Sample records for llw disposal nepa

  1. Managing commercial low-level radioactive waste beyond 1992: Transportation planning for a LLW disposal facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Quinn, G.J. [Wastren, Inc. (United States)

    1992-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This technical bulletin presents information on the many activities and issues related to transportation of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) to allow interested States to investigate further those subjects for which proactive preparation will facilitate the development and operation of a LLW disposal facility. The activities related to transportation for a LLW disposal facility are discussed under the following headings: safety; legislation, regulations, and implementation guidance; operations-related transport (LLW and non-LLW traffic); construction traffic; economics; and public involvement.

  2. A process for establishing a financial assurance plan for LLW disposal facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, P. [EG and G Idaho, Inc., Idaho Falls, ID (United States). National Low-Level Waste Management Program

    1993-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document describes a process by which an effective financial assurance program can be developed for new low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities. The report identifies examples of activities that might cause financial losses and the types of losses they might create, discusses mechanisms that could be used to quantify and ensure against the various types of potential losses identified and describes a decision process to formulate a financial assurance program that takes into account the characteristics of both the potential losses and available mechanisms. A sample application of the concepts described in the report is provided.

  3. Assessment of Reusing 14-ton, Thin-Wall, Depleted UF{sub 6} Cylinders as LLW Disposal Containers

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    O'Connor, D.G.

    2000-11-30T23:59:59.000Z

    Approximately 700,000 MT of DUF{sub 6} is stored, or will be produced under a current agreement with the USEC, at the Paducah site in Kentucky, Portsmouth site in Ohio, and ETTP site in Tennessee. On July 21, 1998, the 105th Congress approved Public Law 105-204 (Ref; 1), which directed that facilities be built at the Kentucky and Ohio sites to convert DUF{sub 6} to a stable form for disposition. On July 6, 1999, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued the ''Final Plan for the Conversion of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride as Required by Public Law 105-204 (Ref. 2), in which DOE committed to develop a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Materials Use Roadmap''. On September 1, 2000, DOE issued the Draft Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Materials Use Roadmap (Ref. 3) (Roadmap), which provides alternate paths for the long-term storage, beneficial use, and eventual disposition of each product form and material that will result from the DUF{sub 6} conversion activity. One of the paths being considered for DUF{sub 6} cylinders is to reuse the empty cylinders as containers to transport and dispose of LLW, including the converted DU. The Roadmap provides results of the many alternate uses and disposal paths for conversion products and the empty DUF{sub 6} storage cylinders. As a part of the Roadmap, evaluations were conducted of cost savings, technical maturity, barriers to implementation, and other impacts. Results of these evaluations indicate that using the DUF{sub 6} storage cylinders as LLW disposal containers could provide moderate cost savings due to the avoided cost of purchasing LLW packages and the avoided cost of disposing of the cylinders. No significant technical or institutional issues were identified that would make using cylinders as LLW packages less effective than other disposition paths. Over 58,000 cylinders have been used, or will be used, to store DUF{sub 6}. Over 51,000 of those cylinders are 14TTW cylinders with a nominal wall thickness of 5/16-m (0.79 cm). These- 14TTW cylinders, which have a nominal diameter of 48 inches and nominally contain 14 tons (12.7 MT) of DUF{sub 6}, were originally designed and fabricated for temporary storage of DUF{sub 6}. They were fabricated from pressure-vessel-grade steels according to the provisions of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Ref. 4). Cylinders are stored in open yards at the three sites and, due to historical storage techniques, were subject to corrosion. Roughly 10,000 of the 14TTW cylinders are considered substandard (Ref. 5) due to corrosion and other structural anomalies caused by mishandling. This means that approximately 40,000 14TTW cylinders could be made available as containers for LLW disposal In order to demonstrate the use of 14TTW cylinders as LLW disposal containers, several qualifying tasks need to be performed. Two demonstrations are being considered using 14TTW cylinders--one demonstration using contaminated soil and one demonstration using U{sub 3}O{sub 8}. The objective of this report are to determine how much information is known that could be used to support the demonstrations, and how much additional work will need to be done in order to conduct the demonstrations. Information associated with the following four qualifying tasks are evaluated in this report. (1) Perform a review of structural assessments that have been conducted for 14TTW. (2) Develop a procedure for filling 14TTW cylinders with LLW that have been previously washed. (3) Evaluate the transportation requirements for shipping 14TTW cylinders containing LLW. (4) Evaluate the WAC that will be imposed by the NTS. Two assumptions are made to facilitate this evaluation of using DUF{sub 6} cylinders as LLW disposal containers. (1) Only 14TTW cylinders will be considered for use as LLW containers, and (2) The NTS will be the LLW disposal site.

  4. Approaches to LLW disposal site selection and current progress of host states

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Walsh, J.J.; Kerr, T.A.

    1990-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In accordance with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and under the guidance of 10 CFR 61, States have begun entering into compacts to establish and operate regional disposal facilities for low-level radioactive waste. The progress a state makes in implementing a process to identify a specific location for a disposal site is one indication of the level of a state's commitment to meeting its responsibilities under Federal law and interstate compact agreements. During the past few years, several States have been engaged in site selection processes. The purpose of this report is to summarize the site selection approaches of some of the Host States (California, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Illinois), and their progress to date. An additional purpose of the report is to discern whether the Host States's site selection processes were heavily influenced by any common factors. One factor each state held in common was that political and public processes exerted a powerful influence on the site selection process at virtually every stage. 1 ref.

  5. RH-LLW Disposal Facility Project CD-2/3 to Design/Build Proposal Reconciliation Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Annette L. Schafer

    2012-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A reconciliation plan was developed and implemented to address potential gaps and responses to gaps between the design/build vendor proposals and the Critical Decision-2/3 approval request package for the Remote-Handled Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Project. The plan and results of the plan implementation included development of a reconciliation team comprised of subject matter experts from Battelle Energy Alliance and the Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office, identification of reconciliation questions, reconciliation by the team, identification of unresolved/remaining issues, and identification of follow-up actions and subsequent approvals of responses. The plan addressed the potential for gaps to exist in the following areas: • Department of Energy Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management,” requirements, including the performance assessment, composite analysis, monitoring plan, performance assessment/composite analysis maintenance plan, and closure plan • Environmental assessment supporting the National Environmental Policy Act • Nuclear safety • Safeguards and security • Emplacement operations • Requirements for commissioning • General project implementation. The reconciliation plan and results of the plan implementation are provided in a business-sensitive project file. This report provides the reconciliation plan and non-business sensitive summary responses to identified gaps.

  6. LLW Forum meeting report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report summarizes the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum (LLW Forum) meeting on May 29 through May 31, 1996.The LLW Forum is an association of state and compact representatives, appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact implementation of the Low-Level Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The LLW forum provides an opportunity for state and compact officials to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties.

  7. DOE NEPA Compliance Officers

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

    NEPA Compliance Officers NEPA Compliance Officers are listed first for Program Offices, then Power Marketing Administrations, then Field Offices. Please send updates to...

  8. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorically Excluded...

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

    Environmental Management System NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorically Excluded Actions National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorically Excluded...

  9. Federal Agency NEPA Procedures

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Each Federal agency is required to develop NEPA procedures that supplement the CEQ Regulations. Developed in consultation with CEQ, Federal agency NEPA procedures must meet the standards in the CEQ...

  10. NEPA Litigation Surveys

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    CEQ publishes surveys on NEPA litigation on an annual basis. These surveys identify the number of cases involving a NEPA based cause of action, Federal agencies that were identified as a lead...

  11. NEPA Policy Statement

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The NEPA process is a valuable planning tool and provides an opportunity to improve the Department of Energy decisions and build public trust. Reviews of the Department's NEPA program have shown...

  12. NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance

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

    on Environmental Quality), international and environmental law documents from the Indiana University Law Library, and other references (including the DOE NEPA Stakeholders...

  13. Federal NEPA Contacts

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    CEQ and most Federal agencies identify primary points of contact for NEPA compliance. Normally a senior environmental professional, environmental law attorney, or member of agency leadership, these...

  14. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (RHLLW) Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of fiscal year 2015). Development of a new onsite disposal facility, the highest ranked alternative, will provide necessary remote handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability.

  15. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Environmental Management System National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations and Links DOE NEPA Website NEPA Compliance Program...

  16. Council on Environmental Quality Collaboration in NEPA A Handbook...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Council on Environmental Quality Collaboration in NEPA A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners Council on Environmental Quality Collaboration in NEPA A Handbook for NEPA Practitioners...

  17. NEPA Lessons Learned Questionnaire

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A questionnaire to help aid the Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance in meeting its responsibility to foster continuing improvement of the Department of Energy's National Environmental Policy Act process.

  18. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    rig, etc.)? The table below is to be completed by the Project Lead and reviewed by the Environmental Specialist and the DOE NEPA Compliance Officer. NOTE: If Change of Scope...

  19. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    of the State?" D D Any action that has potential impacts on Waters of the State' or wetland areas will require a separate NEPA Compliance Survey. Will the project area...

  20. Tribal Energy NEPA Fundamentals Workshop

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    The Tribal Energy NEPA Fundamentals Workshop is a three-day workshop for tribes to understand how to manage the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and implement the Council on...

  1. Preliminary low-level waste feed definition guidance - LLW pretreatment interface

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Shade, J.W.; Connor, J.M.; Hendrickson, D.W.; Powell, W.J.; Watrous, R.A.

    1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The document describes limits for key constituents in the LLW feed, and the bases for these limits. The potential variability in the stream is then estimated and compared to the limits. Approaches for accomodating uncertainty in feed inventory, processing strategies, and process design (melter and disposal system) are discussed. Finally, regulatory constraints are briefly addressed.

  2. LLW Notes, Volume 12, Number 3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Norris, C.; Brown, H. [eds.; Colsant, J.; Lovinger, T.; Scheele, L.; Shaker, M.A.

    1997-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Contents include articles entitled: California DHS sues US Interior Department to compel land transfer; LLW Forum holds winter meeting; LLW Forum waste information working group meets; LLW Forum regulatory issues discussion group meets; Envirocare investigation transferred to feds; Host state TCC meets in Laughlin, Nevada; BLM to require new permit for California site testing; Federal agencies and committees; Pena sworn in as Energy Secretary, Grumbly departs DOE; U.S. Supreme Court tackles property rights issues; GAO to study DOI`s actions; Congress scrutinizes FY `98 budget requests; and Senate committee passes high-level waste bill: Clinton threatens to veto.

  3. LLW notes. Vol. 11, No. 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    `LLW Notes` is distributed by Afton Associates, Inc. to Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Participants and other state and compact officials identified by those Participants to receive `LLW Notes`. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum (LLW Forum) is an association of state and compact representatives, appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The LLW Forum provides an opportunity for state and compact officials to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties.

  4. Greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste characterization. Appendix E-2: Mixed GTCC LLW assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kirner, N.P. [Ebasco Environmental, Idaho Falls, ID (United States)

    1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Mixed greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste (mixed GTCC LLW) is waste that combines two characteristics: it is radioactive, and it is hazardous. This report uses information compiled from Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste Characterization: Estimated Volumes, Radionuclide Activities, and Other Characteristics (DOE/LLW 1 14, Revision 1), and applies it to the question of how much and what types of mixed GTCC LLW are generated and are likely to require disposal in facilities jointly regulated by the DOE and the NRC. The report describes how to classify a RCRA hazardous waste, and then applies that classification process to the 41 GTCC LLW waste types identified in the DOE/LLW-114 (Revision 1). Of the 41 GTCC LLW categories identified, only six were identified in this study as potentially requiring regulation as hazardous waste under RCRA. These wastes can be combined into the following three groups: fuel-in decontamination resins, organic liquids, and process waste consisting of lead scrap/shielding from a sealed source manufacturer. For the base case, no mixed GTCC LLW is expected from nuclear utilities or sealed source licensees, whereas only 177 ml of mixed GTCC LLW are expected to be produced by other generators through the year 2035. This relatively small volume represents approximately 40% of the base case estimate for GTCC wastes from other generators. For these other generators, volume estimates for mixed GTCC LLW ranged from less than 1 m{sup 3} to 187 m{sup 3}, depending on assumptions and treatments applied to the wastes.

  5. Comparison of low-level waste disposal programs of DOE and selected international countries

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meagher, B.G. [Lockheed Idaho Technologies Co., Idaho Falls, ID (United States); Cole, L.T. [Cole and Associates (United States)

    1996-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this report is to examine and compare the approaches and practices of selected countries for disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) with those of the US Department of Energy (DOE). The report addresses the programs for disposing of wastes into engineered LLW disposal facilities and is not intended to address in-situ options and practices associated with environmental restoration activities or the management of mill tailings and mixed LLW. The countries chosen for comparison are France, Sweden, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The countries were selected as typical examples of the LLW programs which have evolved under differing technical constraints, regulatory requirements, and political/social systems. France was the first country to demonstrate use of engineered structure-type disposal facilities. The UK has been actively disposing of LLW since 1959. Sweden has been disposing of LLW since 1983 in an intermediate-depth disposal facility rather than a near-surface disposal facility. To date, Canada has been storing its LLW but will soon begin operation of Canada`s first demonstration LLW disposal facility.

  6. ADDITION FOR CHAPTER 10 OF THE EA/RIR/IRFA RE NEPA AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    ADDITION FOR CHAPTER 10 OF THE EA/RIR/IRFA RE NEPA AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. During the Council.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental Protection Agency 1995). Further, the amount of waste disposed) and the impacts of those disposals are unrelated to the percentages of the walleye pollock and Pacific cod

  7. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2012-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  8. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2011-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility, the highest ranked alternative, will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  9. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility, the highest ranked alternative, will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  10. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2012-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  11. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2014-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  12. Depleted uranium disposal options.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Biwer, B. M.; Ranek, N. L.; Goldberg, M.; Avci, H. I.

    2000-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF{sub 6}) has been produced in the United States since the 1940s as part of both the military program and the civilian nuclear energy program. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is the agency responsible for managing most of the depleted UF{sub 6} that has been produced in the United States. The total quantity of depleted UF{sub 6} that DOE has to or will have to manage is approximately 700,000 Mg. Studies have been conducted to evaluate the various alternatives for managing this material. This paper evaluates and summarizes the alternative of disposal as low-level waste (LLW). Results of the analysis indicate that UF{sub 6} needs to be converted to a more stable form, such as U{sub 3}O{sub 8}, before disposal as LLW. Estimates of the environmental impacts of disposal in a dry environment are within the currently applicable standards and regulations. Of the currently operating LLW disposal facilities, available information indicates that either of two DOE facilities--the Hanford Site or the Nevada Test Site--or a commercial facility--Envirocare of Utah--would be able to dispose of up to the entire DOE inventory of depleted UF{sub 6}.

  13. DOE NEPA Compliance Officers

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011AT&T,Office of Policy, OAPM |TRU Waste CleanupDesignationsResearch InitiativeNEPA

  14. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Coordination and Implementation International Electricity Regulation National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) All Electricity...

  15. Evaluation of Groundwater Impacts to Support the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment for the INL Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Annette Schafer; Arthur S. Rood; A. Jeffrey Sondrup

    2011-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The groundwater impacts have been analyzed for the proposed RH-LLW disposal facility. A four-step analysis approach was documented and applied. This assessment compared the predicted groundwater ingestion dose to the more restrictive of either the 25 mrem/yr all pathway dose performance objective, or the maximum contaminant limit performance objective. The results of this analysis indicate that the groundwater impacts for either proposed facility location are expected to be less than the performance objectives. The analysis was prepared to support the NEPA-EA for the top two ranking of the proposed RH-LLW sites. As such, site-specific conditions were incorporated for each set of results generated. These site-specific conditions were included to account for the transport of radionuclides through the vadose zone and through the aquifer at each site. Site-specific parameters included the thickness of vadose zone sediments and basalts, moisture characteristics of the sediments, and aquifer velocity. Sorption parameters (Kd) were assumed to be very conservative values used in Track II analysis of CERCLA sites at INL. Infiltration was also conservatively assumed to represent higher rates corresponding to disturbed soil conditions. The results of this analysis indicate that the groundwater impacts for either proposed facility location are expected to be less than the performance objectives.

  16. Evaluation of Groundwater Impacts to Support the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment for the INL Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Annette Schafer; Arthur S. Rood; A. Jeffrey Sondrup

    2011-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The groundwater impacts have been analyzed for the proposed RH-LLW disposal facility. A four-step analysis approach was documented and applied. This assessment compared the predicted groundwater ingestion dose to the more restrictive of either the 25 mrem/yr all pathway dose performance objective, or the maximum contaminant limit performance objective. The results of this analysis indicate that the groundwater impacts for either proposed facility location are expected to be less than the performance objectives. The analysis was prepared to support the NEPA-EA for the top two ranking of the proposed RH-LLW sites. As such, site-specific conditions were incorporated for each set of results generated. These site-specific conditions were included to account for the transport of radionuclides through the vadose zone and through the aquifer at each site. Site-specific parameters included the thickness of vadose zone sediments and basalts, moisture characteristics of the sediments, and aquifer velocity. Sorption parameters (Kd) were assumed to be very conservative values used in Track II analysis of CERCLA sites at INL. Infiltration was also conservatively assumed to represent higher rates corresponding to disturbed soil conditions. The results of this analysis indicate that the groundwater impacts for either proposed facility location are expected to be less than the performance objectives.

  17. Preliminary Hazard Analysis for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; Mike Lehto

    2010-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The need for remote handled low level waste (LLW) disposal capability has been identified. A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal capability for remote-handled LLW that is generated as part of the nuclear mission of the Idaho National Laboratory and from spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This document supports the conceptual design for the proposed remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization and by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW.

  18. Preliminary Hazard Analysis for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; Mike Lehto

    2010-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The need for remote handled low level waste (LLW) disposal capability has been identified. A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal capability for remote-handled LLW that is generated as part of the nuclear mission of the Idaho National Laboratory and from spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This document supports the conceptual design for the proposed remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization and by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW.

  19. Preliminary Hazard Analysis for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; Mike Lehto

    2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The need for remote handled low level waste (LLW) disposal capability has been identified. A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal capability for remote-handled LLW that is generated as part of the nuclear mission of the Idaho National Laboratory and from spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This document supports the conceptual design for the proposed remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization and by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW.

  20. NEPA Review Routing Form

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

    or threat of release of a hazardous substance ... including treatment (e.g., incineration), recovery, storage, or disposal of wastes at existing facilities currently...

  1. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel , including treatment (e.g., incineration), recovery, storage, or disposal of wastes at existing facilities currently...

  2. NEPA Review Routing Form

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

    release or threat of release of a hazardous substance ... induding treatment (e.g., incineration). recovery, storage, or disposal of wastes at existing facilities currently...

  3. NEPA Review Routing Form

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

    or threat of release of a hazardous substance ... including treatment (e.g., incineration), recovery, storage, or disposal of wastes at existing facil currently handling...

  4. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    substance other than high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, including treatment (e.g., incineration), recovery, storage. or disposal of wastes at existing...

  5. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    affecting the the work each day. SOPs will be reviewed for generation, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of compliance to state and local regulations. hazardous and...

  6. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    affecting the the work each day. SOPs will be reviewed for generation, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of com pliance to state and local regulations. hazardous...

  7. Project Execution Plan for the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Danny Anderson

    2014-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    As part of ongoing cleanup activities at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), closure of the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) is proceeding under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 USC 9601 et seq. 1980). INL-generated radioactive waste has been disposed of at RWMC since 1952. The Subsurface Disposal Area (SDA) at RWMC accepted the bulk of INL’s contact and remote-handled low-level waste (LLW) for disposal. Disposal of contact-handled LLW and remote-handled LLW ion-exchange resins from the Advanced Test Reactor in the open pit of the SDA ceased September 30, 2008. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at RWMC will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the SDA (approximately at the end of fiscal year FY 2017). The continuing nuclear mission of INL, associated ongoing and planned operations, and Naval spent fuel activities at the Naval Reactors Facility (NRF) require continued capability to appropriately dispose of contact and remote handled LLW. A programmatic analysis of disposal alternatives for contact and remote-handled LLW generated at INL was conducted by the INL contractor in Fiscal Year 2006; subsequent evaluations were completed in Fiscal Year 2007. The result of these analyses was a recommendation to the Department of Energy (DOE) that all contact-handled LLW generated after September 30, 2008, be disposed offsite, and that DOE proceed with a capital project to establish replacement remote-handled LLW disposal capability. An analysis of the alternatives for providing replacement remote-handled LLW disposal capability has been performed to support Critical Decision-1. The highest ranked alternative to provide this required capability has been determined to be the development of a new onsite remote-handled LLW disposal facility to replace the existing remote-handled LLW disposal vaults at the SDA. Several offsite DOE and commercial disposal options exist for contact-handled LLW; however, offsite disposal options are either not currently available (i.e., commercial disposal facilities), practical, or cost-effective for all remote-handled LLW streams generated at INL. Offsite disposal of all INL and tenant-generated remote-handled waste is further complicated by issues associated with transporting highly radioactive waste in commerce; and infrastructure and processing changes at the generating facilities, specifically NRF, that would be required to support offsite disposal. The INL Remote-Handled LLW Disposal Project will develop a new remote handled LLW disposal facility to meet mission-critical, remote-handled LLW disposal needs. A formal DOE decision to proceed with the project has been made in accordance with the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC§ 4321 et seq.). Remote-handled LLW is generated from nuclear programs conducted at INL, including spent nuclear fuel handling and operations at NRF and operations at the Advanced Test Reactor. Remote-handled LLW also will be generated by new INL programs and from segregation and treatment (as necessary) of remote handled scrap and waste currently stored in the Radioactive Scrap and Waste Facility at the Materials and Fuels Complex.

  8. LLW Notes: Volume 10, Number 3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum is an association of state and compact representatives, appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The LLW Forum provides an opportunity for state and compact officials to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties.

  9. LLW notes: Volume 10, Number 6

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Norris, C. [ed.] [Afton Associates, Inc., Washington, DC (United States)

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum is an association of state and compact representatives, appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The LLW Forum provides an opportunity for state and compact officials to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties.

  10. LLW Notes: Volume 10, Number 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum is an association of state and compact representatives, appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The LLW Forum provides an opportunity for state and compact officials to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties.

  11. Conceptual Safety Design Report for the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2010-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal for remote-handled LLW from the Idaho National Laboratory and for spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This conceptual safety design report supports the design of a proposed onsite remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization, by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW, by evaluating consequences of postulated accidents, and by discussing the need for safety features that will become part of the facility design.

  12. Conceptual Safety Design Report for the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2010-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal for remote-handled LLW from the Idaho National Laboratory and for spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This conceptual safety design report supports the design of a proposed onsite remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization, by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW, by evaluating consequences of postulated accidents, and by discussing the need for safety features that will become part of the facility design.

  13. NEPA Implementation Procedures: Appendices I, II, and III

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These appendices are intended to improve public participation and facilitate agency compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA...

  14. Building Confidence in LLW Performance Assessments - 13386

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rustick, Joseph H.; Kosson, David S.; Krahn, Steven L.; Clarke, James H. [Vanderbilt University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, Nashville, Tennessee, 37235 (United States)] [Vanderbilt University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, Nashville, Tennessee, 37235 (United States)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The performance assessment process and incorporated input assumptions for four active and one planned DOE disposal sites were analyzed using a systems approach. The sites selected were the Savannah River E-Area Slit and Engineered Trenches, Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility, Idaho Radioactive Waste Management Complex, Oak Ridge Environmental Management Waste Management Facility, and Nevada National Security Site Area 5. Each disposal facility evaluation incorporated three overall system components (1) site characteristics (climate, geology, geochemistry, etc.), (2) waste properties (waste form and package), and (3) engineered barrier designs (cover system, liner system). Site conceptual models were also analyzed to identity the main risk drivers and risk insights controlling performance for each disposal facility. (authors)

  15. Assessment of Preferred Depleted Uranium Disposal Forms

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Croff, A.G.; Hightower, J.R.; Lee, D.W.; Michaels, G.E.; Ranek, N.L.; Trabalka, J.R.

