENTS 2002  

SciTech Connect

This document: (a) provides a comprehensive listing of the Hanford sites science and technology needs for fiscal year (FY) 2002; and (b) identifies partnering and commercialization opportunities within industry, other federal and state agencies, and the academic community. These needs were prepared by the Hanford projects (within the Project Hanford Management Contract, the Environmental Restoration Contract and the River Protection Project) and subsequently reviewed and endorsed by the Hanford Site Technology Coordination Group (STCG). The STCG reviews included participation of DOE-RL and DOE-ORP Management, site stakeholders, state and federal regulators, and Tribal Nations. These needs are reviewed and updated on an annual basis and given a broad distribution.

WIBLE, R.A.

2002-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

212

Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant technical manual  

SciTech Connect

A key element of the Hanford waste management strategy is the construction of a new facility, the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant (HWVP), to vitrify existing and future liquid high-level waste produced by defense activities at the Hanford Site. The HWVP mission is to vitrify pretreated waste in borosilicate glass, cast the glass into stainless steel canisters, and store the canisters at the Hanford Site until they are shipped to a federal geological repository. The HWVP Technical Manual (Manual) documents the technical bases of the current HWVP process and provides a physical description of the related equipment and the plant. The immediate purpose of the document is to provide the technical bases for preparation of project baseline documents that will be used to direct the Title 1 and Title 2 design by the A/E, Fluor. The content of the Manual is organized in the following manner. Chapter 1.0 contains the background and context within which the HWVP was designed. Chapter 2.0 describes the site, plant, equipment and supporting services and provides the context for application of the process information in the Manual. Chapter 3.0 provides plant feed and product requirements, which are primary process bases for plant operation. Chapter 4.0 summarizes the technology for each plant process. Chapter 5.0 describes the engineering principles for designing major types of HWVP equipment. Chapter 6.0 describes the general safety aspects of the plant and process to assist in safe and prudent facility operation. Chapter 7.0 includes a description of the waste form qualification program and data. Chapter 8.0 indicates the current status of quality assurance requirements for the Manual. The Appendices provide data that are too extensive to be placed in the main text, such as extensive tables and sets of figures. The Manual is a revision of the 1987 version.

Larson, D.E. [ed.; Watrous, R.A.; Kruger, O.L. [and others

1996-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

213

Review of Documented Safety Analysis Development for the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (LBL Facilities), April 23, 2013 (HSS CRAD 45-58, Rev. 0)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

U.S. Department of U.S. Department of Energy Subject: Review of Documented Safety Analysis Development for the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immob ilization Plant (LBL Facilities) - C riteria and Review Approach D oc um~ HS: HSS CRAD 45-58 Rev: 0 Eff. Date: April 23, 2013 Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations Acting Di rec or, Office of Safety and Emergency Nltanagement Evaluations Date: Apri l 23 , 20 13 Criteria and Review Approach Document ~~ trd,James Low Date: April 23 , 20 13 1.0 PURPOSE Within the Office of H.ealth, Safety and Security (HSS), the Office of Enforcement and Overs ight, Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations (HS-45) miss io n is to assess the effectiveness of the environment, safety, health, and emergency management systems and practices used by line and

214

FINAL FRONTIER AT HANFORD TACKLING THE CENTRAL PLATEAU  

SciTech Connect

The large land area in the center of the vast Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site in southeast Washington State is known as 'the plateau'--aptly named because its surface elevations are 250-300 feet above the groundwater table. By contrast, areas on the 585-square mile Site that border the Columbia River sit just 30-80 feet above the water table. The Central Plateau, which covers an ellipse of approximately 70 square miles, contains Hanford's radiochemical reprocessing areas--the 200 East and 200 West Areas--and includes the most highly radioactive waste and contaminated facilities on the Site. Five 'canyons' where chemical processes were used to separate out plutonium (Pu), 884 identified soil waste sites (including approximately 50 miles of solid waste burial trenches), more than 900 structures, and all of Hanford's liquid waste storage tanks reside in the Central Plateau. (Notes: Canyons is a nickname given by Hanford workers to the chemical reprocessing facilities. The 177, underground waste tanks at Hanford comprise a separate work scope and are not under Fluor's management). Fluor Hanford, a DOE prime cleanup contractor at the Site for the past 12 years, has moved aggressively to investigate Central Plateau waste sites in the last few years, digging more than 500 boreholes, test pits, direct soil 'pushes' or drive points; logging geophysical data sets; and performing electrical-resistivity scans (a non-intrusive technique that maps patterns of sub-surface soil conductivity). The goal is to identify areas of contamination areas in soil and solid waste sites, so that cost-effective and appropriate decisions on remediation can be made. In 2007, Fluor developed a new work plan for DOE that added 238 soil waste-site characterization activities in the Central Plateau during fiscal years (FYs) 2007-2010. This number represents a 50 percent increase over similar work previously done in central Hanford. Work Plans are among the required steps in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) cleanup process. The CERCLA process is used to oversee the investigation, decision-making and remediation of 'past practices' (historical) sites, as opposed to sites in active use. For the first several years of Hanford's cleanup work, everyone concerned--the Department, contractors, regulatory agencies, stakeholders and Indian nations and tribes--focused efforts on the rivershore. The magnificent Columbia River--eighth largest in the world--flows through and by the Hanford Site for 52 miles. Two million people live downstream from Hanford along the Columbia before it empties into the Pacific Ocean. Further, the part of the river known as the 'Hanford Reach' is a prime habitat for salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and other species of fish. In fact, it provides a spawning ground to more salmon than any other stretch of river in the United States outside of Alaska. For these reasons, protecting the Columbia by cleaning up waste directly along its shoreline was an early priority in Hanford's Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (or Tri-Party Agreement) signed in 1989 among the DOE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Washington State to govern cleanup. However, Tri-Party Agreement signatories and others concerned with Hanford and the Columbia River, knew that the waste located in, and beneath, the Central Plateau could also pose dangers to the waterway. While the waste in central Hanford might move more slowly, and pose fewer immediate threats, it would have to be dealt with as cleanup progressed.

GERBER MS

2008-03-04T23:59:59.000Z

215

Chiller Controls-related Energy Saving Opportunities in FederalFacilities  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Chillers are a significant component of large facility energy use. The focus of much of the development of chilled water systems in recent years has been on optimization of set point and staging controls, improvements in chiller design to increase efficiency and accommodate chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) refrigerant replacements. Other improvements have been made by upgrading controls to the latest digital technologies, improving access and monitoring via communications and sophisticated liquid crystal displays (LCD), more robust fault diagnostics and operating and maintenance information logging. Advances have also been made in how chiller plant systems are designed and operated, and in the diversity of chiller products that are available to support innovative approaches. As in many industries, these improvements have been facilitated by advances in, and lower costs for, enabling technologies, such as refrigerants, compressor design, electronics for controls and variable frequency drives (VFD). Along with the improvements in electronics one would expect that advances have also been made in the functionality of unit controls included with chillers. Originally, the primary purpose of this project was to investigate the state of practice of chiller unit controllers in terms of their energy saving capabilities. However, early in the study it was discovered that advances in this area did not include incorporation of significantly different capabilities than had existed 10-15 years ago. Thus the scope has been modified to provide an overview of some of the basic controls-related energy saving strategies that are currently available along with guideline estimates of their potential and applicability. We have minimized consideration of strategies that could be primarily implemented via design practices such as chiller selection and plant design, and those that can only be implemented by a building management system (BMS). Also, since most of the floor space of federal buildings occurs in large buildings, we have focused on water-cooled screw and centrifugal chillers of 100 ton capacity and greater. However, the role of reciprocating and gas chillers (absorption and engine driven) is discussed briefly. Understanding the demographics of chiller deployment in the federal sector, state of practice of energy savings strategies and control features availability will help federal energy managers and program implementers to make informed decisions in support of energy saving performance contracting (ESPC) and other programs.

Webster, Tom

2003-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

216

Hazardous waste cleanup at federal facilities: Need for an integrated policy  

SciTech Connect

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has generated and disposed of large volumes of hazardous and radioactive waste as a result of 50 years of nuclear weapons production. DOE is now faced with the problem of remediating its more than 13,000 hazardous waste sites. To be effective for the good of the environment and public health, our nation`s hazardous waste policy must first address several questions: What is the level of risk at federal facilities? (Is remediation really necessary?) Can and should institutional controls be incorporated into the cleanup process? How effective are cleanup technologies? What cleanup standards should be used? What will be done with waste generated during remediation? How do we obtain appropriate stakeholder involvement? Once these questions are answered and a more reliable, predictable policy has been developed, the waste management and environmental restoration program may not be an unwanted drain on America`s pocketbook, and we may have a cleaner country as well.

Travis, C.C. [Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (United States); Ladd, B. [Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN (United States)

1993-09-22T23:59:59.000Z

217

Local Scouts Train with Hanford Safety Experts - 52 Boy Scouts...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Local Scouts Train with Hanford Safety Experts - 52 Boy Scouts Earn Merit Badges at the HAMMER Training Facility Local Scouts Train with Hanford Safety Experts - 52 Boy Scouts Earn...

218

RCRA facility investigation/corrective measures study work plan for the 200-UP-2 Operable Unit, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The 200-UP-2 Operable Unit is one of two source operable units at the U Plant Aggregate Area at the Hanford Site. Source operable units include waste management units and unplanned release sites that are potential sources of radioactive and/or hazardous substance contamination. This work plan, while maintaining the title RFI/CMS, presents the background and direction for conducting a limited field investigation in the 200-UP-2 Operable Unit, which is the first part of the process leading to final remedy selection. This report discusses the background, prior recommendations, goals, organization, and quality assurance for the 200-UP-2 Operable Unit Work Plan. The discussion begins with a summary of the regulatory framework and the role of the work plan. The specific recommendations leading into the work plan are then addressed. Next, the goals and organization of the report are discussed. Finally, the quality assurance and supporting documentation are presented.

Not Available

1993-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

219

Washington Closure Hanford, LLC  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

August 19,2010 August 19,2010 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Neil Brosee President Washington Closure Hanford, LLC 2620 Fermi Avenue Richland, Washington 99354 WEA-201 0-02 Dear Mr. Brosee: This letter refers to the Office of Health, Safety and Security's Office of Enforcement investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the employee fall that occurred at the Hanford High Bay Testing Facility (336 Building) on July 1, 2009. The worker sustained serious injury to his back and broke bones in both legs. Based on an evaluation of the evidence in this matter, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has concluded that violations of 10 C.F.R. Part 851, Worker Safety and Health Program, by Washington Closure Hanford, LLC (WCH) occurred. Accordingly, DOE is issuing the enclosed Preliminary Notice of

220

Radionuclide air emissions report for the Hanford Site, calendar year 1992  

SciTech Connect

This report documents radionuclide air emissions from the Hanford Site in 1992 and the resulting effective dose equivalent to an member of the public. The report has been prepared and will be submitted in accordance with reporting requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, ``National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,`` Subpart H, ``National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities.``

Diediker, L.P.; Johnson, A.R. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States); Rhoads, K.; Klages, D.L.; Soldat, J.K. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States); Rokkan, D.J. [Science Applications International Corp., Richland, WA (United States)

1993-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


221

Radionuclide air emissions report for the Hanford site, Calendar year 1994  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report documents radionuclide air emissions from the Hanford Site in 1994, and the resulting effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed member of the public, referred to as the ``MEI.`` The report has been prepared and will be submitted in accordance with reporting requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, ``National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,`` Subpart H, ``National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities.``

Gleckler, B.P.; Diediker, L.P. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States); Jette, S.J.; Rhoads, K.; Soldat, S.K. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States)

1995-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

222

Oak Ridge Reservation Federal Facility Agreement: Quarterly report for the Environmental Restoration Program. Volume 2, January--March 1996  

SciTech Connect

This report provides information about ER Program activities conducted on the Oak Ridge Reservation under the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA). Specifically, it includes information on milestones scheduled for completion during the reporting period as well as scheduled for completion during the next reporting period (quarter), accomplishments of the ER Program, concerns related to program work, and scheduled activities for the next quarter. It also provides a listing of the identity and assigned tasks of contractors performing ER Program work under the FFA.

1996-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

223

Buildings Energy Data Book: 4.4 Legislation Affecting Energy Consumption of Federal Buildings and Facilities  

Buildings Energy Data Book (EERE)

3 3 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Provisions Affecting Energy Consumption in Federal Buildings Source(s): Standard Relating to Solar Hot Water - Requires new Federal buildings, or Federal buildings undergoing major renovations, to meet at least 30 percent of hot water demand through the use of solar hot water heaters, if cost-effective. [Section 523] Federally-Procured Appliances with Standby Power - Requires all Federal agencies to procure appliances with standby power consumption of less than 1 watt, if available and cost-effective. [Section 524] Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, enacted December 19, 2007 Energy Reduction Goals for Federal Buildings - Amended reduction goals set by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, and

224

Hanford land disposal restrictions plan for mixed wastes  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Since the early 1940s, the Hanford Site has been involved in the production and purification of nuclear defense materials. These production activities have resulted in the generation of large quantities of liquid and solid radioactive mixed waste. This waste is subject to regulation under authority of both the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Atomic Energy Act. The State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the US Department of Energy (DOE) have entered into an agreement, the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) to bring Hanford Site Operations into compliance with dangerous waste regulations. The Tri-Party Agreement was amended to require development of the Hanford Land Disposal Restrictions Plan for Mixed Wastes (this plan) to comply with land disposal restrictions requirements for radioactive mixed waste. The Tri-Party Agreement requires, and the this plan provides, the following sections: Waste Characterization Plan, Storage Report, Treatment Report, Treatment Plan, Waste Minimization Plan, a schedule, depicting the events necessary to achieve full compliance with land disposal restriction requirements, and a process for establishing interim milestones. 34 refs., 28 figs., 35 tabs.

Not Available

1990-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

225

Federal Energy Management Program: Sustainable Federal Fleets  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Sustainable Sustainable Federal Fleets to someone by E-mail Share Federal Energy Management Program: Sustainable Federal Fleets on Facebook Tweet about Federal Energy Management Program: Sustainable Federal Fleets on Twitter Bookmark Federal Energy Management Program: Sustainable Federal Fleets on Google Bookmark Federal Energy Management Program: Sustainable Federal Fleets on Delicious Rank Federal Energy Management Program: Sustainable Federal Fleets on Digg Find More places to share Federal Energy Management Program: Sustainable Federal Fleets on AddThis.com... Sustainable Buildings & Campuses Operations & Maintenance Greenhouse Gases Water Efficiency Data Center Energy Efficiency Industrial Facilities Sustainable Federal Fleets Laboratories for the 21st Century Institutional Change

226

Hanford wells  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Records describing wells located on or near the Hanford Site have been maintained by Pacific Northwest Laboratory and the operating contractor, Westinghouse Hanford Company. In support of the Ground-Water Surveillance Project, portions of the data contained in these records have been compiled into the following report, which is intended to be used by those needing a condensed, tabular summary of well location and basic construction information. The wells listed in this report were constructed over a period of time spanning almost 70 years. Data included in this report were retrieved from the Hanford Envirorunental Information System (HEIS) database and supplemented with information not yet entered into HEIS. While considerable effort has been made to obtain the most accurate and complete tabulations possible of the Hanford Site wells, omissions and errors may exist. This document does not include data on lithologic logs, ground-water analyses, or specific well completion details.

Chamness, M.A.; Merz, J.K.

1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

227

Evaluation of mitigation strategies in Facility Group 1 double-shell flammable-gas tanks at the Hanford Site  

SciTech Connect

Radioactive nuclear waste at the Hanford Site is stored in underground waste storage tanks at the site. The tanks fall into two main categories: single-shell tanks (SSTs) and double-shell tanks (DSTs). There are a total of 149 SSTs and 28 DSTs. The wastes stored in the tanks are chemically complex. They basically involve various sodium salts (mainly nitrite, nitrate, carbonates, aluminates, and hydroxides), organic compounds, heavy metals, and various radionuclides, including cesium, strontium, plutonium, and uranium. The waste is known to generate flammable gas (FG) [hydrogen, ammonia, nitrous oxide, hydrocarbons] by complex chemical reactions. The process of gas generation, retention, and release is transient. Some tanks reach a quasi-steady stage where gas generation is balanced by the release rate. Other tanks show continuous cycles of retention followed by episodic release. There currently are 25 tanks on the Flammable Gas Watch List (FGWL). The objective of this report is to evaluate possible mitigation strategies to eliminate the FG hazard. The evaluation is an engineering study of mitigation concepts for FG generation, retention, and release behavior in Tanks SY-101, AN-103, AN 104, An-105, and Aw-101. Where possible, limited quantification of the effects of mitigation strategies on the FG hazard also is considered. The results obtained from quantification efforts discussed in this report should be considered as best-estimate values. Results and conclusions of this work are intended to help in establishing methodologies in the contractor`s controls selection analysis to develop necessary safety controls for closing the FG unreviewed safety question. The general performance requirements of any mitigation scheme are discussed first.

Unal, C.; Sadasivan, P.; Kubic, W.L.; White, J.R.

1997-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

228

Developing Renewable Energy Projects Larger Than 10 MWs at Federal Facilities (Book)  

SciTech Connect

To accomplish Federal goals for renewable energy, sustainability, and energy security, large-scale renewable energy projects must be developed and constructed on Federal sites at a significant scale with significant private investment. The U.S. Department of Energy's Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) helps Federal agencies meet these goals and assists agency personnel navigate the complexities of developing such projects and attract the necessary private capital to complete them. This guide is intended to provide a general resource that will begin to develop the Federal employee's awareness and understanding of the project developer's operating environment and the private sector's awareness and understanding of the Federal environment. Because the vast majority of the investment that is required to meet the goals for large-scale renewable energy projects will come from the private sector, this guide has been organized to match Federal processes with typical phases of commercial project development. The main purpose of this guide is to provide a project development framework to allow the Federal Government, private developers, and investors to work in a coordinated fashion on large-scale renewable energy projects. The framework includes key elements that describe a successful, financially attractive large-scale renewable energy project.

Not Available

2013-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

229

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ground-water monitoring projects for Hanford facilities: Progress report for the period July 1 to September 30, 1988: Volume 1, Text  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report describes the progress of 12 Hanford ground-water monitoring projects for the period July 1 to September 30, 1988. During this quarter, field activities at the 300 Area process trenches, the Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill, the 183-H Solar Evaporation Basins, the 1324-N/NA Surface Impoundment and Percolation Ponds, the 1301-N and 1325-N Liquid Waste Disposal Facilities, and the 216-A-36B Crib consisted of ground-water sampling and analyses, and water-level monitoring. The 200 Area Low-Level Burial Grounds section includes well development data, sediment analysis, and water-level measurements. Ground-water sampling was begun at this site, and results will be included in next quarter's report. Twelve new wells were installed during the quarter, two at the 216-A-29 Ditch, size at the 216-A-10 Crib, and four at the 216-B-3 Pond. Preliminary characterization data for these new wells are included in this report. Driller's logs and other drilling and site characterization data will be provided in the next quarterly report. At the 2101-M Pond, construction was completed on four wells, and initial ground-water samples were taken. The drilling logs, geophysical logging data, and as-built diagrams are included in this report in Volume 2. 19 refs., 24 figs., 39 tabs.

Fruland, R.M.; Bates, D.J.; Lundgren, R.E.

1989-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

230

Buildings Energy Data Book: 4.4 Legislation Affecting Energy Consumption of Federal Buildings and Facilities  

Buildings Energy Data Book (EERE)

1 1 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Provisions Affecting Energy Consumption in Federal Buildings Source(s): Energy Management Requirements - Amended reduction goals set by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, and requires increasing percentage reductions in energy consumption through FY 2015, with a final energy consumption reduction goal of 20 percent savings in FY 2015, as compared to the baseline energy consumption of Federal buildings in FY 2003. (These goals were superseded by Section 431 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.) [Section 102] Energy Use Measurement and Accountability - Requires that all Federal buildings be metered to measure electricity use by 2012. [Section 103] Procurement of Energy Efficient Products - Requires all Federal agencies to procure ENERGY STAR qualified products, for product

231

Developing Renewable Energy Projects Larger Than 10 MWs at Federal Facilities (Book), Large-Scale Renewable Energy Guide, Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

LARGE-SCALE RENEWABLE ENERGY GUIDE LARGE-SCALE RENEWABLE ENERGY GUIDE Developing Renewable Energy Projects Larger Than 10 MWs at Federal Facilities A Practical Guide to Getting Large-Scale Renewable Energy Projects Financed with Private Capital Cover photos, clockwise from the top: Installing mirrored parabolic trough collectors - (January 19, 2012) Crews work around the clock installing mirrored parabolic trough collectors, built on site, that will cover 3 square miles at Abengoa's Solana Plant. Solana a 280 megawatt utility scale solar power plant (CSP) under construction in Gila Bend, Arizona, USA. When finished it will generate 280 MW 's of clean, sustainable power serving over 70,000 Arizona homes. Photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 20097 Dry Lake Wind Power Project in Arizona; Suzlon S88 wind turbines - The 63-MW Dry Lake Wind Power Project in Arizona is the first

232

Developing Renewable Energy Projects Larger Than 10 MWs at Federal Facilities (Book), Large-Scale Renewable Energy Guide, Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

LARGE-SCALE RENEWABLE ENERGY GUIDE LARGE-SCALE RENEWABLE ENERGY GUIDE Developing Renewable Energy Projects Larger Than 10 MWs at Federal Facilities A Practical Guide to Getting Large-Scale Renewable Energy Projects Financed with Private Capital Cover photos, clockwise from the top: Installing mirrored parabolic trough collectors - (January 19, 2012) Crews work around the clock installing mirrored parabolic trough collectors, built on site, that will cover 3 square miles at Abengoa's Solana Plant. Solana a 280 megawatt utility scale solar power plant (CSP) under construction in Gila Bend, Arizona, USA. When finished it will generate 280 MW 's of clean, sustainable power serving over 70,000 Arizona homes. Photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 20097 Dry Lake Wind Power Project in Arizona; Suzlon S88 wind turbines - The 63-MW Dry Lake Wind Power Project in Arizona is the first

233

Section 5.2.3 Chillers: Greening Federal Facilities; Second Edition  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

depleting HFC-134a refrigerant. Source: Carrier Corporation References Energy Management: A Program to Reduce Cost and Protect the Environment, Facility Management Divi-...

234

Section 5.3.1 Heat-Recovery Water Heating: Greening Federal Facilities...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

heat pumps, chillers, steam condensate lines, hot air associated with kitchen and laundry facilities, power-generation equipment (such as microturbines or fuel cells), and...

235

Section 4.2.1 Windows and Glazing Systems: Greening Federal Facilities...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Certified Product Directory are available.) Photo: Warren Gretz NREL's Solar Energy Research Facility is designed to use natural lighting. South-, east-, and west-facing windows...

236

Section 5.8.6 Wind Energy: Greening Federal Facilities; Second...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

compliance with air-pollution regulations; or * The facility is attempting to meet clean energy goals. Technical Information Since earliest recorded history, wind power has been...

237

Review of Documented Safety Analysis Development for the Hanford...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

U.S. Department of Energy Subject: Review of Documented Safety Analysis Development for the Hanford Site Waste Treatment and Immob ilization Plant (LBL Facilities) - C riteria and...

238

(FBSR) with Hanford Low Activity Wastes - Programmaster.org  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

... of Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) with Hanford Low Activity Wastes ... Level Waste at the Defense Waste Processing Facility through Sludge Batch 7b.

239

Results of 1999 Spectral Gamma-Ray and Neutron Moisture Monitoring of Boreholes at Specific Retention Facilities in the 200 East Area, Hanford Site  

SciTech Connect

Twenty-eight wells and boreholes in the 200 East Are% Hanford Site, Washington were monitored in 1999. The monitored facilities were past-practice liquid waste disposal facilities and consisted of six cribs and nineteen ''specific retention'' cribs and trenches. Monitoring consisted of spectral gamma-ray and neutron moisture logging. All data are included in Appendix B. The isotopes {sup 137}Cs, {sup 60}Co, {sup 235}U, {sup 238}U, and {sup 154}Eu were identified on spectral gamma logs from boreholes monitoring the PUREX specific retention facilities; the isotopes {sup 137}Cs, {sup 60}Co, {sup 125}Sb, and {sup 154}Eu were identified on the logs from boreholes at the BC Controlled Area cribs and trenches; and {sup 137}Cs, {sup 60}Co, and {sup 125}Sb were, identified on the logs from boreholes at the BX specific retention trenches. Three boreholes in the BC Controlled Area and one at the BX trenches had previous spectral gamma logs available for comparison with 1999 logs. Two of those logs showed that changes in the subsurface distribution of {sup 137}CS and/or {sup 60}Co had occurred since 1992. Although the changes are not great, they do point to continued movement of contaminants in the vadose zone. The logs obtained in 1999 create a larger baseline for comparison with future logs. Numerous historical gross gamma logs exist from most of the boreholes logged. Qualitative comparison of those logs with the 1999 logs show many substantial changes, most of which reflect the decay of deeper short-lived isotopes, such as {sup 106}Ru and {sup 125}Sb, and the much slower decay of shallower and longer-lived isotopes such as {sup 137}Cs. The radionuclides {sup 137}Cs and {sup 60}Co have moved in two boreholes since 1992. Given the amount of movement and the half-lives of the isotopes, it is expected that they will decay to insignificant amounts before reaching groundwater. However, gamma ray logging cannot detect many of the contaminants of interest such as {sup 99}Tc, NO{sub 3}, or {sup 129}I, all of which can be highly mobile in the vadose zone and, for the radionuclides, have long half-lives.

DG Horton; RR Randall

2000-01-18T23:59:59.000Z

240

1998 report on Hanford Site land disposal restrictions for mixed waste  

SciTech Connect

This report was submitted to meet the requirements of Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) Milestone M-26-01H. This milestone requires the preparation of an annual report that covers characterization, treatment, storage, minimization, and other aspects of managing land-disposal-restricted mixed waste at the Hanford Facility. The US Department of Energy, its predecessors, and contractors on the Hanford Facility were involved in the production and purification of nuclear defense materials from the early 1940s to the late 1980s. These production activities have generated large quantities of liquid and solid mixed waste. This waste is regulated under authority of both the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of l976 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This report covers only mixed waste. The Washington State Department of Ecology, US Environmental Protection Agency, and US Department of Energy have entered into the Tri-Party Agreement to bring the Hanford Facility operations into compliance with dangerous waste regulations. The Tri-Party Agreement required development of the original land disposal restrictions (LDR) plan and its annual updates to comply with LDR requirements for mixed waste. This report is the eighth update of the plan first issued in 1990. The Tri-Party Agreement requires and the baseline plan and annual update reports provide the following information: (1) Waste Characterization Information -- Provides information about characterizing each LDR mixed waste stream. The sampling and analysis methods and protocols, past characterization results, and, where available, a schedule for providing the characterization information are discussed. (2) Storage Data -- Identifies and describes the mixed waste on the Hanford Facility. Storage data include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 dangerous waste codes, generator process knowledge needed to identify the waste and to make LDR determinations, quantities stored, generation rates, location and method of storage, an assessment of storage-unit compliance status, storage capacity, and the bases and assumptions used in making the estimates.

Black, D.G.

1998-04-10T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


241

Hanford wells  

SciTech Connect

The Site Characterization and Assessment Section of the Geosciences Department at Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) has compiled a list of wells located on or near the Hanford Site. Information has been updated on wells existing from the days before construction of the Hanford Works to the present. This work was funded by the US Department of Energy (DOE). The list of wells will be used by DOE contractors who need condensed, tabular information on well location, construction, and completion dates. This report does not include data on lithologic logs and ground-water contamination. Moreover, the completeness of this list is limited because of new well construction and existing well modifications, which are continually under way. Despite these limitations, this list represents the most complete description possible of data pertaining to wells on or adjacent to the Hanford Site. 7 refs., 1 fig., 2 tabs.

McGhan, V.L.

1989-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

242

3D design tools improve efficiency and accuracy of a Hanford site nuclear waste storage project  

SciTech Connect

The complex effort of cleaning up the Hanford K Basins is separated into several individual projects. Fluor Hanford and Fluor Federal Services modeled key elements using a 3D parametric modeling program for mechanical design with training animations.

NIELSEN, B.L.

2003-03-23T23:59:59.000Z

243

Oak Ridge Reservation Federal Facility Agreement. Quarterly report for the Environmental Restoration Program. Volume 4, July 1995--September 1995  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This quarterly progress report satisfies requirements for the Environmental Restoration (ER) Program that are specified in the Oak Ridge Reservation Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) established between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). The reporting period covered herein is July through September 1995 (fourth quarter of FY 1995). Sections 1.1 and 1.2 provide respectively the milestones scheduled for completion during the reporting period and a list of documents that have been proposed for transmittal during the following quarter but have not been approved as FY 1995 commitments.

NONE

1995-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

244

Oak Ridge reservation federal facility agreement for the Environmental Restoration Program. Volume 1. Quarterly report, October--December 1993  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This quarterly progress report satisfies requirements for the Environmental Restoration (ER) Program that are specified in the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) established between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). The reporting period covered is October through December 1993 (first quarter of FY 1994). Sections 1.1 and 1.2 provide respectively the milestones scheduled for completion during the reporting period and a list of documents that have been proposed for transmittal during the following quarter but have not been approved as FY 1994 commitments.

Not Available

1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

245

Oak Ridge Reservation Federal Facility Agreement for the Environmental Restoration Program. Volume 4. Quarterly report, July--September 1993  

SciTech Connect

This quarterly progress report satisfies requirements for the Environmental Restoration (ER) Program that are specified in the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) established between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Environmental protection Agency (EPA), and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). The reporting period covered is July through September 1993 (fourth quarter of FY 1993). Sections 1.1 and 1.2 provide respectively the milestones scheduled for completion during the reporting period and a list of documents that have been proposed for transmittal during the following quarter but have not been approved as FY 1994 commitments.

Not Available

1993-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

246

Hanford Site Videos on YouTube  

DOE Data Explorer (OSTI)

For more than forty years, reactors located at Hanford produced plutonium for America's defense program. The process of making plutonium is extremely inefficient in that a massive amount of liquid and solid waste is generated while only a small amount of plutonium is produced. Additionally, all of the facilities and structures that were associated with Hanford's defense mission must also be deactivated, decommissioned, decontaminated, and demolished. That environmental cleanup project is the work that approximately 11,000 Hanford employees are involved with today [copied from http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/HanfordsPresentMission]. Snapshots of the work, the issues, and the cleanup successes can be seen on the Hanford Site's YouTube channel. Short clips illustrate demolition projects, installtion of components such as a liner for the landfill, events such as the site fire in 2007 and Secretary of Energy Chu's visit in 2010. Recovery Act Work is highlighted as well.

247

Buildings Energy Data Book: 4.3 Federal Buildings and Facilities...  

Buildings Energy Data Book (EERE)

1 FY 2007 Federal Buildings Energy Prices and Expenditures, by Fuel Type (2010) Fuel Type Electricity 23.68 (1) 4,009 Natural Gas 9.37 1,138 Fuel Oil 15.25 419 Coal 3.62 63...

248

Oak Ridge Reservation Federal Facility Agreement for the Environmental Restoration Program. Volume 1, Quarterly report, October--December 1995  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This Oak Ridge Reservation Federal Facility Agreement Quarterly Report for the Environmental Restoration Program was prepared to satisfy requirements for progress reporting on Environmental Restoration Program (ER) activities as specified in the Oak Ridge Reservation Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) established between the US Department of Energy (DOE), the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. The reporting period covered in this document is October through December 1995. This work was performed under Work Breakdown Structure 1.4.12.2.3.04 (Activity Data Sheet 8304). Publication of this document meets two FFA milestones. The FFA Quarterly Report meets an FFA milestone defined as 30 days following the end of the applicable reporting period. Appendix A of this report meets the FFA milestone for the Annual Removal Action Report for the period FYs 1991--95. This document provides information about ER Program activities conducted on the Oak Ridge Reservation under the FFA. Specifically, it includes information on milestones scheduled for completion during the reporting period, as well as scheduled for completion during the next reporting period (quarter); accomplishments of the ER Program; concerns related to program work; and scheduled activities for the next quarter. It also provides a listing of the identity and assigned tasks of contractors performing ER Program work under the FFA.

NONE

1996-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

249

Diffuse and fugitive emission dose assessment on the Hanford Site  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

On February 3, 1993, the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (RL), received a Compliance Order and Information Request from the Director of the Air and Toxics Division of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10. The Compliance Order requires RL to (1) evaluate all radionuclide emission points at the Hanford Site to determine which are subject to continuous emission measurement requirements in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61, Subpart H, and (2) continuously measure radionuclide emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 61.93. The Information Request requires RL to provide a written Compliance Plan to meet the requirements of the Compliance Order. The RL Compliance Plan included as one of its milestones the requirement to develop a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (FFCA). An FFCA was negotiated between RL and the EPA, Region 10, and was entered into on February 7, 1994. One of the milestones was to provide EPA, Region 10, with a copy of the Federal Clean Air Act Title V operating air permit application and Air Emission Inventory (AEI) concurrent with its submission to the Washington State Department of Ecology. The AEI will include an assessment of the diffuse and fugitive emissions from the Hanford Site. This assessment does not identify any diffuse or fugitive emission source that would cause an effective dose equivalent greater than 0.1 mrem/yr.

Davis, W.E.; Schmidt, J.W.; Gleckler, B.P. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States); Rhoads, K. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States)

1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

250

1995 Report on Hanford site land disposal restrictions for mixed waste  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report was submitted to meet the requirements of Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order Milestone M-26-01E. This milestone requires the preparation of an annual report that covers characterization, treatment, storage, minimization, and other aspects of land disposal restricted mixed waste at the Hanford Site. The U.S. Department of Energy, its predecessors, and contractors at the Hanford Site were involved in the production and purification of nuclear defense materials from the early 1940s to the late 1980s. These production activities have generated large quantities of liquid and solid radioactive mixed waste. This waste is subject to regulation under authority of both the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This report covers mixed waste only. The Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Department of Energy have entered into an agreement, the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (commonly referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement) to bring the Hanford Site operations into compliance with dangerous waste regulations. The Tri-Party Agreement required development of the original land disposal restrictions (LDRs) plan and its annual updates to comply with LDR requirements for radioactive mixed waste. This report is the fifth update of the plan first issued in 1990. Tri-Party Agreement negotiations completed in 1993 and approved in January 1994 changed and added many new milestones. Most of the changes were related to the Tank Waste Remediation System and these changes are incorporated into this report.

Black, D.G.

1995-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

251

Hanford Generic Interim Safety Basis  

SciTech Connect

The purpose of this document is to identify WHC programs and requirements that are an integral part of the authorization basis for nuclear facilities that are generic to all WHC-managed facilities. The purpose of these programs is to implement the DOE Orders, as WHC becomes contractually obligated to implement them. The Hanford Generic ISB focuses on the institutional controls and safety requirements identified in DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports.

Lavender, J.C.

1994-09-09T23:59:59.000Z

252

Facilities  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Environment Feature Stories Public Reading Room: Environmental Documents, Reports LANL Home Phonebook Calendar Video About Operational Excellence Facilities Facilities...

253

Contaminant Release Data Package for Residual Waste in Single-Shell Hanford Tanks  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order requires that a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation report be submitted to the Washington State Department of Ecology. The RCRA Facility Investigation report will provide a detailed description of the state of knowledge needed for tank farm performance assessments. This data package provides detailed technical information about contaminant release from closed single-shell tanks necessary to support the RCRA Facility Investigation report. It was prepared by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., which is tasked by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) with tank closure. This data package is a compilation of contaminant release rate data for residual waste in the four Hanford single-shell tanks (SSTs) that have been tested (C-103, C-106, C-202, and C-203). The report describes the geochemical properties of the primary contaminants of interest from the perspective of long-term risk to groundwater (uranium, technetium-99, iodine-129, chromium, transuranics, and nitrate), the occurrence of these contaminants in the residual waste, release mechanisms from the solid waste to water infiltrating the tanks in the future, and the laboratory tests conducted to measure release rates.

Deutsch, William J.; Cantrell, Kirk J.; Krupka, Kenneth M.

2007-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

254

Hanford Site waste treatment/storage/disposal integration  

SciTech Connect

In 1998 Waste Management Federal Services of Hanford, Inc. began the integration of all low-level waste, mixed waste, and TRU waste-generating activities across the Hanford site. With seven contractors, dozens of generating units, and hundreds of waste streams, integration was necessary to provide acute waste forecasting and planning for future treatment activities. This integration effort provides disposition maps that account for waste from generation, through processing, treatment and final waste disposal. The integration effort covers generating facilities from the present through the life-cycle, including transition and deactivation. The effort is patterned after the very successful DOE Complex EM Integration effort. Although still in the preliminary stages, the comprehensive onsite integration effort has already reaped benefits. These include identifying significant waste streams that had not been forecast, identifying opportunities for consolidating activities and services to accelerate schedule or save money; and identifying waste streams which currently have no path forward in the planning baseline. Consolidation/integration of planned activities may also provide opportunities for pollution prevention and/or avoidance of secondary waste generation. A workshop was held to review the waste disposition maps, and to identify opportunities with potential cost or schedule savings. Another workshop may be held to follow up on some of the long-term integration opportunities. A change to the Hanford waste forecast data call would help to align the Solid Waste Forecast with the new disposition maps.

MCDONALD, K.M.

1999-02-24T23:59:59.000Z

255

Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for the Hanford Site Calendar Year 1999  

SciTech Connect

This report documents radionuclide air emissions from the US. Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site in 1999 and the resulting effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) member of the public. The report has been prepared in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart H, ''National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities'', and with the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 246-247. Radiation Protection-Air Emissions. The federal regulations in Subpart H of 40 CFR 61 require the measurement and reporting of radionuclides emitted from US. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities and the resulting offsite dose from those emissions. A standard of 10 mrem/yr effective dose equivalent (EDE) is imposed on them. The EDE to the MEI due to routine emissions in 1999 from Hanford Site point sources was 0.029 mrem (2.9 E-04 mSv), which is less than 0.3 percent of the federal standard. WAC 246-247 requires the reporting of radionuclide emissions from all Hanford Site sources, during routine as well as nonroutine operations. The state has adopted the 40 CFR 61 standard of 10 mrem/yr EDE into their regulations. The state further requires that the EDE to the MEI be calculated not only from point source emissions but also from diffuse and fugitive sources of emissions. The EDE from diffuse and fugitive emissions at the Hanford Site in 1999 was 0.039 mrem (3.9 E-04 mSv) EDE. The total dose from point sources and from diffuse and fugitive sources of radionuclide emissions during all operating conditions in 1999 was 0.068 mrem (6.8 E-04 mSv) EDE, which is less than 0.7 percent of the state standard.

ROKKAN, D.J.

2000-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

256

Oak Ridge Reservation Federal Facility agreement quarterly report for the Environmental Restoration Program, January--March 1994. Volume 2  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This quarterly progress report satisfies requirements for the Environmental Restoration (ER) Program that are specified in the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) established between the US Department of Energy (DOE), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). The reporting period covered herein is January through March 1994 (second quarter of FY 1994). Sections 1.1 and 1.2 provide respectively the milestones scheduled for completion during the reporting period and a list of documents that have been proposed for transmittal during the following quarter but have not been approved as FY 1994 commitments. Section 2 covers significant accomplishments. Section 3 discusses technical status at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge K-25 Site, and Clinch River. Technical oversight and technical programs are also covered. Section 4 covers responds action contractor assignments.

Not Available

1994-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

257

Regulatory Supervision of Radiological Protection in the Russian Federation as Applied to Facility Decommissioning and Site Remediation  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Russian Federation is carrying out major work to manage the legacy of exploitation of nuclear power and use of radioactive materials. This paper describes work on-going to provide enhanced regulatory supervision of these activities as regards radiological protection. The scope includes worker and public protection in routine operation; emergency preparedness and response; radioactive waste management, including treatment, interim storage and transport as well as final disposal; and long term site restoration. Examples examined include waste from facilities in NW Russia, including remediation of previous shore technical bases (STBs) for submarines, spent fuel and radioactive waste management from ice-breakers, and decommissioning of Radio-Thermal-Generators (RTGs) used in navigational devices. Consideration is given to the identification of regulatory responsibilities among different regulators; development of necessary regulatory instruments; and development of regulatory procedures for safety case reviews and compliance monitoring and international cooperation between different regulators. (authors)

Sneve, M.K. [Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (Norway); Shandala, N.K. [Institute of Biophysics, Moscow (Russian Federation)

2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

258

Oak Ridge Reservation Federal Facility Agreement quarterly report for the environmental restoration program. Volume 3: April--June 1995  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This quarterly progress report satisfies requirements for the Environmental Restoration (ER) Program that are specified in the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) established between the US Department of Energy (DOE), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). Sections 1.1 and 1.2 provide respectively the milestones scheduled for completion during the reporting period and a list of documents that have been proposed for transmittal during the following quarter but have not been approved as FY 1995 commitments. The report describes the technical status of the following: Y-12 Plant; Oak Ridge National Lab; K-25 Plant; and Oak Ridge Reservation boundary areas. The report also describes technical programs, namely: the Oak Ridge environmental information system, remote sensing and special survey program, and the risk assessment program.

NONE

1995-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

259

Portsmouth DUF6 Conversion Facility: Record of Decision: As Published in the Federal Register  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

49 49 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 143 / Tuesday, July 27, 2004 / Notices halseypj@oro.doe.gov or check the Web site at www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities. Tentative Agenda 8 a.m.-Introductions, overview of meeting agenda and logistics (Dave Mosby) 8:15 a.m.-Past year evaluation-Board and stakeholder survey results, what worked, what can be improved (Facilitator) 9:50 a.m.-Break 10:05 a.m.-Past year evaluation continued 10:45 a.m.-Summaries and Q&A on the most important issues to DOE, TN Department of Environment & Conservation, and EPA (Facilitator) 11:30 a.m.-Lunch

260

Hanford's Recovery Act Payments Jump Past $1 Billion  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

WASH. - The Richland Operations Office's WASH. - The Richland Operations Office's (RL) American Recovery and Reinvestment Act payments at Hanford recently surpassed $1 billion. RL was allocated $1.63 billion from the Recovery Act in 2009 in order to create jobs and reduce the footprint of active cleanup at Hanford. In key Recovery Act accomplishments, RL: * Reduced Hanford's cleanup footprint by a total of 143 square miles by re- moving more than 20 facilities and hundreds of debris sites on the Hanford Reach National Monument, a 300-square mile area around Hanford formerly used for military activity and research. * Demolished 56 facilities, which reduces surveillance and maintenance costs. * Completed expansion of Hanford's Environmental Restoration Disposal Facil- ity (ERDF) ahead of schedule and under budget, increasing its capacity to

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


261

Fluor Hanford Project Focused Progress at Hanford  

SciTech Connect

Fluor Hanford is making significant progress in accelerating cleanup at the Hanford site. This progress consistently aligns with a new strategic vision established by the U.S. Department of Energy's Richland Operations Office (RL).

HANSON, R.D.

2000-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

262

Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2002  

SciTech Connect

This report is prepared annually to satisfy the requirements of DOE Orders. The report provides an overview of activities at the Hanford Site during 2002 and demonstrates the site's compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws, regulations, executive orders, and DOE policies; and to summarize environmental data that characterize Hanford Site environmental management performance. The purpose of the report is to provide useful summary information to members of the public, public officials, regulators, Hanford contractors, and elected representatives.

Poston, Ted M.; Hanf, Robert W.; Dirkes, Roger L.; Morasch, Launa F.