    2000-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Department of Energy (DOE) is in the process of converting about 700,000 metric tons (MT) of depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) containing 475,000 MT of depleted uranium (DU) to a stable form more suitable for long-term storage or disposal. Potential conversion forms include the tetrafluoride (DUF4), oxide (DUO2 or DU3O8), or metal. If worthwhile beneficial uses cannot be found for the DU product form, it will be sent to an appropriate site for disposal. The DU products are considered to be low-level waste (LLW) under both DOE orders and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations. The objective of this study was to assess the acceptability of the potential DU conversion products at potential LLW disposal sites to provide a basis for DOE decisions on the preferred DU product form and a path forward that will ensure reliable and efficient disposal.

  16. INNOVATIVE DISPOSAL PRACTICES AT THE NEVADA TEST SITE TO MEET ITS LLW GENERATORS FUTURE DISPOSAL NEEDS

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn AprilA Approved:AdministrationAnalysisDarby/%2AO 474.2Y-12NevadaPROCEEDINGS,

  17. NEPA FAQs | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagement of theTechno-economicOctober 2013 -Department of5-1213-13NEPA

  18. Review of private sector and Department of Energy treatment, storage, and disposal capabilities for low-level and mixed low-level waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Willson, R.A.; Ball, L.W.; Mousseau, J.D.; Piper, R.B.

    1996-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Private sector capacity for treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) of various categories of radioactive waste has been researched and reviewed for the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) by Lockheed Idaho Technologies Company, the primary contractor for the INEL. The purpose of this document is to provide assistance to the INEL and other US Department of Energy (DOE) sites in determining if private sector capabilities exist for those waste streams that currently cannot be handled either on site or within the DOE complex. The survey of private sector vendors was limited to vendors currently capable of, or expected within the next five years to be able to perform one or more of the following services: low-level waste (LLW) volume reduction, storage, or disposal; mixed LLW treatment, storage, or disposal; alpha-contaminated mixed LLW treatment; LLW decontamination for recycling, reclamation, or reuse; laundering of radioactively-contaminated laundry and/or respirators; mixed LLW treatability studies; mixed LLW treatment technology development. Section 2.0 of this report will identify the approach used to modify vendor information from previous revisions of this report. It will also illustrate the methodology used to identify any additional companies. Section 3.0 will identify, by service, specific vendor capabilities and capacities. Because this document will be used to identify private sector vendors that may be able to handle DOE LLW and mixed LLW streams, it was decided that current DOE capabilities should also be identified. This would encourage cooperation between DOE sites and the various states and, in some instances, may result in a more cost-effective alternative to privatization. The DOE complex has approximately 35 sites that generate the majority of both LLW and mixed LLW. Section 4.0 will identify these sites by Operations Office, and their associated LLW and mixed LLW TSD units.

  19. LLW Notes, vol. 9, no. 1. February/March 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1994-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    LLW Notes is published ten times each year and is distributed to Low- Level Radioactive Waste Forum Participants and other state and compact officials identified by those Participants to receive LLW Notes. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum is an association of representatives of states and compacts established to facilitate state and compact commission implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The Forum provides an opportunity for states and compacts to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies.

  20. LLW Forum meeting report, October 26--27, 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1994-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum (LLW Forum) is an association of state and compact representatives, appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The LLW Forum provides an opportunity for state and compact officials to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties. This report details activities of the meeting held October 26-27, 1994.

  1. ASSESSING EXPOSURE TO THE PUBLIC FROM LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE (LLW) TRANSPORTATION TO THE NEVADA TEST SITE.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Miller, J.J.; Campbell, S.; Church, B.W.; Shafer, D. S.; Gillespie, D.; Sedano, S.; Cebe, J.J.

    2003-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

    The United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) Nevada Test Site (NTS) is one of two regional sites where low-level radioactive waste (LLW) from approved DOE and U.S. DOD generators across the United States is disposed. In federal fiscal year (FY) 2002, over 57,000 cubic meters of waste was transported to and disposed at the NTS. DOE and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations ensure that radiation exposure from truck shipments to members of the public is negligible. Nevertheless, particularly in rural communities along transportation routes in Utah and Nevada, there is perceived risk from members of the public about incremental exposure from LLW trucks, especially when ''Main Street'' and the LLW transportation route are the same. To better quantify the exposure to gamma radiation, a stationary monitoring array of four pressurized ion chambers (PICs) have been set up in a pullout just before LLW trucks reach the entrance to the NTS. The PICs are positioned at a distance of one meter from the sides of the truck trailer and at a height appropriate for the design of the trucks that will be used in FY2003 to haul LLW to the NTS. The use of four PICs (two on each side of the truck) is to minimize and to correct for non-uniformity where radiation levels from waste packages vary from side to side, and from front to back in the truck trailer. The PIC array is being calibrated by collecting readings from each PIC exposed to a known 137Cs source that was positioned at different locations on a flatbed stationed in the PIC array, along with taking secondary readings from other known sources. Continuous data collection using the PICs, with and without a truck in the array, is being used to develop background readings. In addition, acoustic sensors are positioned on each side of the PIC array to record when a large object (presumably a truck) enters the array. In FY2003, PIC surveys from as many incoming LLW trucks as possible will be made and survey data recorded automatically by dataloggers that will be periodically downloaded. Solar panels provide power for the batteries to run both the dataloggers and PICs. Truck drivers have been asked to park their truck within the PIC array for only the time it takes to complete an information log before moving on to one of two Radioactive Waste Management Sites (RWMS) on the NTS. On the log, the truck drivers record their shipment identification number, the time of day, where the waste originated, and information on the route they used to reach the NTS. This data will facilitate comparison of PIC readings with waste manifests and other waste disposal operations data collected at the RWMSs. Gamma radiation measurements collected from the PICs will be analyzed using standard health physics and statistical methods for comparison to DOT standards, but with the added benefit of obtaining an improved understanding of the variability of readings that can occur in the near vicinity of a LLW truck. The data collected will be combined with measurements of street width and other information about transportation routes through towns to develop realistic dose scenarios for citizens in Nevada and Utah towns.

  2. Proven concepts for LLW-treatment of large components for free release and recycling

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bergstroem, Lena; Lindstrom, Anders; Lindberg, Maria; Wirendal, Bo; Lorenzen, Joachim [Studsvik RadWaste AB, SE-611 82 Nykoeping (Sweden)

    2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper describes Studsvik's technical concept of LLW-treatment of large, retired components from nuclear installations in operation or in decommissioning. Many turbines, heat exchangers and other LLW components have been treated in Studsvik during the last 20 years. This also includes development of techniques and tools, especially our latest experience gained under the pilot project for treatment of one full size PWR steam generator from Ringhals NPP, Sweden. The ambition of this pilot project was to minimize the waste volumes for disposal and to maximize the material recycling. Another objective, respecting ALARA, was the successful minimization of the dose exposure to the personnel. The treatment concept for large, retired components comprises the whole sequence of preparations from road and sea transports and the management of the metallic LLW by segmentation, decontamination and sorting using specially devised tools and shielded treatment cell, to the decision criteria for recycling of the metals, radiological analyses and conditioning of the residual waste into the final packages suitable for customer-related disposal. For e.g. turbine rotors with their huge number of blades the crucial moments are segmentation techniques, thus cold segmentation is a preferred method to keep focus on minimization of volumes for secondary waste. Also a variety of decontamination techniques using blasting cabinet or blasting tumbling machines keeps secondary waste production to a minimum. The technical challenge of the treatment of more complicated components like steam generators also begins with the segmentation. A first step is the separation of the steam dome in order to dock the rest of the steam generator to a specially built treatment cell. Thereafter, the decontamination of the tube bundle is performed using a remotely controlled manipulator. After decontamination is concluded the cutting of the tubes as well as of the shell is performed in the same cell with remotely controlled tools. Some of the sections of steam dome shell or turbine shafts can be cleared directly for unconditional reuse without melting after decontamination and sampling program. Experience shows that the amount of material possible for clearance for unconditional use is between 95 - 97 % for conventional metallic scrap. For components like turbines, heat exchangers or steam generators the recycling ratio can vary to about 80 - 85% of the initial weight. (authors)

  3. LLW Notes, Volume 12, Number 7

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Norris, C.; Brown, H. [eds.; Gedden, R.; Lovinger, T.; Scheele, L.; Shaker, M.A.

    1997-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Contents include articles entitled: House votes 309 to 107 to approve Texas compact; Nebraska governor hosts LLRW meeting; Southeast Compact considers funding proposal; Chem-Nuclear explores options re SC revenue requirements; Legislation sets revenue requirements for Barnwell; TCC meets: Supports CA request for technical assistance; DOE approves part of California`s technical assistance request; State legislators discuss LLRW management for OH, IL, NC; Washington governor re Potential New Hanford Role; Federal court enjoins DOE from excluding WCS on new disposal; Appellate court in favor of DOE in surcharge rebates dispute; Hearing set for October in Ward Valley case; court rejects federal motion to dismiss Ward Valley suit; NE sues commission re veto over export authorizations; US Supreme Court dismisses line-item veto challenge; Department of Interior Inspector General investigation requested; USEC privatization plan approved; DOD finalizes LLRW disposal charter; Clinton nominates six DOE appointees; Congress moves FUSRAP to Army Corps of Engineers; Schaefer named interim director of USGS: Nichols leaves EPA: NRC Commissioner Rogers` term expires; NRC: CA ``Well-Quantified`` to license Ward Valley facility; EPA objects to state permit for Louisiana facility; Petitions submitted to EPA oppose Shintech permits; ECOS draft recommendations re Enviro programs; Legislation introduced to prohibit spent fuel shipments to the Goshutes; and HLW legislation ready for floor action.

  4. National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Strategy for the Remote-Handled Low-level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Peggy Hinman

    2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) needs to have disposal capability for remote-handled low level waste (LLW) generated at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) at the time the existing disposal facility is full or must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the INL Subsurface Disposal Area in approximately the year 2017.

  5. Benefits of Site-wide NEPA National Environmental Policy Act...

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

    Benefits of Site-wide NEPA National Environmental Policy Act Review (1994) Benefits of Site-wide NEPA National Environmental Policy Act Review (1994) The purpose of this guidance...

  6. Statement of Work-National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Support...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Work-National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Support Services Acquisition: Preparation and Review of Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Assessments, Environmental...

  7. Low-level radioactive waste management: transitioning to off-site disposal at Los Alamos National Laboratory

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dorries, Alison M [Los Alamos National Laboratory

    2010-11-09T23:59:59.000Z

    Facing the closure of nearly all on-site management and disposal capability for low-level radioactive waste (LLW), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is making ready to ship the majority of LLW off-site. In order to ship off-site, waste must meet the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility's (TSDF) Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC). In preparation, LANL's waste management organization must ensure LANL waste generators characterize and package waste compliantly and waste characterization documentation is complete and accurate. Key challenges that must be addressed to successfully make the shift to off-site disposal of LLW include improving the detail, accuracy, and quality of process knowledge (PK) and acceptable knowledge (AK) documentation, training waste generators and waste management staff on the higher standard of data quality and expectations, improved WAC compliance for off-site facilities, and enhanced quality assurance throughout the process. Certification of LANL generators will allow direct off-site shipping of LLW from their facilities.

  8. EA-1793: Replacement Capability for Disposal of Remote-handled Low-level Waste Generated at the Department of Energy's Idaho Site

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EA evaluates the environmental impacts of replacement capability for disposal of remote-handled low-level radioactive waste (LLW) generated at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) site beginning in October 2017.

  9. Post-NEPA environmental investigations at DOE geopressured-geothermal project sites

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Reed, A.W.

    1985-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In 1982, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) conducted follow-up environmental reviews of four US Department of Energy (DOE) geopressured-geothermal design well projects: Dow Parcperdue, Sweet Lake, Gladys McCall and Pleasant Bayou. The reviews determined the implementation and effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation commitments made by DOE in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents prepared for the individual projects. This paper briefly describes post-NEPA environmental investigations at DOE's geopressured-geothermal design well sites and focuses on three environmental problems that were identified and subsequently mitigated by DOE. These were (1) a breech in the brine pit liner and (2) a torn mud pit liner at the Dow Parcperdue well site, and (3) the disposal of potentially hazardous contents of the reserve pit at the Pleasant Bayou well site. The nature of the environmental problems, recommendations for mitigation of each, and remedial actions that were taken are presented.

  10. LLW Notes supplement, Volume 12, Number 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1997-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Federal criteria for determining whether a project presents an environmental justice concern are currently subject to multiple interpretations. There are no federal statutes or regulations that specifically reference or address environmental justice, and the guidelines that are being developed by the Council on Environmental Quality are currently in draft form. The lack of consistent and clear federal criteria for determining what constitutes an environmental justice impact--and how to determine whether environmental justice issues have been effectively addressed--can create a dilemma for state agencies that wish to include--or have already included--environmental justice, along with legal, economic and technical issues, as a consideration when siting a facility. The following information is therefore provided for those agencies and commissions seeking to site, to license, to construct and to operate a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. Topics include: National Environmental Justice Advisory Council; NEJAC members; Federal definitions of environmental justice; and EPA`s role in federal land transfers. Federal agencies can achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing--as appropriate--disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of [federal agency] programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.

  11. WRAP low level waste (LLW) glovebox acceptance test report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Leist, K.J.

    1998-02-17T23:59:59.000Z

    In June 28, 1997, the Low Level Waste (LLW) glovebox was tested using glovebox acceptance test procedure 13031A-85. The primary focus of the glovebox acceptance test was to examine control system interlocks, display menus, alarms, and operator messages. Limited mechanical testing involving the drum ports, hoists, drum lifter, compacted drum lifter, drum tipper, transfer car, conveyors, lidder/delidder device and the supercompactor were also conducted. As of November 24, 1997, 2 of the 131 test exceptions that affect the LLW glovebox remain open. These items will be tracked and closed via the WRAP Master Test Exception Database. As part of Test Exception resolution/closure the responsible individual closing the Test Exception performs a retest of the affected item(s) to ensure the identified deficiency is corrected, and, or to test items not previously available to support testing. Test Exceptions are provided as appendices to this report.

  12. LLW Notes, volume 9, No. 7. November and December 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1994-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    LLW Notes is distributed to Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Participants and other state and compact officials identified by those Participants to receive LLW Notes. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum is an association of state and compact representatives appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact commission implementation of the Low- Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The Forum provides an opportunity for states and compacts to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties.

  13. LLW Notes, Volume 9, Number 6. October 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1994-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    LLW Notes is distributed to Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Participants and other state and compact officials identified by those Participants to receive LLW Notes. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum is an association of state and compact representatives appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact commission implementation of the Low- Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The Forum provides an opportunity for states and compacts to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties.

  14. LLW Notes, vol.9, no. 5. August/September 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    LLW Notes is distributed to Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Participants and other state and compact officials identified by those Participants to receive LLW Notes. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum is an association of state and compact representatives appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact commission implementation of the Low- Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The Forum provides an opportunity for states and compacts to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties.

  15. A Comprehensive Solution for Managing TRU and LLW From Generation to Final Disposition - 13205

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tozer, Justin C.; Sanchez, Edwina G.; Dorries, Alison M. [Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87544 (United States)] [Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87544 (United States)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A LANL multi-disciplinary team faced the challenge of building and delivering a waste information system capable of managing radioactive, hazardous, and industrial waste from cradle to grave. The result is the Waste Compliance and Tracking System (WCATS) a flexible, adaptive system that has allowed LANL to consolidate its legacy applications into one system, and leverage the advantages of managing all waste types within a single scalable enterprise application. Key functionality required for robust waste operations, include: waste characterization, waste identification, transportation, inventory management, waste processing, and disposal. In order to maintain data quality, field operations such as waste identification, surveillance checklists, wall-to-wall inventory assessments, waste transfers, shipment pickup and receipt, and simple consolidation operations are captured by the operator or technician using mobile computers. Work flow is managed via end-user defined work paths, to ensure that unit operations are performed in the correct order. Regulatory compliance reports and algorithms are provided to support typical U.S. EPA, DOT, NRC, and DOE requirements, including the EPA hazardous waste manifest, NRC LLW manifest, DOE nuclear material at risk, RCRA TSDF inventory rules, and so forth. The WCATS application has allowed LANL to migrate and consolidate its disparate legacy applications. The design and implementation is generalized so that facility owners can customize the user interface, setup facilities and unit operations (i.e., treatment, storage, disposal, characterization, and administrative), define inventory compliance rules, and establish custom work flow requirements. (authors)

  16. General Guidance on NEPA | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011 Strategic2 OPAM Flash2011-12 OPAMGeneral Guidance on NEPA General Guidance on NEPA

  17. Siting Study for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; Joan Connolly; Lance Peterson; Brennon Orr; Bob Starr

    2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy has identified a mission need for continued disposal capacity for remote-handled low-level waste (LLW) generated at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). An alternatives analysis that was conducted to evaluate strategies to achieve this mission need identified two broad options for disposal of INL generated remote-handled LLW: (1) offsite disposal and (2) onsite disposal. The purpose of this study is to identify candidate sites or locations within INL boundaries for the alternative of an onsite remote handled LLW disposal facility and recommend the highest-ranked locations for consideration in the National Environmental Policy Act process. The study implements an evaluation based on consideration of five key elements: (1) regulations, (2) key assumptions, (3) conceptual design, (4) facility performance, and (5) previous INL siting study criteria, and uses a five-step process to identify, screen, evaluate, score, and rank 34 separate sites located across INL. The result of the evaluation is identification of two recommended alternative locations for siting an onsite remote-handled LLW disposal facility. The two alternative locations that best meet the evaluation criteria are (1) near the Advanced Test Reactor Complex and (2) west of the Idaho Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Disposal Facility.

  18. Taiwan industrial cooperation program technology transfer for low-level radioactive waste final disposal - phase I.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Knowlton, Robert G.; Cochran, John Russell; Arnold, Bill Walter; Jow, Hong-Nian; Mattie, Patrick D.; Schelling, Frank Joseph Jr. (; .)

    2007-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Sandia National Laboratories and the Institute of Nuclear Energy Research, Taiwan have collaborated in a technology transfer program related to low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal in Taiwan. Phase I of this program included regulatory analysis of LLW final disposal, development of LLW disposal performance assessment capabilities, and preliminary performance assessments of two potential disposal sites. Performance objectives were based on regulations in Taiwan and comparisons to those in the United States. Probabilistic performance assessment models were constructed based on limited site data using software including GoldSim, BLT-MS, FEHM, and HELP. These software codes provided the probabilistic framework, container degradation, waste-form leaching, groundwater flow, radionuclide transport, and cover infiltration simulation capabilities in the performance assessment. Preliminary performance assessment analyses were conducted for a near-surface disposal system and a mined cavern disposal system at two representative sites in Taiwan. Results of example calculations indicate peak simulated concentrations to a receptor within a few hundred years of LLW disposal, primarily from highly soluble, non-sorbing radionuclides.

  19. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Guide, Sandia National Laboratories

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hansen, R.P. [Hansen Environmental Consultants, Englewood, CO (United States)

    1995-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report contains a comprehensive National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Guide for the Sandia National Laboratories. It is based on the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations in 40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508; the US Department of Energy (DOE) N-EPA implementing procedures in 10 CFR Part 102 1; DOE Order 5440.1E; the DOE ``Secretarial Policy Statement on the National Environmental Policy Act`` of June 1994- Sandia NEPA compliance procedures-, and other CEQ and DOE guidance. The Guide includes step-by-step procedures for preparation of Environmental Checklists/Action Descriptions Memoranda (ECL/ADMs), Environmental Assessments (EAs), and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). It also includes sections on ``Dealing With NEPA Documentation Problems`` and ``Special N-EPA Compliance Issues.``

  20. LLW Forum meeting report, July 20--22, 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1994-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum (LLW Forum) is an association of state and compact representative, appointed by governors and compact commissions, established to facilitate state and compact commission implementation of the Low-Level radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The forum provides an opportunity for states and compacts to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies. This report details activities of the meeting held July 20-22, 1994.

  1. Template for Expedited National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Energy Program Information Worksheet Template for Expedited NEPA Review of Certain Guidance for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program Recipients on Formula Grants...

  2. States with NEPA-like Environmental Planning Requirements

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Several states have environmental planning requirements that are similar to NEPA. These requirements are either State laws, regulations, or executive orders. Please click below for additional...

  3. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations: 40 CFR...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    to library Legal Document- Secondary Legal SourceSecondary Legal Source: Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations: 40 CFR 1500 - 1518Legal Author CEQ Published NA...

  4. DRAFT NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate...

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

    agencies can improve their consideration of the effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change in their evaluation of proposals for Federal actions under NEPA....

  5. NEPA Lessions Learned Quarterly Report - 4th Quarter FY 1998

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

    what was required and why. For information about the Sandia National Laboratories New Mexico Site-wide EIS, contact Julianne Levings, NEPA Document Manager, at...

  6. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DETERM

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

    s, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DETERM INATION RECIPIENT:University of Central Florida PROJECf TITLE : Florida Hydrogen Initiative 3 letter of...

  7. NEPA Lessons Learned Quarterly Report, First Quarter FY 2005...

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

    Office of Secure Transportation. Therefore, effective immediately, Debra Keeling, NNSA Service Center, will assume the DOE-Wide NEPA Contract Administrator duties. I will be...

  8. act nepa characterization: Topics by E-print Network

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

    was amended by the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act. Katherine Biggs, Associate Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. FR Doc....

  9. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DETERl...

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

    KS PROJECf TITLE: EECBG EE-OOOO727 KeC: Pittsburgh State University Ground Source Heat Pump Funding Opportunity Announcement Number Procurement Instrument Numr NEPA Control...

  10. Low-level waste inventory, characteristics, generation, and facility assessment for treatment, storage, and disposal alternatives considered in the US Department of Energy waste management programmatic environmental impact statement

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goyette, M.L.; Dolak, D.A.

    1996-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report provides technical support information for use in analyzing environmental impacts associated with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) low-level radioactive waste (LLW) management alternatives in the Waste-Management (WM) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). Waste loads treated and disposed of for each of the LLW alternatives considered in the DOE WM PEIS are presented. Waste loads are presented for DOE Waste Management (WM) wastes, which are generated from routine operations. Radioactivity concentrations and waste quantities for treatment and disposal under the different LLW alternatives are described for WM waste. 76 refs., 14 figs., 42 tabs.

  11. WRAP low level waste (LLW) glovebox operational test report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kersten, J.K.

    1998-02-19T23:59:59.000Z

    The Low Level Waste (LLW) Process Gloveboxes are designed to: receive a 55 gallon drum in an 85 gallon overpack in the Entry glovebox (GBIOI); and open and sort the waste from the 55 gallon drum, place the waste back into drum and relid in the Sorting glovebox (GB 102). In addition, waste which requires further examination is transferred to the LLW RWM Glovebox via the Drath and Schraeder Bagiess Transfer Port (DO-07-201) or sent to the Sample Transfer Port (STC); crush the drum in the Supercompactor glovebox (GB 104); place the resulting puck (along with other pucks) into another 85 gallon overpack in the Exit glovebox (GB 105). The status of the waste items is tracked by the Data Management System (DMS) via the Plant Control System (PCS) barcode interface. As an item is moved from the entry glovebox to the exit glovebox, the Operator will track an items location using a barcode reader and enter any required data on the DMS console. The Operational Test Procedure (OTP) will perform evolution`s (described below) using the Plant Operating Procedures (POP) in order to verify that they are sufficient and accurate for controlled glovebox operation.

  12. Mixed waste characterization, treatment & disposal focus area

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The mission of the Mixed Waste Characterization, Treatment, and Disposal Focus Area (referred to as the Mixed Waste Focus Area or MWFA) is to provide treatment systems capable of treating DOE`s mixed waste in partnership with users, and with continual participation of stakeholders, tribal governments, and regulators. The MWFA deals with the problem of eliminating mixed waste from current and future storage in the DOE complex. Mixed waste is waste that contains both hazardous chemical components, subject to the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and radioactive components, subject to the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act. The radioactive components include transuranic (TRU) and low-level waste (LLW). TRU waste primarily comes from the reprocessing of spent fuel and the use of plutonium in the fabrication of nuclear weapons. LLW includes radioactive waste other than uranium mill tailings, TRU, and high-level waste, including spent fuel.

  13. NEPA Success Stories: Celebrating 40 Years of Transparency and Open Government

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    NEPA Success Stories: Celebrating 40 Years of Transparency and Open Government, Environmental Law Institute, 2010.

  14. NEPA/CERCLA/RCRA integration: Policy vs. practice

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hansen, R.P. (Hansen Environmental Consultants, Englewood, CO (United States)); Wolff, T.A. (Sandia National Lab., Albuquerque, NM (United States))

    1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Overwhelmed with environmental protection documentation requirements, a number of Federal agencies are grappling with the complexities of attempting to integrate'' the documentation requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). While there is some overlap between the general environmental policy objectives of NEPA, and the much more specific waste cleanup objectives of CERCLA and RCRA, there are also major differences and outright conflicts. This paper identifies both problems and opportunities associated with implementing emerging and evolving Federal agency policy regarding integration of the procedural and documentation requirements of NEPA, CERCLA, and RCRA. The emphasis is on NEPA/CERCLA/RCRA integration policy and practice at US Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. The paper provides a comparative analysis of NEPA, CERCLA, and RCRA processes and discusses special integration issues including scoping, development and analysis of alternatives, risk assessment, tiering, scheduling, and the controversy surrounding applicability of NEPA to CERCLA or RCRA cleanup activities. Several NEPA/CERCLA/RCRA integration strategy options are evaluated and an annotated outline of an integrated NEPA/CERCLA document is included.

  15. LLW Forum meeting report, October 20--22, 1997

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Norris, C.; Brown, H. [eds.; Lovinger, T.; Scheele, L.; Shaker, M.A.

    1997-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum met in Annapolis, Maryland, on October 20--22, 1997. Twenty-six Forum Participants, Alternate Forum Participants, and meeting designees representing 22 compacts and states participated. A report on the meeting is given under the following subtitles: New developments in states and compacts; Discussion with NRC Commissioner McGaffigan; Regulatory issues session; Executive session; LLW forum business session; DOE low-level waste management program; Transportation of radioactive waste; Environmental equity: Title VI; Congressional studies on Ward Valley Site; Implementation of DOE`s strategy for waste management; Relicensing Envirocare; Draft agreement for uniform application of manifesting procedures; CRCPD report; Panel: Future of low-level radioactive waste management; Agenda planning: February 1998; Resolutions; and Attendance.

  16. LLW Forum meeting report, April 25--27, 1994

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1994-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The Low-Level radioactive Waste Forum is an association of representatives of states and compacts established to facilitate state and compact commission implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive waste regional compacts. The Forum provides an opportunity for states and compacts to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies. LLW Forum participants include representatives from regional compacts, designated host states, unaffiliated states, and states with currently-operating low-level radioactive waste facilities. This quarterly meeting was held April 25-27, 1994 and activities during the first quarter of 1994 are detailed..

  17. Justification Of The Use Of Boreholes For Disposal Of Sealed Radiological Sources

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zarling, John [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Johnson, Peter [Los Alamos National Laboratory

    2008-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Soon there will be only 14 states in two compacts that are able to dispose of Low Level Waste (LLW): the Northwest and Rocky Mountain compact with disposal options in Richland, Washington, and the Atlantic compact with disposal options in Barnwell, South Carolina. How do states not in one of the two compacts dispose of their LLW? The Off-Site Source Recovery Project can take possession and dispose of some of the unwanted transuranic sources at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). However, there will be no path forward for states outside of the two compacts for disposal of their non-transuranic LLW. A solution that has been much discussed, debated and researched, but has not been put into wide scale practice, is the borehole disposal concept. It is the author's position that companies that drill and explore for oil have been disposing of sources in borehole-like structures for years. It should be noted that these companies are not purposely disposing of these sources, but the sources are irretrievable and must be abandoned. Additionally, there are Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations that must be followed to seal the well that contains the lost and abandoned source. According to the NRC Event Notification Reports database, there were a minimum of 29 reports of lost and abandoned sources in oil wells between December 1999 and October 2006. The sources were lost at depths between 2,018-18,887 feet, or 600-5,750 meters. The companies that are performing explorations with the aid of sealed radiological sources must follow regulation 10 CFR Part 39. Subsection 15 outlines the procedures that must be followed if sources are determined to be irretrievable and abandoned in place. If the NRC allows and has regulations in place for oil companies, why can't states and/or companies be allowed to dispose of LLW in a similar fashion?

  18. Secure NEPA Documents | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYouTube YouTube Note: Since the.pdfBreakingMay 2015ParentsMiddle| DepartmentAchievementEnergy ICCPSecure NEPA

  19. NEPA Litigation Surveys | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagement of theTechno-economicOctober 2013 -DepartmentLessons LearnedNEPA

  20. DOE, NEPA, and YOU | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't Your Destiny: Theof"WaveInteractionsMaterialsDevelopEnergyof EnergyDOE, NEPA, and

  1. Transmission/Nepa Database | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro IndustriesTown of Ladoga, Indiana (Utility Company) JumpTradeWindPrepared asTransmissionNepa

  2. Gas generation from low-level radioactive waste: Concerns for disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Siskind, B.

    1992-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) has urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reexamine the topic of hydrogen gas generation from low-level radioactive waste (LLW) in closed spaces to ensure that the slow buildup of hydrogen from water-bearing wastes in sealed containers does not become a problem for long-term safe disposal. Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) has prepared a report, summarized in this paper, for the NRC to respond to these concerns. The paper discusses the range of values for G(H{sub 2}) reported for materials of relevance to LLW disposal; most of these values are in the range of 0.1 to 0.6. Most studies of radiolytic hydrogen generation indicate a leveling off of pressurization, probably because of chemical kinetics involving, in many cases, the radiolysis of water within the waste. Even if no leveling off occurs, realistic gas leakage rates (indicating poor closure by gaskets on drums and liners) will result in adequate relief of pressure for radiolytic gas generation from the majority of commercial sector LLW packages. Biodegradative gas generation, however, could pose a pressurization hazard even at realistic gas leakage rates. Recommendations include passive vents on LLW containers (as already specified for high integrity containers) and upper limits to the G values and/or the specific activity of the LLW.

  3. Gas generation from low-level radioactive waste: Concerns for disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Siskind, B.

    1992-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) has urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reexamine the topic of hydrogen gas generation from low-level radioactive waste (LLW) in closed spaces to ensure that the slow buildup of hydrogen from water-bearing wastes in sealed containers does not become a problem for long-term safe disposal. Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) has prepared a report, summarized in this paper, for the NRC to respond to these concerns. The paper discusses the range of values for G(H{sub 2}) reported for materials of relevance to LLW disposal; most of these values are in the range of 0.1 to 0.6. Most studies of radiolytic hydrogen generation indicate a leveling off of pressurization, probably because of chemical kinetics involving, in many cases, the radiolysis of water within the waste. Even if no leveling off occurs, realistic gas leakage rates (indicating poor closure by gaskets on drums and liners) will result in adequate relief of pressure for radiolytic gas generation from the majority of commercial sector LLW packages. Biodegradative gas generation, however, could pose a pressurization hazard even at realistic gas leakage rates. Recommendations include passive vents on LLW containers (as already specified for high integrity containers) and upper limits to the G values and/or the specific activity of the LLW.

  4. Overview of Nevada Test Site Radioactive and Mixed Waste Disposal Operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J.T. Carilli; S.K. Krenzien; R.G. Geisinger; S.J. Gordon; B. Quinn

    2009-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office Environmental Management Program is responsible for carrying out the disposal of on-site and off-site generated low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and low-level radioactive mixed waste (MW) at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). Core elements of this mission are ensuring safe and cost-effective disposal while protecting workers, the public, and the environment. This paper focuses on the impacts of new policies, processes, and opportunities at the NTS related to LLW and MW. Covered topics include: the first year of direct funding for NTS waste disposal operations; zero tolerance policy for non-compliant packages; the suspension of mixed waste disposal; waste acceptance changes; DOE Consolidated Audit Program (DOECAP) auditing; the 92-Acre Area closure plan; new eligibility requirements for generators; and operational successes with unusual waste streams.

  5. LLW (Low-Level Waste) Notes, Volume 13, Number 1, February 1998

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1998-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    LLW Notes is a newsletter distributed to Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Participants and other state and compact officials. The LLW Forum provides an opportunity for state and compact officials to share information with one another and to exchange views with officials of federal agencies and other interested parties. This issue focuses on the following topics: DOI approves Ward Valley permit application; Project evidentiary hearings begin in Texas; and Summary judgment motions in California breach of contract action.

  6. Using the NEPA Requirements and Guidance - Search Index

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    file, right click on it, select "Extract all", extract it to any location on your computer or USB drive. 2. Locate and Open the extracted folder "NEPA Requirements and Guidance...

  7. Guidance on NEPA Review for Corrective Actions under the Resource...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    and Recovery Act (RCRA) Guidance on NEPA Review for Corrective Actions under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) This guidance results from the work of a Task Team...

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1998-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  9. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 & NEPA

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Section 1609(c) requires a report to Congress on the status and progress of NEPA reviews for Recovery Act funded projects and activities. The President has assigned reporting responsibility to CEQ

  10. Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, Staff Directory

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, Staff Directory including phone number and areas of responsibility for the  Energy and Waste Management Unit, Western Energy and Waste Management Unit, and the...

  11. Composite analysis E-area vaults and saltstone disposal facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, J.R.

    1997-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents the Composite Analysis (CA) performed on the two active Savannah River Site (SRS) low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities. The facilities are the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility and the E-Area Vaults (EAV) Disposal Facility. The analysis calculated potential releases to the environment from all sources of residual radioactive material expected to remain in the General Separations Area (GSA). The GSA is the central part of SRS and contains all of the waste disposal facilities, chemical separations facilities and associated high-level waste storage facilities as well as numerous other sources of radioactive material. The analysis considered 114 potential sources of radioactive material containing 115 radionuclides. The results of the CA clearly indicate that continued disposal of low-level waste in the saltstone and EAV facilities, consistent with their respective radiological performance assessments, will have no adverse impact on future members of the public.

  12. Geothermal NEPA Database on OpenEI (Poster)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Young, K. R.; Levine, A.

    2014-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) developed the Geothermal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Database as a platform for government agencies and industry to access and maintain information related to geothermal NEPA documents. The data were collected to inform analyses of NEPA timelines, and the collected data were made publically available via this tool in case others might find the data useful. NREL staff and contractors collected documents from agency websites, during visits to the two busiest Bureau of Land Management (BLM) field offices for geothermal development, and through email and phone call requests from other BLM field offices. They then entered the information into the database, hosted by Open Energy Information (http://en.openei.org/wiki/RAPID/NEPA). The long-term success of the project will depend on the willingness of federal agencies, industry, and others to populate the database with NEPA and related documents, and to use the data for their own analyses. As the information and capabilities of the database expand, developers and agencies can save time on new NEPA reports by accessing a single location to research related activities, their potential impacts, and previously proposed and imposed mitigation measures. NREL used a wiki platform to allow industry and agencies to maintain the content in the future so that it continues to provide relevant and accurate information to users.

  13. User`s Manual for the SOURCE1 and SOURCE2 Computer Codes: Models for Evaluating Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Source Terms (Version 2.0)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Icenhour, A.S.; Tharp, M.L.

    1996-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The SOURCE1 and SOURCE2 computer codes calculate source terms (i.e. radionuclide release rates) for performance assessments of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities. SOURCE1 is used to simulate radionuclide releases from tumulus-type facilities. SOURCE2 is used to simulate releases from silo-, well-, well-in-silo-, and trench-type disposal facilities. The SOURCE codes (a) simulate the degradation of engineered barriers and (b) provide an estimate of the source term for LLW disposal facilities. This manual summarizes the major changes that have been effected since the codes were originally developed.

  14. Potential for Subsidence at the Low-level Waste Disposal Area

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Keck, Karen Nina; Seitz, Roger Ray

    2002-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management requires that DOE low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities receive a Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) from DOE-Headquarters. The DAS for the LLW disposal facility at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) was granted in April 2000 and included a number of conditions that must be addressed. A maintenance plan (Schuman 2000) was prepared that identifies the tasks to be completed to address the conditions in the DAS as well as a schedule for their completion. The need for a subsidence analysis was one of the conditions identified for the DAS, and thus, a task to prepare a subsidence analysis was included in the maintenance plan. This document provides the information necessary to satisfy that requirement.

  15. Potential for Subsidence at the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Area

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Keck, K.A.; Seitz, R.R.

    2002-09-26T23:59:59.000Z

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management requires that DOE low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities receive a Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) from DOE-Headquarters. The DAS for the LLW disposal facility at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) was granted in April 2000 and included a number of conditions that must be addressed. A maintenance plan (Schuman 2000) was prepared that identifies the tasks to be completed to address the conditions in the DAS as well as a schedule for their completion. The need for a subsidence analysis was one of the conditions identified for the DAS, and thus, a task to prepare a subsidence analysis was included in the maintenance plan. This document provides the information necessary to satisfy that requirement.

  16. Examples of Benefits from the NEPA process for ARRA funded activities

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Efforts to implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) include ensuring, and reporting on, timely NEPA reviews prepared in support of projects and activities funded under major provisions of ARRA. In addition to reporting on the status of the NEPA environmental reviews, agencies also report on the benefits of NEPA.

  17. Potential GTCC LLW sealed radiation source recycle initiatives

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fischer, D

    1992-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report suggests 11 actions that have the potential to facilitate the recycling (reuse or radionuclide) of surplus commercial sealed radiation sources that would otherwise be disposed of as greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste. The suggestions serve as a basis for further investigation and discussion between the Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Agreement States, and the commercial sector. Information is also given that describes sealed sources, how they are used, and problems associated with recycling, including legal concerns. To illustrate the nationwide recycling potential, Appendix A gives the estimated quantity and application information for sealed sources that would qualify for disposal in commercial facilities if not recycle. The report recommends that the Department of Energy initiate the organization of a forum to explore the suggested actions and other recycling possibilities.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1997-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  19. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cushing, C.E. (ed.)

    1992-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1992-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  1. Development and application of a gamma scanning system for LLW and MLW packages

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Suarez, J.A.; Pina, G. [CIEMAT, Madrid (Spain); Perez, C. [Anadig Ingenieros, SA, Madrid (Spain)

    1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The report describes the studies carried out to design a non-destructive system for the radiological characterization of packages containing LLW and MLW. This technique is applied for quantitative and qualitative gamma emitters determination in packages with homogeneous and heterogeneous matrices as well as the development of a maximum activity points location system. Development involves also the automatization for its industrial use.

  2. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    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

    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.

  3. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    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

    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.

  4. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    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

    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.

  5. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization, Revision 15

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    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

    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.

  6. Reference: RGL 81-02 Subject: NEPA-CORPS EIS

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Reference: RGL 81-02 Subject: NEPA-CORPS EIS Title: REVIEW OF ANOTHER AGENCY'S EIS Issued: 03/17/81 Expires: 12/31/83 Originator: DAEN-CWO-N Description: EIS WILL ONLY BE PREPARED WHEN CORPS PERMIT ACTION sentence of paragraph 23 of Appendix B to 33 CFR 230, a draft and final supplement to another agency's EIS

  7. Operating Experience and Lessons Learned in the Use of Soft-Sided Packaging for Transportation and Disposal of Low Activity Radioactive Waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kapoor, A. [DOE; Gordon, S. [NSTec; Goldston, W. [Energy Solutions

    2013-07-08T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper describes the operating experience and lessons learned at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites as a result of an evaluation of potential trailer contamination and soft-sided packaging integrity issues related to the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level (LLW/MLLW) radioactive waste shipments. Nearly 4.3 million cubic meters of LLW/MLLW will have been generated and disposed of during fiscal year (FY) 2010 to FY 2015—either at commercial disposal sites or disposal sites owned by DOE. The LLW/MLLW is packaged in several different types of regulatory compliant packaging and transported via highway or rail to disposal sites safely and efficiently in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations and DOE orders. In 1999, DOE supported the development of LLW containers that are more volumetrically efficient, more cost effective, and easier to use as compared to metal or wooden containers that existed at that time. The DOE Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), working in conjunction with the plastic industry, tested several types of soft-sided waste packaging systems that meet U.S. Department of Transportation requirements for transport of low specific activity and surface contaminated objects. Since then, soft-sided packaging of various capacities have been used successfully by the decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) projects to package, transport, and dispose D&D wastes throughout the DOE complex. The joint team of experts assembled by the Energy Facility Contractors Group from DOE waste generating sites, DOE and commercial waste disposal facilities, and soft-sided packaging suppliers conducted the review of soft-sided packaging operations and transportation of these packages to the disposal sites. As a result of this evaluation, the team developed several recommendations and best practices to prevent or minimize the recurrences of equipment contamination issues and proper use of soft-sided packaging for transport and disposal of waste.

  8. Performance assessment for the disposal of low-level waste in the 200 West Area Burial Grounds

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wood, M.I.; Khaleel, R.; Rittmann, P.D.; Lu, A.H.; Finfrock, S.H.; DeLorenzo, T.H. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States); Serne, R.J.; Cantrell, K.J. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States)

    1995-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document reports the findings of a performance assessment (PA) analysis for the disposal of solid low-level radioactive waste (LLW) in the 200 West Area Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds (LLBG) in the northwest corner of the 200 West Area of the Hanford Site. This PA analysis is required by US Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5820.2A (DOE 1988a) to demonstrate that a given disposal practice is in compliance with a set of performance objectives quantified in the order. These performance objectives are applicable to the disposal of DOE-generated LLW at any DOE-operated site after the finalization of the order in September 1988. At the Hanford Site, DOE, Richland Operations Office (RL) has issued a site-specific supplement to DOE Order 5820.2A, DOE-RL 5820.2A (DOE 1993), which provides additiona I ce objectives that must be satisfied.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cushing, C.E. (ed.)

    1988-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document describes the Hanford Site environment (Chapter 4) and contains data in Chapter 5 and 6 which will guide users in the preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-related documents. Many NEPA compliance documents have been prepared and are being prepared by site contractors for the US Department of Energy, and examination of these documents reveals inconsistencies in the amount of detail presented and the method of presentation. Thus, it seemed necessary to prepare a consistent description of the Hanford environment to be used in preparing Chapter 4 of environmental impact statements and other site-related NEPA documentation. The material in Chapter 5 is a guide to the models used, including critical assumptions incorporated in these models, in previous Hanford NEPA documents. The users will have to select those models appropriate for the proposed action. Chapter 6 is essentially a definitive NEPA Chapter 6, which describes the applicable laws, regulations, and DOE and state orders. In this document, a complete description of the environment is presented in Chapter 4 without excessive tabular data. For these data, sources are provided. Most subjects are divided into a general description of the characteristics of the Hanford Site, followed by site-specific information where it is available on the 100, 200, 300, and other Areas. This division will allow a person requiring information to go immediately to those sections of particular interest. However, site-specific information on each of these separate areas is not always complete or available. In this case, the general Hanford Site description should be used. 131 refs., 19 figs., 32 tabs.

  10. Low level tank waste disposal study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mullally, J.A.

    1994-09-29T23:59:59.000Z

    Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) contracted a team consisting of Los Alamos Technical Associates (LATA), British Nuclear Fuel Laboratories (BNFL), Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), and TRW through the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Technical Support Contract to conduct a study on several areas concerning vitrification and disposal of low-level-waste (LLW). The purpose of the study was to investigate how several parameters could be specified to achieve full compliance with regulations. The most restrictive regulation governing this disposal activity is the National Primary Drinking Water Act which sets the limits of exposure to 4 mrem per year for a person drinking two liters of ground water daily. To fully comply, this constraint would be met independently of the passage of time. In addition, another key factor in the investigation was the capability to retrieve the disposed waste during the first 50 years as specified in Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5820.2A. The objective of the project was to develop a strategy for effective long-term disposal of the low-level waste at the Hanford site.

  11. Linking RESRAD-OFFSITE and HYDROGEOCHEM Model for Performance Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility - 13429

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lin, Wen-Sheng [Hydrotech Research Institute, National Taiwan University, Taiwan (China)] [Hydrotech Research Institute, National Taiwan University, Taiwan (China); Yu, Charley; Cheng, Jing-Jy; Kamboj, Sunita; Gnanapragasam, Emmanuel [Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439 (United States)] [Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439 (United States); Liu, Chen-Wuing [Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan (China)] [Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan (China); Li, Ming-Hsu [Institute of Hydrological and Oceanic Sciences, National Central University, Taiwan (China)] [Institute of Hydrological and Oceanic Sciences, National Central University, Taiwan (China)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Performance assessments are crucial steps for the long-term radiological safety requirements of low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility. How much concentration of radionuclides released from the near-field to biosphere and what radiation exposure levels of an individual can influence on the satisfactory performance of the LLW disposal facility and safety disposal environment. Performance assessment methodology for the radioactive waste disposal consists of the reactive transport modeling of safety-concerned radionuclides released from the near-field to the far-field, and the potential exposure pathways and the movements of radionuclides through the geosphere, biosphere and man of which the accompanying dose. Therefore, the integration of hydrogeochemical transport model and dose assessment code, HYDROGEOCHEM code and RESRAD family of codes is imperative. The RESRAD family of codes such as RESRAD-OFFSITE computer code can evaluate the radiological dose and excess cancer risk to an individual who is exposed while located within or outside the area of initial (primary) contamination. The HYDROGEOCHEM is a 3-D numerical model of fluid flow, thermal, hydrologic transport, and biogeochemical kinetic and equilibrium reactions in saturated and unsaturated media. The HYDROGEOCHEM model can also simulate the crucial geochemical mechanism, such as the effect of redox processes on the adsorption/desorption, hydrogeochemical influences on concrete degradation, adsorption/desorption of radionuclides (i.e., surface complexation model) between solid and liquid phase in geochemically dynamic environments. To investigate the safety assessment of LLW disposal facility, linking RESRAD-OFFSITE and HYDROGEOCHEM model can provide detailed tools of confidence in the protectiveness of the human health and environmental impact for safety assessment of LLW disposal facility. (authors)

  12. U.S. DEPARTIVIENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    CENTER NEPA DETERlVIINATION RECIPIENT:County of Fairfax STATE: VA PROJECT Electric and hybrid vehicle incremental cost recovery TITLE: Funding Opportunity Announcement Number...