2003-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

263

Hanford Single-Shell Tank Integrity Program  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Operations Contract Hanford Single Hanford Single- -Shell Shell Hanford Single Hanford Single Shell Shell Tank Integrity Tank Integrity Program Program Herbert S Berman Herbert S Berman Herbert S. Berman Herbert S. Berman July 29, 2009 July 29, 2009 1 Page 1 Tank Operations Contract Introduction * The Hanford site's principle historic mission was plutonium production for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. * Between 1944 and 1988, the site operated nine graphite- moderated light-water production reactors to irradiate moderated, light-water, production reactors to irradiate fuel and produce plutonium. * Four large chemical separations plants were run to extract plutonium from the fuel, and a variety of laboratories, support facilities, and related infrastructure to support production

264

Senator Murray Visits Hanford | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Senator Murray Visits Hanford Senator Murray Visits Hanford Senator Murray Visits Hanford June 26, 2013 - 12:00pm Addthis In this photo, U.S. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) receives an update on activities at C Farm from Office of River Protection (ORP) Manager Kevin Smith, left, and ORP Tank Farms Assistant Manager Tom Fletcher. In this photo, U.S. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) receives an update on activities at C Farm from Office of River Protection (ORP) Manager Kevin Smith, left, and ORP Tank Farms Assistant Manager Tom Fletcher. U.S. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) visited the Hanford site in Washington state recently, where she received an update on activities at C Farm, which is one of the groups of underground waste tanks at Hanford. Murray also toured the site's largest groundwater treatment facility. The 200 West

265

Hanford Patrol Academy demolition sites closure plan  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Hanford Site is owned by the U.S. Government and operated by the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office. Westinghouse Hanford Company is a major contractor to the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office and serves as co-operator of the Hanford Patrol Academy Demolition Sites, the unit addressed in this paper. This document consists of a Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Part A Permit Application, Form 3 (Revision 4), and a closure plan for the site. An explanation of the Part A Form 3 submitted with this closure plan is provided at the beginning of the Part A section. This Hanford Patrol Academy Demolition Sites Closure Plan submittal contains information current as of December 15, 1994.

Not Available

1993-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

266

Just in Time DSA-The Hanford Nuclear Safety Basis Strategy  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (RL) is responsible for 30 hazard category 2 and 3 nuclear facilities that are operated by its prime contractors, Fluor Hanford Incorporated (FHI), Bechtel Hanford, Incorporated (BHI) and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The publication of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 830, Subpart B, Safety Basis Requirements (the Rule) in January 2001 imposed the requirement that the Documented Safety Analyses (DSA) for these facilities be reviewed against the requirements of the Rule. Those DSA that do not meet the requirements must either be upgraded to satisfy the Rule, or an exemption must be obtained. RL and its prime contractors have developed a Nuclear Safety Strategy that provides a comprehensive approach for supporting RL's efforts to meet its long term objectives for hazard category 2 and 3 facilities while also meeting the requirements of the Rule. This approach will result in a reduction of the total number of safety basis documents that must be developed and maintained to support the remaining mission and closure of the Hanford Site and ensure that the documentation that must be developed will support: compliance with the Rule; a ''Just-In-Time'' approach to development of Rule-compliant safety bases supported by temporary exemptions; and consolidation of safety basis documents that support multiple facilities with a common mission (e.g. decontamination, decommissioning and demolition [DD&D], waste management, surveillance and maintenance). This strategy provides a clear path to transition the safety bases for the various Hanford facilities from support of operation and stabilization missions through DD&D to accelerate closure. This ''Just-In-Time'' Strategy can also be tailored for other DOE Sites, creating the potential for large cost savings and schedule reductions throughout the DOE complex.

Olinger, S. J.; Buhl, A. R.

2002-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

267

Buildings Energy Data Book: 4.3 Federal Buildings and Facilities Expenditures  

Buildings Energy Data Book (EERE)

3 3 Direct Appropriations on Federal Buildings Energy Conservation Retrofits and Capital Equipment ($2010 Million) FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 Source(s): DOE/FEMP, Annual Report to Congress on FEMP FY 2007, Jan. 2010, Table 11-B, p. 31; DOE/FEMP, Annual Report to Congress on FEMP, Nov. 2007, Table 9-B, p. 26 for 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000-2006; DOE/FEMP, Annual Report to Congress on FEMP, Sep. 2004, Table 4-B, p. 38 for 1986-1989, 1991-1994, 1996-1999; EIA, Annual Energy Review 2010, Oct. 2011, Appendix D, p. 353 for price deflators. 349,350 102,135 FY 1996 238,232 FY 2002 147,895 83,340 FY 1995 438,943 FY 2001 162,488 FY 2007 321,686 108,705 FY 1994 318,739 FY 2000 150,900 FY 2006 301,222 98,708 FY 1993 170,826 FY 1999 261,784 FY 2005 201,156 342,653 FY 1992 209,973

268

National Environmental Policy Act source guide for the Hanford Site  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This Source Guide will assist those working with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to become more familiar with the environmental assessments (EA) and environmental impact statements (EIS) that apply to specific activities and facilities on the Hanford Site. This document should help answer questions concerning NEPA coverage, history, processes, and the status of many of the buildings and units on and related to the Hanford Site. This document summarizes relevant EAs and EISs by briefly outlining the proposed action of each document and the decision made by the US Department of Energy (DOE) or its predecessor agencies, the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the US Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA). The summary includes the proposed action alternatives and current status of the proposed action. If a decision officially was stated by the DOE, as in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or a record of decision (ROD), and the decision was located, a summary is provided. Not all federal decisions, such as FONSIs and RODS, can be found in the Federal Register (FR). For example, although significant large-action FONSIs can be found in the FR, some low-interest FONSIs might have been published elsewhere (i.e., local newspapers).

Jansky, M.T.

1998-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

269

Hanford Site Transuranic (TRU) Waste Certification Plan  

SciTech Connect

As a generator of transuranic (TRU) and TRU mixed waste destined for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the Hanford Site must ensure that its TRU waste meets the requirements of US. Department of Energy (DOE) 0 435.1, ''Radioactive Waste Management,'' and the Contact-Handled (CH) Transuranic Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP-WAC). WIPP-WAC requirements are derived from the WIPP Technical Safety Requirements, WIPP Safety Analysis Report, TRUPACT-II SARP, WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, and Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 191/194 Compliance Certification Decision. The WIPP-WAC establishes the specific physical, chemical, radiological, and packaging criteria for acceptance of defense TRU waste shipments at WIPP. The WPP-WAC also requires that participating DOE TRU waste generator/treatment/storage sites produce site-specific documents, including a certification plan, that describe their program for managing TRU waste and TRU waste shipments before transferring waste to WIPP. Waste characterization activities provide much of the data upon which certification decisions are based. Waste characterization requirements for TRU waste and TRU mixed waste that contains constituents regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) are established in the WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Waste Analysis Plan (WAP). The Hanford Site Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP) (HNF-2599) implements the applicable requirements in the WAP and includes the qualitative and quantitative criteria for making hazardous waste determinations. The Hanford Site must also ensure that its TRU waste destined for disposal at WPP meets requirements for transport in the Transuranic Package Transporter-11 (TRUPACT-11). The US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) establishes the TRUPACT-11 requirements in the Safety Analysis Report for the TRUPACT-II Shipping Package (TRUPACT-11 SARP). In addition, a TRU waste is eligible for disposal at WIPP only if it has been generated in whole or in part by one or more of the activities listed in Section 10101(3) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. DOE sites must determine that each waste stream to be disposed of at WIPP is ''defense'' TRU waste. (See also the definition of ''defense'' TRU waste.). Only CH TRU wastes meeting the requirements of the QAPjP, WIPP-WAP, WPP-WAC, and other requirements documents described above will be accepted for transportation and disposal at WIPP.

GREAGER, T.M.

2000-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

270

Hanford Site Transuranic (TRU) Waste Certification Plan  

SciTech Connect

As a generator of transuranic (TRU) and TRU mixed waste destined for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the Hanford Site must ensure that its TRU waste meets the requirements of US. Department of Energy (DOE) 0 435.1, ''Radioactive Waste Management,'' and the Contact-Handled (CH) Transuranic Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP-WAC). WIPP-WAC requirements are derived from the WIPP Technical Safety Requirements, WIPP Safety Analysis Report, TRUPACT-II SARP, WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, and Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 191/194 Compliance Certification Decision. The WIPP-WAC establishes the specific physical, chemical, radiological, and packaging criteria for acceptance of defense TRU waste shipments at WIPP. The WPP-WAC also requires that participating DOE TRU waste generator/treatment/storage sites produce site-specific documents, including a certification plan, that describe their program for managing TRU waste and TRU waste shipments before transferring waste to WIPP. Waste characterization activities provide much of the data upon which certification decisions are based. Waste characterization requirements for TRU waste and TRU mixed waste that contains constituents regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) are established in the WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Waste Analysis Plan (WAP). The Hanford Site Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPjP) (HNF-2599) implements the applicable requirements in the WAP and includes the qualitative and quantitative criteria for making hazardous waste determinations. The Hanford Site must also ensure that its TRU waste destined for disposal at WPP meets requirements for transport in the Transuranic Package Transporter-11 (TRUPACT-11). The US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) establishes the TRUPACT-11 requirements in the Safety Analysis Report for the TRUPACT-II Shipping Package (TRUPACT-11 SARP). In addition, a TRU waste is eligible for disposal at WIPP only if it has been generated in whole or in part by one or more of the activities listed in Section 10101(3) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. DOE sites must determine that each waste stream to be disposed of at WIPP is ''defense'' TRU waste. (See also the definition of ''defense'' TRU waste.). Only CH TRU wastes meeting the requirements of the QAPjP, WIPP-WAP, WPP-WAC, and other requirements documents described above will be accepted for transportation and disposal at WIPP.

GREAGER, T.M.

2000-12-06T23:59:59.000Z

271

Independent Oversight Review, Hanford K Basin and Cold Vacuum Drying  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford K Basin and Cold Vacuum Hanford K Basin and Cold Vacuum Drying Facility - August 2012 Independent Oversight Review, Hanford K Basin and Cold Vacuum Drying Facility - August 2012 August 2012 Review of Hanford K Basin and Cold Vacuum Drying Facility Found Fuel Multi-Canister Overpack Operations The purpose of this independent oversight review by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Enforcement and Oversight (Independent Oversight), within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) was to observe the operations associated with processing a Multi-Canister Overpack (MCO) of "found fuel" (small quantities of spent fuel discovered during cleanup of the reactor burial grounds) at the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF). The found fuel MCO was transported from the K West Basin on the Hanford

272

Hanford Site lighting occupancy sensor study  

SciTech Connect

This study was designed to assess the potential energy savings from the use of lighting occupancy sensor control in the US Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site office facilities. The final results of the study provide useful information for assessing cost-effective use of occupancy sensor lighting control. The results also include specific application data for Hanford Site office building spaces that indicate where sensor technology could be applied for cost-effective energy savings.

Richman, E.E.; Dittmer, A.L.; Keller, J.M.

1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

273

Ground-water monitoring compliance projects for Hanford site facilities: Progress report for January 1 to March 31, 1988: Volume 9: Appendix C  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The appendix is one of nine volumes, and presents data describing wells completed at the Hanford Site during the first quarter of calendar year 1988 (January through March). The data in this volume of Appendix C cover the following wells: 199-N-58; 199-N-59; 199-N-60; 199-N-61; 199-N-67. The data are presented in the following order: Well Completion Report/Title III Inspection List, As-Built Diagram, Logging Charts, and Drill Logs.

Not Available

1988-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

274

Preliminary Notice of Violation, Washington Closure Hanford, LLC -  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Washington Closure Hanford, LLC - Washington Closure Hanford, LLC - WEA-2010-02 Preliminary Notice of Violation, Washington Closure Hanford, LLC - WEA-2010-02 August 19, 2010 Preliminary Notice of Violation issued to Washington Closure Hanford, LLC related an Employee Fall at the High Bay Testing Facility (336 Building) at the Hanford Site This letter refers to the Office of Health, Safety and Security's Office of Enforcement investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the employee fall that occurred at the Hanford High Bay Testing Facility (336 Building) on July 1, 2009. The worker sustained serious injury to his back and broke bones in both legs. Based on an evaluation of the evidence in this matter, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has concluded that violations of 10 C.F.R. Part 851, Worker Safety and Health Program, by

275

Facility Effluent Monitoring Plan for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Balance-of-Plant Facilities  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) operates a number of Research & Development (R&D) facilities for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on the Hanford Site. Facility effluent monitoring plans (FEMPs) have been developed to document the facility effluent monitoring portion of the Environmental Monitoring Plan (DOE 2000) for the Hanford Site. Three of PNNL’s R&D facilities, the 325, 331, and 3720 Buildings, are considered major emission points for radionuclide air sampling, and individual FEMPs were developed for these facilities in the past. In addition, a balance-of-plant (BOP) FEMP was developed for all other DOE-owned, PNNL-operated facilities at the Hanford Site. Recent changes, including shutdown of buildings and transition of PNNL facilities to the Office of Science, have resulted in retiring the 3720 FEMP and combining the 331 FEMP into the BOP FEMP. This version of the BOP FEMP addresses all DOE-owned, PNNL-operated facilities at the Hanford Site, excepting the Radiochemical Processing Laboratory, which has its own FEMP because of the unique nature of the building and operations. Activities in the BOP facilities range from administrative to laboratory and pilot-scale R&D. R&D activities include both radioactive and chemical waste characterization, fluid dynamics research, mechanical property testing, dosimetry research, and molecular sciences. The mission and activities for individual buildings are described in Appendix A. Potential radioactive airborne emissions in the BOP facilities are estimated annually using a building inventory-based approach provided in federal regulations. Sampling at individual BOP facilities is based on a potential-to-emit assessment. Some of these facilities are considered minor emission points and thus are sampled routinely, but not continuously, to confirm the low emission potential. One facility, the 331 Life Sciences Laboratory, has a major emission point and is sampled continuously. Sampling systems are located downstream of control technologies and just before discharge to the atmosphere. The need for monitoring airborne emissions of hazardous chemicals is established in the Hanford Site Air Operating Permit and in notices of construction. Based on the current potential-to-emit, the Hanford Site Air Operating Permit does not contain general monitoring requirements for BOP facilities. However, the permit identifies monitoring requirements for specific projects and buildings. Needs for future monitoring will be established by future permits issued pursuant to the applicable state and federal regulations. A number of liquid-effluent discharge systems serve the BOP facilities: sanitary sewer, process sewer, retention process sewer, and aquaculture system. Only the latter system discharges to the environment; the rest either discharge to treatment plants or to long-term storage. Routine compliance sampling of liquid effluents is only required at the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory. Liquid effluents from other BOP facilities may be sampled or monitored to characterize facility effluents or to investigate discharges of concern. Effluent sampling and monitoring for the BOP facilities depends on the inventories, activities, and environmental permits in place for each facility. A description of routine compliance monitoring for BOP facilities is described in the BOP FEMP.

Ballinger, Marcel Y.; Gervais, Todd L.

2004-11-15T23:59:59.000Z

276

Independent Oversight Activity Report, K-West Annex Facility...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Annex Facility - June 2013 June 2013 Review of the Hanford Site K-West Annex Facility Layup Program for Construction SuspensionDelay HIAR-Hanford-2013-06-10 Construction on...

277

Facility stabilization project, fiscal year 1998 -- Multi-year workplan (MYWP) for WBS 1.4  

SciTech Connect

The primary Facility Stabilization mission is to provide minimum safe surveillance and maintenance of facilities and deactivate facilities on the Hanford Site, to reduce risks to workers, the public and environment, transition the facilities to a low cost, long term surveillance and maintenance state, and to provide safe and secure storage of special nuclear materials, nuclear materials, and nuclear fuel. Facility Stabilization will protect the health and safety of the public and workers, protect the environment and provide beneficial use of the facilities and other resources. Work will be in accordance with the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement), local, national, international and other agreements, and in compliance with all applicable Federal, state, and local laws. The stakeholders will be active participants in the decision processes including establishing priorities, and in developing a consistent set of rules, regulations, and laws. The work will be leveraged with a view of providing positive, lasting economic impact in the region. Effectiveness, efficiency, and discipline in all mission activities will enable Hanford Site to achieve its mission in a continuous and substantive manner. As the mission for Facility Stabilization has shifted from production to support of environmental restoration, each facility is making a transition to support the Site mission. The mission goals include the following: (1) Achieve deactivation of facilities for transfer to EM-40, using Plutonium Uranium Extraction (PUREX) plant deactivation as a model for future facility deactivation; (2) Manage nuclear materials in a safe and secure condition and where appropriate, in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards rules; (3) Treat nuclear materials as necessary, and store onsite in long-term interim safe storage awaiting a final disposition decision by US Department of Energy; (4) Implement nuclear materials disposition directives. In the near term these are anticipated to mostly involve transferring uranium to other locations for beneficial use. Work will be in accordance with the Tri-Party Agreement, and other agreements and in compliance with all applicable Federal, state and local laws. The transition to deactivation will be accomplished through a phased approach, while maintaining the facilities in a safe and compliant configuration. In addition, Facility Stabilization will continue to maintain safe long-term storage facilities for Special Nuclear Material (SNM), Nuclear Material (NM), and Nuclear Fuel (NF). The FSP deactivation strategy aligns with the deactivate facilities mission outlined in Hanford Site SE documentation. Inherent to the FSP strategies are specific Hanford Strategic Plan success indicators such as: reduction of risks to workers, the public and environment; increasing the amount of resources recovered for other uses; reduction/elimination of inventory and materials; and reduction/elimination of costly mortgages.

Floberg, W.C.

1997-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

278

Radionuclide air emission report for the Hanford Site Calendar Year 1993  

SciTech Connect

This report documents radionuclide air emissions from the Hanford Site in 1993 and the resulting effective dose equivalent to any member of the public. The report has been prepared and will be submitted in accordance with reporting requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, {open_quotes}National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,{close_quotes} Subpart H, {open_quotes}National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities.{close_quotes}

Diediker, L.P.; Curn, B.L. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States); Rhoads, K.; Damberg, E.G.; Soldat, J.K.; Jette, S.J. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States)

1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

279

Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant technical background document for best available radionuclide control technology demonstration  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report provides the background documentation to support applications for approval to construct and operate new radionuclide emission sources at the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant (HWVP) near Richland, Washington. The HWVP is required to obtain permits under federal and state statutes for atmospheric discharges of radionuclides. Since these permits must be issued prior to construction of the facility, draft permit applications are being prepared, as well as documentation to support these permits. This report addresses the applicable requirements and demonstrates that the preferred design meets energy, environmental, and economic criteria for Best Available Radionuclide Control Technology (BARCT) at HWVP. 22 refs., 11 figs., 25 tabs.

Carpenter, A.B.; Skone, S.S.; Rodenhizer, D.G.; Marusich, M.V. (Ebasco Services, Inc., Bellevue, WA (USA))

1990-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

280

Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington  

SciTech Connect

This Final ''Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact Statement'' (HCP EIS) is being used by the Department of Energy (DOE) and its nine cooperating and consulting agencies to develop a comprehensive land-use plan (CLUP) for the Hanford Site. The DOE will use the Final HCP EIS as a basis for a Record of Decision (ROD) on a CLUP for the Hanford Site. While development of the CLUP will be complete with release of the HCP EIS ROD, full implementation of the CLUP is expected to take at least 50 years. Implementation of the CLUP would begin a more detailed planning process for land-use and facility-use decisions at the Hanford Site. The DOE would use the CLUP to screen proposals. Eventually, management of Hanford Site areas would move toward the CLUP land-use goals. This CLUP process could take more than 50 years to fully achieve the land-use goals.

N /A

1999-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


281

Federal Energy Management Program: Business Case for Sustainable Design in  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Business Case for Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities to someone by E-mail Share Federal Energy Management Program: Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities on Facebook Tweet about Federal Energy Management Program: Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities on Twitter Bookmark Federal Energy Management Program: Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities on Google Bookmark Federal Energy Management Program: Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities on Delicious Rank Federal Energy Management Program: Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities on Digg Find More places to share Federal Energy Management Program: Business Case for Sustainable Design in Federal Facilities on

282

GAO-11-520T Federal Real Property: Progress Made on Planning and Data, but Unneeded Owned and Leased Facilities Remain  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Economic Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY Progress Made on Planning and Data, but Unneeded Owned and Leased Facilities Remain Statement of David J. Wise, Director Physical Infrastructure Issues Brian J. Lepore, Director Defense Capabilities and Management Issues For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT Wednesday, April 6, 2011 GAO-11-520T Accountability * Integrity * Reliability Highlights of GAO-11-520T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives. April 6, 2011 FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY

283

Enforcement Letter, Westinghouse Hanford Corporation - September 22, 1995 |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

September September 22, 1995 Enforcement Letter, Westinghouse Hanford Corporation - September 22, 1995 September 22, 1995 Issued to Westinghouse Hanford Corporation related to Operational Safety Requirements Implementation at the B Plant/Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility at the Hanford Site This letter refers to the Department of Energy's (DOE) evaluation of Westinghouse Hanford Company's (WHC) report of potential noncompliances with the requirements of 10 CFR 830.120 (Quality Assurance Requirements) at the Hanford B Plant/Waste Encapsulation Facility (WESF). These potential noncompliances were identified by WHC on May 8, 1995, during a self-initiated comprehensive assessment of the facilities Operational Safety Requirements (OSR) program and reported to DOE on May 24, 1995.

284

Hanford emergency management plan - release 15  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford emergency management plan for the US Department of Energy Richland, WA and Office of River Protection. The program was developed in accordance with DOE Orders as well as Federal and State regulations to protect workers and public health and safety.

CARPENTER, G.A.

1999-07-19T23:59:59.000Z

285

Ground-water monitoring compliance projects for Hanford site facilities: Progress report for the period January 1 to March 31, 1988: Volume 5, Appendix B  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This appendix is one of nine volumes, and presents data describing wells completed at the Hanford Site during the fourth quarter of calendar year 1987 (October through December). The data in this volume of Appendix B cover the following wells: 299-W6-2; 299-W7-1; 299-W7-2; 299-W7-3; 299-W7-4. The data are presented in the following order: Well Completion Report/Title III Inspection List, Inspection Plan, As-Built Diagram, Logging Charts, and Drill Logs.

none,

1988-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

286

Ground-water monitoring compliance projects for Hanford site facilities: Progress report for the period January 1 to March 31, 1988: Volume 2, Appendix A  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This appendix is one of nine volumes, and presents data describing wells completed at the Hanford Site during the fourth quarter of calendar year 1987 (October through December). The data in this volume of Appendix A cover the following wells: 299-E27-8; 299-E27-9; 299-E27-10; 299-E28-26; 299-E28-27. The data are presented in the following order: Well Completion Report/Title III Inspection List, Inspection Plan, As-Built Diagram, Logging Charts, and Drill Logs.