  13. U.S. DEPARThfENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DETElUrINATION RECIPIENT: Marquette University PROJECT TITLE : Anaerobic Biotechnology for Renewable Energy Page 1 of2 STATE;...

  14. u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEM ENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    MANAGEM ENT CENTER NEPA DETER.1.fiNATION Pagelof4 REC IPIENT: University of Hawaii STATE : HI PROJECT TITLE: Hawaii National Marine Renewable Energy Center Funding Opportunity...

  15. U.S. DEP_·UUMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    DEPUUMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DETERMINATION RECIPIENT:University of Central Florida PROJECf TITLE: PV Manufacturing Consortium Page 1 of2 STATE: Fl...

  16. U.S. DEPARTlIIENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    DETnu.fiNATION RECIPIENT:Clemson University PROJECf TITLE: BioEthanol Collaborative Page 1 of2 STATE: SC Funding Opportunity Announement Number Procurement Instrument Number NEPA...

  17. U.S. DEPARTIVEENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DE 'URA TTNATION RECIPIENT:Texas Tech University STATE: TX PROJECT TITLE : Great Plains Wind Power Test Facility Funding...

  18. u.s. DEPARThrFm OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    of Commerce STATE: WA PROJECf TITLE : State of Washington Stale Energy Program Funding Opportunity Announcement Number Procurement Instrument Number NEPA Control Number CID...

  19. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    ." ,., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DETERMINATION RECIPIENT:TRAVIS COUNTY TEXAS PROJECT TITLE: County of Travis, Texas 700 Lavaca Street...

  20. u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAG EMENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    NEPA DETERMINATION RECIPIENT:City of Virginia Beach PROJECT TITLE: Virginia Beach Wind Turbine Demonstration Project Page I of2 STATE: VA Funding Opportunity Announcement Number...

  1. u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERG¥ EERE rROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    NEPA DETERMINATION RECIPIENT :University of Delaware STATE: DE PROJECT TITLE: Wind Turbine Infrastructure for Green Energy and Research on Wind Power in DE Funding Opportunity...

  2. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DETl1Rl...

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

    OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DETl1RlIINATION RECIPIENT:New Mexico Energy, Minerals & Natural Resources Department PROJECT TITLE: SEP ARRA City of...

  3. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rohay, A.C.; Fosmire, C.J.; Neitzel, D.A.; Hoitink, D.J.; Harvey, D.W.; Antonio, E.J.; Wright, M.K.; Thorne, P.D.; Hendrickson, P.L.; Fowler, R.A.; Goodwin, S.M.; Poston, T.M.

    1999-09-28T23:59:59.000Z

    This document describes the US 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 NEPA documents being prepared by DOE contractors. No conclusions or recommendations are provided. This year's report is the eleventh revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the 12th revision) the only version that is relevant for use in the preparation of Hanford NEPA; SEPA and CERCLA documents. The two chapters included in this document (Chapters 4 and 6) are numbered 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 Hanford Site climate and meteorology, geology, hydrology, ecology, cultural, archaeological and historical resources, socioeconomic; occupational safety, and noise. Sources for extensive tabular data related to these topics are provided in the chapter. Most subjects are divided into a general description of the characteristics of the Hanford Site, followed by site-specific information, where available, of the 100,200,300, and other Areas. This division allows the reader to go directly to those sections of particular interest. When specific information on each of these separate areas is not complete or available, the general Hanford Site description should be used. Chapter 6.0 (Statutory and Regulatory Requirements) is essentially a definitive NEPA Chapter 6.0, which 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. People preparing environmental assessments and EISs should also be cognizant of the document entitled ''Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements'' published by the DOE Office of NEPA Oversight. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) staff prepared individual sections of this document, with input from other Site contractors. More detailed data are available from reference sources cited or from the authors. The following sections of the document were reviewed by the authors and updated with the best available information through June 1999: Climate and Meteorology; Ecology; Cultural, Archaeological, and Historical Resources; Socioeconomics; and All of Chapter 6.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2008-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy, National Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) is planning to close the 92-Acre Area of the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), which is about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. Closure planning for this facility must take into account the regulatory requirements for a diversity of waste streams, disposal and storage configurations, disposal history, and site conditions. This paper provides a brief background of the Area 5 RWMS, identifies key closure issues, and presents the closure strategy. Disposals have been made in 25 shallow excavated pits and trenches and 13 Greater Confinement Disposal (GCD) boreholes at the 92-Acre Area since 1961. The pits and trenches have been used to dispose unclassified low-level waste (LLW), low-level mixed waste (LLMW), and asbestiform waste, and to store classified low-level and low-level mixed materials. The GCD boreholes are intermediate-depth disposal units about 10 feet (ft) in diameter and 120 ft deep. Classified and unclassified high-specific activity LLW, transuranic (TRU), and mixed TRU are disposed in the GCD boreholes. TRU waste was also disposed inadvertently in trench T-04C. Except for three disposal units that are active, all pits and trenches are operationally covered with 8-ft thick alluvium. The 92-Acre Area also includes a Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (MWDU) operating under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Interim Status, and an asbestiform waste unit operating under a state of Nevada Solid Waste Disposal Site Permit. A single final closure cover is envisioned over the 92-Acre Area. The cover is the evapotranspirative-type cover that has been successfully employed at the NTS. Closure, post-closure care, and monitoring must meet the requirements of the following regulations: U.S. Department of Energy Order 435.1, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 191, Title 40 CFR Part 265, Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 444.743, RCRA requirements as incorporated into NAC 444.8632, and the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO). A grouping of waste disposal units according to waste type, location, and similarity in regulatory requirements identified six closure units: LLW Unit, Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 111 under FFACO, Asbestiform LLW Unit, Pit 3 MWDU, TRU GCD Borehole Unit, and TRU Trench Unit. The closure schedule of all units is tied to the closure schedule of the Pit 3 MWDU under RCRA.

  5. Disposal rabbit

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Lewis, L.C.; Trammell, D.R.

    1983-10-12T23:59:59.000Z

    A disposable rabbit for transferring radioactive samples in a pneumatic transfer system comprises aerated plastic shaped in such a manner as to hold a radioactive sample and aerated such that dissolution of the rabbit in a solvent followed by evaporation of the solid yields solid waste material having a volume significantly smaller than the original volume of the rabbit.

  6. Disposable rabbit

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Lewis, Leroy C. (Idaho Falls, ID); Trammell, David R. (Rigby, ID)

    1986-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A disposable rabbit for transferring radioactive samples in a pneumatic transfer system comprises aerated plastic shaped in such a manner as to hold a radioactive sample and aerated such that dissolution of the rabbit in a solvent followed by evaporation of the solid yields solid waste material having a volume significantly smaller than the original volume of the rabbit.

  7. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 8

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    1996-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  8. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 6

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cushing, C.E. [ed.; Baker, D.A.; Chamness, M.A. [and others

    1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  9. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 7

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cushing, C.E. [ed.] ed.; Baker, D.A.; Chamness, M.A. [and others] and others

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  10. Acoustic structure and echo character of surficial sediments of the northern Hatteras Abyssal Plain. [LLW Ocean Disposal Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McCreery, C.J.; Laine, E.P.

    1986-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A study has been made of the high frequency acoustic response of abyssal plain depositional facies. Piston cores have been obtained at six stations and deep hydrophone recordings at three stations on the northern Hatteras Abyssal Plain. 3.5 kHz seismic profiles indicate acoustically transparent lobes of surficial sediment which thicken towards the Hatteral Transverse Canyon and Sohm Gap/Wilmington Fan. Physical property data from piston cores indicate a higher percentage of coarse sediment in the areas of transparent acoustic response. Many of the characteristics normally used in mapping of conventional 3.5 kHz profiler acoustic response varied only slightly in the study area. Regions of diffuse 3.5 kHz surface echoes, similar to prolonged echoes attributed to high percent sand beds, have been identified in the study area. High trace to trace variation in deep hydrophone/pinger recordings in these areas suggests that the diffuse echo returns are due to unresolved microtopography and are not necessarily associated with a sandy seafloor.

  11. Integrating a life-cycle assessment with NEPA: Does it make sense?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    ECCLESTON, C.H.

    1998-09-03T23:59:59.000Z

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 provides the basic national charter for protection of the environment in the US. Today NEPA has provided an environmental policy model which has been emulated by nations around the world. Recently, questions have been raised regarding the appropriateness and under what conditions it makes sense to combine the preparation of a NEPA analysis with the International Organization for Stnadardization (ISO) - 14000 Standards for Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA). This paper advantages a decision making tool consisting of six discrete criteria which can be employed by a user in reaching a decision regarding the integration of NEPA analysis and LCA. Properly applied, this tool should reduce the risk that a LCA may be inappropriately prepared and integrated with a NEPA analysis.

  12. Evaluation of Low-Level Waste Disposal Receipt Data for Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Area 54, Area G Disposal Facility - Fiscal Year 2011

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    French, Sean B. [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Shuman, Robert [WPS: WASTE PROJECTS AND SERVICES

    2012-04-17T23:59:59.000Z

    The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Laboratory) generates radioactive waste as a result of various activities. Operational or institutional waste is generated from a wide variety of research and development activities including nuclear weapons development, energy production, and medical research. Environmental restoration (ER), and decontamination and decommissioning (D and D) waste is generated as contaminated sites and facilities at LANL undergo cleanup or remediation. The majority of this waste is low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and is disposed of at the Technical Area 54 (TA-54), Area G disposal facility. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 (DOE, 2001) requires that radioactive waste be managed in a manner that protects public health and safety, and the environment. To comply with this order, DOE field sites must prepare and maintain site-specific radiological performance assessments for LLW disposal facilities that accept waste after September 26, 1988. Furthermore, sites are required to conduct composite analyses that account for the cumulative impacts of all waste that has been (or will be) disposed of at the facilities and other sources of radioactive material that may interact with the facilities. Revision 4 of the Area G performance assessment and composite analysis was issued in 2008 (LANL, 2008). These analyses estimate rates of radionuclide release from the waste disposed of at the facility, simulate the movement of radionuclides through the environment, and project potential radiation doses to humans for several on-site and off-site exposure scenarios. The assessments are based on existing site and disposal facility data and on assumptions about future rates and methods of waste disposal. The accuracy of the performance assessment and composite analysis depends upon the validity of the data used and assumptions made in conducting the analyses. If changes in these data and assumptions are significant, they may invalidate or call into question certain aspects of the analyses. For example, if the volumes and activities of waste disposed of during the remainder of the disposal facility's lifetime differ significantly from those projected, the doses projected by the analyses may no longer apply. DOE field sites are required to implement a performance assessment and composite analysis maintenance program. The purpose of this program is to ensure the continued applicability of the analyses through incremental improvement of the level of understanding of the disposal site and facility. Site personnel are required to conduct field and experimental work to reduce the uncertainty in the data and models used in the assessments. Furthermore, they are required to conduct periodic reviews of waste receipts, comparing them to projected waste disposal rates. The radiological inventory for Area G was updated in conjunction with Revision 4 of the performance assessment and composite analysis (Shuman, 2008). That effort used disposal records and other sources of information to estimate the quantities of radioactive waste that have been disposed of at Area G from 1959, the year the facility started receiving waste on a routine basis, through 2007. It also estimated the quantities of LLW that will require disposal from 2008 through 2044, the year in which it is assumed that disposal operations at Area G will cease. This report documents the fourth review of Area G disposal receipts since the inventory was updated and examines information for waste placed in the ground during fiscal years (FY) 2008 through 2011. The primary objective of the disposal receipt review is to ensure that the future waste inventory projections developed for the performance assessment and composite analysis are consistent with the actual types and quantities of waste being disposed of at Area G. Toward this end, the disposal data that are the subject of this review are used to update the future waste inventory projections for the disposal facility. These projections are compared to the future inventory projections that were develope

  13. A Novel and Cost Effective Approach to the Decommissioning and Decontamination of Legacy Glove Boxes - Minimizing TRU Waste and Maximizing LLW Waste - 13634

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pancake, Daniel; Rock, Cynthia M.; Creed, Richard [Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Lemont, IL 60439 (United States)] [Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Lemont, IL 60439 (United States); Donohoue, Tom; Martin, E. Ray; Mason, John A. [ANTECH Corporation 9050 Marshall Court, Westminster, CO, 80031 (United States)] [ANTECH Corporation 9050 Marshall Court, Westminster, CO, 80031 (United States); Norton, Christopher J.; Crosby, Daniel [Environmental Alternatives, Inc., 149 Emerald Street, Suite R, Keene, NH 03431 (United States)] [Environmental Alternatives, Inc., 149 Emerald Street, Suite R, Keene, NH 03431 (United States); Nachtman, Thomas J. [InstaCote, Inc., 160 C. Lavoy Road, Erie, MI, 48133 (United States)] [InstaCote, Inc., 160 C. Lavoy Road, Erie, MI, 48133 (United States)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper describes the process of decommissioning two gloveboxes at the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) that were employed for work with plutonium and other radioactive materials. The decommissioning process involved an initial phase of clearing tools and materials from the glove boxes and disconnecting them from the laboratory infrastructure. The removed materials, assessed as Transuranic (TRU) waste, were packaged into 55 gallon (200 litre) drums and prepared for ultimate disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) at Carlsbad New Mexico. The boxes were then sampled to determine the radioactive contents by means of smears that were counted with alpha and beta detectors to determine the residual surface contamination, especially in terms of alpha particle emitters that are an indicator of TRU activity. Paint chip samples were also collected and sent for laboratory analysis in order to ascertain the radioactive contamination contributing to the TRU activity as a fixed contamination. The investigations predicted that it may be feasible to reduce the residual surface contamination and render the glovebox structure low level waste (LLW) for disposal. In order to reduce the TRU activity a comprehensive decontamination process was initiated using chemical compounds that are particularly effective for lifting and dissolving radionuclides that adhere to the inner surfaces of the gloveboxes. The result of the decontamination process was a reduction in the TRU surface activity on the inner surfaces of the gloveboxes by four orders of magnitude in terms of disintegrations per unit area (DPA). The next phase of the process involved a comprehensive assay of the gloveboxes using a combination of passive neutron and gamma ray scintillation detectors and a shielded and collimated high purity Germanium (HPGe) gamma ray detector. The HPGe detector was used to obtain gamma ray spectra for a variety of measurement positions within the glovebox. The spectra were used to determine the TRU content of the boxes by assessing the activity of Am-241 (59 keV) and Pu-241 (414 keV). Using the data generated it was possible for qualified subject matter experts (SME) to assess that the gloveboxes could be consigned for disposition as LLW and not as TRU. Once this determination was assessed and accepted the gloveboxes were prepared for final disposition to the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) - formerly the Nevada Test Site (NTS). This preparation involved fixing any remaining radioactive contamination within the gloveboxes by filling them with a foam compound, prior to transportation. Once the remaining contamination was fixed the gloveboxes were removed from the laboratory and prepared for transported by road to NNSS. This successful glovebox decontamination and decommissioning process illustrates the means by which TRU waste generation has been minimized, LLW generation has been maximized, and risk has been effectively managed. The process minimizes the volume of TRU waste and reduced the decommissioning time with significant cost savings as the result. (authors)

  14. GO 2009 Annual NEPA Planning Summary | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2: FinalOffers3.pdf0-45.pdf0 Budget Fossil EnergyFullGO 2009 Annual NEPA Planning Summary GO

  15. LM Annual NEPA Planning Summary 2014 | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't YourTransport(FactDepartment ofLetter Report:40PM toLED Lighting5-15 LM 05-15 NEPA

  16. Golden Reading Room: NEPA Categorical Exclusions | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011 Strategic2 OPAM Flash2011-12 OPAMGeneral Guidance onGlennNEPA Categorical Exclusions

  17. Golden Reading Room: Other NEPA Documents | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011 Strategic2 OPAM Flash2011-12 OPAMGeneral Guidance onGlennNEPA CategoricalDepartmentOther

  18. Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial602 1,39732onMake YourDepartment ofC T OEnergyOfficeEnergyNEPA

  19. NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance (December 1996) | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagement of theTechno-economicOctober 2013 -Department of EnergyNEPA

  20. NEPA Determination: LM-12-11 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagement of theTechno-economicOctober 2013 -Department of5-121 NEPA

  1. NEPA Determination: LM-12-12 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagement of theTechno-economicOctober 2013 -Department of5-121 NEPA-12

  2. NEPA Determination: LM-13-13 | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagement of theTechno-economicOctober 2013 -Department of5-1213-13 NEPA

  3. NEPA-Related Public Involvement | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagement of theTechno-economicOctober 2013NEPA-Related Public Involvement

  4. Property:NEPA Decision Url | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are beingZealand Jump to:Ezfeedflag Jump to: navigation,ProjectStartDate JumpAuth3LinkTechMinCategoricalExclusionNEPA

  5. Geothermal NEPA Workshop at GRC | OpenEI Community

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directedAnnual Siteof Energy 2,AUDIT REPORTEnergyFarms A SUK Place:Georgia Department of NaturalNEPA

  6. Template for Expedited NEPA Review of Certain | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYouTube YouTube Note: Since the.pdfBreakingMayDepartment ofEnergyTeamDevelopmentDevelopingNEPA Review of Certain

  7. Template for Expedited National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review of

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYouTube YouTube Note: Since the.pdfBreakingMayDepartment ofEnergyTeamDevelopmentDevelopingNEPA Review of

  8. NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance (December 1996) | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn'tOrigin of Contamination in Many Devils Wash, Shiprock, NewThis paper09 Lessons LearnedNEPA

  9. Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOnItem NotEnergy, science,SpeedingWu,Intelligence and CounterintelligenceNEPA Policy and

  10. Questions and Answers about National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn'tOrigin of ContaminationHubs+18, 2012 Qualified EnergyDepartment ofOrder No.about NEPA Compliance

  11. Integrated Disposal Facility FY2011 Glass Testing Summary Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pierce, Eric M.; Bacon, Diana H.; Kerisit, Sebastien N.; Windisch, Charles F.; Cantrell, Kirk J.; Valenta, Michelle M.; Burton, Sarah D.; Westsik, Joseph H.

    2011-09-29T23:59:59.000Z

    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was contracted by Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the engineered portion of the disposal facility (e.g., source term). Vitrifying the low-activity waste at Hanford is expected to generate over 1.6 x 10{sup 5} m{sup 3} of glass (Certa and Wells 2010). The volume of immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW) at Hanford is the largest in the DOE complex and is one of the largest inventories (approximately 8.9 x 10{sup 14} Bq total activity) of long-lived radionuclides, principally {sup 99}Tc (t{sub 1/2} = 2.1 x 10{sup 5}), planned for disposal in a low-level waste (LLW) facility. Before the ILAW can be disposed, DOE must conduct a performance assessment (PA) for the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) that describes the long-term impacts of the disposal facility on public health and environmental resources. As part of the ILAW glass testing program PNNL is implementing a strategy, consisting of experimentation and modeling, in order to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the glass waste form in support of future IDF PAs. The purpose of this report is to summarize the progress made in fiscal year (FY) 2011 toward implementing the strategy with the goal of developing an understanding of the long-term corrosion behavior of low-activity waste glasses.

  12. Hazard Classification of the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2012-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is constructing a new facility to replace remote-handled low-level radioactive waste disposal capability for INL and Naval Reactors Facility operations. Current disposal capability at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) will continue until the facility is full or closed for remediation (estimated at approximately fiscal year 2015). Development of a new onsite disposal facility is the highest ranked alternative and will provide RH-LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate RH-LLW for the foreseeable future. As a part of establishing a safety basis for facility operations, the facility will be categorized according to DOE-STD-1027-92. This classification is important in determining the scope of analyses performed in the safety basis and will also dictate operational requirements of the completed facility. This paper discusses the issues affecting hazard classification in this nuclear facility and impacts of the final hazard categorization.

  13. Operational Strategies for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site in Egypt - 13513

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mohamed, Yasser T. [Hot Laboratories and Waste Management Center, Atomic Energy Authority, 3 Ahmed El-Zomor St., El-Zohour District, Naser City, 11787, Cairo (Egypt)] [Hot Laboratories and Waste Management Center, Atomic Energy Authority, 3 Ahmed El-Zomor St., El-Zohour District, Naser City, 11787, Cairo (Egypt)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The ultimate aims of treatment and conditioning is to prepare waste for disposal by ensuring that the waste will meet the waste acceptance criteria of a disposal facility. Hence the purpose of low-level waste disposal is to isolate the waste from both people and the environment. The radioactive particles in low-level waste emit the same types of radiation that everyone receives from nature. Most low-level waste fades away to natural background levels of radioactivity in months or years. Virtually all of it diminishes to natural levels in less than 300 years. In Egypt, The Hot Laboratories and Waste Management Center has been established since 1983, as a waste management facility for LLW and ILW and the disposal site licensed for preoperational in 2005. The site accepts the low level waste generated on site and off site and unwanted radioactive sealed sources with half-life less than 30 years for disposal and all types of sources for interim storage prior to the final disposal. Operational requirements at the low-level (LLRW) disposal site are listed in the National Center for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Control NCNSRC guidelines. Additional procedures are listed in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Standards Manual. The following describes the current operations at the LLRW disposal site. (authors)

  14. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance at Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico (SNL/NM)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wolff, T.A. [Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM (United States). Community Involvement and Issues Management Dept.; Hansen, R.P. [Hansen Environmental Consultants, Englewood, CO (United States)

    1998-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance at Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico (SNL/NM) chronicles past and current compliance activities and includes a recommended strategy that can be implemented for continued improvement. This report provides a list of important references. Attachment 1 contains the table of contents for SAND95-1648, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance Guide Sandia National Laboratories (Hansen, 1995). Attachment 2 contains a list of published environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs) prepared by SNL/NM. Attachment 3 contains abstracts of NEPA compliance papers authored by SNL/NM and its contractors.

  15. NEPA Source Guide for the Hanford Site. Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rued, W.J.

    1994-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

    This Source Guide will assist those working with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to become more familiar with the Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that apply to specific activities and facilities at 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 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), concerning the proposed action and current status of the buildings and units discussed in the proposed action. If a decision was officially stated by the DOE, as in a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or a Record of Decision (ROD), and was located, a summary is provided in the text. 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 may have been published elsewhere.

  16. Hanford Site National Evnironmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cushing, C.E. (ed.)

    1991-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This fourth 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. In Chapter 4.0 are presented summations of up-to-date information about climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels. Chapter 5.0 describes models, including their principal assumptions, that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclides transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. Chapter 6.0 provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable for environmental impact statements for the Hanford Site, following the structure Chapter 4.0. NO conclusions or recommendations are given in this report.

  17. Hanford Site National Evnironmental Policy Act (NEPA) characterization. Revision 4

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cushing, C.E. [ed.

    1991-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This fourth 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. In Chapter 4.0 are presented summations of up-to-date information about climate and meteorology, geology and hydrology, ecology, history and archaeology, socioeconomics, land use, and noise levels. Chapter 5.0 describes models, including their principal assumptions, that are to be used in simulating realized or potential impacts from nuclear materials at the Hanford Site. Included are models of radionuclides transport in groundwater and atmospheric pathways, and of radiation dose to populations via all known pathways from known initial conditions. Chapter 6.0 provides the preparer with the federal and state regulations, DOE orders and permits, and environmental standards directly applicable for environmental impact statements for the Hanford Site, following the structure Chapter 4.0. NO conclusions or recommendations are given in this report.

  18. US. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EE RE PROJ ECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    Number DE-FOA-OOOOO13-000002 Procurement Instrument Number DE -EEOOOO795.003 NEPA Control Number GF0-0000795-003 cm Number G0795 Based on my review of the information...

  19. u.s. DEPARTI\\IENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    CENTER NEPA DETElUIINATION RECIPIENT:State of Wisconsin SEP ARRA EE0000163-McCain Foods USA PROJECT TITLE: Waste Digester Biogas Recovery System Page 1 of2 STATE: WI Funding...

  20. NEPA/CERCLA/RCRA integration strategy for Environmental Restoration Program, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hansen, R.P. (International Technology Corp., Englewood, CO (United States))

    1992-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report addresses an overall strategy for complying with DOE Order 5400.4 which directs that DOE offices and facilities integrate the procedural and documentation requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) wherever practical and appropriate. Integration of NEPA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) processes is emphasized because RCRA applies to most of the potential release sites at SNL, Albuquerque. NEPA, CERCLA, and RCRA precesses are comparatively analyzed and special integration issues are discussed. Three integration strategy options are evaluated and scheduling and budgeting needs are identified. An annotated outline of an integrated project- or site-specific NEPA/RCRA RFI/CMS EIS or EA is included as an appendix.

  1. u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    lAIA1) u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DETERMINATION RECIPINT:Arizona Geological Survey PROJECT TITLE: Siale Geological Survey Contributions to the...

  2. DFPARThIFN'I OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DI...

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

    DFPARThIFN'I OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DIrnu.nNATION RECIPIENT:Kansas Corporation Commission - Renewable Energy Subgrant PROJECT T ITLE : City of Chanute GSHP...

  3. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents, EPA Office of Federal Activities

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The purpose of this guidance is to assist EPA reviewers of NEPA documents in providing accurate, realistic, and consistent comments on the assessment of cumulative impacts. The guidance focuses on...

  4. EERE PROJECT MA.NAGEMENT CENTER NEPA DFTFIU.1INATION PROJECT

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

    NEPA DFTFIU.1INATION PROJECT TITLE: EECBG DE-EEOOOO727 Atchison Library Ground Source Heat Pump Page 1 of2 STATE : KS Funding Opportunity Announcement Number Procurement Instrument...

  5. Use of a Shielded High Resolution Gamma Spectrometry System to Segregate LLW from Contact Handleable ILW Containing Plutonium - 13046

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lester, Rosemary; Wilkins, Colin [Canberra UK Ltd, Unit 1 B528.1, Harwell Science Campus, Oxfordshire OX11 0DF (United Kingdom)] [Canberra UK Ltd, Unit 1 B528.1, Harwell Science Campus, Oxfordshire OX11 0DF (United Kingdom); Chard, Patrick [Canberra UK Ltd, Forss Business and Technology park, Thurso, Caithness KW14 7UZ (United Kingdom)] [Canberra UK Ltd, Forss Business and Technology park, Thurso, Caithness KW14 7UZ (United Kingdom); Jaederstroem, Henrik; LeBlanc, Paul; Mowry, Rick [Canberra Industries, Inc., 800 Research Parkway, Meriden, Connecticut, 06450 (United States)] [Canberra Industries, Inc., 800 Research Parkway, Meriden, Connecticut, 06450 (United States); MacDonald, Sanders; Gunn, William [Dounreay Site Restoration Limited, Dounreay, Thurso, Caithness, KW14 7TZ (United Kingdom)] [Dounreay Site Restoration Limited, Dounreay, Thurso, Caithness, KW14 7TZ (United Kingdom)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Dounreay Site Restoration Limited (DSRL) have a number of drums of solid waste that may contain Plutonium Contaminated Material. These are currently categorised as Contact Handleable Intermediate Level Waste (CHILW). A significant fraction of these drums potentially contain waste that is in the Low Level Waste (LLW) category. A Canberra Q2 shielded high resolution gamma spectrometry system is being used to quantify the total activity of drums that are potentially in the LLW category in order to segregate those that do contain LLW from CHILW drums and thus to minimise the total volume of waste in the higher category. Am-241 is being used as an indicator of the presence of plutonium in the waste from its strong 59.54 keV gamma-ray; a knowledge of the different waste streams from which the material originates allows a pessimistic waste 'fingerprint' to be used in order to determine an upper limit to the activities of the weak and non-gamma-emitting plutonium and associated radionuclides. This paper describes the main features of the high resolution gamma spectrometry system being used by DSRL to perform the segregation of CHILW and LLW and how it was configured and calibrated using the Canberra In-Situ Object Counting System (ISOCS). It also describes how potential LLW drums are selected for assay and how the system uses the existing waste stream fingerprint information to determine a reliable upper limit for the total activity present in each measured drum. Results from the initial on-site commissioning trials and the first measurements of waste drums using the new monitor are presented. (authors)

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2009-07-31T23:59:59.000Z

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

  7. Integrating the NEPA 216 process with large-scale privatization projects under the US Department of Energy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Eccleston, C.H.

    1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) is considering the possibility of replacing the existing Hanford Site 200 Are steam system through a privatization effort. Such an action would be subject to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Section 216 of the Doe NEPA Implementation Procedures (216 Process) provides a specific mechanism for integrating the DOE procurement process with NEPA compliance requirements.

  8. NEPA litigation in the 1970s: a deluge or a dribble

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Liroff, R.A.

    1981-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This article examines several facets of litigation under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) during the 1970s. It briefly describes congressional expectations regarding lawsuits and then focuses on number of cases, characteristics of plaintiffs and defendants, and factors prompting aggrieved parties to seek judicial relief. NEPA cases are also compared to other civil cases as a measure of NEPA's impact on the federal courts. The future amount of litigation under NEPA may ultimately be influenced by congressional decisions regarding the availability of judicial review of agency decisions. Since the Republicans have gained control of the US Senate, and the House of Representatives is now somewhat more conservative, legislative proposals to limit judicial review under NEPA may find more positive reception. Efforts to limit citizen redress in the courts would be unfortunate. Litigation is often a product of administrative failure to recognize the legitimacy of environmental and other relevant values in decision-making. Some litigation, therefore, is unavoidable, but responsiveness to relevant values in the administrative process, and development of carefully reasoned policies based on more than political ideology, are the best ways to minimize future NEPA litigation. 3 tables.

  9. Hydrologic evaluation methodology for estimating water movement through the unsaturated zone at commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal sites

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meyer, P.D.; Rockhold, M.L.; Nichols, W.E.; Gee, G.W. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States)

    1996-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report identifies key technical issues related to hydrologic assessment of water flow in the unsaturated zone at low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities. In addition, a methodology for incorporating these issues in the performance assessment of proposed LLW disposal facilities is identified and evaluated. The issues discussed fall into four areas: estimating the water balance at a site (i.e., infiltration, runoff, water storage, evapotranspiration, and recharge); analyzing the hydrologic performance of engineered components of a facility; evaluating the application of models to the prediction of facility performance; and estimating the uncertainty in predicted facility performance. To illustrate the application of the methodology, two examples are presented. The first example is of a below ground vault located in a humid environment. The second example looks at a shallow land burial facility located in an arid environment. The examples utilize actual site-specific data and realistic facility designs. The two examples illustrate the issues unique to humid and arid sites as well as the issues common to all LLW sites. Strategies for addressing the analytical difficulties arising in any complex hydrologic evaluation of the unsaturated zone are demonstrated.

  10. NEPA source guide for the Hanford Site. Revision 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tifft, S.R.

    1995-09-27T23:59:59.000Z

    This Source Guide will assist those working with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to become more familiar with the Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) that apply to specific activities and facilities at 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 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), concerning the proposed action and current status of the buildings and units discussed in the proposed action. If a decision was officially stated by the DOE, as in a Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a Record of Decision (ROD), and was located, a summary is provided in the text. 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 may have been published elsewhere (i.e., local newspapers). The EA and EIS summaries are arranged in numerical order. To assist in locating a particular EA or EIS, the upper right comer of each page lists the number of the summary or summaries discussed on that page. Any draft EA or EIS is followed by a ``D.`` The EAs with nonstandard numbering schemes are located in Chapter 3.

  11. Preliminary Project Execution Plan for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    David Duncan

    2011-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This preliminary project execution plan (PEP) defines U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) project objectives, roles and responsibilities of project participants, project organization, and controls to effectively manage acquisition of capital funds for construction of a proposed remote-handled low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The plan addresses the policies, requirements, and critical decision (CD) responsibilities identified in DOE Order 413.3B, 'Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets.' This plan is intended to be a 'living document' that will be periodically updated as the project progresses through the CD process to construction and turnover for operation.

  12. Use of engineered soils and other site modifications for low-level radioactive waste disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities be designed to minimize contact between waste and infiltrating water through the use of site design features. The purpose of this investigation is to identify engineered barriers and evaluate their ability to enhance the long-term performance of an LLW disposal facility. Previously used barriers such as concrete overpacks, vaults, backfill, and engineered soil covers, are evaluated as well as state-of-the-art barriers, including an engineered sorptive soil layer underlying a facility and an advanced design soil cover incorporating a double-capillary layer. The purpose of this investigation is also to provide information in incorporating or excluding specific engineered barriers as part of new disposal facility designs. Evaluations are performed using performance assessment modeling techniques. A generic reference disposal facility design is used as a baseline for comparing the improvements in long-term performance offered by designs incorporating engineered barriers in generic and humid environments. These evaluations simulate water infiltration through the facility, waste leaching, radionuclide transport through the facility, and decay and ingrowth. They also calculate a maximum (peak annual) dose for each disposal system design. A relative dose reduction factor is calculated for each design evaluated. The results of this investigation are presented for concrete overpacks, concrete vaults, sorptive backfill, sorptive engineered soil underlying the facility, and sloped engineered soil covers using a single-capillary barrier and a double-capillary barrier. Designs using combinations of barriers are also evaluated. These designs include a vault plus overpacks, sorptive backfill plus overpacks, and overpack with vault plus sorptive backfill, underlying sorptive soil, and engineered soil cover.

  13. Waste Disposal (Illinois)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This article lays an outline of waste disposal regulations, permits and fees, hazardous waste management and underground storage tank requirements.

  14. Caustic Recycling Pilot Unit to Separate Sodium from LLW at Hanford Site - 12279

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pendleton, Justin; Bhavaraju, Sai; Priday, George; Desai, Aditya; Duffey, Kean; Balagopal, Shekar [Ceramatec Inc., Salt Lake City, UT 84119 (United States)

    2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    As part of the Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored Advanced Remediation Technologies initiative, a scheme was developed to combine Continuous Sludge Leaching (CSL), Near-Tank Cesium Removal (NTCR), and Caustic Recycling Unit (CRU) using Ceramatec technology, into a single system known as the Pilot Near-Tank Treatment System (PNTTS). The Cesium (Cs) decontaminated effluent from the NTCR process will be sent to the caustic recycle process for recovery of the caustic which will be reused in another cycle of caustic leaching in the CSL process. Such an integrated mobile technology demonstration will give DOE the option to insert this process for sodium management at various sites in Hanford, and will minimize the addition of further sodium into the waste tanks. This allows for recycling of the caustic used to remove aluminum during sludge washing as a pretreatment step in the vitrification of radioactive waste which will decrease the Low Level Waste (LLW) volume by as much as 39%. The CRU pilot process was designed to recycle sodium in the form of pure sodium hydroxide. The basis for the design of the 1/4 scale pilot caustic recycling unit was to demonstrate the efficient operation of a larger scale system to recycle caustic from the NTCR effluent stream from the Parsons process. The CRU was designed to process 0.28 liter/minute of NTCR effluent, and generate 10 M concentration of 'usable' sodium hydroxide. The proposed process operates at 40 deg. C to provide additional aluminum solubility and then recover the sodium hydroxide to the point where the aluminum is saturated at 40 deg. C. A system was developed to safely separate and vent the gases generated during operation of the CRU with the production of 10 M sodium hydroxide. Caustic was produced at a rate between 1.9 to 9.3 kg/hr. The CRU was located inside an ISO container to allow for moving of the unit close to tank locations to process the LLW stream. Actual tests were conducted with the NTCR effluent simulant from the Parsons process in the CRU. The modular CRU is easily scalable as a standalone system for caustic recycling, or for NTTS integration or for use as an In-Tank Treatment System to process sodium bearing waste to meet LLW processing needs at the Hanford site. The standalone pilot operation of the CRU to recycle sodium from NTCR effluent places the technology demonstration at TRL level 6. Multiple operations were performed with the CRU to process up to 500 gallons of the NTCR effluent and demonstrate an efficient separation of up to 70 % of the sodium without solids precipitation while producing 10 M caustic. Batch mode operation was conducted to study the effects of chemistry variation, establish the processing rate, and optimize the process operating conditions to recycle caustic from the NTCR effluent. The performance of the CRU was monitored by tracking the density parameter to control the concentration of caustic produced. Different levels of sodium were separated in tests from the effluent at a fixed operating current density and temperature. The voltage of the modules remained stable during the unit operation which demonstrated steady operation to separate sodium from the NTCR effluent. The sodium transfer current efficiency was measured in testing based on the concentration of caustic produced. Measurements showed a current efficiency of 99.8% for sodium transfer from the NTCR effluent to make sodium hydroxide. The sodium and hydroxide contents of the anolyte (NTCR feed) and catholyte (caustic product) were measured before and after each batch test. In two separate batch tests, samples were taken at different levels of sodium separation and analyzed to determine the stability of the NTCR effluent after sodium separation. The stability characteristics and changes in physical and chemical properties of the NTCR effluent chemistry after separation of sodium hydroxide as a function of storage time were evaluated. Parameters such as level of precipitated alumina, total alkalinity, analysis of Al, Na, K, Cs, Fe, OH, nitrate, nitrite, total dissolved and

  15. Radiological performance assessment for the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, J.R.; Fowler, J.R. [Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, SC (United States)

    1992-12-18T23:59:59.000Z

    This radiological performance assessment (RPA) for the Savannah River Site (SRS) Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) was prepared in accordance with the requirements of Chapter III of the US Department of Energy Order 5820.2A. The Order specifies that an RPA should provide reasonable assurance that a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility will comply with the performance objectives of the Order. The performance objectives require that: (1) exposures of the general public to radioactivity in the waste or released from the waste will not result in an effective dose equivalent of 25 mrem per year; (2) releases to the atmosphere will meet the requirements of 40 CFR 61; (3) inadvertent intruders will not be committed to an excess of an effective dose equivalent of 100 mrem per year from chronic exposure, or 500 mrem from a single acute exposure; and (4) groundwater resources will be protected in accordance with Federal, State and local requirements.

  16. Issues and Recommendations Arising from the Idaho National Laboratory Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Composite Analysis - 13374

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rood, Arthur S.; Schafer, Annette L.; Sondrup, A. Jeff [Idaho National Laboratory, Battelle Energy Alliance, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID 83401-2107 (United States)] [Idaho National Laboratory, Battelle Energy Alliance, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID 83401-2107 (United States)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Development of the composite analysis (CA) for the Idaho National Laboratory's (INLs) proposed remote-handled (RH) low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility has underscored the importance of consistency between analyses conducted for site-specific performance assessments (PAs) for LLW disposal facilities, sites regulated by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) [1], and residual decontamination and decommissioning (D and D) inventories. Consistency is difficult to achieve because: 1) different legacy sources and compliance time-periods were deemed important for each of the sites evaluated at INL (e.g., 100 years for CERCLA regulated facilities vs. 1,000 years for LLW disposal facilities regulated under U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 [2]); 2) fate and transport assumptions, parameters, and models have evolved through time at the INL including the use of screening-level parameters vs. site-specific values; and 3) evaluation objectives for the various CERCLA sites were inconsistent with those relevant to either the PA or CA including the assessment of risk rather than effective dose. The proposed single site-wide CA approach would provide needed consistency, allowing ready incorporation of new information and/or facilities in addition to being cost effective in terms of preparation of CAs and review by the DOE. A single site-wide CA would include a central database of all existing INL sources, including those from currently operating LLW facilities, D and D activities, and those from the sites evaluated under CERCLA. The framework presented for the INL RH-LLW disposal facility allows for development of a single CA encompassing air and groundwater impacts. For groundwater impacts, a site-wide MODFLOW/MT3D-MS model was used to develop unit-response functions for all potential sources providing responses for a grid of receptors. Convolution and superposition of the response functions are used to compute groundwater concentrations. A similar approach could be applied for the air pathway where air emissions are stored in a central database and air concentrations for unit releases could be scaled to actual releases. (authors)

  17. Vitrification treatment options for disposal of greater-than-Class-C low-level waste in a deep geologic repository

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Fullmer, K.S.; Fish, L.W.; Fischer, D.K.

    1994-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Department of Energy (DOE), in keeping with their responsibility under Public Law 99-240, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, is investigating several disposal options for greater-than-Class C low-level waste (GTCC LLW), including emplacement in a deep geologic repository. At the present time vitrification, namely borosilicate glass, is the standard waste form assumed for high-level waste accepted into the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System. This report supports DOE`s investigation of the deep geologic disposal option by comparing the vitrification treatments that are able to convert those GTCC LLWs that are inherently migratory into stable waste forms acceptable for disposal in a deep geologic repository. Eight vitrification treatments that utilize glass, glass ceramic, or basalt waste form matrices are identified. Six of these are discussed in detail, stating the advantages and limitations of each relative to their ability to immobilize GTCC LLW. The report concludes that the waste form most likely to provide the best composite of performance characteristics for GTCC process waste is Iron Enriched Basalt 4 (IEB4).

  18. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING / NEPA SERVICES CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF MILITARY LANDS

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING / NEPA SERVICES CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF MILITARY LANDS CEMML@cemml.colostate.edu | http://www.cemml.colostate.edu Effective environmental planning and management of military and testing. The Center develops environmental planning documents for installations to incorporate

  19. u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    Funding OpportUDity AnaouDcement NumMr OE-FOA-EEOOOO116 Procuremen11ns1nJmcn1 Number DE-EEOOO2816 NEPA Control NumMr GFO-10-162-OO1 CIDNumMr G02816 Bued on my review...

  20. Effective early planning and integration of NEPA into the decision-making process

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hannon, W.C.; Gensler, J.D. (Allen and Hamilton, Inc., Bethesda, MD (United States))

    1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper covers several key challenges and lessons learned in a federal agency assignment to educate the decision makers in NEPA and then to effectuate decisions early in the decision-making process based on the information derived from the NEPA process participants and documentation. Many of the key challenges faced by these federal decision makers stem, in part, from unfamiliarity with NEPA requirements and the benefits that can be derived by utilizing the process to support making an informed decision. Secondly, federal managers, at times believe that the process is a hindrance to accomplishing their mission. Lastly, there was a genuine belief that the public and other organizations within the agency should have no part in evaluating or commenting on the proposed action. Using the knowledge gained from drafting and reviewing EISs and EAs, Booz, Allen devised a systematic process that effectively: educated management on NEPA requirements; developed a management tool to guide and integrate the process; and encouraged the early and effective use of environmental and social information into all decision-making processes.

  1. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Poultry Farm Daily Disposal Methods 0;Disposal: Science and Theory First Composter in Delaware · Delmarva was of the first daily composting · 120 in USA over next 10 years #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Composting Procedure · Mixture ­ 1 ½ to 2

  2. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Table of Contents · Disposal options emergency mortality composting procedure · Use of composting during outbreaks #12;Disposal: Science and disinfection of farms and surveillance around affected flocks. " USDA APHIS VS EMD, 2007 #12;Disposal: Science

  3. Performance assessment for the class L-II disposal facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1997-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This draft radiological performance assessment (PA) for the proposed Class L-II Disposal Facility (CIIDF) on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) has been prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the US Department of Energy Order 5820.2A. This PA considers the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes (LLW) over the operating life of the facility and the long-term performance of the facility in providing protection to public health and the environment. The performance objectives contained in the order require that the facility be managed to accomplish the following: (1) Protect public health and safety in accordance with standards specified in environmental health orders and other DOE orders. (2) Ensure that external exposure to the waste and concentrations of radioactive material that may be released into surface water, groundwater, soil, plants, and animals results in an effective dose equivalent (EDE) that does not exceed 25 mrem/year to a member of the public. Releases to the atmosphere shall meet the requirements of 40 CFR Pt. 61. Reasonable effort should be made to maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to the general environment as low as reasonably achievable. (1) Ensure that the committed EDEs received by individual who inadvertently may intrude into the facility after the loss of active institutional control (100 years) will not exceed 100 mrem/year for continuous exposure of 500 mrem for a single acute exposure. (4) Protect groundwater resources, consistent with federal, state, and local requirements.

  4. Disposal of drilling fluids

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bryson, W.R.

    1983-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Prior to 1974 the disposal of drilling fluids was not considered to be much of an environmental problem. In the past, disposal of drilling fluids was accomplished in various ways such as spreading on oil field lease roads to stabilize the road surface and control dust, spreading in the base of depressions of sandy land areas to increase water retention, and leaving the fluid in the reserve pit to be covered on closure of the pit. In recent years, some states have become concerned over the indescriminate dumping of drilling fluids into pits or unauthorized locations and have developed specific regulations to alleviate the perceived deterioration of environmental and groundwater quality from uncontrolled disposal practices. The disposal of drilling fluids in Kansas is discussed along with a newer method or treatment in drilling fluid disposal.

  5. RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL IN GRANITE

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Witherspoon, P.A.

    2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL IN GRANITE Paul A. WitherspoonRADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL IN GRANITE Paul A. Wither spoona repository site in granite are to evaluate the suitability

  6. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Foam Used in Actual Outbreak · Water #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Water Based Foam Culling Demo · First large scale comparison · Two:46 (m:s) #12;Disposal: Science and Theory WV H5N2 AIV 2007 · AIV positive turkeys ­ 25,000 turkey farm

  7. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Opciones para la producción de espuma espuma · Sistemas de boquilla #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Requisitos estimados: · Tiempo: 2 a 3 compactas ­ Equipo de respuesta propio de la industria Espuma de aire comprimido #12;Disposal: Science

  8. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Use of Composting · Composting has ­ British Columbia 2009 #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Initial farm linked to NY LBM · Two additional and pile procedure Delmarva 2004 #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Delmarva 2004 · Composting used

  9. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Las recomendaciones de campo se la espuma #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Múltiples especies de aves pueden despoblarse con espuma cesación #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Dentro de una especie, pueden existir variaciones ­ Los ánades

  10. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Foaming Options · Compressed Air Foam Systems (CAFS) · Foam Blower · Foam Generator · Nozzle Systems #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Compressed ­ Industry owned response team #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Commercial CAFS for Poultry · Poultry

  11. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Procedimiento básico ­ Desarrollar una pila de carcasas y lecho. Compostaje masivo de emergencia #12;Disposal: Science and Theory de emergencia #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Desarrollar planes antes de que ocurra una

  12. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory 0 20 40 60 80 100 Compostaje #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Delmarva fue de las primeras granjas en realizar el compostaje de en EE.UU. en los próximos 10 años. Pionera en compostaje en Delaware #12;Disposal: Science and Theory

  13. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Compostaje de aves de corralRouchey et al., 2005) Investigación previa #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Se ha evaluado y documentado el, bovino Investigación previa #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Experimento nro. 1 Impacto de la espuma en

  14. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Composting · Composting is defined drop #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Composting · Optimal composting ­ Carbon to nitrogen ratio (C;Disposal: Science and Theory Compost Composition · A variety of supplemental carbon materials have been

  15. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Opciones para la eliminación · ¿Qué compostaje durante brotes de enfermedades Lista de contenido #12;Disposal: Science and Theory "Ante un brote brotes de IIAP #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · En 2004, se despoblaron 100 millones de aves en todo el

  16. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Brief History of Foam 2004 ­ Bud and foam 2009 ­ No advantage for gas #12;Disposal: Science and Theory What is foam? · What is fire fighting system. #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Foam Composition · Foam can include ­ Mixture of surfactants

  17. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · El compostaje se ha usado como Virginia (2007) ­ British Columbia (2009) Uso del compostaje #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Primera apilamiento Delmarva (2004) #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · El compostaje se usó para proteger una densa

  18. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Mass Emergency Composting · Basic ­ Create carcass and litter windrow #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Mass Emergency Composting · Basic cover ­ Clean and disinfect house ­ Sample for virus again #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Mass

  19. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory 2004 ­ Participación de Bud Malone y la espuma 2009 ­ Ninguna ventaja para el gas Breve historia de la espuma #12;Disposal: Science sistema de boquilla ¿Qué es la espuma? #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · La espuma puede incluir: ­ Una

  20. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Gassing is a preferred #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Carbon Dioxide Gassing · Carbon dioxide (CO2) one of the standard sensitivity time #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Argon-CO2 gas depopulation evaluated under laboratory

  1. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Foam Generator Setup · Drop off foam generator cart at one end of house #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Foam Generator Setup · Trailer parked generator attached to hose #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Foam Generation Begins · Team of two to operate

  2. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Summary · Foam is currently a viable ­ Foam application directly to cage #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Legal Status of Foam · Procedure depopulation, culling, and euthanasia #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Acknowledgements · USDA AICAP2 · USDA

  3. Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites (Iowa)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These sections contain information on fees and monitoring relevant to operators of hazardous waste disposal sites.