Not Available

1988-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

287

Ground-water monitoring compliance projects for Hanford site facilities: Progress report for the period, January 1-March 31, 1988: Volume 6, Appendix B (contd)  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This appendix is one of nine volumes, and presents data describing wells completed at the Hanford Site during the fourth quarter of calendar year 1987 (October through December). The data in this volume of Appendix B cover the following wells: 299-W7-5; 299-W7-6; 299-W8-1; 299-W9-1; 299-W10-13. The data are presented in the following order: Well Completion Report/Title III Inspection List, Inspection Plan, As-Built Diagram, Logging Charts, and Drill Logs.

Not Available

1988-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

288

Ground-water monitoring compliance projects for Hanford site facilities: Progress report for the period January 1 to March 31, 1988: Volume 8, Appendix B (contd)  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This appendix is one of nine volumes, and presents data describing wells completed at the Hanford Site during the fourth quarter of calendar year 1987 (October through December). The data in this volume of Appendix B cover the following wells: 299-W18-21; 299-W18-22; 299-W18-23; 299-W18-24. The data are presented in the following order: Well Completion Report/Title III Inspection List, Inspection Plan, As-Built Diagram, Logging Charts, and Drill Logs.

Not Available

1988-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

289

Ground-water monitoring compliance projects for Hanford site facilities: Progress report for the period January 1 to March 31, 1988: Volume 7, Appendix B (contd)  

SciTech Connect

This appendix is one of nine volumes, and presents data describing wwlls completed at the Hanford Site during the fourth quarter of calendar year 1987 (October through December). The data in this volume of Appendix B cover the following wells: 299-W10-14; 299-W15-15; 299-W15-16; 299-W15-17; 299-W15-18. The data are presented in the following order: Well Completion Report/Title III Inspection List, Inspection Plan, As-Built Diagram, Logging Charts, and Drill Logs.

Not Available

1988-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

290

Ground-water monitoring compliance projects for Hanford Site facilities: Progress report, January 1-March 31, 1988: Volume 3, Appendix A  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This appendix is one of nine volumes, and presents data describing wells completed at the Hanford Site during the fourth quarter of calendar year 1987 (October through December). The data in this volume of Appendix A cover the following wells: 299-E32-2; 299-E32-3; 299-E32-4; 299-E33-28; 299-E33-29. The data are presented in the following order: Well Completion Report/Title III Inspection List, Inspection Plan, As-Built Diagram, Logging Charts, and Drill Logs.

Not Available

1988-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

291

Hanford Site environmental management specification  

SciTech Connect

The US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (RL) uses this Hanford Site Environmental Management Specification (Specification) to document top-level mission requirements and planning assumptions for the prime contractors involved in Hanford Site cleanup and infrastructure activities under the responsibility of the US Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. This Specification describes at a top level the activities, facilities, and infrastructure necessary to accomplish the cleanup of the Hanford Site and assigns this scope to Site contractors and their respective projects. This Specification also references the key National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and safety documentation necessary to accurately describe the cleanup at a summary level. The information contained in this document reflects RL`s application of values, priorities, and critical success factors expressed by those involved with and affected by the Hanford Site project. The prime contractors and their projects develop complete baselines and work plans to implement this Specification. These lower-level documents and the data that support them, together with this Specification, represent the full set of requirements applicable to the contractors and their projects. Figure 1-1 shows the relationship of this Specification to the other basic Site documents. Similarly, the documents, orders, and laws referenced in this specification represent only the most salient sources of requirements. Current and contractual reference data contain a complete set of source documents.

Grygiel, M.L.

1998-06-10T23:59:59.000Z

292

FLUOR HANFORD DECOMMISSIONING UPDATE  

SciTech Connect

Fluor Hanford is completing D&D of the K East Basin at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State this spring, with demolition expected to begin in June. Located about 400 yards from the Columbia River, the K East Basin is one of two indoor pools that formerly contained irradiated nuclear fuel, radioactive sludge and tons of contaminated debris. In unique and path-breaking work, workers finished removing the spent fuel from the K Basins in 2004. In May 2007, workers completed vacuuming the sludge into containers in the K East Basin, and transferring it into containers in the K West Basin. In December, they finished vacuuming the remainder of K West Basin sludge into these containers. The K East Basin was emptied of its radioactive inventory first because it was more contaminated than the K West Basin, and had leaked in the past. In October 2007, Fluor Hanford began physical D&D of the 8,400-square foot K East Basin by pouring approximately 14-inches of grout into the bottom of it. Grout is a type of special cement used for encasing waste. Two months later, Fluor Hanford workers completed sluicing contaminated sand from the large filter that had sieved contaminants from the basin water for more than 50 years. Next, they poured grout into the filter housing and the vault that surrounds the filter, as well as into ion exchange columns that also helped filter basin water. For a six-week period in February and March, personnel drained the approximately one million gallons of contaminated water from the K East Basin. The effort required more than 200 tanker truck loads that transported the water to an effluent treatment facility for treatment and then release. A thin fixative was also applied to the basin walls as the water was removed to hold residual contamination in place. As soon as the water was out of the basin, Fluor pumped in approximately 18 feet of 'controlled density fill' material (somewhat similar to sand) to shield workers to a safe level from the residual radioactivity. Workers then continued preparations for demolishing the structure. Currently, they are isolating utilities, removing asbestos, draining oils, and removing other items not allowed to be disposed in Hanford's Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF). The basin's superstructure will be demolished using a heavy industrial excavator equipped with a shear. This portion of the work is expected to be completed in September, with removal of the basin substructure to follow in 2009. D&D of the K East Basin eliminated the final major radioactive sources there, and made the Columbia River and the adjacent environment safer for everyone who lives downstream.

GERBER MS

2008-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

293

Hanford System Overview  

CHG0612-16.0 CH2M-32399-VA Hanford System Overview Hanford System Overview January 23-24, 2007 Paul Certa Tom Crawford Aluminum and Chromium Leaching for

294

Hanford Identification (HID) PIA, Richland Operations Office...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Identification (HID) PIA, Richland Operations Office Hanford Identification (HID) PIA, Richland Operations Office Hanford Identification (HID) PIA, Richland Operations...

295

Commissioning for Federal Facilities  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Introduction Introduction Chapter 1 Chapter 1 Introduction Introduction B uilding commissioning has often been likened to commissioning of a ship, where the Owners thor- oughly verify and prove the func- tional performance of all parts - engines, compasses, sonar, radar, radio, generators, potable water systems, and so on - under all pos- sible conditions and as a condition of acceptance before placing the ship in service. And where the Owner checks the presence of sys- tem operating and procedures manuals and the availability of up- to-date navigation charts. And where the crew has been properly and thoroughly trained on the ship's systems' operations and emergency procedures. Commissioning is not new - ships and aircraft have been commissioned for years. Building commissioning has

296

Commissioning for Federal Facilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Introduction Introduction Chapter 1 Chapter 1 Introduction Introduction B uilding commissioning has often been likened to commissioning of a ship, where the Owners thor- oughly verify and prove the func- tional performance of all parts - engines, compasses, sonar, radar, radio, generators, potable water systems, and so on - under all pos- sible conditions and as a condition of acceptance before placing the ship in service. And where the Owner checks the presence of sys- tem operating and procedures manuals and the availability of up- to-date navigation charts. And where the crew has been properly and thoroughly trained on the ship's systems' operations and emergency procedures. Commissioning is not new - ships and aircraft have been commissioned for years. Building commissioning has

297

EM Tank Waste Subcommittee Report for SRS and Hanford Tank Waste...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

incorporating chemistry. Such tools would allow the facile evaluation of the impacts of treatment and waste form alternatives on the overall disposition path for Hanford tank...

298

Break Throughs in High-Level Waste Vitrification for the Hanford ...  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

... Throughs in High-Level Waste Vitrification for the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant ... Waste at the Defense Waste Processing Facility through Sludge Batch 7b .

299

Facilities  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Facilities Facilities Facilities LANL's mission is to develop and apply science and technology to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent; reduce global threats; and solve other emerging national security and energy challenges. Contact Operator Los Alamos National Laboratory (505) 667-5061 Some LANL facilities are available to researchers at other laboratories, universities, and industry. Unique facilities foster experimental science, support LANL's security mission DARHT accelerator DARHT's electron accelerators use large, circular aluminum structures to create magnetic fields that focus and steer a stream of electrons down the length of the accelerator. Tremendous electrical energy is added along the way. When the stream of high-speed electrons exits the accelerator it is

300

Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for the Hanford Site Calendar year 1998  

SciTech Connect

This report documents radionuclide air emissions from the Hanford Site in I998 and the resulting effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) member of the public. The report has been prepared in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR SI), Subpart H, ''National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities,'' and with the Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246-247, Radiation Protection--Air Emissions. The federal regulations in 40 CFR 61, Subpart H; require the measurement and reporting of radionuclides emitted from Department of Energy facilities and the resulting offsite dose from those emissions. A standard of 10 mrem/yr effective dose equivalent (EDE) is imposed on them. The EDE to the MEI due to routine emissions in 1998 from Hanford Site point sources was 1.3 E-02 mrem (1.3 E-04 mSv), which is 0.13 percent of the federal standard. Chapter 246-247 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) requires the reporting of radionuclide emissions from all Department of Energy Hanford Site sources. The state has adopted into these regulations the 40 CFR 61 standard of 10 mrem/yr EDE. The EDE to the MEI attributable to diffuse and fugitive radionuclide air emissions from the Hanford Site in 1998 was 2.5 E-02 mrem (2.5 E-04 mSv). This dose added to the dose from point sources gives a total for all sources of 3.8 E-02 mrem/yr (3.8 E-04 mSv) EDE, which is 0.38 percent of the 10 mrem/yr standard. An unplanned release on August 26, 1998, in the 300 Area of the Hanford Site resulted in a potential dose of 4.1 E-02 mrem to a hypothetical individual at the nearest point of public access to that area. This hypothetical individual was not the MEI since the wind direction on the day of the release was away from the MEI residence. The potential dose from the unplanned event was similar in magnitude to that from routine releases during 1998. Were the release from this unplanned event combined with routine releases, the total dose would be less than 1 percent ofthe 10 mrem/yr standard.

DIEDIKER, L.P.

1999-06-15T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


301

Hanford whole body counting manual  

SciTech Connect

This document describes the Hanford Whole Body Counting Program as it is administered by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) in support of the US Department of Energy--Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) and its Hanford contractors. Program services include providing in vivo measurements of internally deposited radioactivity in Hanford employees (or visitors). Specific chapters of this manual deal with the following subjects: program operational charter, authority, administration, and practices, including interpreting applicable DOE Orders, regulations, and guidance into criteria for in vivo measurement frequency, etc., for the plant-wide whole body counting services; state-of-the-art facilities and equipment used to provide the best in vivo measurement results possible for the approximately 11,000 measurements made annually; procedures for performing the various in vivo measurements at the Whole Body Counter (WBC) and related facilities including whole body counts; operation and maintenance of counting equipment, quality assurance provisions of the program, WBC data processing functions, statistical aspects of in vivo measurements, and whole body counting records and associated guidance documents. 16 refs., 48 figs., 22 tabs.

Palmer, H.E.; Rieksts, G.A.; Lynch, T.P.

1990-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

302

Independent Activity Report, Hanford - May 2010 | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Independent Activity Report, Hanford - May 2010 Independent Activity Report, Hanford - May 2010 Independent Activity Report, Hanford - May 2010 May 2010 Hanford Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility Meetings The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Independent Oversight, within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), conducted various meetings with Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) managers/staff responsible for WESF during the period May 17-19, 2010. The purpose of the visit was to ascertain ways in which HSS would be able to carry out its independent oversight responsibilities with respect to WESF in a method that encourages collaboration with DOE-RL. Independent Activity Report, Hanford - May 2010 More Documents & Publications Independent Activity Report, Hanford - May 2010

303

Sixth Chapter of Hanford Story Released to Public: Chapter Covers History  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Sixth Chapter of Hanford Story Released to Public: Chapter Covers Sixth Chapter of Hanford Story Released to Public: Chapter Covers History and Cleanup of Most Hazardous Facility at Hanford Sixth Chapter of Hanford Story Released to Public: Chapter Covers History and Cleanup of Most Hazardous Facility at Hanford April 18, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contacts Cameron Hardy, DOE (509) 376-5365, Cameron.Hardy@rl.doe.gov RICHLAND, Wash. - The Department of Energy is releasing the sixth chapter of The Hanford Story video series to the public today. "Plutonium Finishing Plant" provides viewers with a look at the history and cleanup of the highest hazard facility remaining at the Hanford Site. The plant produced nearly two-thirds of the nation's supply of plutonium for the nuclear weapons program and was once the center of the bulls-eye of

304

Sixth Chapter of Hanford Story Released to Public: Chapter Covers History  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Sixth Chapter of Hanford Story Released to Public: Chapter Covers Sixth Chapter of Hanford Story Released to Public: Chapter Covers History and Cleanup of Most Hazardous Facility at Hanford Sixth Chapter of Hanford Story Released to Public: Chapter Covers History and Cleanup of Most Hazardous Facility at Hanford April 18, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contacts Cameron Hardy, DOE (509) 376-5365, Cameron.Hardy@rl.doe.gov RICHLAND, Wash. - The Department of Energy is releasing the sixth chapter of The Hanford Story video series to the public today. "Plutonium Finishing Plant" provides viewers with a look at the history and cleanup of the highest hazard facility remaining at the Hanford Site. The plant produced nearly two-thirds of the nation's supply of plutonium for the nuclear weapons program and was once the center of the bulls-eye of

305

HANFORD SITE SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM RICHLAND WASHINGTON - 12464  

SciTech Connect

In support of implementation of Executive Order (EO) 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance, the Hanford Site Sustainability Plan was developed to implement strategies and activities required to achieve the prescribed goals in the EO as well as demonstrate measurable progress in environmental stewardship at the Hanford Site. The Hanford Site Sustainability Program was developed to demonstrate progress towards sustainability goals as defined and established in Executive Order (EO) 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance; EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy and Transportation Management, and several applicable Energy Acts. Multiple initiatives were undertaken in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 to implement the Program and poise the Hanford Site as a leader in environmental stewardship. In order to implement the Hanford Site Sustainability Program, a Sustainability Plan was developed in conjunction with prime contractors, two U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Offices, and key stakeholders to serve as the framework for measuring progress towards sustainability goals. Based on the review of these metrics and future plans, several activities were initiated to proactively improve performance or provide alternatives for future consideration contingent on available funding. A review of the key metric associated with energy consumption for the Hanford Site in FY 2010 and 2011 indicated an increase over the target reduction of 3 percent annually from a baseline established in FY 2003 as illustrated in Figure 1. This slight increase was attributed primarily from the increased energy demand from the cleanup projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in FY 2010 and 2011. Although it is forecasted that the energy demand will decrease commensurate with the completion of ARRA projects, several major initiatives were launched to improve energy efficiency.

FRITZ LL

2012-01-12T23:59:59.000Z

306

Hanford External Dosimetry Program  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This document describes the Hanford External Dosimetry Program as it is administered by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) in support of the US Department of Energy (DOE) and its Hanford contractors. Program services include administrating the Hanford personnel dosimeter processing program and ensuring that the related dosimeter data accurately reflect occupational dose received by Hanford personnel or visitors. Specific chapters of this report deal with the following subjects: personnel dosimetry organizations at Hanford and the associated DOE and contractor exposure guidelines; types, characteristics, and procurement of personnel dosimeters used at Hanford; personnel dosimeter identification, acceptance testing, accountability, and exchange; dosimeter processing and data recording practices; standard sources, calibration factors, and calibration processes (including algorithms) used for calibrating Hanford personnel dosimeters; system operating parameters required for assurance of dosimeter processing quality control; special dose evaluation methods applied for individuals under abnormal circumstances (i.e., lost results, etc.); and methods for evaluating personnel doses from nuclear accidents. 1 ref., 14 figs., 5 tabs.

Fix, J.J.

1990-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

307

Enforcement Letter, Westinghouse Hanford Corporation - July 6, 1995 |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

July 6, 1995 July 6, 1995 Enforcement Letter, Westinghouse Hanford Corporation - July 6, 1995 July 6, 1995 Issued to Westinghouse Hanford Corporation related to Radiological Work Control Deficiencies at the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility at the Hanford Site This letter refers to the Department of Energy's (DOE) evaluation of Westinghouse Hanford Company's (WHC) investigation of an event that occurred between February 22-March 7, 1995, at the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Facility (PUREX) at DOE's Hanford site. The event, which involved the cutting of a highly contaminated canyon exhaust air sampling probe as part of waste disposal activities without adequate management controls, resulted in your decision to temporarily curtail waste cutting activities. Based on your investigation of the event,

308

Congressional, State Officials Tour Hanford's Test Site for Safe Tank  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Congressional, State Officials Tour Hanford's Test Site for Safe Congressional, State Officials Tour Hanford's Test Site for Safe Tank Waste Cleanup Congressional, State Officials Tour Hanford's Test Site for Safe Tank Waste Cleanup September 30, 2013 - 12:00pm Addthis Ben Harp, center, manager of Hanford’s Waste Treatment Plant Start-up and Commissioning Integration, discusses the advantages of ORP's Cold Test Facility to a group of congressional and state legislative staffers during a recent tour. Ben Harp, center, manager of Hanford's Waste Treatment Plant Start-up and Commissioning Integration, discusses the advantages of ORP's Cold Test Facility to a group of congressional and state legislative staffers during a recent tour. RICHLAND, Wash. - EM's Office of River Protection (ORP) recently hosted a group of congressional and state legislative staffers on a tour of the

309

Manhattan Project: Hanford Becomes Operational, 1943-1944  

Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

F Reactor Plutonium Production Complex at Hanford, 1945 HANFORD BECOMES OPERATIONAL F Reactor Plutonium Production Complex at Hanford, 1945 HANFORD BECOMES OPERATIONAL (Hanford Engineer Works, 1943-1944) Events > The Plutonium Path to the Bomb, 1942-1944 Production Reactor (Pile) Design, 1942 DuPont and Hanford, 1942 CP-1 Goes Critical, December 2, 1942 Seaborg and Plutonium Chemistry, 1942-1944 Final Reactor Design and X-10, 1942-1943 Hanford Becomes Operational, 1943-1944 The plutonium production facilities at the Hanford Engineer Works took shape with the same wartime urgency as did the uranium facilities at Oak Ridge. In February 1943, Colonel Matthias returned to the location he had helped select the previous December and set up a temporary headquarters. In late March, Matthias received his assignment. The three water-cooled production reactor (piles), designated by the letters B, D, and F, would be built about six miles apart on the south bank of the Columbia River. The four chemical separation plants would be built in pairs at two sites nearly ten miles south of the piles. A facility to produce slugs and perform tests would be approximately twenty miles southeast of the separation plants near Richland. Temporary quarters for construction workers would be put up at the Hanford town site, while permanent facilities for other personnel would be located down the road in Richland, safely removed from the production and separation plants. Life at Hanford would soon come to resemble that of the other "atomic boomtowns" of the Manhattan Project, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge.

310

EA-1728: Integrated Vegetation Management on the Hanford Site, Richland,  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

728: Integrated Vegetation Management on the Hanford Site, 728: Integrated Vegetation Management on the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington EA-1728: Integrated Vegetation Management on the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington Summary This EA evaluates the environmental impacts from vegetation management in the "project area" of the Hanford Site. The project area excludes most of the Hanford Reach National Monument that is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under permit from DOE. Vegetation managment under the EA would be consistent with and complement similar efforts currently being performed by the USFWS on the Monument. Based on the analyses in the EA, DOE determined that the proposed action is not a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA, and that preparation of

311

EA-1728: Integrated Vegetation Management on the Hanford Site, Richland,  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

28: Integrated Vegetation Management on the Hanford Site, 28: Integrated Vegetation Management on the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington EA-1728: Integrated Vegetation Management on the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington Summary This EA evaluates the environmental impacts from vegetation management in the "project area" of the Hanford Site. The project area excludes most of the Hanford Reach National Monument that is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under permit from DOE. Vegetation managment under the EA would be consistent with and complement similar efforts currently being performed by the USFWS on the Monument. Based on the analyses in the EA, DOE determined that the proposed action is not a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA, and that preparation of

312

Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 10  

SciTech Connect

This document describes the US Department of Energy`s (DOE) Hanford Site environment and is numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is presented in Hanford Site NEPA related documents. The document is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many NEPA documents that are being prepared by contractors. The two chapters in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered this way to correspond to the chapters where such information is presented in environmental impact statements (EISs) and other Site-related NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes the Hanford Site environment, and includes information on climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological and historical resources, socioeconomics, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes applicable federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site.

Neitzel, D.A. [ed.] [ed.; Fosmire, C.J.; Fowler, R.A. [and others] [and others

1998-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

313

Use of Metering for Facility and Whole Building Energy Analysis by the U.S. Depratment of Energy Federal Energy Management Program  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

This paper details how the U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) is applying metering technology to conduct empirically based analyses o f energy use by federal agencies. Continuing developments in sensors, data acquisition systems, microcomputers and monitoring protocols are reducing the costs of metering to the point that it is becoming "too cheap not to meter" energy and the determinants of energy use at federal facilities . This has widespread consequence for FEMP if one accepts the axiom that "one can't manage what one doesn't measure." Several recently completed and ongoing activities being managed by Pacific Northwest laboratory for FEMP are highlighted in this paper. This includes the metering of energy end uses for a research laboratory building to support a shared energy savings contract, analysis of utility billing records, climate, and characteristics data for entire military bases to prioritize energy use testing requirements, and enhancements to simplified energy analysis tools to help federal energy decision-makers identify and evaluate cost-effective energy savings opportunities.

Devine, K. D.; Mazzucchi, R. P.

1989-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

314

Hanford | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Hanford Hanford Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant | December 2009 Aerial View Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant | December 2009 Aerial View The Hanford Site mission focuses on environmental restoration, waste management, related scientific and environmental research and development of radioactive waste management technologies. Under the Tri-Party Agreement, lower-level hazardous wastes are buried in huge lined pits that will be sealed and monitored with sophisticated instruments for many years. Enforcement September 13, 2012 Enforcement Letter,CH2M HILL Plateau - NEL-2012-02 Issued to CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company related to Radiological Work Control Deficiencies at the Plutonium Finishing Plant and 105 K-East

315

A Short History of Waste Management at the Hanford Site  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

"The world’s first full-scale nuclear reactors and chemical reprocessing plants built at the Hanford Site in the desert of eastern Washington State produced two-thirds of the plutonium generated in the United States for nuclear weapons. Operating these facilities also created large volumes of radioactive and chemical waste, some of which was released into the environment exposing people who lived downwind and downstream. Hanford now contains the largest accumulation of nuclear waste in the Western Hemisphere. Hanford’s last reactor shut down in 1987 followed by closure of the last reprocessing plant in 1990. Today, Hanford’s only mission is cleanup. Most onsite radioactive waste and nuclear material lingers inside underground tanks or storage facilities. About half of the chemical waste remains in tanks while the rest persists in the soil, groundwater, and burial grounds. Six million dollars each day, or nearly two billion dollars each year, are spent on waste management and cleanup activities. There is significant uncertainty in how long cleanup will take, how much it will cost, and what risks will remain for future generations. This paper summarizes portions of the waste management history of the Hanford Site published in the book “Hanford: A Conversation about Nuclear Waste and Cleanup.”(1) "

Gephart, Roy E.