  4. Proposed Columbia Wind Farm No. 1 : Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Joint NEPA/SEPA.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    United States. Bonneville Power Administration; Klickitat County (Wash.)

    1995-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addresses the Columbia Wind Farm {number_sign}1 (Project) proposal for construction and operation of a 25 megawatt (MW) wind power project in the Columbia Hills area southeast of Goldendale in Klickitat County, Washington. The Project would be constructed on private land by Conservation and Renewable Energy System (CARES) (the Applicant). An Environmental Impact Statement is required under both NEPA and SEPA guidelines and is issued under Section 102 (2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq and under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as provided by RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). Bonneville Power Administration is the NEPA lead agency; Klickitat County is the nominal SEPA lead agency and CARES is the SEPA co-lead agency for this DEIS. The Project site is approximately 395 hectares (975 acres) in size. The Proposed Action would include approximately 91 model AWT-26 wind turbines. Under the No Action Alternative, the Project would not be constructed and existing grazing and agricultural activities on the site would continue.

  5. Application for a Permit to Operate a Class III Solid Waste Disposal Site at the Nevada Test Site Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Programs

    2010-09-14T23:59:59.000Z

    The NTS solid waste disposal sites must be permitted by the state of Nevada Solid Waste Management Authority (SWMA). The SWMA for the NTS is the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Federal Facilities (NDEP/BFF). The U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) as land manager (owner), and National Security Technologies (NSTec), as operator, will store, collect, process, and dispose all solid waste by means that do not create a health hazard, a public nuisance, or cause impairment of the environment. NTS disposal sites will not be included in the Nye County Solid Waste Management Plan. The NTS is located approximately 105 kilometers (km) (65 miles [mi]) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada (Figure 1). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is the federal lands management authority for the NTS, and NSTec is the Management and Operations contractor. Access on and off the NTS is tightly controlled, restricted, and guarded on a 24-hour basis. The NTS has signs posted along its entire perimeter. NSTec is the operator of all solid waste disposal sites on the NTS. The Area 5 RWMS is the location of the permitted facility for the Solid Waste Disposal Site (SWDS). The Area 5 RWMS is located near the eastern edge of the NTS (Figure 2), approximately 26 km (16 mi) north of Mercury, Nevada. The Area 5 RWMS is used for the disposal of low-level waste (LLW) and mixed low-level waste. Many areas surrounding the RWMS have been used in conducting nuclear tests. A Notice of Intent to operate the disposal site as a Class III site was submitted to the state of Nevada on January 28, 1994, and was acknowledged as being received in a letter to the NNSA/NSO on August 30, 1994. Interim approval to operate a Class III SWDS for regulated asbestiform low-level waste (ALLW) was authorized on August 12, 1996 (in letter from Paul Liebendorfer to Runore Wycoff), with operations to be conducted in accordance with the ''Management Plan for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste with Regulated Asbestos Waste.'' A requirement of the authorization was that on or before October 9, 1999, a permit was required to be issued. Because of NDEP and NNSA/NSO review cycles, the final permit was issued on April 5, 2000, for the operation of the Area 5 Low-Level Waste Disposal Site, utilizing Pit 7 (P07) as the designated disposal cell. The original permit applied only to Pit 7, with a total design capacity of 5,831 cubic yards (yd{sup 3}) (157,437 cubic feet [ft{sup 3}]). NNSA/NSO is expanding the SWDS to include the adjacent Upper Cell of Pit 6 (P06), with an additional capacity of 28,037 yd{sup 3} (756,999 ft{sup 3}) (Figure 3). The proposed total capacity of ALLW in Pit 7 and P06 will be approximately 33,870 yd{sup 3} (0.9 million ft{sup 3}). The site will be used for the disposal of regulated ALLW, small quantities of low-level radioactive hydrocarbon-burdened (LLHB) media and debris, LLW, LLW that contains PCB Bulk Product Waste greater than 50 ppm that leaches at a rate of less than 10 micrograms of PCB per liter of water, and small quantities of LLHB demolition and construction waste (hereafter called permissible waste). Waste containing free liquids, or waste that is regulated as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or state-of-generation hazardous waste regulations, will not be accepted for disposal at the site. The only waste regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that will be accepted at the disposal site is regulated asbestos-containing materials (RACM). The term asbestiform is used throughout this document to describe this waste. Other TSCA waste (i.e., polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) will not be accepted for disposal at the SWDS. The disposal site will be used as a depository of permissible waste generated both on site and off site. All generators designated by NNSA/NSO will be eligible to dispose regulated ALLW at the Asbestiform Low-Level Waste Disposal Site in accordance with the U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) 325

  6. Integrated Disposal Facility FY2010 Glass Testing Summary Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pierce, Eric M.; Bacon, Diana H.; Kerisit, Sebastien N.; Windisch, Charles F.; Cantrell, Kirk J.; Valenta, Michelle M.; Burton, Sarah D.; Serne, R Jeffrey; Mattigod, Shas V.

    2010-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was contracted by Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the engineered portion of the disposal facility (e.g., source term). Vitrifying the low-activity waste at Hanford is expected to generate over 1.6 × 105 m3 of glass (Puigh 1999). The volume of immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW) at Hanford is the largest in the DOE complex and is one of the largest inventories (approximately 0.89 × 1018 Bq total activity) of long-lived radionuclides, principally 99Tc (t1/2 = 2.1 × 105), planned for disposal in a low-level waste (LLW) facility. Before the ILAW can be disposed, DOE must conduct a performance assessement (PA) for the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) that describes the long-term impacts of the disposal facility on public health and environmental resources. As part of the ILAW glass testing program PNNL is implementing a strategy, consisting of experimentation and modeling, in order to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the glass waste form in support of future IDF PAs. The purpose of this report is to summarize the progress made in fiscal year (FY) 2010 toward implementing the strategy with the goal of developing an understanding of the long-term corrosion behavior of low-activity waste glasses. The emphasis in FY2010 was the completing an evaluation of the most sensitive kinetic rate law parameters used to predict glass weathering, documented in Bacon and Pierce (2010), and transitioning from the use of the Subsurface Transport Over Reactive Multi-phases to Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases computer code for near-field calculations. The FY2010 activities also consisted of developing a Monte Carlo and Geochemical Modeling framework that links glass composition to alteration phase formation by 1) determining the structure of unreacted and reacted glasses for use as input information into Monte Carlo calculations, 2) compiling the solution data and alteration phases identified from accelerated weathering tests conducted with ILAW glass by PNNL and Viteous State Laboratory/Catholic University of America as well as other literature sources for use in geochemical modeling calculations, and 3) conducting several initial calculations on glasses that contain the four major components of ILAW-Al2O3, B2O3, Na2O, and SiO2.

  7. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Characterization Report, Revision 17

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    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.; Sackschewsky, Michael R.; Scott, Michael J.; Thorne, Paul D.

    2005-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

    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 environmental documents being prepared by DOE contractors concerning the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). No statements about significance or environmental consequences are provided. This year’s report is the seventeenth revision of the original document published in 1988 and is (until replaced by the eighteenth 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 (EISs) and other Hanford Site NEPA or CERCLA documentation. Chapter 4.0 (Affected Environment) describes Hanford Site climate and meteorology; air quality; geology; hydrology; ecology; cultural, archaeological, and historical resources; socioeconomics; noise; and occupational health and safety. Sources for extensive tabular data related to these topics are provided in the chapter. Most subjects are divided into a general description of the characteristics of the Hanford Site, followed by site-specific information, where available, of the 100, 200, 300, and other areas. This division allows the reader to go directly to those sections of particular interest. When specific information on each of these separate areas is not complete or available, the general Hanford Site description should be used. 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. Information in Chapter 6 of this document can be adapted and supplemented with specific information for a chapter covering statutory and regulatory requirements in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. When preparing environmental assessments and EISs, authors should also be cognizant of the document titled Recommendations for the Preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements published by the DOE Office of NEPA Oversight (DOE 2004). Additional guidance on preparing DOE NEPA documents can be found at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/guidance.html. Any interested individual seeking baseline data on the Hanford Site and its past activities may also use the information contained in this document to evaluate projected activities and their impacts. For this 2005 revision, the following sections of the document were reviewed by the authors and updated with the best available information through May 2005: Climate and Meteorology Air Quality Geology – Seismicity section only Hydrology – Flow charts for the Columbia and Yakima rivers only Ecology – Threatened and Endangered Species subsection only Socioeconomics Occupational Safety All of Chapter 6.

  8. Stakeholder Engagement on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste -12565

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gelles, Christine; Joyce, James; Edelman, Arnold [Office of Environmental Management, Office of Disposal Operations-EM-43 (United States)

    2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Disposal Operations is responsible for developing a permanent disposal capability for a small volume, but highly radioactive, class of commercial low-level radioactive waste, known as Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) low-level radioactive waste. DOE has issued a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and will be completing a final EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that evaluates a range of disposal alternatives. Like other classes of radioactive waste, proposing and evaluating disposal options for GTCC waste is highly controversial, presents local and national impacts, and generates passionate views from stakeholders. Recent national and international events, such as the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain project and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident, have heighten stakeholder awareness of everything nuclear, including disposal of radioactive waste. With these challenges, the Office of Disposal Operations recognizes that informed decision-making that will result from stakeholder engagement and participation is critical to the success of the GTCC EIS project. This paper discusses the approach used by the Office of Disposal Operations to engage stakeholders on the GTCC EIS project, provides advice based on our experiences, and proffers some ideas for future engagements in today's open, always connected cyber environment. (authors)

  9. Waste disposal package

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Smith, M.J.

    1985-06-19T23:59:59.000Z

    This is a claim for a waste disposal package including an inner or primary canister for containing hazardous and/or radioactive wastes. The primary canister is encapsulated by an outer or secondary barrier formed of a porous ceramic material to control ingress of water to the canister and the release rate of wastes upon breach on the canister. 4 figs.

  10. Radioactive waste disposal package

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Lampe, Robert F. (Bethel Park, PA)

    1986-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A radioactive waste disposal package comprising a canister for containing vitrified radioactive waste material and a sealed outer shell encapsulating the canister. A solid block of filler material is supported in said shell and convertible into a liquid state for flow into the space between the canister and outer shell and subsequently hardened to form a solid, impervious layer occupying such space.

  11. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Table of Contents · Why Depopulate? · Depopulation Methods · Basics of Foam · Types of Foam Equipment · Science Behind Foam · Implementing Foam Depopulation · Use of Foam in the Field · Conclusions #12;Disposal: Science and Theory "When HPAI outbreaks

  12. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · El compostaje se define como la: Science and Theory · Compostaje óptimo ­ Relación carbono/nitrógeno (C:N): 20:1 a 35:1 ­ Contenido de Compostaje #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Se ha utilizado satisfactoriamente una variedad de materiales

  13. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Se ubica el carretón con el enfriamiento Ventiladores de túnel de viento #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Se estaciona el remolque en uno: Science and Theory · Se usa un equipo de dos personas para hacer funcionar el sistema: ­ Operario del

  14. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Field recommendations based of activity ­ Corticosterone ­ EEG, ECG and motion studies · Large scale testing ­ Field scale units Science of Foam #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Cessation Time · Multiple bird species can be depopulated

  15. Waste Disposal Guide HOW TO PROPERLY DISPOSE OF WASTE MATERIALS

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Schaefer, Marcus

    Waste Disposal Guide HOW TO PROPERLY DISPOSE OF WASTE MATERIALS GENERATED AT DEPAUL UNIVERSITY.4 Hazardous Waste Defined p.5 Chemical Waste Procedure for Generating Departments p.6 o A of Containers p.8 o E. Disposal of Empty Containers p.8 o F. Storage of Waste Chemicals p.8,9 o G

  16. Application for a Permit to Operate a Class III Solid Waste Disposal Site at the Nevada National Security Site Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Programs

    2010-10-04T23:59:59.000Z

    The Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) is located approximately 105 km (65 mi) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) is the federal lands management authority for the NNSS and National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec) is the Management and Operations contractor. Access on and off the NNSS is tightly controlled, restricted, and guarded on a 24-hour basis. The NNSS is posted with signs along its entire perimeter. NSTec is the operator of all solid waste disposal sites on the NNSS. The Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) is the location of the permitted facility for the Solid Waste Disposal Site (SWDS). The Area 5 RWMS is located near the eastern edge of the NNSS (Figure 1), approximately 26 km (16 mi) north of Mercury, Nevada. The Area 5 RWMS is used for the disposal of low-level waste (LLW) and mixed low-level waste. Many areas surrounding the RWMS have been used in conducting nuclear tests. The site will be used for the disposal of regulated Asbestiform Low-Level Waste (ALLW), small quantities of low-level radioactive hydrocarbon-burdened (LLHB) media and debris, LLW, LLW that contains Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Bulk Product Waste greater than 50 ppm that leaches at a rate of less than 10 micrograms of PCB per liter of water, and small quantities of LLHB demolition and construction waste (hereafter called permissible waste). Waste containing free liquids, or waste that is regulated as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or state-of-generation hazardous waste regulations, will not be accepted for disposal at the site. Waste regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that will be accepted at the disposal site is regulated asbestos-containing materials (RACM) and PCB Bulk Product Waste greater than 50 ppm that leaches at a rate of less than 10 micrograms of PCB per liter of water. The term asbestiform is used throughout this document to describe RACM. The disposal site will be used as a depository of permissible waste generated both on site and off site. All generators designated by NNSA/NSO will be eligible to dispose regulated ALLW at the Asbestiform Low-Level Waste Disposal Site in accordance with the DOE/NV-325, Nevada National Security Site Waste Acceptance Criteria (NNSSWAC, current revision). Approval will be given by NNSA/NSO to generators that have successfully demonstrated through process knowledge (PK) and/or sampling and analysis that the waste is low-level, contains asbestiform material, or contains PCB Bulk Product Waste greater than 50 ppm that leaches at a rate of less than 10 micrograms of PCB per liter of water, or small quantities of LLHB demolition and construction waste and does not contain prohibited waste materials. Each waste stream will be approved through the Radioactive Waste Acceptance Program (RWAP), which ensures that the waste meets acceptance requirements outlined in the NNSSWAC.

  17. File:09-FD-g - USFS NEPA Process.pdf | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are8COaBulkTransmissionSitingProcess.pdf Jump to: navigation, search FileNEPAProcess.pdf Jump to:09-FD-g - USFS NEPA

  18. Title 40 CFR 1501 NEPA and Agency Planning | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro Industries PvtStratosolarTharaldson EthanolTillson,OpenOpen EnergyR. 297water0 CFR 1501 NEPA

  19. Microsoft PowerPoint - Surash.EMAB Presentation 2010 rev91010...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Removal Contaminated Soil removal Maintain Tank Waste Farm Shipment and disposal of LLW, West Valley Demonstration Project Scope of Work 6 Shipment and disposal of LLW, MLLW, and...

  20. Radium bearing waste disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tope, W.G.; Nixon, D.A.; Smith, M.L.; Stone, T.J.; Vogel, R.A. [Fernald Environmental Restoration Management Corp., Cincinnati, OH (United States); Schofield, W.D. [Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. (United States)

    1995-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Fernald radium bearing ore residue waste, stored within Silos 1 and 2 (K-65) and Silo 3, will be vitrified for disposal at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). A comprehensive, parametric evaluation of waste form, packaging, and transportation alternatives was completed to identify the most cost-effective approach. The impacts of waste loading, waste form, regulatory requirements, NTS waste acceptance criteria, as-low-as-reasonably-achievable principles, and material handling costs were factored into the recommended approach.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2008-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

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

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    JANSKY, M.T.

    2000-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    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).

  3. Radioactive waste material disposal

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Forsberg, C.W.; Beahm, E.C.; Parker, G.W.

    1995-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

    The invention is a process for direct conversion of solid radioactive waste, particularly spent nuclear fuel and its cladding, if any, into a solidified waste glass. A sacrificial metal oxide, dissolved in a glass bath, is used to oxidize elemental metal and any carbon values present in the waste as they are fed to the bath. Two different modes of operation are possible, depending on the sacrificial metal oxide employed. In the first mode, a regenerable sacrificial oxide, e.g., PbO, is employed, while the second mode features use of disposable oxides such as ferric oxide. 3 figs.

  4. Radioactive waste material disposal

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Forsberg, Charles W. (155 Newport Dr., Oak Ridge, TN 37830); Beahm, Edward C. (106 Cooper Cir., Oak Ridge, TN 37830); Parker, George W. (321 Dominion Cir., Knoxville, TN 37922)

    1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The invention is a process for direct conversion of solid radioactive waste, particularly spent nuclear fuel and its cladding, if any, into a solidified waste glass. A sacrificial metal oxide, dissolved in a glass bath, is used to oxidize elemental metal and any carbon values present in the waste as they are fed to the bath. Two different modes of operation are possible, depending on the sacrificial metal oxide employed. In the first mode, a regenerable sacrificial oxide, e.g., PbO, is employed, while the second mode features use of disposable oxides such as ferric oxide.

  5. Material Disposal Areas

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOEThe Bonneville PowerCherries 82981-1cnHighand Retrievals from a New 183-GHzMAR Os2010 TeppeiMaterial Disposal

  6. Enhancing RESRAD-OFFSITE for Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Abstract: The RESRAD-OFFSITE code was developed to evaluate the radiological dose and excess cancer risk to an individual who is exposed while located within or outside the area of initial (primary) contamination. The primary contamination, which is the source of all releases modeled by the code, is assumed to be a layer of soil. The code considers the release of contamination from the source to the atmosphere, to surface runoff, and to groundwater. The radionuclide leaching was modeled as a first order (without transport) release using radionuclide distribution coefficient and infiltration rate calculated from water balance (precipitation, surface runoff, evapotranspiration, etc.). Recently, a new source term model was added the RESRAD-OFFSITE code so that it can be applied to the evaluation of Low Level Waste (LLW) disposal facility performance assessment. This new improved source term model include (1) first order with transport, (2) equilibrium desorption (rinse) release, and (3) uniform release (constant dissolution). With these new source release options, it is possible to simulate both uncontainerized (soil) contamination and containerized (waste drums) contamination. A delay time in the source release was also added to the code. This allows modeling the LLW container degradation as a function of time. The RESRAD-OFFSITE code also allows linking to other codes using improved flux and concentration input options. Additional source release model such as diffusion release may be added later. In addition, radionuclide database with 1252 radionuclides (ICRP 107) and the corresponding dose coefficients (DCFPAK 3.02) and the Department of Energy’s new gender- and age-averaged Reference Person dose coefficients (DOE-STD-1196-2011) which is based on the US census data will be added to the next version of RESRAD-OFFSITE code

  7. Near-Field Hydrology Data Package for the Integrated Disposal Facility 2005 Performance Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meyer, Philip D.; Saripalli, Prasad; Freedman, Vicky L.

    2004-06-25T23:59:59.000Z

    CH2MHill Hanford Group, Inc. (CHG) is designing and assessing the performance of an Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) to receive immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW), Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Wastes (LLW/MLLW), and the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) melters used to vitrify the ILAW. The IDF Performance Assessment (PA) assesses the performance of the disposal facility 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. The PA requires prediction of contaminant migration from the facilities, which is expected to occur primarily via the movement of water through the facilities and the consequent transport of dissolved contaminants in the pore water of the vadose zone. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) assists CHG in its performance assessment activities. One of PNNL’s tasks is to provide estimates of the physical, hydraulic, and transport properties of the materials comprising the disposal facilities and the disturbed region around them. These materials are referred to as the near-field materials. Their properties are expressed as parameters of constitutive models used in simulations of subsurface flow and transport. In addition to the best-estimate parameter values, information on uncertainty in the parameter values and estimates of the changes in parameter values over time are required to complete the PA. These parameter estimates and information were previously presented in a report prepared for the 2001 ILAW PA. This report updates the parameter estimates for the 2005 IDF PA using additional information and data collected since publication of the earlier report.

  8. Radioactive mixed waste disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jasen, W.G.; Erpenbeck, E.G.

    1993-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Various types of waste have been generated during the 50-year history of the Hanford Site. Regulatory changes in the last 20 years have provided the emphasis for better management of these wastes. Interpretations of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) have led to the definition of radioactive mixed wastes (RMW). The radioactive and hazardous properties of these wastes have resulted in the initiation of special projects for the management of these wastes. Other solid wastes at the Hanford Site include low-level wastes, transuranic (TRU), and nonradioactive hazardous wastes. This paper describes a system for the treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) of solid radioactive waste.

  9. U.S. DEPAR TMENT OF ENERGY EERE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CENTER NEPA...

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

    the protocols in place for laboratory safety, risk management, chemical handling and waste disposal. SolarBridge is located at 9229 Waterford Centre Boulevard 110, Austin....

  10. Laboratory Waste Disposal HAZARDOUS GLASS

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Sheridan, Jennifer

    Laboratory Waste Disposal HAZARDOUS GLASS Items that could cut or puncture skin or trash- can without any treatment. Hazardous Glass and Plastic: Items that can puncture, cut or scratch if disposed of in normal trash containers. Pasteur pipettes Other pipettes and tips (glass or plastic) Slides and cover

  11. Integrated Disposal Facility Risk Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MANN, F. M.

    2003-06-03T23:59:59.000Z

    An environmental risk assessment associated with the disposal of projected Immobilized Low-Activity Waste, solid wastes and failed or decommissioned melters in an Integrated Disposal Facility was performed. Based on the analyses all performance objectives associated with the groundwater, air, and intruder pathways were met.

  12. Melter Disposal Strategic Planning Document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BURBANK, D.A.

    2000-09-25T23:59:59.000Z

    This document describes the proposed strategy for disposal of spent and failed melters from the tank waste treatment plant to be built by the Office of River Protection at the Hanford site in Washington. It describes program management activities, disposal and transportation systems, leachate management, permitting, and safety authorization basis approvals needed to execute the strategy.

  13. Unreviewed Disposal Question Evaluation: Waste Disposal In Engineered Trench #3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hamm, L. L.; Smith, F. G. III; Flach, G. P.; Hiergesell, R. A.; Butcher, B. T.

    2013-07-29T23:59:59.000Z

    Because Engineered Trench #3 (ET#3) will be placed in the location previously designated for Slit Trench #12 (ST#12), Solid Waste Management (SWM) requested that the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) determine if the ST#12 limits could be employed as surrogate disposal limits for ET#3 operations. SRNL documented in this Unreviewed Disposal Question Evaluation (UDQE) that the use of ST#12 limits as surrogates for the new ET#3 disposal unit will provide reasonable assurance that Department of Energy (DOE) 435.1 performance objectives and measures (USDOE, 1999) will be protected. Therefore new ET#3 inventory limits as determined by a Special Analysis (SA) are not required.

  14. Transportation, Aging and Disposal Canister System Performance...

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

    This document provides specifications for selected system components of the Transportation, Aging and Disposal (TAD) canister-based system. Transportation, Aging and Disposal...

  15. Ethidium Bromide: Disposal, Decontamination, and Destruction

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Jia, Songtao

    Ethidium Bromide: Disposal, Decontamination, and Destruction Procedure: 8.03 Created: 2 #12;Ethidium Bromide: Disposal, Decontamination, and Destruction Procedure: 8.03 Created: 2

  16. NEPA Documentation

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagement of theTechno-economicOctober 2013 -Department of5-1213-13

  17. Hanford Landfill Reaches 15 Million Tons Disposed - Waste Disposal...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    ERDF comprises a series disposal areas called cells. Each pair of cells is 70 feet deep, 500 feet wide and 1,000 feet long at the base - large enough to hold about three million...

  18. Title I Disposal Site

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Mr. Bill; Von Till

    2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Office of Legacy Management and the Navajo Nation have been discussing an item specified in the Long Term Surveillance Plan (LTSP) for the Mexican Hat site for some time now, and we have come to a resolution on the matter. The LTSP specifies seep sampling at the site to confirm that the disposal cell is operating as designed. Typically, this is to be done for a specific time and then reevaluated, but, in this LTSP there is no time frame given. After 8 years of experience in sampling and observing these six seeps, it has been found that most are not flowing at all, and those that have any water running are so limited in flow that it is difficult to obtain a sample. In addition, several risk assessments have been performed over the years to evaluate the possible ecological risks associated with exposure to this seep water. The analysis indicates there would be no eco-risk based on the historic data to any wildlife or livestock. This information and a full analysis of the situation was submitted to the Navajo Nation for their consideration, and, in further discussions, they have agreed to limit the sampling to only making observations during the annual cell inspection, and if water is observed to be increased compared to historic observations, then sampling will resume. Their agreement to this change is noted in the enclosed copy of their letter to DOE dated July 25, 2006. I have enclosed a copy of this report,

  19. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities (Massachusetts)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These sections articulate rules for the maintenance and operation of solid waste disposal facilities, as well as site assignment procedures. Applications for site assignment will be reviewed by the...

  20. Solid Waste Disposal Act (Texas)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is responsible for the regulation and management of municipal solid waste and hazardous waste. A fee is applied to all solid waste disposed in the...

  1. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Urabeck, F.J.; Phillips, K.E.

    1992-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Future disposal of dredged material in the Puget Sound estuary of the State of Washington is of major interest to Federal, state, and local governmental regulatory agencies, as well as those responsible for maintaining existing waterways and harbors. Elevated levels of toxic chemicals exist in bottom sediments of all the urban bays, with tumors and other biological abnormalities found in bottom fish associated with these water bodies. Public awareness of this situation has been heightened by extensive media coverage of recent government investigations of environmental conditions in Puget Sound. These investigations and public concerns have led to three ongoing regional planning efforts, all of which deal with Puget Sound water quality and marine bottom sediments. This paper reports on the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA), a 3-year joint Federal-state study primarily focusing on unconfined, open-water disposal of material dredged from Federal and non-Federal navigation projects. Study objectives include (a) selection of unconfined, open-water disposal sites; (b) development of sampling, testing, and test interpretation procedures to be used in evaluating the suitability of dredged material for disposal in Puget Sound waters; and (c) formulation of disposal site management plans. Preliminary findings for each of these objectives are discussed for central Puget Sound, which includes the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett.

  2. Tank Waste Disposal Program redefinition

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Grygiel, M.L.; Augustine, C.A.; Cahill, M.A.; Garfield, J.S.; Johnson, M.E.; Kupfer, M.J.; Meyer, G.A.; Roecker, J.H. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States); Holton, L.K.; Hunter, V.L.; Triplett, M.B. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States)

    1991-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The record of decision (ROD) (DOE 1988) on the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland Washington identifies the method for disposal of double-shell tank waste and cesium and strontium capsules at the Hanford Site. The ROD also identifies the need for additional evaluations before a final decision is made on the disposal of single-shell tank waste. This document presents the results of systematic evaluation of the present technical circumstances, alternatives, and regulatory requirements in light of the values of the leaders and constitutents of the program. It recommends a three-phased approach for disposing of tank wastes. This approach allows mature technologies to be applied to the treatment of well-understood waste forms in the near term, while providing time for the development and deployment of successively more advanced pretreatment technologies. The advanced technologies will accelerate disposal by reducing the volume of waste to be vitrified. This document also recommends integration of the double-and single-shell tank waste disposal programs, provides a target schedule for implementation of the selected approach, and describes the essential elements of a program to be baselined in 1992.

  3. Depleted uranium disposal options evaluation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hertzler, T.J.; Nishimoto, D.D.; Otis, M.D. [Science Applications International Corp., Idaho Falls, ID (United States). Waste Management Technology Div.

    1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, has chartered a study to evaluate alternative management strategies for depleted uranium (DU) currently stored throughout the DOE complex. Historically, DU has been maintained as a strategic resource because of uses for DU metal and potential uses for further enrichment or for uranium oxide as breeder reactor blanket fuel. This study has focused on evaluating the disposal options for DU if it were considered a waste. This report is in no way declaring these DU reserves a ``waste,`` but is intended to provide baseline data for comparison with other management options for use of DU. To PICS considered in this report include: Retrievable disposal; permanent disposal; health hazards; radiation toxicity and chemical toxicity.

  4. Disposable telemetry cable deployment system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Holcomb, David Joseph (Sandia Park, NM)

    2000-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A disposable telemetry cable deployment system for facilitating information retrieval while drilling a well includes a cable spool adapted for insertion into a drill string and an unarmored fiber optic cable spooled onto the spool cable and having a downhole end and a stinger end. Connected to the cable spool is a rigid stinger which extends through a kelly of the drilling apparatus. A data transmission device for transmitting data to a data acquisition system is disposed either within or on the upper end of the rigid stinger.

  5. MATERIAL HANDLING, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Materials shall be stored in a manner that allows easy identification and access to labels, identification entering storage areas. All persons shall be in a safe position while materials are being loadedEM 385-1-1 XX Jun 13 14-1 SECTION 14 MATERIAL HANDLING, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL 14.A MATERIAL

  6. Disposal requirements for PCB waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1994-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a class of organic chemicals that had become widely used in industrial applications due to their practical physical and chemical properties. Historical uses of PCBs include dielectric fluids (used in utility transformers, capacitors, etc.), hydraulic fluids, and other applications requiring stable, fire-retardant materials. Due to findings that PCBs may cause adverse health effects and due to their persistence and accumulation in the environment, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), enacted on october 11, 1976, banned the manufacture of PCBs after 1978 [Section 6(e)]. The first PCB regulations, promulgated at 40 CFR Part 761, were finalized on February 17, 1978. These PCB regulations include requirements specifying disposal methods and marking (labeling) procedures, and controlling PCB use. To assist the Department of Energy (DOE) in its efforts to comply with the TSCA statute and implementing regulations, the Office of Environmental Guidance has prepared the document ``Guidance on the Management of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).`` That document explains the requirements specified in the statute and regulations for managing PCBs including PCB use, storage, transport, and disposal. PCB materials that are no longer in use and have been declared a waste must be disposed of according to the requirements found at 40 CFR 761.60. These requirements establish disposal options for a multitude of PCB materials including soil and debris, liquid PCBs, sludges and slurries, containers, transformers, capacitors, hydraulic machines, and other electrical equipment. This Information Brief supplements the PCB guidance document by responding to common questions concerning disposal requirements for PCBs. It is one of a series of Information Briefs pertinent to PCB management issues.

  7. Dredged and Fill Material Disposal (North Dakota)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This chapter provides regulations for the disposal of dredged and fill material. Any entity desiring to dispose of such material must first obtain a permit, and the State Engineer has the...

  8. Spent Fuel Disposal Trust Fund (Maine)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Any licensee operating a nuclear power plant in this State shall establish a segregated Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposal Trust Fund in accordance with this subchapter for the eventual disposal of spent...

  9. Deep Borehole Disposal Research: Demonstration Site Selection...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Site Selection Guidelines, Borehole Seals Design, and RD&D Needs The U.S. Department of Energy has been investigating deep borehole disposal as one alternative for the disposal...

  10. Disposal of NORM waste in salt caverns

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Veil, J.A.; Smith, K.P.; Tomasko, D.; Elcock, D.; Blunt, D.; Williams, G.P.

    1998-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Some types of oil and gas production and processing wastes contain naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM). If NORM is present at concentrations above regulatory levels in oil field waste, the waste requires special disposal practices. The existing disposal options for wastes containing NORM are limited and costly. This paper evaluates the legality, technical feasibility, economics, and human health risk of disposing of NORM-contaminated oil field wastes in salt caverns. Cavern disposal of NORM waste is technically feasible and poses a very low human health risk. From a legal perspective, there are no fatal flaws that would prevent a state regulatory agency from approving cavern disposal of NORM. On the basis of the costs charged by caverns currently used for disposal of nonhazardous oil field waste (NOW), NORM waste disposal caverns could be cost competitive with existing NORM waste disposal methods when regulatory agencies approve the practice.

  11. Asset Management Equipment Disposal Form -Refrigerant Recovery

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Sin, Peter

    Asset Management Equipment Disposal Form - Refrigerant Recovery Safe Disposal Requirements Under refrigeration, cold storage warehouse refrigeration, chillers, and industrial process refrigeration) has to have the refrigerant recovered in accordance with EPA's requirements for servicing. However, equipment that typically

  12. Waste disposal options report. Volume 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Russell, N.E.; McDonald, T.G.; Banaee, J.; Barnes, C.M.; Fish, L.W.; Losinski, S.J.; Peterson, H.K.; Sterbentz, J.W.; Wenzel, D.R.

    1998-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report summarizes the potential options for the processing and disposal of mixed waste generated by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant. It compares the proposed waste-immobilization processes, quantifies and characterizes the resulting waste forms, identifies potential disposal sites and their primary acceptance criteria, and addresses disposal issues for hazardous waste.

  13. Disposable remote zero headspace extractor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hand, Julie J. (Idaho Falls, ID); Roberts, Mark P. (Arco, ID)

    2006-03-21T23:59:59.000Z

    The remote zero headspace extractor uses a sampling container inside a stainless steel vessel to perform toxicity characteristics leaching procedure to analyze volatile organic compounds. The system uses an in line filter for ease of replacement. This eliminates cleaning and disassembly of the extractor. All connections are made with quick connect fittings which can be easily replaced. After use, the bag can be removed and disposed of, and a new sampling container is inserted for the next extraction.

  14. Sample storage/disposal study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Valenzuela, B.D.

    1994-09-29T23:59:59.000Z

    Radioactive waste from defense operations has accumulated at the Hanford Site`s underground waste tanks since the late 1940`s. Each tank must be analyzed to determine whether it presents any harm to the workers at the Hanford Site, the public or the environment. Analyses of the waste aids in the decision making process in preparation of future tank waste stabilization procedures. Characterization of the 177 waste tanks on the Hanford Site will produce a large amount of archived material. This also brings up concerns as to how the excess waste tank sample material from 325 and 222-S Analytical Laboratories will be handled. Methods to archive and/or dispose of the waste have been implemented into the 222-S and 325 Laboratory procedures. As the amount of waste characterized from laboratory analysis grows, an examination of whether the waste disposal system will be able to compensate for this increase in the amount of waste needs to be examined. Therefore, the need to find the safest, most economically sound method of waste storage/disposal is important.

  15. DUSTMS-D: DISPOSAL UNIT SOURCE TERM - MULTIPLE SPECIES - DISTRIBUTED FAILURE DATA INPUT GUIDE.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    SULLIVAN, T.M.

    2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Performance assessment of a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility begins with an estimation of the rate at which radionuclides migrate out of the facility (i.e., the source term). The focus of this work is to develop a methodology for calculating the source term. In general, the source term is influenced by the radionuclide inventory, the wasteforms and containers used to dispose of the inventory, and the physical processes that lead to release from the facility (fluid flow, container degradation, wasteform leaching, and radionuclide transport). Many of these physical processes are influenced by the design of the disposal facility (e.g., how the engineered barriers control infiltration of water). The complexity of the problem and the absence of appropriate data prevent development of an entirely mechanistic representation of radionuclide release from a disposal facility. Typically, a number of assumptions, based on knowledge of the disposal system, are used to simplify the problem. This has been done and the resulting models have been incorporated into the computer code DUST-MS (Disposal Unit Source Term-Multiple Species). The DUST-MS computer code is designed to model water flow, container degradation, release of contaminants from the wasteform to the contacting solution and transport through the subsurface media. Water flow through the facility over time is modeled using tabular input. Container degradation models include three types of failure rates: (a) instantaneous (all containers in a control volume fail at once), (b) uniformly distributed failures (containers fail at a linear rate between a specified starting and ending time), and (c) gaussian failure rates (containers fail at a rate determined by a mean failure time, standard deviation and gaussian distribution). Wasteform release models include four release mechanisms: (a) rinse with partitioning (inventory is released instantly upon container failure subject to equilibrium partitioning (sorption) with the waste form), (b) diffusion release.(release from either a cylindrical, spherical, or rectangular wasteform), (c) dissolution release (uniform release over time due to dissolution of the wasteform surface), and (d) solubility limited release. The predicated wasteform releases are corrected for radioactive decay and ingrowth. A unique set of container failure and wasteform release parameters can be specified for each control volume with a container. Contaminant transport is modeled through a finite-difference solution of the advective transport equation with sources (wasteform release and ingrowth) and radioactive decay. Although DUST-MS simulates one-dimensional transport, it can be used to simulate migration down to an aquifer and then transport in the aquifer by running the code twice. A special subroutine allows the flux into the aquifer from the first simulation to be input as the flux at the upstream boundary in the aquifer. This document presents the models used to calculate release from a disposal facility, verification of the model, and instructions on the use of the DUST-MS code. In addition to DUST-MS, a preprocessor, DUSTINMS, which helps the code user create input decks for DUST-MS and a post-processor, GRAFMS, which takes selected output files and plots them on the computer terminal have been written. Use of these codes is also described. In using DUST-MS, as with all computer models, the validity of the predictions relies heavily on the validity of the input parameters. Often, the largest uncertainties arise from uncertainty in the input parameters. Therefore, it is crucial to document and support the use of these parameters. The DUST-MS code, because of its flexibility and ability to compute release rates quickly, is extremely useful for screening to determine the radionuclide released at the highest rate, parameter sensitivity analysis and, with proper choice of the input parameters, provide upper bounds to release rates.

  16. Technical and philosophical aspects of ocean disposal

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Zapatka, Marchi Charisse

    1976-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    ting Permissible Concentrations Alternatives to Ocean Oisposal. Deep-well injection. Incineration Land-based storage Land disposal. Rocycling. Advanced treatment Trends 55 56 58 58 61 61 62 65 66 71 83 87 90 91 TABLE OF CONTENTS... of Ocean Disposal. (August 1976) Plarchi Charisse Zapatka, B. S. , Texas ASM University Chairman of Advisory Committee: Dr. Roy W. Harm, Jr. The ocean disposal of waste materials is a controversial subject. People d1sagree as to whether this method...

  17. Aerosol can waste disposal device

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    O'Brien, Michael D. (Las Vegas, NV); Klapperick, Robert L. (Las Vegas, NV); Bell, Chris (Las Vegas, NV)

    1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Disclosed is a device for removing gases and liquid from containers. The ice punctures the bottom of a container for purposes of exhausting gases and liquid from the container without their escaping into the atmosphere. The device includes an inner cup or cylinder having a top portion with an open end for receiving a container and a bottom portion which may be fastened to a disposal or waste container in a substantially leak-proof manner. A piercing device is mounted in the lower portion of the inner cylinder for puncturing the can bottom placed in the inner cylinder. An outer cylinder having an open end and a closed end fits over the top portion of the inner cylinder in telescoping engagement. A force exerted on the closed end of the outer cylinder urges the bottom of a can in the inner cylinder into engagement with the piercing device in the bottom of the inner cylinder to form an opening in the can bottom, thereby permitting the contents of the can to enter the disposal container.

  18. Aerosol can waste disposal device

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    O'Brien, M.D.; Klapperick, R.L.; Bell, C.

    1993-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

    Disclosed is a device for removing gases and liquid from containers. The device punctures the bottom of a container for purposes of exhausting gases and liquid from the container without their escaping into the atmosphere. The device includes an inner cup or cylinder having a top portion with an open end for receiving a container and a bottom portion which may be fastened to a disposal or waste container in a substantially leak-proof manner. A piercing device is mounted in the lower portion of the inner cylinder for puncturing the can bottom placed in the inner cylinder. An outer cylinder having an open end and a closed end fits over the top portion of the inner cylinder in telescoping engagement. A force exerted on the closed end of the outer cylinder urges the bottom of a can in the inner cylinder into engagement with the piercing device in the bottom of the inner cylinder to form an opening in the can bottom, thereby permitting the contents of the can to enter the disposal container. 7 figures.

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

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

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

  20. Sandia National Laboratories: Deep Borehole Disposal

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

    (NESL) Brayton Lab SCO2 Brayton Cycle Technology Videos Heat Exchanger Development Diffusion Bonding Characterization Mechanical Testing Deep Borehole Disposal Nuclear...

  1. Electrochemical Apparatus with Disposable and Modifiable Parts

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

    in academia, might be able to afford only a limited inventory, which could stall productivity. Too expensive to be disposable, the cells must be cleaned after each experiment,...

  2. Plutonium Equivalent Inventory for Belowground Radioactive Waste at the Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Area 54, Area G Disposal Facility - Fiscal Year 2011

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    French, Sean B. [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Shuman, Rob [WPS: WASTE PROJECTS AND SERVICES

    2012-04-18T23:59:59.000Z

    The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) generates radioactive waste as a result of various activities. Many aspects of the management of this waste are conducted at Technical Area 54 (TA-54); Area G plays a key role in these management activities as the Laboratory's only disposal facility for low-level radioactive waste (LLW). Furthermore, Area G serves as a staging area for transuranic (TRU) waste that will be shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for disposal. A portion of this TRU waste is retrievably stored in pits, trenches, and shafts. The radioactive waste disposed of or stored at Area G poses potential short- and long-term risks to workers at the disposal facility and to members of the public. These risks are directly proportional to the radionuclide inventories in the waste. The Area G performance assessment and composite analysis (LANL, 2008a) project long-term risks to members of the public; short-term risks to workers and members of the public, such as those posed by accidents, are addressed by the Area G Documented Safety Analysis (LANL, 2011a). The Documented Safety Analysis uses an inventory expressed in terms of plutonium-equivalent curies, referred to as the PE-Ci inventory, to estimate these risks. The Technical Safety Requirements for Technical Area 54, Area G (LANL, 2011b) establishes a belowground radioactive material limit that ensures the cumulative projected inventory authorized for the Area G site is not exceeded. The total belowground radioactive waste inventory limit established for Area G is 110,000 PE-Ci. The PE-Ci inventory is updated annually; this report presents the inventory prepared for 2011. The approach used to estimate the inventory is described in Section 2. The results of the analysis are presented in Section 3.

  3. The low-low-level mixed waste regulatory gap: A disposal and recycle impasse

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Logan, S.E. [S.E. Logan and Associates, Inc., Sante Fe, NM (United States)

    1994-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Small steel mills in the United States receive and melt scrap steel in electric arc furnaces. The off-gas from these furnaces carries dust to the bag house where the dust is trapped and recovered. The EAF (Electric Arc Furnace) dust contains hazardous components lead, cadmium and chromium, causing it to be designated as U.S. EPA hazardous waste K061. The dust also carries about 20% zinc, a valuable byproduct for recovery. The EAF dust is normally either disposed of at a landfill licensed for hazardous wastes, or sent to a High Temperature Metal Recovery (HTMR) facility for recycle processing. During the past few years, there have been a number of incidents in which an industrial gauge source, containing the radioisotope Cs-137, has been inadvertently included in a load of scrap steel charged to an arc furnace. In each incident, the cesium and its encapsulation and holder melted, releasing the cesium into the off-gas system where it became distributed in hundreds of tons of EAF dust in the ducts and in the bag house. The contaminated dust, having both hazardous and radioactive components is a mixed waste. A regulatory gap exists that prevents disposition of this material, through it has only a low-low-level of radioactivity. A risk assessment was conducted for a midwest steel company that experienced a cesium meltdown incident. Most of the stored dust from this incident has an activity level less than the limit for the lowest category of LLW by a factor of 5,800, and some is only slightly above background. The significant pathways calculated include direct exposure to masses of the dust, ingestion of leachate and groundwater at a hazardous waste landfill, and potential releases to air and water during HTMR recycle processing.

  4. Material Recycling and Waste Disposal Document Control

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Guillas, Serge

    1 Material Recycling and Waste Disposal Procedure Document Control Document Created by 23, treatment, handling, transport and disposal of recyclable materials and residual wastes so as to maximise the opportunity and value for the recyclable materials and to minimise the quantity of residual materials

  5. SciTech Connect: Deep Borehole Disposal Research: Geological...

    Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)

    Deep Borehole Disposal Research: Geological Data Evaluation Alternative Waste Forms and Borehole Seals Citation Details In-Document Search Title: Deep Borehole Disposal Research:...

  6. NDAA Section 3116 Waste Determinations with Related Disposal...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    NDAA Section 3116 Waste Determinations with Related Disposal Performance Assessments NDAA Section 3116 Waste Determinations with Related Disposal Performance Assessments Section...

  7. Large Component Removal/Disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wheeler, D. M.

    2002-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper describes the removal and disposal of the large components from Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant. The large components discussed include the three steam generators, pressurizer, and reactor pressure vessel. Two separate Exemption Requests, which included radiological characterizations, shielding evaluations, structural evaluations and transportation plans, were prepared and issued to the DOT for approval to ship these components; the first was for the three steam generators and one pressurizer, the second was for the reactor pressure vessel. Both Exemption Requests were submitted to the DOT in November 1999. The DOT approved the Exemption Requests in May and July of 2000, respectively. The steam generators and pressurizer have been removed from Maine Yankee and shipped to the processing facility. They were removed from Maine Yankee's Containment Building, loaded onto specially designed skid assemblies, transported onto two separate barges, tied down to the barges, th en shipped 2750 miles to Memphis, Tennessee for processing. The Reactor Pressure Vessel Removal Project is currently under way and scheduled to be completed by Fall of 2002. The planning, preparation and removal of these large components has required extensive efforts in planning and implementation on the part of all parties involved.

  8. A disposable, self-administered electrolyte test

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Prince, Ryan, 1977-

    2003-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This thesis demonstrates the novel concept that it is possible to make a disposable, self-administered electrolyte test to be introduced to the general consumer market. Although ion specific electrodes have been used to ...