2010-03-31T23:59:59.000Z

316

Facility effluent monitoring plan for 242-A evaporator facility  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

A facility effluent monitoring plan is required by the U.S. Department of Energy in DOE Order 5400.1 for any operations that involve hazardous materials and radioactive substances that could affect employee or public safety or the environment. A facility effluent monitoring plan determination was performed during Calendar Year 1991 and the evaluation showed the need for a facility effluent monitoring plan. This document is prepared using the specific guidelines identified in A Guide for Preparing Hanford Site Facility Effluent Monitoring Plans, WHC-EP-0438-1. This facility effluent monitoring plan assesses effluent monitoring systems and evaluates whether they are adequate to ensure the public health and safety as specified in applicable federal, state, and local requirements. This facility effluent monitoring plan shall ensure long-range integrity of the effluent monitoring systems by requiring an update whenever a new process or operation introduces new hazardous materials or significant radioactive materials. This document must be reviewed annually even if there are no operational changes, and it must be updated, as a minimum, every three years.

Crummel, G.M.; Gustavson, R.D.

1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

317

Local Scouts Train with Hanford Safety Experts - 52 Boy Scouts Earn Merit  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Local Scouts Train with Hanford Safety Experts - 52 Boy Scouts Earn Local Scouts Train with Hanford Safety Experts - 52 Boy Scouts Earn Merit Badges at the HAMMER Training Facility Local Scouts Train with Hanford Safety Experts - 52 Boy Scouts Earn Merit Badges at the HAMMER Training Facility June 19, 2013 - 12:00pm Addthis A Hanford site volunteer helps a Boy Scout practice the Pull, Aim, Squeeze, Sweep, or PASS, fire extinguishing technique at the Volpentest HAMMER Training & Education Center in Richland. A Hanford site volunteer helps a Boy Scout practice the Pull, Aim, Squeeze, Sweep, or PASS, fire extinguishing technique at the Volpentest HAMMER Training & Education Center in Richland. Hanford workers volunteered to educate local Boy Scouts about the importance of safety and other topics. Hanford workers volunteered to educate local Boy Scouts about the

318

Hanford Groundwater Contamination Areas Shrink as EM Exceeds Cleanup Goals  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Groundwater Contamination Areas Shrink as EM Exceeds Groundwater Contamination Areas Shrink as EM Exceeds Cleanup Goals Hanford Groundwater Contamination Areas Shrink as EM Exceeds Cleanup Goals June 26, 2013 - 12:00pm Addthis The 200 West Pump and Treat System is Hanford’s largest facility for treating contaminated groundwater. The 200 West Pump and Treat System is Hanford's largest facility for treating contaminated groundwater. A graphic showing the 200 West Pump and Treat plumes and well network. A graphic showing the 200 West Pump and Treat plumes and well network. The 200 West Pump and Treat System is Hanford's largest facility for treating contaminated groundwater. A graphic showing the 200 West Pump and Treat plumes and well network. RICHLAND, Wash. - Workers supporting groundwater cleanup for EM's

319

Hanford science and technology needs statements document  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This document is a compilation of the Hanford science and technology needs statements for FY 1998. The needs were developed by the Hanford Site Technology Coordination Group (STCG) with full participation and endorsement of site user organizations, stakeholders, and regulators. The purpose of this document is to: (a) provide a comprehensive listing of Hanford science and technology needs, and (b) identify partnering and commercialization opportunities with industry, other federal and state agencies, and the academic community. The Hanford STCG reviews and updates the needs annually. Once completed, the needs are communicated to DOE for use in the development and prioritization of their science and technology programs, including the Focus Areas, Cross-Cutting Programs, and the Environmental Management Science Program. The needs are also transmitted to DOE through the Accelerating Cleanup: 2006 Plan. The public may access the need statements on the Internet on: the Hanford Home Page (www.hanford.gov), the Pacific Rim Enterprise Center`s web site (www2.pacific-rim.org/pacific rim), or the STCG web site at DOE headquarters (em-52.em.doegov/ifd/stcg/stcg.htm). This page includes links to science and technology needs for many DOE sites. Private industry is encouraged to review the need statements and contact the Hanford STCG if they can provide technologies that meet these needs. On-site points of contact are included at the ends of each need statement. The Pacific Rim Enterprise Center (206-224-9934) can also provide assistance to businesses interested in marketing technologies to the DOE.

Piper, L.L.

1997-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

320

Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2005  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report, published annually since 1958, includes information and summary analytical data that (1) provide an overview of activities at the Hanford Site during calendar year 2005; (2) demonstrate the site's compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, executive orders, and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) policies and directives; (3) characterize Hanford Site environmental management performance; and (4) highlight significant environmental programs.

Poston, Ted M.; Hanf, Robert W.; Dirkes, Roger L.; Morasch, Launa F.

2006-09-28T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


321

Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2004  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This report, published annually since 1958, includes information and summary analytical data that (1) provide an overview of activities at the Hanford Site during calendar year 2003; (2) demonstrate the site's compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, executive orders, and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) policies and directives; (3) characterize Hanford Site environmental management performance; and (4) highlight significant environmental programs.

Poston, Ted M.; Hanf, Robert W.; Dirkes, Roger L.

2005-09-29T23:59:59.000Z

322

Hanford Site Groundwater Monitoring for Fiscal Year 2006  

SciTech Connect

This report presents the results of groundwater monitoring for FY 2006 on DOE's Hanford Site. Results of groundwater remediation, vadose zone monitoring, and characterization are summarized. DOE monitors groundwater at the Hanford Site to fulfill a variety of state and federal regulations, including the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and Washington Administrative Code (WAC).

Hartman, Mary J.; Morasch, Launa F.; Webber, William D.

2007-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

323

Data Packages in Hanford Site's Administrative Record (AR) and Public Information Repository (PIR)  

DOE Data Explorer (OSTI)

In 1989, the Department of Energy joined with the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in signing the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order more commonly known as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA). The TPA outlines legally enforceable milestones for Hanford cleanup over the next several decades. The AR is the body of documents and information that is considered or relied upon to arrive at a final decision for remedial action or hazardous waste management. An AR is established for each operable unit (OU); treatment, storage, or disposal unit (TSD); or Expedited Response Action (ERA) group and will contain all documents having information considered in arriving at a Record of Decision or permit. Documents become part of the AR after they have been designated as an AR by the TPA or after EPA, DOE, or other official parties have identified a document or set of documents for inclusion. Furthermore, AR documents are to be kept in a Public Information Repository (PIR).Thousands of data packages that support the AR documents are available to the public in the Hanford PIR.

324

1993 report on Hanford Site land disposal restrictions for mixed wastes  

SciTech Connect

Since the early 1940s, the contractors at the Hanford Site have been involved in the production and purification of nuclear defense materials. These production activities have resulted in the generation of large quantities of liquid and solid radioactive mixed waste (RMW). This waste is subject to regulation under authority of both the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976{sup 2}(RCRA) and Atomic Energy Act{sup 3}. This report covers mixed waste only. Hazardous waste that is not contaminated with radionuclides is not addressed in this report. The Washington State Department of Ecology, US Environmental Protection Agency, and US Department of Energy have entered into an agreement, the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order{sup 1} (commonly referred to as the Tri-Party Agreement) to bring the Hanford Site operations into compliance with dangerous waste regulations. The Tri-Party Agreement required development of the original land disposal restrictions (LDR) plan and its annual updates to comply with LDR requirements for RMW. This report is the third update of the plan first issued in 1990. The Tri-Party Agreement requires, and the baseline plan and annual update reports provide, the information that follows: Waste characterization information; storage data; treatment information; waste reduction information; schedule; and progress.

Black, D.

1993-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

325

Environmental Restoration Program quality system requirements for the Hanford Site. Revision 2  

SciTech Connect

This document defines the quality system requirements for the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Environmental Restoration Program at the Hanford Site. The Quality System Requirements (OSR) for the Hanford Site integrates quality assurance requirements from the US Department of Energy Orders, the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement), and applicable industry standards into a single source document for the development of quality systems applicable to the Environmental Restoration Program activities. This document, based on fifteen criteria and divided intro three parts, provides user organizations with the flexibility to incorporate only those criteria and parts applicable to their specific scopes of work. The requirements of this document shall be applied to activities that affect quality based on a graded approach that takes into consideration the risk inherent in, as well as the importance of, specific items, services, and activities in terms of meeting ER Program objectives and customer expectations. The individual quality systems developed in accordance with this document are intended to provide an integrated management control system that assures the conduct of ER Program activities in a manner that protects human health and the environment.

Cote, R.F.

1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

326

Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2008  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Hanford Site environmental report is prepared annually for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in accordance with regulatory requirements. The report provides an overview of activities at the Hanford Site; demonstrates the status of the site’s compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, executive orders, and DOE policies and directives; and summarizes environmental data that characterize Hanford Site environmental management performance. The report also highlights significant environmental and public protection programs and efforts. Some historical and early 2009 information is included where appropriate.

Poston, Ted M.; Duncan, Joanne P.; Dirkes, Roger L.

2009-09-15T23:59:59.000Z

327

Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2009  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Hanford Site environmental report is prepared annually for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in accordance with regulatory requirements. The report provides an overview of activities at the Hanford Site; demonstrates the status of the site’s compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, executive orders, and DOE policies and directives; and summarizes environmental data that characterize Hanford Site environmental management performance. The report also highlights significant environmental and public protection programs and efforts. Some historical and early 2010 information is included where appropriate.

Poston, Ted M.; Duncan, Joanne P.; Dirkes, Roger L.

2010-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

328

Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2010  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Hanford Site environmental report is prepared annually for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in accordance with regulatory requirements. The report provides an overview of activities at the Hanford Site; demonstrates the status of the site's compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, executive orders, and DOE policies and directives; and summarizes environmental data that characterize Hanford Site environmental management performance. The report also highlights significant environmental and public protection programs and efforts. Some historical and early 2011 information is included where appropriate.

Poston, Ted M.; Duncan, Joanne P.; Dirkes, Roger L.

2011-07-12T23:59:59.000Z

329

Washington Closure Hanford, LLC  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Neil Brosee President Washington Closure Hanford, LLC 2620 Fermi Avenue Richland, Washington 99354 WEA-201 0-02 Dear Mr. Brosee: This...

330

Implementation Plan for Liquid Low-Level Radioactive Waste tank systems at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under the Federal Facility Agreement, Oak Ridge, Tennessee  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This document summarizes the progress that has been made to date in implementing the plans and schedules for meeting the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) commitments for the Liquid Low-Level Waste (LLLW) System at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). These commitments were initially submitted in ES/ER-17&Dl, Federal Facility Agreement Plans and Schedules for Liquid Low-Level Radioactive Waste Tank Systems at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Information presented in this document provides a comprehensive summary to facilitate understanding of the FFA compliance program for LLLW tank systems and to present plans and schedules associated with remediation, through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process, of LLLW tank systems that have been removed from service. ORNL has a comprehensive program underway to upgrade the LLLW system as necessary to meet the FFA requirements. The tank systems that are removed from service are being investigated and remediated through the CERCLA process. Waste and risk characterizations have been submitted. Additional data will be prepared and submitted to EPA/TDEC as tanks are taken out of service and as required by the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) process. The plans and schedules for implementing the FFA compliance program that were submitted in ES/ER-17&Dl, Federal Facility Agreement Plans and Schedules for Liquid Low-Level Radioactive Waste tanks Systems at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, are updated in this document. Chapter 1 provides general background information and philosophies that lead to the plans and schedules that appear in Chaps. 2 through 5.

Not Available

1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

331

Consent Order, CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc. - EA-2000-09 | Department of  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

M Hill Hanford Group, Inc. - EA-2000-09 M Hill Hanford Group, Inc. - EA-2000-09 Consent Order, CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc. - EA-2000-09 July 25, 2000 Price-Anderson Enforcement Consent Order issued to CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc., related to Quality Problems at the Hanford Site Tank Farms, (EA-2000-09) This letter refers to the Department of Energy's (DOE) evaluation of an internal investigation conducted by CH2M Hill Group, Inc. (CHG) in February 2000. The investigation examined the facts and circumstances surrounding quality problems with the procurement of safety class piping for the W-314 Project at the Tank Farm Waste Remediation System. Consent Order, CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc. - EA-2000-09 More Documents & Publications Consent Order, Fluor Federal Services - EA-2000-10 Special Report Order, CH2M Hill Hanford Group, Inc. - October 22, 2001

332

Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework Completing the Office of River Protection (ORP) mission of stabilizing 56 million gallons of chemical and radioactive waste stored in Hanford's 177 tanks is one of the Energy Department's highest priorities. This Framework document outlines a phased approach for beginning tank waste treatment while continuing to resolve technical issues with the Pretreatment and High-Level Waste Facilities. Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework More Documents & Publications EIS-0391: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farm Program EIS-0356: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

333

Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework Completing the Office of River Protection (ORP) mission of stabilizing 56 million gallons of chemical and radioactive waste stored in Hanford's 177 tanks is one of the Energy Department's highest priorities. This Framework document outlines a phased approach for beginning tank waste treatment while continuing to resolve technical issues with the Pretreatment and High-Level Waste Facilities. Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, Treatment and Disposition Framework More Documents & Publications EIS-0391: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Waste Treatment Plant and Tank Farm Program EIS-0356: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

334

Independent Oversight Review, Hanford Tank Farms - November 2011 |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Review, Hanford Tank Farms - November 2011 Review, Hanford Tank Farms - November 2011 Independent Oversight Review, Hanford Tank Farms - November 2011 November 2011 Review of Hanford Tank Farms Safety Basis Amendment for Double-Shell Tank Ventilation System Upgrades The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Enforcement and Oversight, within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS), conducted an independent oversight review of the draft amendment to the Hanford Tank Farms safety basis for upgrading the double-shell tank (DST) primary tank ventilation (PTV) systems to safety-significant designation. The Tank Farms are Hazard Category 2 DOE nuclear facilities. The review was performed during the period July 25 - August 12, 2011 by the HSS Office of Enforcement and Oversight's Office of Safety and Emergency Management

335

Multiple missions: The 300 Area in Hanford Site history  

SciTech Connect

This report provides an historical overview of the role of the 300 Area buildings at the Hanford Reservation. Topics covered are: Early fuel fabrication at the Hanford site (313 and 314 Buildings); N reactor fuel fabrication in the 300 Area; 305 test pile was Hanford`s first operating reactor; Early process improvement chemical research (321 and 3706 Buildings); Major 1952 and 1953 expansions in the 300 area (325 and 329 Buildings); Early 300 area facilities constructed to support reactor development (326 and 327 Buildings); Hanford site ventures with the peaceful atom (309, 308 and 318 Buildings); Modern 300 Area Buildings; Significant miscellaneous buildings in the 300 area; 300 Area process waste handling and disposal.

Gerber, M.S.

1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

336

Hanford Site Air Operating Permit Application Supplemental Information [Sec 1 Thru 5] Vol 1 Thru 3 Appendices A Thru C  

SciTech Connect

This report documents radionuclide air emissions from the Hanford Site in 1998 and the resulting effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) member of the public. The report has been prepared in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61), Subpart H: ''National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities,'' and with the Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246247, Radiation Protection - Air Emissions. The federal regulations in 40 CFR 61, Subpart H, require the measurement and reporting of radionuclides emitted from Department of Energy facilities and the resulting offsite dose from those emissions. A standard of 10 mrem/yr effective dose equivalent (EDE) is imposed on them. The EDE to the MEI due to routine emissions in 1998 from Hanford Site point sources was 1.3 E-02 mrem (1.3 E-04 mSv). which is 0.13 percent of the federal standard. Chapter 246-247 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) requires the reporting of radionuclide emissions from all Department of Energy Hanford Site sources. The state has adopted into these regulations the 40 CFR 61 standard of 10 mrem/yr EDE. The EDE to the MEI attributable to diffuse and fugitive radionuclide air emissions from the Hanford Site in 1998 was 2.5 E-02 mrem (2.S E-04 mSv). This dose added to the dose from point sources gives a total for all sources of 3.8 E-02 mrem/yr (3.8 E-04 mSv) EDE. which is 0.38 percent of the 10 mrem/yr standard. An unplanned release on August 26, 1998, in the 300 Area of the Hanford Site resulted in a potential dose of 4.1 E-02 mrem to a hypothetical individual at the nearest point of public access to that area. This hypothetical individual was not the MEI since the wind direction on the day of the release was away from the MEI residence. The potential dose from the unplanned event was similar in magnitude to that from routine releases during 1998. Were the release from this unplanned event combined with routine releases, the total dose would be less than 1 percent of the 10 mrem/yr standard.

CURN, B.L.

2000-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

337

PERMIT ATTACHMENT DD Contingency Plan – Section 10 of the Permit Application; and Hanford Test and Demonstration Facility Contingency Plan – Appendix C of the Permit Application  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The following listed documents are hereby incorporated, in their entirety, by reference into this Permit. Some of the documents are excerpts from the Permittees ’ DBVS Facility Research, Development, and Demonstration Dangerous Waste Permit Application dated May 10, 2004 (document #04-TED-036); hereafter called the Permit Application. Ecology has, as deemed necessary, modified specific language in the attachments. These modifications are described in the permit conditions (Parts I through V), and thereby supersede the language of the attachment. These incorporated attachments are enforceable conditions of this Permit, as modified by the

unknown authors

2004-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

338

Summary of the HANFORD SITE  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

will be welded. Some Tri-Party Agreement milestones completed in 2002 were related to work on Hanford tanks. #12 paragraphs. Solid waste may originate from work on the Hanford Site or from sources offsite, with contributions from CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc.; S.M. Stoller Corporation; Fluor Hanford, Inc. and its

339

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Source Guide for the Hanford Site  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This Source Guide will assist those working with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to become more familiar with the environmental assessments (EA) and environmental impact statements (EIS) that apply to specific activities and facilities on the Hanford Site. This document should help answer questions concerning NEPA coverage, history, processes, and the status of many of the buildings and units on and related to the Hanford Site. This document summarizes relevant EAs and EISs by briefly outlining the proposed action of each document and the decision made by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) or its predecessor agencies, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA). The summary includes the proposed action alternatives and current status of the proposed action. If a decision officially was stated by the DOE, as in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or a record of decision (ROD), and the decision was located, a summary is provided. Not all federal decisions, such as FONSIs and RODs, can be found in the Federal Register (FR). For example, although significant large-action FONSIs can be found in the FR, some low-interest FONSIs might have been published elsewhere (i.e., local newspapers).

JANSKY, M.T.

2000-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

340

Radionuclide air emissions report for the Hanford Site -- calendar year 1997  

SciTech Connect

This report documents radionuclide air emission from the Hanford Site in 1997, and the resulting effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed member of the public, referred to as the MEI. The report has been prepared in accordance with reporting requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities. This report has also been prepared in accordance with the reporting requirements of the Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246-247, Radiation Protection-Air Emissions. The effective dose equivalent to the MEI from the Hanford Site`s 1997 point source emissions was 1.2 E-03 mrem (1.2 E-05 mSv), which is well below the 40 CFR 61 Subpart H regulatory limit of 10 mrem/yr. Radon and thoron emissions, exempted from 40 CFR 61 Subpart H, resulted in an effective dose equivalent to the MEI of 2.5 E-03 mrem (2.5 E-05 mSv). The effective dose equivalent to the MEI attributable to diffuse and fugitive emissions was 2.2 E-02 mrem (2.2 E-04 mSv). The total effective dose equivalent from all of the Hanford Site`s air emissions was 2.6 E-02 mrem (2.6 E-04 mSv). The effective dose equivalent from all of the Hanford Site`s air emissions is well below the Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 246-247, regulatory limit of 10 mrem/yr.

Gleckler, B.P.; Rhoads, K.

1998-06-17T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


341

New Resin Improves Efficiency, Reduces Costs in Hanford Site Groundwater  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Resin Improves Efficiency, Reduces Costs in Hanford Site Resin Improves Efficiency, Reduces Costs in Hanford Site Groundwater Treatment New Resin Improves Efficiency, Reduces Costs in Hanford Site Groundwater Treatment March 1, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis RICHLAND, Wash. - A new resin EM, the Richland Operations Office, and contractor CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company are using in contaminated groundwater treatment is expected to increase efficiency and reduce costs in the operation of pump-and-treat facilities along the Columbia River at the Hanford site. The higher performance resin, SIR-700, is expected to reduce DOE's estimated operation and maintenance costs over the lifetime of the 100-DX Groundwater Treatment Facility by approximately $20 million. In comparison to this expected cost savings, the construction cost for the treatment

342

Workers Complete Demolition of Hanford's Historic Plutonium Vaults |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Workers Complete Demolition of Hanford's Historic Plutonium Workers Complete Demolition of Hanford's Historic Plutonium Vaults Workers Complete Demolition of Hanford's Historic Plutonium Vaults April 1, 2012 - 12:00pm Addthis RICHLAND, Wash. - The Richland Operations Office and contractor CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company this month completed demolition of a large plutonium vault complex, formerly one of the highest security facilities at the Hanford site. "This project was a joint safety success between our workers who spent months cleaning out the facilities, the demolition crews who tore the buildings down and the crews who helped remove the waste for disposal. It took teamwork and cooperation to remove the complex safely and efficiently," said Ty Blackford, CH2M HILL Vice President of Decommissioning, Waste, Fuels and Remediation Services.

343

Independent Oversight Review, Hanford Tank Farms - December 2012 |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

December 2012 December 2012 Independent Oversight Review, Hanford Tank Farms - December 2012 December 2012 Review of the Hanford Tank Farms Radiological Controls Activity-Level Implementation This report documents an independent review by the Office of Enforcement and Oversight (Independent Oversight) within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) of radiological protection program (RPP) activity-level implementation at the Hanford Tank Farms. The review was performed by the HSS Office of Safety and Emergency Management Evaluations. The purpose of this Independent Oversight targeted review effort is to evaluate the flowdown of occupational radiation protection requirements, as expressed in facility RPPs, to work planning, control, and execution processes, such as

344

Hanford Needs Assessment | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Needs Assessment Hanford Needs Assessment July 1997 This Needs Assessment for former Hanford construction workers was developed for the purpose of collecting existing...

345

Independent Oversight Review, Hanford K Basin and Cold Vacuum Drying  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

K Basin and Cold Vacuum K Basin and Cold Vacuum Drying Facility - August 2012 Independent Oversight Review, Hanford K Basin and Cold Vacuum Drying Facility - August 2012 August 2012 Review of Hanford K Basin and Cold Vacuum Drying Facility Found Fuel Multi-Canister Overpack Operations The purpose of this independent oversight review by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Enforcement and Oversight (Independent Oversight), within the Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) was to observe the operations associated with processing a Multi-Canister Overpack (MCO) of "found fuel" (small quantities of spent fuel discovered during cleanup of the reactor burial grounds) at the Cold Vacuum Drying Facility (CVDF). The found fuel MCO was transported from the K West Basin on the Hanford

346

Outcome-Based Planning-Hanford's Shift Towards Closure and Shrinking the Hanford Site  

SciTech Connect

Over the past two years, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Richland Operations Office (RL) has formulated a focused, outcomes-based vision for accelerated cleanup of the Hanford Site. The primary elements, or outcomes, of this vision are to (1) accelerate restoration of the Columbia River Corridor, (2) transition the Central Plateau to long-term waste management, thereby shrinking the footprint of active site cleanup and operations, and (3) prepare for the future. The third outcome includes operation of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), a key element of the foundation for Hanford's future; leveraging DOE's assets; and working with the community to understand their vision and reflect it as appropriate in the execution of the Hanford 2012 Vision. The purpose of these three outcomes is to provide a near term focus, aimed at achieving definitive end points over the next decade, while not precluding any long-term end-state associated with the completion of the Environmental Management (EM) mission at Hanford. The sheer expanse of the Hanford Site, the inherent hazards associated with the significant inventory of nuclear materials and wastes, the large number of aging contaminated facilities, the diverse nature and extent of environmental contamination, and the proximity to the Columbia River make the Hanford Site arguably the world's largest and most complex environmental cleanup project. Current projections are that it will cost over $80 billion and take over four decades to complete the cleanup at Hanford. Accelerated cleanup of the River Corridor portion of the Site will allow the remediation effort to focus on specific, near-term outcomes. Hanford's success in achieving these outcomes will reduce urgent risk, shrink the Site, remove contamination and wastes from the proximity of the river, and consolidate waste management activities on the Central Plateau. Hanford has begun implementation of this vision. Performance-based contracts are being realigned to reflect the outcome orientation, including issuing a new River Corridor closure contract. This paper summarizes the outcome-based planning approach for other sites and interested parties. A brief introduction to the Hanford Site, along with detailed descriptions of the three outcomes is provided. This paper also summarizes the analyses and resulting products that were prepared in shifting to an outcome-based approach for closing the Hanford Site.

Ballard, W. W.; Holten, R.; Johnson, W.; Reichmuth, B.; White, M.; Wood, T.

2002-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

347

HANFORD RECORDS ARE MOVING INTO THEIR NEW HOME! | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

HANFORD RECORDS ARE MOVING INTO THEIR NEW HOME! HANFORD RECORDS ARE MOVING INTO THEIR NEW HOME! HANFORD RECORDS ARE MOVING INTO THEIR NEW HOME! January 3, 2011 - 12:00pm Addthis HANFORD RECORDS ARE MOVING INTO THEIR NEW HOME! Hanford, WA - As a result of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) records storage requirement for a 2 hour fire rated records storage building, a team comprised of DOE/Mission Support Alliance, LLC (MSA) members was formed to identify the path forward. This team looked at many alternatives and determined that a newly constructed records storage facility with a 2 hour fire rating was the best option. Also, the new facility needed to meet the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), NQA-1 and OCRWM record's storage facility requirements. The newly constructed records storage facility (+12,000 sq.ft) with a

348

Massive Hanford Test Reactor Removed- Plutonium Recycle Test Reactor removed from Hanford’s 300 Area  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

RICHLAND, WA – Hanford’s River Corridor contractor, Washington Closure Hanford, has met a significant cleanup challenge on the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Hanford Site by removing a 1,082-ton nuclear test reactor from the 300 Area.

349

Hanford cultural resources management plan  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

As a federal agency, the US Department of Energy (DOE) has been directed by Congress and the President to provide leadership in the preservation of prehistoric, historical, and cultural resources on lands it administers, to manage these in a spirit of stewardship for future generations, and to protect and preserve the rights of Native Americans to religious freedom. The purpose of this document is to describe how the DOE-Richland Operations (DOE-RL) will meet those responsibilities on the Hanford Site, pursuant to guidelines for Agency Responsibilities under the Historic Preservation Act (FR 53:31, February 17, 1988). This document is intended for multiple uses. Among other things, the text is designed as a manual for cultural resource managers to follow and as an explanation of the process of cultural resource regulatory compliance for the DOE-RL and Site contractors. 10 refs., 17 figs., 11 tabs.

Chatters, J.C. (ed.)

1989-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

350

Registration Starts Soon for 2013 Hanford Site Public Tours | Department of  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Registration Starts Soon for 2013 Hanford Site Public Tours Registration Starts Soon for 2013 Hanford Site Public Tours Registration Starts Soon for 2013 Hanford Site Public Tours February 25, 2013 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contact Cameron Salony, DOE Cameron.Salony@rl.doe.gov 509-376-0402 RICHLAND, Wash. - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will open online registration on March 4 at 6 p.m. for tours of the Hanford Site in 2013. This driving tour of the site includes stops at the B Reactor National Historic Landmark, Cold Test Facility, Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility and the Plutonium Finishing Plant. All tour slots are filled on a first-come first served basis through the online registration system found on the Hanford website http://www5.hanford.gov/publictours/. Tour participants must be U.S. citizens and at least 18 years of age.

351

Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 9  

SciTech Connect

This ninth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Chapters 4 and 6 in Hanford Site-related NEPA documents. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) includes information on climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological and historical resources, socioeconomics, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE directives and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site. Not all of the sections have been updated for this revision. The following lists the updated sections: climate and meteorology; ecology (threatened and endangered species section only); culture, archaeological, and historical resources; socioeconomics; all of Chapter 6.

Neitzel, D.A. [ed.] [ed.; Bjornstad, B.N.; Fosmire, C.J. [and others] [and others

1997-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

352

Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization. Revision 5  

SciTech Connect

This fifth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. Information is presented on climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels, prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff. Models are described that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclide transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. Federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable for the NEPA documents at the Hanford Site, are provided.

Cushing, C.E. [ed.] [ed.

1992-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

353

Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This fifth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. Information is presented on climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels, prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff. Models are described that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclide transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. Federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable for the NEPA documents at the Hanford Site, are provided.

Cushing, C.E. (ed.) [ed.

1992-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

354

Hanford Cultural Resources Laboratory annual report for fiscal year 1994  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford Site occupies 560 sq. miles of land along the Columbia River in SE Washington. The Hanford Reach of the river is one of the most archaeologically rich areas in the western Columbia Plateau. To manage the Hanford Site`s archaeological, historical, and cultural resources, the Hanford Cultural Resources Laboratory (HCRL) was established in 1987. HCRL ensures DOE complies with federal statutes, regulations, and guidelines. In FY 1994, HCRL conducted cultural resource reviews, conducted programs to identify and monitor historic and archaeological sites, etc. HCRL staff conducted 511 reviews, 29 of which required archaeological surveys and 10 of which required building documentation. Six prehistoric sites, 23 historic sites, one paleontological site, and two sites with historic and prehistoric components were discovered.

Nickens, P.R.; Wright, M.K.; Cadoret, N.A.; Dawson, M.V.; Harvey, D.W.; Simpson, E.M.

1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

355

RADIOACTIVE DEMONSTRATIONS OF FLUIDIZED BED STEAM REFORMING WITH ACUTAL HANFORD LOW ACTIVITY WASTES VERIFYING FBSR AS A SUPPLEMENTARY TREATMENT  

SciTech Connect

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of River Protection is responsible for the retrieval, treatment, immobilization, and disposal of Hanford's tank waste. Currently there are approximately 56 million gallons of highly radioactive mixed wastes awaiting treatment. A key aspect of the River Protection Project cleanup mission is to construct and operate the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The WTP will separate the tank waste into high-level waste (HLW) and low-activity waste (LAW) fractions, both of which will subsequently be vitrified. The projected throughput capacity of the WTP LAW Vitrification Facility is insufficient to complete the cleanup mission in the time frame required by the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, also known as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA). Therefore, Supplemental Treatment is required both to meet the TPA treatment requirements as well as to more cost effectively complete the tank waste treatment mission. Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) is one of the supplementary treatments being considered. FBSR offers a moderate temperature (700-750 C) continuous method by which LAW and other secondary wastes can be processed irrespective of whether they contain organics, nitrates/nitrites, sulfates/sulfides, chlorides, fluorides, and/or radio-nuclides like I-129 and Tc-99. Radioactive testing of Savannah River LAW (Tank 50) shimmed to resemble Hanford LAW and actual Hanford LAW (SX-105 and AN-103) have produced a ceramic (mineral) waste form which is the same as the non-radioactive waste simulants tested at the engineering scale. The radioactive testing demonstrated that the FBSR process can retain the volatile radioactive components that cannot be contained at vitrification temperatures. The radioactive and nonradioactive mineral waste forms that were produced by co-processing waste with kaolin clay in an FBSR process are shown to be as durable as LAW glass.

Jantzen, C.; Crawford, C.; Burket, P.; Bannochie, C.; Daniel, G.; Nash, C.; Cozzi, A.; Herman, C.

2012-01-12T23:59:59.000Z

356

Hanford ETR - Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford Tank  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

- Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - - Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Technical Review - Estimate at Completion (Cost) Report Hanford ETR - Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Technical Review - Estimate at Completion (Cost) Report This is a comprehensive review ofthe Hanford WTP estimate at completion - assessing the project scope, contract requirements, management execution plant, schedule, cost estimates, and risks. Hanford ETR - Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Technical Review - Estimate at Completion (Cost) Report More Documents & Publications TBH-0042 - In the Matter of Curtis Hall

357

Kitchen Appliance Upgrades Improve Water Efficiency at DOD Exchange Facilities: Best Management Practice Case Study #11: Commercial Kitchen Equipment (Brochure), Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

kitchens are often forgotten when people kitchens are often forgotten when people begin to think about performing water audits. Kitchens can be out of sight, out of mind; a commercial kitchen, however, can consume large amounts of water and energy if inefficient appliances are installed. The Exchange, formerly the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), is taking a leadership role in water efficiency improvements in their commercial kitchens by integrating water efficiency concepts into the organization's overall sustainability plan and objectives. The Exchange is a joint military activity, the U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD) oldest and largest retailer. The Exchange provides merchandise and services to military personnel, operating more than 3,100 facilities FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

358

Kitchen Appliance Upgrades Improve Water Efficiency at DOD Exchange Facilities: Best Management Practice Case Study #11: Commercial Kitchen Equipment (Brochure), Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

kitchens are often forgotten when people kitchens are often forgotten when people begin to think about performing water audits. Kitchens can be out of sight, out of mind; a commercial kitchen, however, can consume large amounts of water and energy if inefficient appliances are installed. The Exchange, formerly the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), is taking a leadership role in water efficiency improvements in their commercial kitchens by integrating water efficiency concepts into the organization's overall sustainability plan and objectives. The Exchange is a joint military activity, the U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD) oldest and largest retailer. The Exchange provides merchandise and services to military personnel, operating more than 3,100 facilities FEDERAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

359

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WIPP PERMIT MODIFICATION AT THE HANFORD TRANSURANIC (TRU) PROGRAM  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Hanford is one of the Department of Energy's sites that ships transuranic (TRU) waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). WIPP's revised Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, granted by the State of New Mexico, required Hanford's TRU Program to make substantial changes to its process for certifying and shipping waste. This paper presents the extent of the changes to WIPP's permit and describes the way Hanford addressed the new requirements.

MCDONALD KM

2007-11-21T23:59:59.000Z

360

Federal Facility Agreement plans and schedules for liquid low-level radioactive waste tank systems at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) requires a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) for federal facilities placed on the National Priorities List. The Oak Ridge Reservation was placed on that list on December 21, 1989, and the agreement was signed in November 1991 by the Department of Energy Oak Ridge Field Office (DOE-OR), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-Region IV, and the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). The effective date of the FFA was January 1, 1992. Section 9 and Appendix F of the agreement impose design and operating requirements on the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) liquid low-level radioactive waste (LLLW) tank systems and identify several plans, schedules, and assessments that must be submitted to EPA/TDEC for review or approval. The initial issue of this document in March 1992 transmitted to EPA/TDEC those plans and schedules that were required within 60 to 90 days of the FFA effective date. The current revision of this document updates the plans, schedules, and strategy for achieving compliance with the FFA, and it summarizes the progress that has been made over the past year. Chapter 1 describes the history and operation of the ORNL LLLW System, the objectives of the FFA, the organization that has been established to bring the system into compliance, and the plans for achieving compliance. Chapters 2 through 7 of this report contain the updated plans and schedules for meeting FFA requirements. This document will continue to be periodically reassessed and refined to reflect newly developed information and progress.

Not Available

1993-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


361

SUPPLEMENTAL COLUMBIA RIVER PROTECTION ACTIVITIES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY HANFORD SITE: 2006 TECHNICAL PEER REVIEW  

SciTech Connect

Prompted by a $10 million Congressional allocation to identify supplemental actions to protect the Columbia River from groundwater contamination beneath the Hanford Reservation, the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) Office of Clean-up Technology identified twenty-three potential technical projects and then down-selected ten of these for further evaluation. An independent expert peer review was conducted for the ten down-selected proposals. The review panel consisted of twenty-three recognized subject matter experts that broadly represented academia, industry, and federal laboratories. Of the initial ten proposals reviewed, one was given unconditional support, six were given conditional support, and three were not supported as proposed. Three additional proposals were then submitted by DOE for review--these proposals were structured, in part, to respond to the initial round of technical peer review comments. Peer reviews of these additional proposals provided conditional support. For those proposals that received conditional support, DOE requested specific implementation and work plans and assessed whether the plans adequately addressed the technical conditions identified by the review panel. The final list of technology proposals receiving support, or conditional support, primarily focused on understanding and reducing the potential impacts of uranium, chromium, and strontium from facilities adjacent to the Columbia River, with a secondary focus on understanding and limiting the future Columbia River impacts from the large carbon tetrachloride groundwater plume underlying and downgradient of the Hanford Central Plateau facilities. The results and recommendations of the peer reviews informed the final DOE project selections and supported implementation of the selected projects to protect the Columbia River and address groundwater contamination at Hanford.

Looney, B; Dawn Kaback; Gene Leboeuf; Jason Mulvihill-Kuntz; Lynn Lefkoff

2006-12-20T23:59:59.000Z

362

Annual Hanford Seismic Report for Fiscal Year 2008  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford Seismic Assessment Program (HSAP) provides an uninterrupted collection of high-quality raw and processed seismic data from the Hanford Seismic Network for the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors. The HSAP is responsible for locating and identifying sources of seismic activity and monitoring changes in the historical pattern of seismic activity at the Hanford Site. The data are compiled, archived, and published for use by the Hanford Site for waste management, natural phenomena hazards assessments, and engineering design and construction. In addition, the HSAP works with the Hanford Site Emergency Services Organization to provide assistance in the event of a significant earthquake on the Hanford Site. The Hanford Seismic Network and the Eastern Washington Regional Network consist of 44 individual sensor sites and 15 radio relay sites maintained by the Hanford Seismic Assessment Team. During fiscal year 2008, the Hanford Seismic Network recorded 1431 triggers on the seismometer system, which included 112 seismic events in the southeast Washington area and an additional 422 regional and teleseismic events. There were 74 events determined to be local earthquakes relevant to the Hanford Site. The highest-magnitude event (3.7 Mc) occurred on May 18, 2008, and was located approximately 17 km east of Prosser at a depth of 20.5 km. With regard to the depth distribution, 13 earthquakes were located at shallow depths (less than 4 km, most likely in the Columbia River basalts), 45 earthquakes were located at intermediate depths (between 4 and 9 km, most likely in the pre-basalt sediments), and 16 earthquakes were located at depths greater than 9 km, within the crystalline basement. Geographically, 54 earthquakes were located in swarm areas and 20 earthquakes were classified as random events. The May 18 earthquake was the highest magnitude event recorded since 1975 in the vicinity of the Hanford Site (between 46 degrees and 47 degrees north latitude and 119 degrees and 120 degrees west longitude). The event was not reported as being felt on the Hanford Site or causing any damage and was communicated to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Operations Center per HSAP communi¬cations procedures. The event is not considered to be significant with regard to site safety and not unprecedented given the site’s seismic history. The Hanford strong motion accelerometer (SMA) stations at the 200 East Area, 300 Area, and 400 Area were triggered by the May 18 event. The maximum acceleration recorded at the SMA stations (0.17% at the 300 Area) was 12 times smaller than the reportable action level (2% g) for Hanford Site facilities.

Rohay, Alan C.; Sweeney, Mark D.; Hartshorn, Donald C.; Clayton, Ray E.; Devary, Joseph L.

2008-12-29T23:59:59.000Z

363

Management of Hanford Site non-defense production reactor spent nuclear fuel, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington  

SciTech Connect

The US Department of Energy (DOE) needs to provide radiologically, and industrially safe and cost-effective management of the non-defense production reactor spent nuclear fuel (SNF) at the Hanford Site. The proposed action would place the Hanford Site`s non-defense production reactor SNF in a radiologically- and industrially-safe, and passive storage condition pending final disposition. The proposed action would also reduce operational costs associated with storage of the non-defense production reactor SNF through consolidation of the SNF and through use of passive rather than active storage systems. Environmental, safety and health vulnerabilities associated with existing non-defense production reactor SNF storage facilities have been identified. DOE has determined that additional activities are required to consolidate non-defense production reactor SNF management activities at the Hanford Site, including cost-effective and safe interim storage, prior to final disposition, to enable deactivation of facilities where the SNF is now stored. Cost-effectiveness would be realized: through reduced operational costs associated with passive rather than active storage systems; removal of SNF from areas undergoing deactivation as part of the Hanford Site remediation effort; and eliminating the need to duplicate future transloading facilities at the 200 and 400 Areas. Radiologically- and industrially-safe storage would be enhanced through: (1) removal from aging facilities requiring substantial upgrades to continue safe storage; (2) utilization of passive rather than active storage systems for SNF; and (3) removal of SNF from some storage containers which have a limited remaining design life. No substantial increase in Hanford Site environmental impacts would be expected from the proposed action. Environmental impacts from postulated accident scenarios also were evaluated, and indicated that the risks associated with the proposed action would be small.

1997-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

364

Hanford Site Celebrates National Native American Heritage Month with  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Site Celebrates National Native American Heritage Month Site Celebrates National Native American Heritage Month with Educational Workshops Hanford Site Celebrates National Native American Heritage Month with Educational Workshops November 28, 2012 - 12:23pm Addthis *Editor's Note: This article was originally posted in the Office of Environmental Management's EM Update, Volume 4, Issue 11, November 2012. RICHLAND, Wash. - Each November, in honor of Native American Heritage Month, the Richland Operations Office at the Hanford site offers educational programs on local Native American topics for federal and contractor employees. The Energy Department interacts and consults with three federally recognized tribes affected by Hanford operations, including the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes

365

Hanford Identification (HID) PIA, Richland Operations Office...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Identification (HID) PIA, Richland Operations Office Hanford Identification (HID) PIA, Richland Operations Office Hanford Identification (HID) PIA, Richland Operations Office...

366

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

SciTech Connect

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

WESTRA, A.G.

1999-06-24T23:59:59.000Z

367

Federal Energy Management Program: Federal Facility Consolidated...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

in the appropriate prior year Data Report. This is because these years are to use the eGRID 2007 and eGRID 2010 factors for electricity emissions embedded in those workbooks. FY...

368

Federal Energy Management Program: Greening Federal Facilities...  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

(PDF 158 KB) 5.4.5 Exterior Lighting (PDF 180 KB) 5.5 Office, Food Service, and Laundry Equipment (PDF 176 KB) 5.5.1 Office Equipment (PDF 220 KB) 5.5.2 Food ServiceLaundry...

369

AUTOMATING GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AT HANFORD  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Until this past October, Fluor Hanford managed Hanford's integrated groundwater program for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). With the new contract awards at the Site, however, the CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) has assumed responsibility for the groundwater-monitoring programs at the 586-square-mile reservation in southeastern Washington State. These programs are regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The purpose of monitoring is to track existing groundwater contamination from past practices, as well as other potential contamination that might originate from RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities. An integral part of the groundwater-monitoring program involves taking samples of the groundwater and measuring the water levels in wells scattered across the site. More than 1,200 wells are sampled each year. Historically, field personnel or 'samplers' have been issued pre-printed forms that have information about the well(s) for a particular sampling evolution. This information is taken from the Hanford Well Information System (HWIS) and the Hanford Environmental Information System (HEIS)--official electronic databases. The samplers used these hardcopy forms to document the groundwater samples and well water-levels. After recording the entries in the field, the samplers turned the forms in at the end of the day and the collected information was posted onto a spreadsheet that was then printed and included in a log book. The log book was then used to make manual entries of the new information into the software application(s) for the HEIS and HWIS databases. This is a pilot project for automating this tedious process by providing an electronic tool for automating water-level measurements and groundwater field-sampling activities. The automation will eliminate the manual forms and associated data entry, improve the accuracy of the information recorded, and enhance the efficiency and sampling capacity of field personnel. The goal of the effort is to eliminate 100 percent of the manual input to the database(s) and replace the management of paperwork by the field and clerical personnel with an almost entirely electronic process. These activities will include the following: scheduling the activities of the field teams, electronically recording water-level measurements, electronically logging and filing Groundwater Sampling Reports (GSR), and transferring field forms into the site-wide Integrated Document Management System (IDMS).

CONNELL CW; HILDEBRAND RD; CONLEY SF; CUNNINGHAM DE

2009-01-16T23:59:59.000Z

370

Environmental Solutions FY05: PNNL Contributions to Bechtel Hanford, Inc.  

SciTech Connect

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory provided support to Bechtel Hanford, Inc., for their work to safely demolish nuclear facilities and clean up waste sites near the Columbia River. During FY05, PNNL screened a variety of technologies to solve difficult problems. The danger of lung-scarring beryllium becoming airborne during the demolition of a nuclear fuel rod fabrication plant was addressed. For Bechtel Hanford, PNNL researchers extensively screened technologies and supported field testing of selected options. Assisted by the Laboratory's information, Bechtel Hanford staff razed the 76,000-square-feet facility near the Columbia River with no release of airborne beryllium. Removing large tanks and other equipment containing highly radioactive material from the 107-N facility continued to present challenges. The facility housed the filtration equipment for N Reactor's fuel storage basin. In FY05, PNNL identified and reviewed retrieval technologies. This work built on the evaluation criteria PNNL staff developed in FY04. In support of Bechtel Hanford's work to remediate and close the 618-7 burial ground, PNNL researchers evaluated remote technologies to characterize the waste drums as they are retrieved. One objective is to identify any drums containing Zircaloy, a zirconium alloy that can catch on fire when exposed to certain conditions. To assist in safely retrieving, treating, and disposing of spent nuclear fuel decladding waste in the 116-C-3 tank, PNNL identified and reviewed waste characterization, retrieval, and treatment technologies. This information was used by Bechtel Hanford staff as part of their engineering study of the situation.

Truex, Michael J.; Manke, Kristin L.

2005-12-15T23:59:59.000Z

371

Remote System Technologies for Deactivating Hanford Hot Cells  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Remote system technologies are being deployed by Fluor Hanford to help accelerate the deactivation of highly-radioactive hot cell facilities. These technologies offer improved methods for accessing difficult-to-reach spaces and performing tasks such as visual inspection, radiological characterization, decontamination, waste handling, and size reduction. This paper is focused on the application of remote systems in support of deactivation work being performed in several legacy facilities at Hanford (i.e., the 324 and 327 Buildings). These facilities were previously used for fuel fabrication, materials examination, and the development of waste treatment processes. The technologies described in this paper represent significant improvements to Hanford's baseline methods, and may offer benefits to other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites and commercial operations.

Berlin, G.; Walton, T.

2003-02-25T23:59:59.000Z

372

Radionuclide air emissions report for the Hanford site calendar year 1995  

SciTech Connect

This report documents radionuclide air emissions from the Hanford Site in 1995, and the resulting effective dose equivalent (FDE) to the maximally exposed member of the public, referred to as the `MEI.` The report has been prepared and will be submitted in accordance with reporting requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, `National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,` Subpart H, `National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities.` This report has also been prepared for and will be submitted in accordance with the reporting requirements of the Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246-247, `Radiation Protection-Air Emissions.`

Gleckler, B.P., Westinghouse Hanford

1996-06-26T23:59:59.000Z

373

Hanford Site Treating Record Amount of Contaminated Groundwater |  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Site Treating Record Amount of Contaminated Groundwater Hanford Site Treating Record Amount of Contaminated Groundwater Hanford Site Treating Record Amount of Contaminated Groundwater July 15, 2013 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contacts Geoff Tyree, DOE (509) 376-4171 Geoffrey.Tyree@rl.doe.gov Tania Reyes, CHPRC (509) 373-6828 Tania_Reyes@rl.gov Department of Energy goal for fiscal year 2013 met early Note: Photos and graphics are available for downloading on our website link: http://ow.ly/mO5cT RICHLAND, Wash. - U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contractor CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CH2M HILL) has exceeded this year's goal for treating 1.4 billion gallons of contaminated groundwater at the Hanford Site in Washington state. "In the last few years, DOE built three new groundwater treatment facilities, and now we are seeing the results," said Briant Charboneau,

374

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

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

391: Hanford Tank Closure and Waste Management, Richland, 391: Hanford Tank Closure and Waste Management, Richland, Washington EIS-0391: Hanford Tank Closure and Waste Management, Richland, Washington Summary This EIS evaluates the environmental impacts for the following three key areas: (1) retrieval, treatment, and disposal of waste from 149 single-shell tanks (SSTs) and 28 double-shell tanks and closure of the SST system, (2) decommissioning of the Fast Flux Test Facility, a nuclear test reactor, and (3) disposal of Hanford's waste and other DOE sites' low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste. Public Comment Opportunities No public comment opportunities available at this time. Documents Available for Download December 13, 2013 EIS-0391: Record of Decision Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for

375

Risk management program for the 283-W water treatment facility  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This Risk Management (RM) Program covers the 283-W Water Treatment Facility (283W Facility), located in the 200 West Area of the Hanford Site. A RM Program is necessary for this facility because it stores chlorine, a listed substance, in excess of or has the potential to exceed the threshold quantities defined in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 68 (EPA, 1998). The RM Program contains data that will be used to prepare a RM Plan, which is required by 40 CFR 68. The RM Plan is a summary of the RM Program information, contained within this document, and will be submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ultimately for distribution to the public. The RM Plan will be prepared and submitted separately from this document.

GREEN, W.E.

1999-05-11T23:59:59.000Z

376

Performance Assessment Scoping - Hanford Example  

Performance Assessment Scoping - Hanford Example Linda Suttora Office of Environmental Compliance DOE-HQ Waste Processing Technical Exchange 2010

377

Hanford Waste Tank Plant PIA, Richland Operations Office | Department...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Hanford Waste Tank Plant PIA, Richland Operations Office Hanford Waste Tank Plant PIA, Richland Operations Office Hanford Waste Tank Plant PIA, Richland Operations Office Hanford...

378

Summary of the HANFORD SITE  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

milestones completed in 2003 were related to work on Hanford waste storage tanks. During 2003, there were 36Summary of the HANFORD SITE Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2003 EDITORS R.W. HANF L Northwest National Laboratory under contract DE-AC06-76RL01830, with contributions from Bechtel Hanford, Inc

379

Federal Energy Management Program: Energy Independence and Security Act,  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Energy Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 432: Federal Facility Management and Benchmarking Requirements to someone by E-mail Share Federal Energy Management Program: Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 432: Federal Facility Management and Benchmarking Requirements on Facebook Tweet about Federal Energy Management Program: Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 432: Federal Facility Management and Benchmarking Requirements on Twitter Bookmark Federal Energy Management Program: Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 432: Federal Facility Management and Benchmarking Requirements on Google Bookmark Federal Energy Management Program: Energy Independence and Security Act, Section 432: Federal Facility Management and Benchmarking Requirements on Delicious

380

Coordination of Federal Transmission Permitting on Federal Lands (216(h)) |  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Coordination of Federal Transmission Permitting on Federal Lands (216(h)) Coordination of Federal Transmission Permitting on Federal Lands (216(h)) Coordination of Federal Transmission Permitting on Federal Lands (216(h)) On October 23, 2009, the Department of Energy and eight other Federal agencies entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to improve coordination among project applicants, federal agencies, states and tribes involved in the siting and permitting process for electric transmission facilities on Federal land. The MOU will improve uniformity, consistency, and transparency by describing each entity's role and responsibilities when project applicants wish to build electric transmission facilities. Additionally, the MOU designates a "Lead Agency" serving as the single point-of-contact for coordinating all federal environmental reviews

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


381

Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 7  

SciTech Connect

This seventh revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. Chapter 4.0 summarizes up-to-date information on climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, environmental monitoring, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff. More detailed data are available from reference sources cited or from the authors. Chapter 5.0 was not updated from the sixth revision (1994). It describes models, including their principal underlying assumptions, that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclide transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. The updated Chapter 6.0 provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE Orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site, following the structure of Chapter 4.0. No conclusions or recommendations are given in this report. Rather, it is a compilation of information on the Hanford Site environment that can be used directly by Site contractors. This information can also be used by any interested individual seeking baseline data on the Hanford Site and its past activities by which to evaluate projected activities and their impacts.

Cushing, C.E. [ed.] ed.; Baker, D.A.; Chamness, M.A. [and others] and others

1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

382

Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 8  

SciTech Connect

This eighth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Chapters 4 and 6 in Hanford Site-related NEPA documents. Chapter 4 (Affected Environment) includes information on climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, historical, archaeological and cultural resources, socioeconomics, and noise. Chapter 6 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE directives and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site. The following sections were updated in this revision: climate and meteorology; ecology (threatened and endangered species section only); historical; archaeological and cultural resources; and all of chapter 6. No conclusions or recommendations are given in this report. Rather, it is a compilation of information on the Hanford Site environment that can be used directly by Site contractors. This information can also be used by any interested individual seeking baseline data on the hanford Site and its past activities by which to evaluate projected activities and their impacts.

Neitzel, D.A. [ed.] [ed.; Bjornstad, B.N.; Fosmire, C.J.; Fowler, R.A. [and others] [and others

1996-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

383

Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 6  

SciTech Connect

This sixth revision of the Hanford Site National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Characterization presents current environmental data regarding the Hanford Site and its immediate environs. This information is intended for use in preparing Site-related NEPA documentation. Chapter 4.0 summarizes up-to-date information on climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff. More detailed data are available from reference sources cited or from the authors; Chapter 5.0 has been significantly updated from the fifth revision. It describes models, including their principal underlying assumptions, that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclide transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions; The updated Chapter 6.0 provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable to the NEPA documents on the Hanford Site, following the structure of Chapter 4.0. No conclusions or recommendations are given in this report. Rather, it is a compilation of information on the Hanford Site environment that can be utilized directly by Site contractors. This information can also be used by any interested individual seeking baseline data on the Hanford Site and its past activities by which to evaluate projected activities and their impacts.

Cushing, C.E. [ed.; Baker, D.A.; Chamness, M.A. [and others

1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

384

Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization, Revision 15  

SciTech Connect

This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No statements of significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year's report is the thirteenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the fourteenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (Weiss) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological, and historical resources, socioeconomics, occupational safety, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities.

Neitzel, Duane A.; Bunn, Amoret L.; Burk, Kenneth W.; Cannon, Sandra D.; Duncan, Joanne P.; Fowler, Richard A.; Fritz, Brad G.; Harvey, David W.; Hendrickson, Paul L.; Horton, Duane G.; Last, George V.; Poston, Ted M.; Prendergast-Kennedy, Ellen L.; Reidel, Steve P.; Scott, Michael J.; Thorne, Paul D.; Woody, Dave M.

2003-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

385

Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization Report  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No statements of significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year's report is the sixteenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the seventeenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (Weiss) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological, and historical resources, socioeconomics, occupational safety and health, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities.

Neitzel, Duane A.; Bunn, Amoret L.; Cannon, Sandra D.; Duncan, Joanne P.; Fowler, Richard A.; Fritz, Brad G.; Harvey, David W.; Hendrickson, Paul L.; Hoitink, Dana J.; Horton, Duane G.; Last, George V.; Poston, Ted M.; Prendergast-Kennedy, Ellen L.; Reidel, Steve P.; Rohay, Alan C.; Scott, Michael J.; Thorne, Paul D.

2004-09-22T23:59:59.000Z

386

Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization  

SciTech Connect

This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No statements of significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year's report is the thirteenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the fourteenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (Weiss) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological, and historical resources, socioeconomics, occupational safety, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities.

Neitzel, Duane A.; Antonio, Ernest J.; Eschbach, Tara O.; Fowler, Richard A.; Goodwin, Shannon M.; Harvey, David W.; Hendrickson, Paul L.; Hoitink, Dana J.; Horton, Duane G.; Last, George V.; Poston, Ted M.; Prendergast, Ellen L.; Rohay, Alan C.; Thorne, Paul D.

2001-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

387

Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization  

SciTech Connect

This document describes the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site environment. It is updated each year and is intended to provide a consistent description of the Hanford Site environment for the many National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No statements of significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year's report is the thirteenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the fourteenth revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered to correspond to the chapters where such information is typically presented in environmental impact statements (Weiss) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological, and historical resources, socioeconomics, occupational safety, and noise. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) describes federal and state laws and regulations, DOE directives and permits, and presidential executive orders that are applicable to the NEPA documents prepared for Hanford Site activities.

Neitzel, Duane A.; Bunn, Amoret L.; Duncan, Joanne P.; Eschbach, Tara O.; Fowler, Richard A.; Fritz, Brad G.; Goodwin, Shannon M.; Harvey, David W.; Hendrickson, Paul L.; Hoitink, Dana J.; Horton, Duane G.; Last, George V.; Poston, Ted M.; Prendergast-Kennedy, Ellen L.; Rohay, Alan C.; Scott, Michael J.; Thorne, Paul D.

2002-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

388

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Loss Assessment Summary at Federal Hydroelectric Facilities; Willamette River Basin, 1985 Final Report.  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

Habitat based assessments were conducted of the US Army Corps of Engineers' hydroelectric projects in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, to determine losses or gains to wildlife and/or wildlife habitat resulting from the development and operation of the hydroelectric-related components of the facilities. Preconstruction, postconstruction, and recent vegetation cover types at the project sites were mapped based on aerial photographs. Vegetation cover types were identified within the affected areas and acreages of each type at each period were determined. Wildlife target species were selected to represent a cross-section of species groups affected by the projects. An interagency team evaluated the suitability of the habitat to support the target species at each project for each time period. An evaluation procedure which accounted for both the quantity and quality of habitat was used to aid in assessing impacts resulting from the projects. The Willamette projects extensively altered or affected 33,407 acres of land and river in the McKenzie, Middle Fork Willamette, and Santiam river drainages. Impacts to wildlife centered around the loss of 5184 acres of old-growth conifer forest, and 2850 acres of riparian hardwood and shrub cover types. Impacts resulting from the Willamette projects included the loss of critical winter range for black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk, and the loss of year-round habitat for deer, upland game birds, furbearers, spotted owls, pileated woodpeckers, and many other wildlife species. Bald eagles and ospreys were benefited by an increase in foraging habitat. The potential of the affected areas to support wildlife was greatly altered as a result of the Willamette projects. Losses or gains in the potential of the habitat to support wildlife will exist over the lives of the projects. Cumulative or system-wide impacts of the Willamette projects were not quantitatively assessed.

Noyes, J.H.

1986-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

389

HANFORD ENGINEER WORKS  

Office of Legacy Management (LM)

HANFORD ENGINEER WORKS HANFORD ENGINEER WORKS IJd *P-t - - ~~~ssiticatiC+n cwcetted rat G.E. NUCLEONICS PROJECT xi I ~@L.%&~--G-ENERAI,@ ELECTRIC z ,m ._.__.-. _ I--..-. By Authority of. COMPANY ._ Atmic Energy Commission Office of Hanford Dire&xl Operations Riohland, Washington Attention; Mr. Carleton Shugg, Manager ./ ALPKA-ROLLED EL'GIL%I jw -879 ' . *_ a. f' Richland, Washington February 6, 1948 , Thla Dclc.Jv-

390

Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant  

SciTech Connect

The Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant (HWVP) is being designed to immobilize pretreated Hanford high-level waste and transuranic waste in borosilicate glass contained in stainless steel canisters. Testing is being conducted in the HWVP Technology Development Project to ensure that adapted technologies are applicable to the candidate Hanford wastes and to generate information for waste form qualification. Empirical modeling is being conducted to define a glass composition range consistent with process and waste form qualification requirements. Laboratory studies are conducted to determine process stream properties, characterize the redox chemistry of the melter feed as a basis for controlling melt foaming and evaluate zeolite sorption materials for process waste treatment. Pilot-scale tests have been performed with simulated melter feed to access filtration for solids removal from process wastes, evaluate vitrification process performance and assess offgas equipment performance. Process equipment construction materials are being selected based on literature review, corrosion testing, and performance in pilot-scale testing. 3 figs., 6 tabs.

Larson, D.E.; Allen, C.R. (Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States)); Kruger, O.L.; Weber, E.T. (Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States))

1991-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

391

Federal Register  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

901 901 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 230 / Wednesday, December 1, 2004 / Notices As a result of this dispute, the SLA requested the Secretary of Education to convene a Federal arbitration panel to hear this complaint. A panel was convened, and a hearing on this matter was held on May 13, 2002. Arbitration Panel Decision The arbitration panel heard the following issue: whether the Army's alleged failure to negotiate with the SLA in good faith for the full food services and dining facility attendant services contract at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, constituted a violation of the Act (20 U.S.C. 107 et seq.) and the implementing regulations in 34 CFR part 395. After considering the evidence presented, the majority of the panel ruled that the Act clearly covers all

392

Biological Sciences Facility and Computational Sciences Facility  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

on PNNL's campus since 1997. Combined, the two facilities house about 300 staff who support PNNL replacing laboratory and office space PNNL has been using on the south end of the nearby Hanford Site financed the new buildings and is leasing them to Battelle, which operates PNNL for DOE. #12;January 2010

393

Hanford Site radionuclide national emission standards for hazardous ari pollutants registered and and unregistered stack (powered exhaust) source assessment  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

On February 3, 1993, US DOE Richland Operations Office received a Compliance Order and Information Request from the Director of the Air and Toxics Div. of US EPA, Region X. The compliance order requires the Richland Operations Office to evaluate all radionuclide emission points at the Hanford site to determine which are subject to the continuous emission measurement requirements in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 61, Subpart H, and to continuously measure radionuclide emissions in accordance with 40 CFR 61.93. The Information Request required The provision of a written compliance plan to meet the requirements of the compliance order. A compliance plan was submitted to EPA, Region X, on April 30, 1993. It set as one of the milestones, the complete assessment of the Hanford Site 84 stacks registered with the Washington State Department of Health, by December 17, 1993. This milestone was accomplished. The compliance plan also called for reaching a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement; this was reached on February 7, 1994, between DOE Richland Operations and EPA, Region X. The milestone to assess the unregistered stacks (powered exhaust) by August 31, 1994, was met. This update presents assessments for 72 registered and 22 unregistered stacks with potential emissions > 0.1 mrem/yr.

Davis, W.E.

1995-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

394

Facility Disposition Safety Strategy RM  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE))

The Facility Disposition Safety Strategy (FDSS) Review Module is a tool that assists DOE federal project review teams in evaluating the adequacy of the facility documentation, preparations or...

395

RADIOACTIVE DEMONSTRATION OF MINERALIZED WASTE FORMS MADE FROM HANFORD LOW ACTIVITY WASTE (TANK FARM BLEND) BY FLUIDIZED BED STEAM REFORMATION (FBSR)  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of River Protection (ORP) is responsible for the retrieval, treatment, immobilization, and disposal of Hanford’s tank waste. A key aspect of the River Protection Project (RPP) cleanup mission is to construct and operate the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The WTP will separate the tank waste into high-level and low-activity waste (LAW) fractions, both of which will subsequently be vitrified. The projected throughput capacity of the WTP LAW Vitrification Facility is insufficient to complete the RPP mission in the time frame required by the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, also known as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), i.e. December 31, 2047. Supplemental Treatment is likely to be required both to meet the TPA treatment requirements as well as to more cost effectively complete the tank waste treatment mission. The Supplemental Treatment chosen will immobilize that portion of the retrieved LAW that is not sent to the WTP’s LAW Vitrification facility into a solidified waste form. The solidified waste will then be disposed on the Hanford site in the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) offers a moderate temperature (700-750°C) continuous method by which LAW can be processed irrespective of whether the waste contain organics, nitrates, sulfates/sulfides, chlorides, fluorides, volatile radionuclides or other aqueous components. The FBSR technology can process these wastes into a crystalline ceramic (mineral) waste form. The mineral waste form that is produced by co-processing waste with kaolin clay in an FBSR process has been shown to be comparable to LAW glass, i.e. leaches Tc-99, Re and Na at 6 (the Hanford IDF criteria for Na) in the first few hours. The granular and monolithic waste forms also pass the EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for all Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) components at the Universal Treatment Standards (UTS). Two identical Benchscale Steam Reformers (BSR) were designed and constructed at SRNL, one to treat non-radioactive simulants and the other to treat actual radioactive wastes. The results from the non-radioactive BSR were used to determine the parameters needed to operate the radioactive BSR in order to confirm the findings of non-radioactive FBSR pilot scale and engineering scale tests and to qualify an FBSR LAW waste form for applications at Hanford. Radioactive testing commenced using SRS LAW from Tank 50 chemically trimmed to look like Hanford’s blended LAW known as the Rassat simulant as this simulant composition had been tested in the non-radioactive BSR, the non-radioactive pilot scale FBSR at the Science Applications International Corporation-Science and Technology Applications Research (SAIC-STAR) facility in Idaho Falls, ID and in the TTT Engineering Scale Technology Demonstration (ESTD) at Hazen Research Inc. (HRI) in Denver, CO. This provided a “tie back” between radioactive BSR testing and non-radioactive BSR, pilot scale, and engineering scale testing. Approximately six hundred grams of non-radioactive and radioactive BSR product were made for extensive testing and comparison to the non-radioactive pilot scale tests performed in 2004 at SAIC-STAR and the engineering scale test performed in 2008 at HRI with the Rassat simulant. The same mineral phases and off-gas species were found in the radioactive and non-radioactive testing. The granular ESTD and BSR products (radioactive and non-radioactive) were analyzed for to

Jantzen, C. M.; Crawford, C. L.; Bannochie, C. J.; Burket, P. R.; Cozzi, A. D.; Daniel, W. E.; Hall, H. K.; Miller, D. H.; Missimer, D. M.; Nash, C. A.; Williams, M. F.

2013-08-21T23:59:59.000Z

396

Hanford as a site for large accelerators  

SciTech Connect

The Ramsey Panel recommended that two very large accelerators be constructed during the next few years to meet urgent U. S. needs in high energy physics. Two studies have been made. The Lawrence Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley has studied a 200 to 300 BeV accelerator, while the Brooknaven National Laboratory on Long Island has made an analysis of a still larger accelerator--600 to 800 BeV. This special report is in response to a request for information on the suitability of the Atomic Energy Commission' s Hanford Project as a site for a large accelerator. Using criteria recommended by Lawrence and Brookhaven, the Hanford site offers significant economic advantages both in original installed cost and in annual operating expense. These advantages are: (1) Land--Hanford has available more than 150 square miles of govermnentowned land that readily meets topographic, geologic, and seismic criteria; (2) Power--- Hanford has surplus electrical capacity already installed to meet the demands of the largest accelerator--- at the lowest rates in the U. S. This alone offers an annual savings of several million dollars over any other location; (3) Water--- the Columbia River offers the largest supply of pure, cold water in the U. S.; there are excellent surplus reactor water plants available; (4) Transportation---four major railroads have direct connections to the Hanford Project rail system; multi- 1000-ton barge service is also available; (5) manpower---a high level of scientific and technical personnel as well as construction and craft labor is already in residence; (6) Services---complete support-type services, such as industrial shops, bus transportation, radiation protection, and plant security, are immediately available; and (7) Community--the area has an exceptionally high educational level, equal to the outstanding areas of the U. S. At the present time, the Hanford location has some disadvantages according to the cited criteria. These are: (1) lack of proximity to a university; (2) lack of a major jet airport; and (3) relative isolation from a major metropolitan area. The first two are even now under vigorous study and action by both state and local bodies. The third, though often a disadvantage, appears to have considerable appeal to many. In total, the many tangible assets of the Hanford Project offer tremendous potential dollar savings to the Government. The shutdown of preduction reactors makes many millions of dollars worth of excellent support facilities and manpower readily available. The minor disadvantages can be met almost entirely by the state and community. (auth)

Leonard, B.R. Jr.

1965-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

397

Initial Selection of Supplemental Treatment Technologies for Hanford's Low-Activity Tank Waste  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

In 2002, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) documented a plan for accelerating cleanup of the Hanford Site, located in southeastern Washington State, by at least 35 years (DOE 2002). A key element of the accelerated cleanup plan was a strategic initiative for acceleration of the tank waste program and completion of "tank waste treatment by 2028 by increasing the capacity of the planned Waste Treatment Plant (ETP) and using supplemental technologies for waste treatment and immobilization." The plan identified specific technologies to be evaluated for supplemental treatment of as much as 70% of the low-activity waste (LAW). The objective was to complete required testing and evaluation that would "...bring an appropriate combination of the above technologies to deployment to supplement LAW treatment and immobilization in the WTP to achieve the completion of tank waste treatment by 2028." In concert with this acceleration plan, DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington State Department of Ecology have proposed to accelerate from 2012 to 2005 the Hanford Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (Tri-Party Agreement) milestone (M-62-08) associated with a final decision on treatment of the balance of tank waste that is beyond the capacity of the currently designed WTP.

Raymond, Richard E.; Powell, Roger W.; Hamilton, Dennis W.; Kitchen, William A.; Mauss, Billie M.; Brouns, Thomas M.

2004-07-15T23:59:59.000Z

398

1997 Hanford site report on land disposal restrictions for mixed waste  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The baseline land disposal restrictions (LDR) plan was prepared in 1990 in accordance with the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (commonly referred to as the Tn-Party Agreement) Milestone M-26-00 (Ecology et al, 1989). The text of this milestone is below. ''LDR requirements include limitations on storage of specified hazardous wastes (including mixed wastes). In accordance with approved plans and schedules, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) shall develop and implement technologies necessary to achieve full compliance with LDR requirements for mixed wastes at the Hanford Site. LDR plans and schedules shall be developed with consideration of other action plan milestones and will not become effective until approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (or Washington State Department of Ecology [Ecology]) upon authorization to administer LDRs pursuant to Section 3006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). Disposal of LDR wastes at any time is prohibited except in accordance with applicable LDR requirements for nonradioactive wastes at all times. The plan will include, but not be limited to, the following: Waste characterization plan; Storage report; Treatment report; Treatment plan; Waste minimization plan; A schedule depicting the events necessary to achieve full compliance with LDR requirements; and A process for establishing interim milestones.

Black, D.G.

1997-04-07T23:59:59.000Z

399

Remote System Technologies for Deactivating Hanford Hot Cells (for WM'03 - abstract included)  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

Remote system technologies are being deployed by Fluor Hanford to help accelerate the deactivation of highly-radioactive hot cell facilities. This paper highlights the application of several remotely deployed technologies enabling the deactivation tasks.

BERLIN, G.T.

2003-01-28T23:59:59.000Z

400

Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2007  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

The Hanford Site environmental report is prepared annually for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in accordance with regulatory requirements. The report provides an overview of activities at the site; demonstrates the status of the site’s compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, executive orders, and DOE policies and directives; and summarizes environmental data that characterize Hanford Site environmental management performance. The report also highlights signifi cant environmental and public protection programs and efforts. Some historical and early 2008 information is included where appropriate.

Poston, Ted M.; Duncan, Joanne P.; Dirkes, Roger L.

2008-06-05T23:59:59.000Z

Note: This page contains sample records for the topic "hanford federal facility" from the National Library of EnergyBeta (NLEBeta).
While these samples are representative of the content of NLEBeta,
they are not comprehensive nor are they the most current set.
We encourage you to perform a real-time search of NLEBeta
to obtain the most current and comprehensive results.


401

Hanford Site Video Library  

DOE Data Explorer (OSTI)

The Hanford Site Video Library currently makes 30 videos related to the siteÆs history and the clean-up available for online viewing. The Video Library (also referred to as the Broadcast Archive) can be searched by keywords in the title or description. They can also be browsed in a complete list.

402

Proposed study program of the effects on Hanford of a dam at Columbia River mile 348  

DOE Green Energy (OSTI)

At the request of Hanford Operations Office, Atomic Energy Commission, a study was made of the effects on the Hanford Facilities of a navigation and power dam at Columbia River mile 348, about five miles upstream of the 300 Area. The original study was based on a nominal slack-water pool elevation of 395 to 400 feet at the dam location. A supplemental study evaluated the effects on plant facilities of a dam at the same location but with slack-water pool elevation of 385 feet. In addition to effects of the dam on Hanford, a study was performed to evaluate the effects the dam would have on the environment.

Jasko, R.T.

1959-06-30T23:59:59.000Z

403

Hanford Site air operating permit application  

SciTech Connect

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which amended the Federal Clean Air Act of 1977, required that the US Environmental Protection Agency develop a national Air Operating Permit Program, which in turn would require each state to develop an Air Operating Permit Program to identify all sources of ``regulated`` pollutants. Regulated pollutants include ``criteria`` pollutants (oxides of nitrogen, sulfur oxides, total suspended particulates, carbon monoxide, particulate matter greater than 10 micron, lead) plus 189 other ``Hazardous`` Air Pollutants. The Hanford Site, owned by the US Government and operated by the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, is located in southcentral Washington State and covers 560 square miles of semi-arid shrub and grasslands located just north of the confluence of the Snake and Yakima Rivers with the Columbia River. This land, with restricted public access, provides a buffer for the smaller areas historically used for the production of nuclear materials, waste storage, and waste disposal. About 6 percent of the land area has been disturbed and is actively used. The Hanford Site Air Operating Permit Application consists of more than 1,100 sources and in excess of 300 emission points. Before January 1995, the maintenance and operations contractor and the environmental restoration contractor for the US Department of Energy completed an air emission inventory on the Hanford Site. The inventory has been entered into a database so that the sources and emission points can be tracked and updated information readily can be retrieved. The Hanford Site Air Operating Permit Application contains information current as of April 19, 1995.

NONE

1995-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

404

Federal Energy Management Program: Metering  

NLE Websites -- All DOE Office Websites (Extended Search)

Metering to Metering to someone by E-mail Share Federal Energy Management Program: Metering on Facebook Tweet about Federal Energy Management Program: Metering on Twitter Bookmark Federal Energy Management Program: Metering on Google Bookmark Federal Energy Management Program: Metering on Delicious Rank Federal Energy Management Program: Metering on Digg Find More places to share Federal Energy Management Program: Metering on AddThis.com... Sustainable Buildings & Campuses Operations & Maintenance Federal Requirements Program Management Commissioning Metering Systems Approaches Process Computerized Maintenance Management Systems Maintenance Types Major Equipment Types Resources Contacts Greenhouse Gases Water Efficiency Data Center Energy Efficiency Industrial Facilities

405

Federal Energy Capabilities  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Federal Energy Capabilities Federal Energy Capabilities Federal Energy Capabilities MCKINSTRY'S CYCLE OF SERVICES PROGRAM SERVICES McKinstry is dedicated to excellence in design, construction, and facilities operation. We strive to develop innovative, cost effective facility solutions for you. Below are the services we can deliver under our energy services program: * Design-Build MEDP contracting * Energy savings performance contracting * Smart Building System integration * Demand response * Smart metering to Smart Grid solutions * Advanced metering services * Renewable energy systems * Cogeneration/combined heat power * Creative tax credit and green tags/white tags * ESCO preventative maintenance APPROACH * No premium for the energy services delivery * Open book pricing and guaranteed

406

Overview of the spent nuclear fuel project at Hanford  

SciTech Connect

The Spent Nuclear Fuel Project`s mission at Hanford is to {open_quotes}Provide safe, economic and environmentally sound management of Hanford spent nuclear fuel in a manner which stages it to final disposition.{close_quotes} The inventory of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) at the Hanford Site covers a wide variety of fuel types (production reactor to space reactor) in many facilities (reactor fuel basins to hot cells) at locations all over the Site. The 2,129 metric tons of Hanford SNF represents about 80% of the total US Department of Energy (DOE) inventory. About 98.5% of the Hanford SNF is 2,100 metric tons of metallic uranium production reactor fuel currently stored in the 1950s vintage K Basins in the 100 Area. This fuel has been slowly corroding, generating sludge and contaminating the basin water. This condition, coupled with aging facilities with seismic vulnerabilities, has been identified by several groups, including stakeholders, as being one of the most urgent safety and environmental concerns at the Hanford Site. As a direct result of these concerns, the Spent Nuclear Fuel Project was recently formed to address spent fuel issues at Hanford. The Project has developed the K Basins Path Forward to remove fuel from the basins and place it in dry interim storage. Alternatives that addressed the requirements were developed and analyzed. The result is a two-phased approach allowing the early removal of fuel from the K Basins followed by its stabilization and interim storage consistent with the national program.

Daily, J.L. [Dept. of Energy, Richland, WA (United States). Richland Operations Office; Fulton, J.C.; Gerber, E.W.; Culley, G.E. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States)

1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

407

Revision D to 2006 AOP Renewal Statement of Basis For Hanford Site Air Operating Permit No. 00-05-006  

E-Print Network (OSTI)

The Statement of Basis (Statement) is issued by the permitting agencies as a separate supporting reference document to the Hanford Air Operating Permit (AOP). The Statement sets forth the legal and factual basis for the AOP conditions, and is not intended for enforcement purposes. The Statement includes references to the applicable statutory or regulatory provisions, technical supporting information on specific emission units, and clarifications of specific requirements. [Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-401-700(8)] In 1990, U.S. Congress amended the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). One change was to create air operating permits for industrial sources of air pollution (codified in Title 5 of the CAA). Prior to the creation of these permits, facility managers, regulators and the public had to look through many separate requirements to find those that applied to a certain facility. An air operating permit brings all applicable requirements into one place and requires the manager of the source to certify that it complies with all the applicable requirements. Further, the burden of proof for compliance changed from the regulating agencies to the sources. In 1991, the Washington State Legislature updated the Washington Clean Air Act [Chapter 70.94 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW)] to make it consistent with the new federal program. In 1993, Ecology developed Washington’s operating permits regulation to comply with federal

unknown authors

2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

408

Tank Waste Retrieval Lessons Learned at the Hanford Site  

SciTech Connect

One of the environmental remediation challenges facing the nation is the retrieval and permanent disposal of approximately 90 million gallons of radioactive waste stored in underground tanks at the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. The Hanford Site is located in southeastern Washington State and stores roughly 60 percent of this waste. An estimated 53 million gallons of high-level, transuranic, and low-level radioactive waste is stored underground in 149 single-shell tanks (SSTs) and 28 newer double-shell tanks (DSTs) at the Hanford Site. These SSTs range in size from 55,000 gallons to 1,000,000 gallon capacity. Approximately 30 million gallons of this waste is stored in SSTs. The SSTs were constructed between 1943 and 1964 and all have exceeded the nominal 20-year design life. Sixty-seven SSTs are known or suspected to have leaked an estimated 1,000,000 gallons of waste to the surrounding soil. The risk of additional SST leakage has been greatly reduced by removing more than 3 million gallons of interstitial liquids and supernatant and transferring this waste to the DST system. Retrieval of SST salt-cake and sludge waste is underway to further reduce risks and stage feed materials for the Hanford Site Waste Treatment Plant. Regulatory requirements for SST waste retrieval and tank farm closure are established in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (HFFACO), better known as the Tri- Party Agreement, or TPA. The HFFACO was signed by the DOE, the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and requires retrieval of as much waste as technically possible, with waste residues not to exceed 360 ft{sup 3} in 530,000 gallon or larger tanks; 30 ft{sup 3} in 55,000 gallon or smaller tanks; or the limit of waste retrieval technology, whichever is less. If residual waste volume requirements cannot be achieved, then HFFACO Appendix H provisions can be invoked to request Ecology and EPA approval of an exception to the waste retrieval criteria for a specific tank. Tank waste retrieval has been conducted at the Hanford Site over the last few decades using a method referred to as Past Practice Hydraulic Sluicing. Past Practice Hydraulic Sluicing employs large volumes of DST supernatant and water to dislodge, dissolve, mobilize, and retrieve tank waste. Concern over the leak integrity of SSTs resulted in the need for tank waste retrieval methods capable of using smaller volumes of liquid in a more controlled manner. Retrieval of SST waste in accordance with HFFACO requirements was initiated at the Hanford Site in April 2003. New and innovative tank waste retrieval methods that minimize and control the use of liquids are being implemented for the first time. These tank waste retrieval methods replace Past Practice Hydraulic Sluicing and employ modified sluicing, vacuum retrieval, and in-tank vehicle techniques. Waste retrieval has been completed in seven Hanford Site SSTs (C-106, C-103, C-201, C-202, C-203, C-204, and S-112) in accordance with HFFACO requirements. Three additional tanks are currently in the process of being retrieved (C-108, C-109 and S-102) Preparation for retrieval of two additional SSTs (C-104 and C-110) is ongoing with retrieval operations forecasted to start in calendar year 2008. Tank C-106 was retrieved to a residual waste volume of 470 ft{sup 3} using oxalic acid dissolution and modified sluicing. An Appendix H exception request for Tank C-106 is undergoing review. Tank C-103 was retrieved to a residual volume of 351 ft{sup 3} using a modified sluicing technology. This approach was successful at reaching the TPA limits for this tank of less than 360 ft{sup 3}and the limits of the technology. Tanks C-201, C-202, C-203, and C-204 are smaller (55,000 gallon) tanks and waste removal was completed in accordance with HFFACO requirements using a vacuum retrieval system. Residual waste volumes in each of these four tanks were less than 25 ft{sup 3}. Tank S-112 retrieval was completed February 28, 2007, meeting the TPA Limits of less than

Dodd, R.A. [CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc., Richland, Washington (United States)

2008-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

409

Hanford Projects Receive Sustainability Awards | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

Projects Receive Sustainability Awards Projects Receive Sustainability Awards Hanford Projects Receive Sustainability Awards June 7, 2011 - 12:00pm Addthis Media Contact Geoff Tyree, DOE (509) 376-4171 Geoffrey.Tyree@rl.doe.gov RICHLAND, WASH. - Hanford's Department of Energy offices and their contractors received special recognition Tuesday for their part in promoting sustainability. The Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management in Washington D.C. selected 10 Hanford Site projects to be awarded for excellence in encouraging sustainability, conserving resources, and exemplifying the ideals set forth by Executive Order 13514. The Order was signed by President Barack Obama on October 5, 2009, and challenged federal agencies to make plans and lead by example in "environmental, energy, and economic

410

EA-1189: Non-thermal Treatment of Hanford Site Low-level Mixed Waste,  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

9: Non-thermal Treatment of Hanford Site Low-level Mixed 9: Non-thermal Treatment of Hanford Site Low-level Mixed Waste, Richland, Washington EA-1189: Non-thermal Treatment of Hanford Site Low-level Mixed Waste, Richland, Washington SUMMARY This EA evaluates the environmental impacts for the proposal to demonstrate the feasibility of commercial treatment of contact-handled low-level mixed waste to meet existing Federal and State regulatory standards for eventual land disposal at the U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office. PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES None available at this time. DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD September 29, 1998 EA-1189: Finding of No Significant Impact Non-thermal Treatment of Hanford Site Low-level Mixed Waste September 29, 1998 EA-1189: Final Environmental Assessment Non-thermal Treatment of Hanford Site Low-level Mixed Waste

411

Summary of the Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2008  

SciTech Connect

This summary booklet summarizes the "Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2008." The Hanford Site environmental report, published annually since 1958, includes information and summary data that provide an overview of activities at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site. The Hanford Site environmental report provides an overview of activities at the site; demonstrates the status of the site’s compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, executive orders, and DOE policies and directives; and summarizes environmental data that characterize Hanford Site environmental management performance. The report also highlights significant environmental and public protection programs and efforts. Some historical and early 2009 information is included where appropriate.

Duncan, Joanne P.; Poston, Ted M.; Dirkes, Roger L.

2009-09-15T23:59:59.000Z

412

Summary of the Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2009  

Science Conference Proceedings (OSTI)

This summary booklet summarizes the "Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2009." The Hanford Site environmental report, published annually since 1958, includes information and summary data that provide an overview of activities at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site. The Hanford Site environmental report provides an overview of activities at the site; demonstrates the status of the site’s compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, executive orders, and DOE policies and directives; and summarizes environmental data that characterize Hanford Site environmental management performance. The report also highlights significant environmental and public protection programs and efforts. Some historical and early 2010 information is included where appropriate.

Duncan, Joanne P.; Poston, Ted M.; Dirkes, Roger L.

2010-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

413

Summary of the Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2007  

SciTech Connect

This summary booklet summarizes the "Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2007." The Hanford Site environmental report, published annually since 1958, includes information and summary data that provide an overview of activities at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site. The Hanford Site environmental report provides an overview of activities at the site; demonstrates the status of the site’s compliance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, executive orders, and DOE policies and directives; and summarizes environmental data that characterize Hanford Site environmental management performance. The report also highlights signifi cant environmental and public protection programs and efforts. Some historical and early 2008 information is included where appropriate.

Duncan, Joanne P.; Poston, Ted M.; Dirkes, Roger L.

2008-09-10T23:59:59.000Z

414

RADIOACTIVE DEMONSTRATIONS OF FLUIDIZED BED STEAM REFORMING AS A SUPPLEMENTARY TREATMENT FOR HANFORD'S LOW ACTIVITY WASTE AND SECONDARY WASTES  

SciTech Connect

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of River Protection (ORP) is responsible for the retrieval, treatment, immobilization, and disposal of Hanford's tank waste. Currently there are approximately 56 million gallons of highly radioactive mixed wastes awaiting treatment. A key aspect of the River Protection Project (RPP) cleanup mission is to construct and operate the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The WTP will separate the tank waste into high-level and low-activity waste (LAW) fractions, both of which will subsequently be vitrified. The projected throughput capacity of the WTP LAW Vitrification Facility is insufficient to complete the RPP mission in the time frame required by the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, also known as the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), i.e. December 31, 2047. Therefore, Supplemental Treatment is required both to meet the TPA treatment requirements as well as to more cost effectively complete the tank waste treatment mission. The Supplemental Treatment chosen will immobilize that portion of the retrieved LAW that is not sent to the WTP's LAW Vitrification facility into a solidified waste form. The solidified waste will then be disposed on the Hanford site in the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). In addition, the WTP LAW vitrification facility off-gas condensate known as WTP Secondary Waste (WTP-SW) will be generated and enriched in volatile components such as Cs-137, I-129, Tc-99, Cl, F, and SO4 that volatilize at the vitrification temperature of 1150 C in the absence of a continuous cold cap. The current waste disposal path for the WTP-SW is to recycle it to the supplemental LAW treatment to avoid a large steady state accumulation in the pretreatment-vitrification loop. Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) offers a moderate temperature (700-750 C) continuous method by which LAW and/or WTP-SW wastes can be processed irrespective of whether they contain organics, nitrates, sulfates/sulfides, chlorides, fluorides, volatile radionuclides or other aqueous components. The FBSR technology can process these wastes into a crystalline ceramic (mineral) waste form. The mineral waste form that is produced by co-processing waste with kaolin clay in an FBSR process has been shown to be as durable as LAW glass. Monolithing of the granular FBSR product is being investigated to prevent dispersion during transport or burial/storage but is not necessary for performance. A Benchscale Steam Reformer (BSR) was designed and constructed at the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) to treat actual radioactive wastes to confirm the findings of the non-radioactive FBSR pilot scale tests and to qualify the waste form for applications at Hanford. Radioactive testing commenced in 2010 with a demonstration of Hanford's WTP-SW where Savannah River Site (SRS) High Level Waste (HLW) secondary waste from the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) was shimmed with a mixture of I-125/129 and Tc-99 to chemically resemble WTP-SW. Ninety six grams of radioactive product were made for testing. The second campaign commenced using SRS LAW chemically trimmed to look like Hanford's LAW. Six hundred grams of radioactive product were made for extensive testing and comparison to the non-radioactive pilot scale tests. The same mineral phases were found in the radioactive and non-radioactive testing.

Jantzen, C.; Crawford, C.; Cozzi, A.; Bannochie, C.; Burket, P.; Daniel, G.

2011-02-24T23:59:59.000Z

415

EIS-0222: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan | Department of Energy  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

22: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan 22: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan EIS-0222: Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan SUMMARY DOE has prepared the EIS to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with implementing a comprehensive land-use plan (CLUP) for the Hanford Site for at least the next 50 years. DOE is expected to use this land-use plan in its decision-making process to establish what is the "highest and best use" of the land (41 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 101-47, "Federal Property Management Regulations"). The final selection of a land-use map, land-use policies, and implementing procedures would create the working CLUP when they are adopted through the ROD for the EIS. PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES None available at this time. DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD

416

Hanford ETR Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant - Hanford...  

Energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)) Indexed Site

(the percentage of actual operating time). 1 Comprehensive Review of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Flowsheet and Throughput Specifically, the following questions were...