  9. Economic assessment of CO? capture and disposal

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Eckaus, Richard S.; Jacoby, Henry D.; Ellerman, A. Denny.; Leung, Wing-Chi.; Yang, Zili.

    A multi-sector multi-region general equilibrium model of economic growth and emissions is used to explore the conditions that will determine the market penetration of CO2 capture and disposal technology.

  10. Waste disposal options report. Volume 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Russell, N.E.; McDonald, T.G.; Banaee, J.; Barnes, C.M.; Fish, L.W.; Losinski, S.J.; Peterson, H.K.; Sterbentz, J.W.; Wenzel, D.R.

    1998-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Volume 2 contains the following topical sections: estimates of feed and waste volumes, compositions, and properties; evaluation of radionuclide inventory for Zr calcine; evaluation of radionuclide inventory for Al calcine; determination of k{sub eff} for high level waste canisters in various configurations; review of ceramic silicone foam for radioactive waste disposal; epoxides for low-level radioactive waste disposal; evaluation of several neutralization cases in processing calcine and sodium-bearing waste; background information for EFEs, dose rates, watts/canister, and PE-curies; waste disposal options assumptions; update of radiation field definition and thermal generation rates for calcine process packages of various geometries-HKP-26-97; and standard criteria of candidate repositories and environmental regulations for the treatment and disposal of ICPP radioactive mixed wastes.

  11. Environmental planning and categorical exclusions: Making the categorical exclusion an integral part of your NEPA tool kit

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Holthoff, M.G.; Hanrahan, T.P.

    1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    As contained in the Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR 1500--1508, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) directs federal agencies to adopt their own procedures for implementing the Act. The US Department of Energy (DOE) and the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) are two examples of federal agencies with dissimilar but functionally equivalent CX processes. The DOE and USFS were selected as subjects for this study because of their distinctly different missions and as a results of the author`s familiarity with the policies of both agencies. The objectives of this study are to: (1) describe the CX policies and processes of the two agencies, (2) identify the similarities and differences between the two processes, and (3) suggest ways for improving these processes. In performing this evaluation, the authors will identify the components of each agency`s CX process that clearly contributes qualitative information for the purpose of making environmental planning decisions. Drawing from the best elements of each process, the authors will provide some general recommendations that should enable the agencies to fulfill their various obligations to the CX process while concurrently performing early, thorough, and expeditious environmental reviews under NEPA.

  12. Subseabed Disposal Program Plan. Volume I. Overview

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None

    1981-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The primary objective of the Subseabed Disposal Program (SDP) is to assess the scientific, environmental, and engineering feasibility of disposing of processed and packaged high-level nuclear waste in geologic formations beneath the world's oceans. High-level waste (HLW) is considered the most difficult of radioactive wastes to dispose of in oceanic geologic formations because of its heat and radiation output. From a scientific standpoint, the understanding developed for the disposal of such HLW can be used for other nuclear wastes (e.g., transuranic - TRU - or low-level) and materials from decommissioned facilities, since any set of barriers competent to contain the heat and radiation outputs of high-level waste will also contain such outputs from low-level waste. If subseabed disposal is found to be feasible for HLW, then other factors such as cost will become more important in considering subseabed emplacement for other nuclear wastes. A secondary objective of the SDP is to develop and maintain a capability to assess and cooperate with the seabed nuclear waste disposal programs of other nations. There are, of course, a number of nations with nuclear programs, and not all of these nations have convenient access to land-based repositories for nuclear waste. Many are attempting to develop legislative and scientific programs that will avoid potential hazards to man, threats to other ocean uses, and marine pollution, and they work together to such purpose in meetings of the international NEA/Seabed Working Group. The US SDP, as the first and most highly developed R and D program in the area, strongly influences the development of subseabed-disposal-related policy in such nations.

  13. Biohazardous Waste Disposal GuidelinesDescriptionStorage& LabelingTreatmentDisposal

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Wikswo, John

    Waste Sharps Waste Solid Lab Waste Liquid Waste Any of these devices if contaminated with biohazardousBiohazardous Waste Disposal GuidelinesDescriptionStorage& packaging LabelingTreatmentDisposal Mixed container. Container must be leakproof, ridgid, puncture resistant, clearly marked for biohazardous waste

  14. Electrochemical apparatus comprising modified disposable rectangular cuvette

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Dattelbaum, Andrew M; Gupta, Gautam; Morris, David E

    2013-09-10T23:59:59.000Z

    Electrochemical apparatus includes a disposable rectangular cuvette modified with at least one hole through a side and/or the bottom. Apparatus may include more than one cuvette, which in practice is a disposable rectangular glass or plastic cuvette modified by drilling the hole(s) through. The apparatus include two plates and some means of fastening one plate to the other. The apparatus may be interfaced with a fiber optic or microscope objective, and a spectrometer for spectroscopic studies. The apparatus are suitable for a variety of electrochemical experiments, including surface electrochemistry, bulk electrolysis, and flow cell experiments.

  15. Seismic Characterization of Basalt Topography at Two Candidate Sites for the INL Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jeff Sondrup; Gail Heath; Trent Armstrong; Annette Shafer; Jesse Bennett; Clark Scott

    2011-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report presents the seismic refraction results from the depth to bed rock surveys for two areas being considered for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (RH-LLW) disposal facility at the Idaho National Laboratory. The first area (Site 5) surveyed is located southwest of the Advanced Test Reactor Complex and the second (Site 34) is located west of Lincoln Boulevard near the southwest corner of the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center (INTEC). At Site 5, large area and smaller-scale detailed surveys were performed. At Site 34, a large area survey was performed. The purpose of the surveys was to define the topography of the interface between the surficial alluvium and underlying basalt. Seismic data were first collected and processed using seismic refraction tomographic inversion. Three-dimensional images for both sites were rendered from the data to image the depth and velocities of the subsurface layers. Based on the interpreted top of basalt data at Site 5, a more detailed survey was conducted to refine depth to basalt. This report briefly covers relevant issues in the collection, processing and inversion of the seismic refraction data and in the imaging process. Included are the parameters for inversion and result rendering and visualization such as the inclusion of physical features. Results from the processing effort presented in this report include fence diagrams of the earth model, for the large area surveys and iso-velocity surfaces and cross sections from the detailed survey.

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

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

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

    2004-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  17. Economic disposal of solid oilfield wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bruno, M.S.; Qian, H.X.

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A variety of solid oilfield wastes, including produced sand, tank bottoms, and crude contaminated soils, are generated during drilling, production, and storage processes. Crude oil and crude-contaminated sands or soils are generally designated as nonhazardous wastes. However, these materials still must be disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. The problems can become most pressing as oil fields in urban areas reach the end of their productive lives and the productive lives and the properties are redeveloped for residential use. An economically and environmentally sound solution is to reinject the solid waste into sand formations through slurry fracture muds and cuttings in Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and the North Sea; naturally occurring radioactive materials in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico; and large volumes of produced oily sand in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada. The technique offers a number of economic and environmental advantages for disposal of solid oilfield wastes. When reinjecting into depleted oil sands, the crude waste is simply being returned to its place of origin. The long-term liability to the operator is eliminated, in marked contrast to surface storage or landfill disposal. Finally, fracture-injection costs are less than typical transport and landfill disposal costs for moderate to large quantities of solid waste

  18. Waste Handling and Disposal Biological Safety

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pawlowski, Wojtek

    plumbing services, EHS personnel wastewater treatment plant personnel, and the general public canWaste Handling and Disposal Biological Safety General Biosafety Practices (GBP) Why You Should Care on the next experiment. Are you working with r/sNA, biological toxins, human materials, needles, plasticware

  19. COMPILATION OF DISPOSABLE SOLID WASTE CASK EVALUATIONS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    THIELGES, J.R.; CHASTAIN, S.A.

    2007-06-21T23:59:59.000Z

    The Disposable Solid Waste Cask (DSWC) is a shielded cask capable of transporting, storing, and disposing of six non-fuel core components or approximately 27 cubic feet of radioactive solid waste. Five existing DSWCs are candidates for use in storing and disposing of non-fuel core components and radioactive solid waste from the Interim Examination and Maintenance Cell, ultimately shipping them to the 200 West Area disposal site for burial. A series of inspections, studies, analyses, and modifications were performed to ensure that these casks can be used to safely ship solid waste. These inspections, studies, analyses, and modifications are summarized and attached in this report. Visual inspection of the casks interiors provided information with respect to condition of the casks inner liners. Because water was allowed to enter the casks for varying lengths of time, condition of the cask liner pipe to bottom plate weld was of concern. Based on the visual inspection and a corrosion study, it was concluded that four of the five casks can be used from a corrosion standpoint. Only DSWC S/N-004 would need additional inspection and analysis to determine its usefulness. The five remaining DSWCs underwent some modification to prepare them for use. The existing cask lifting inserts were found to be corroded and deemed unusable. New lifting anchor bolts were installed to replace the existing anchors. Alternate lift lugs were fabricated for use with the new lifting anchor bolts. The cask tiedown frame was modified to facilitate adjustment of the cask tiedowns. As a result of the above mentioned inspections, studies, analysis, and modifications, four of the five existing casks can be used to store and transport waste from the Interim Examination and Maintenance Cell to the disposal site for burial. The fifth cask, DSWC S/N-004, would require further inspections before it could be used.

  20. Investigations of Dual-Purpose Canister Direct Disposal Feasibility...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Investigations of Dual-Purpose Canister Direct Disposal Feasibility (FY14) R1 Investigations of Dual-Purpose Canister Direct Disposal Feasibility (FY14) R1 Results continue to...

  1. EM Completes Salt Waste Disposal Units $8 Million under Budget...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    EM Completes Salt Waste Disposal Units 8 Million under Budget at Savannah River Site EM Completes Salt Waste Disposal Units 8 Million under Budget at Savannah River Site February...

  2. Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level...

  3. Solid waste disposal options: an optimum disposal model for the management of municipal solid waste

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Haney, Brenda Ann

    1989-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    management from landfill disposal to incineration and other technologies. An increase in the number of operating incinerators and the average plant capacity has increased since 1980. Incineration with waste-to-energy recovery replaced traditional... that are considered in- clude: composting, recycling, landfills and incineration with waste-to-energy recovery. The model evaluates disposal options based on the percentage of the total waste stream eliminated by each method. Once the amount of waste is determined...

  4. Used Fuel Disposition Campaign Disposal Research and Development...

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

    & Publications Used Fuel Disposition Campaign Disposal Research and Development Roadmap Used Fuel Disposition Campaign International Activities Implementation Plan Review of...

  5. Acceptance of Classified Excess Components for Disposal at Area 5

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Poling, Jeanne [National Security Technologies, LLC (United States); Saad, Max [Sandia National Lab., NM (United States)

    2012-04-09T23:59:59.000Z

    This slide-show discusses weapons dismantlement and disposal, issues related to classified waste and their solutions.

  6. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL ECONOMICS By Jay R. Lund,1

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pasternack, Gregory B.

    DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL ECONOMICS By Jay R. Lund,1 Associate Member, ASCE ABSTRACT: Recent difficulties in siting dredged material disposal facilities are increasing interests in alternative disposal or reuse of dredged material and the possible adverse consequences of any increases in the generation

  7. Cost of meeting geothermal liquid effluent disposal regulations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wells, K.D.; Currie, J.W.; Price, B.A.; Rogers, E.A.

    1981-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Background information is presented on the characteristics of liquid wastes and the available disposal options. Regulations that may directly or indirectly influence liquid waste disposal are reviewed. An assessment of the available wastewater-treatment systems is provided. A case study of expected liquid-waste-treatment and disposal costs is summarized. (MHR)

  8. Sorting and disposal of hazardous laboratory Radioactive waste

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Maoz, Shahar

    Sorting and disposal of hazardous laboratory waste Radioactive waste Solid radioactive waste in a tray to avoid spill Final disposal of both solid and radioactive waste into the yellow barrel into the solid biological waste. Formalin should be disposed off as Chemical Waste. Carcasses of experimental

  9. Landfill Disposal of CCA-Treated Wood with Construction and

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Florida, University of

    Landfill Disposal of CCA-Treated Wood with Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris: Arsenic phased out of many residential uses in the United States, the disposal of CCA-treated wood remains. Catastrophic events have also led to the concentrated disposal of CCA-treated wood, often in unlined landfills

  10. Disposability Assessment: Aluminum-Based Spent Nuclear Fuel Forms

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vinson, D.W.

    1998-11-06T23:59:59.000Z

    This report provides a technical assessment of the Melt-Dilute and Direct Al-SNF forms in disposable canisters with respect to meeting the requirements for disposal in the Mined Geologic Disposal System (MGDS) and for interim dry storage in the Treatment and Storage Facility (TSF) at SRS.

  11. Pesticide fate in an aboveground disposal system

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Vanderglas, Brian Richard

    1988-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Engineers, 1979). Prior to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. , little attention had been given to pesticide waste solutions leading to careless and dangerous disposal practices. Rinsate and washwaters were rarely collected... health as well as to livestock and crops and other vegetation in the affected area. Recent amendments (1984) to RCRA's federal regulations require that pesticide users who generate more than one hundred kilograms per month of acutely hazardous wastes...

  12. Disposal of Hanford site tank wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kupfer, M.J.

    1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Between 1943 and 1986, 149 single-shell tanks (SSTs) and 28 double-shell tanks (DSTs) were built and used to store radioactive wastes generated during reprocessing of irradiated uranium metal fuel elements at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site in Southeastern Washington state. The 149 SSTs, located in 12 separate areas (tank farms) in the 200 East and 200 West areas, currently contain about 1.4 {times} 10{sup 5} m{sup 3} of solid and liquid wastes. Wastes in the SSTs contain about 5.7 {times} 10{sup 18} Bq (170 MCi) of various radionuclides including {sup 90}Sr, {sup 99}Tc, {sup 137}Cs, and transuranium (TRU) elements. The 28 DSTs also located in the 200 East and West areas contain about 9 {times} 10{sup 4} m{sup 3} of liquid (mainly) and solid wastes; approximately 4 {times} 10{sup 18}Bq (90 MCi) of radionuclides are stored in the DSTs. Important characteristics and features of the various types of SST and DST wastes are described in this paper. However, the principal focus of this paper is on the evolving strategy for final disposal of both the SST and DST wastes. Also provided is a chronology which lists key events and dates in the development of strategies for disposal of Hanford Site tank wastes. One of these strategies involves pretreatment of retrieved tank wastes to separate them into a small volume of high-level radioactive waste requiring, after vitrification, disposal in a deep geologic repository and a large volume of low-level radioactive waste which can be safely disposed of in near-surface facilities at the Hanford Site. The last section of this paper lists and describes some of the pretreatment procedures and processes being considered for removal of important radionuclides from retrieved tank wastes.

  13. Specialized Disposal Sites for Different Reprocessing Plant Wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Forsberg, Charles W. [Nuclear Science and Technology Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831 (United States); Driscoll, Michael J. [Department of Nuclear Science and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139 (United States)

    2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Once-through fuel cycles have one waste form: spent nuclear fuel (SNF). In contrast, the reprocessed SNF yields multiple wastes with different chemical, physical, and radionuclide characteristics. The different characteristics of each waste imply that there are potential cost and performance benefits to developing different disposal sites that match the disposal requirements of different waste. Disposal sites as defined herein may be located in different geologies or in a single repository containing multiple sections, each with different characteristics. The paper describes disposal options for specific wastes and the potential for a waste management system that better couples various reprocessing plant wastes with disposal facilities. (authors)

  14. EIS-0243: Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the management of low-level waste (LLW) at all sites and continue, to the extent practicable, disposal of on- site LLW at the Idaho...

  15. PROPERTY DISPOSAL RECORDS | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagementOPAM5 Accretion-of-DutiesPROPERTY DISPOSAL RECORDS PROPERTY

  16. Paducah Waste Disposal | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial602 1,39732onMakeEducationRemediation » Paducah Waste Disposal Paducah

  17. Spook, Wyoming, Disposal Site Fact Sheet

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn AprilA groupTuba City, Arizona, DisposalFourthN V O'1 ~(3JlpV Project ProposalFirstI

  18. The Salt Defense Disposal Investigations (SDDI)

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of ScienceandMesa del SolStrengthening a solidSynthesis of 2Dand WaterThe FutureRiskSalt Defense Disposal

  19. Waste Stream Disposal Pharmacy Quick Sheet (6/16/14) Also pharmacy employees must complete SABA "Medication Waste Stream Disposal" Non-hazardous Hazardous Additional Waste

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Oliver, Douglas L.

    Additional Waste Disposal Location Green Bins for Non-hazardous waste Black Bins must complete SABA "Medication Waste Stream Disposal" Non-hazardous Hazardous for Hazardous Waste Yellow Trace Chemo Disposal Bin Red Sharps Bins Red

  20. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    If the activity creates an impoundment of water, adverse effects to the aquatic system due to accelerating the passage of water, andor restricting its flow must be...

  1. Environmental Review - NEPA

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

    impact statements. Environmental Impact Statement-EIS Southwest Intertie Project Environmental Assessment-EA Cliffrose Solar Energy Interconnection Project DOEEA-1989...

  2. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    Cementing Swivel Test Da te: 6-23-2010 DOE Code: 6730-020-71094 Contractor Code: 8067-779 Project Lead: Mark Duletsky Project Overview 1. Brief project description include The...

  3. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    268 Project lnfonnation Project Title: New Drilling Location in Section 29 Date: 12-10-2009 DOE Code: 6730.020.78002 Contractor Code: 8067-371 Project Lead: Mark Duletsky Project...

  4. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    Code: TBD Project Lead: Brian Black Project Overview This project will use the drilling rig and associated equipment to drill a well to 5400 feet that will be 1. What are...

  5. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    duration of the projed? 4 . What major equipment will be used if any (work over rig, drilling rig, etc.)? Contractor Code: The primary functions of the bio-treatment facility...

  6. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    - )Jp R tW" I Project lnfonnation Project Title: New Drilling Location in Section 29 Date: 12-10-2009 DOE Code: 6730.020.78002 Contractor Code: 8067-371 Project Lead: Mar1<...

  7. UGP Environmental Review (NEPA)

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

    transparency and openness. Some actions may have environmental impacts that require an environmental assessment and a detailed analysis to determine the extent and severity of...

  8. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    , fossil, and renewable energy activities. Conditions: 85.1 Actions to conserve energy, demonstrate potential energy conservation , and promote energy-efficiency that do not...

  9. SN Environmental Review (NEPA)

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

    Project San Luis Transmission Project Environmental Assessment-EA San Joaquin Valley Right-of-Way Maintenance Project North Area Right-of-Way Maintenance Project Sacramento...

  10. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    rr ;J. 95 Project lnfonnation Project Title: Well Coring-Schlumberger Carbon Services Date: 31810 DOE Code: 6730.020.81016 Contractor Code: 8067-708 Project Lead: Vicki Stamp...

  11. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    67 Project lnfonnation Project Title: Restoration of 63-S-11 Date: 1212112009 DOE Code: Contractor Code: Project Lead: Jeff Jones Project Overview The environmental impacts will be...

  12. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    8 Project lnfonnation Project Title: Restoration of 62-42 SX 10 DOE Code: Project Lead: Jeff Jones Project Overview We will be restoring this location 62-42 SX-1 0. What are the...

  13. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    environment. 1. What are the environmental impacts? Dig up old electrical line from pumping unit on 61-S-34 to power pole east of well , approximately 75 feet 2. What is the...

  14. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    is for the existing ORMAT geothermal processing unit that was used for testing during CRADA impacts? No 2007-083. The Original project consisted of the installation and 1 year...

  15. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    9 Project Information Project Title: Restoration of 73 SX 1 OH DOE Code: Project Lead: Jeff Jones Project Overview We will be restoring this location 73 SX 10H. What are the...

  16. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    2 Project Information Project Title: 17 -AX-11 Restoration Date: DOE Code: Contractor Code: Project Lead: Jim Bell Project Overview The environmental impacts should be minimal ....

  17. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    1 Project Information Project Title: C-EA 2. Work on existing well location (within 125' Date: 662011 from well bore) DOE Code: Contractor Code: Project Lead: Michael J. Taylor...

  18. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    od Project Information Project Title: South Composting Facility Pit Date: 1102011 DOE Code: 6730.020.0000 Contractor Code: 8067-788 Project Lead: Tony Bowler Project Overview...

  19. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    28 Project Information Project Title: New B-1-3 Pit and Box Construction Date: 51 2612011 DOE Code: Contractor Code: Project Lead: Maintenance Department Project Overview This is a...

  20. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    2 Project Information Project T itle: Repair flowline 77 -S-1 0 Date: 31112010 DOE Code: Contractor Code: Project Lead: Wes Riesland Project Overview The flowline leak at 77 -s-1...

  1. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    6 Project Information Project Title: Repair flowline at 83-AX-4 Date: 2-17-2010 DOE Code: Contractor Code: Project Lead: Bernard Winfrey Project Overview 1. What are the...

  2. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    :;J7 Project Information Project Title: B-1-3 Heat Trace Date: 101409 DOE Code: Contractor Code: Project Lead: Mike Preston Project Overview Routine maintenance activities for...

  3. RM Environmental Review (NEPA)

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

    San Juan County, NM (8-30-13) Lusk Rural Substation Control Building Construction Niobrara County, WY (1-16-13) Malta-Mt. Elbert 230-kV Danger Tree Management, Lake...

  4. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    Instruments, ......ell monitoring equ1pment. uranium shielding material. depleted uranium milita munitions, and packaged radioactive waste not exceeding 50 curies....

  5. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    removal of rig anchors or T-bars, drainage control , transport and backfilling of clean soil I fill dirt, and reseeding . The table below is to be completed by the Project Lead...

  6. NEPA COMPLIANCE SURVEY

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

    nonnal operations and accident conditions? which do not threaten Waters of the State' or wetland areas. If Waters of the State' or wetland areas a threatened by either a spill or...

  7. OFFICE: NEPA REVIEWS:

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn'tOrigin of Contamination in ManyDepartment of Order No. EA-212-AOAHU2014) | DepartmentOE's3OFFICE:

  8. NEPA Lessons Learned Questionnaire

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagement of theTechno-economicOctober 2013 -DepartmentLessons Learned

  9. DOE NEPA Compliance Officers

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't Your Destiny: Theof"Wave theJulyD&DDepartmentContaminated Ground Water | Department

  10. NEPA of 1969

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742Energy China 2015of 2005 attheMohammed Khan - TechnologyJanuary 29,guidance on theon theNational

  11. NEPA | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directedAnnual SiteofEvaluatingGroup |JilinLu anMicrogreenMoonNASA/Ames Global Emissions Datasource History

  12. NEPA Contracting Reform Guidance

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33Frequently Asked QuestionsDepartment of Energy 3ServicesNEET FY 12 ProjectStatement Lessons

  13. Crescent Junction Disposal Site Diversion Channel Design, North Side Disposal Cell Sources of Data:

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    unknown authors

    Checked b"t me-Kao a MName A e4719 lProblem Statement: " Design erosion protection for the north slope of the disposal cell to prevent detrimental erosion from surface water flows from upland area, consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 192 and NRC guidance in NUREG 1623.

  14. Low-level radioactive mixed waste land disposal facility -- Permanent disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Erpenbeck, E.G.; Jasen, W.G.

    1993-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Radioactive mixed waste (RMW) disposal at US Department of Energy (DOE) facilities is subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). Westinghouse Hanford Company, in Richland, Washington, has completed the design of a radioactive mixed waste land disposal facility, which is based on the best available technology compliant with RCRA. When completed, this facility will provide permanent disposal of solid RMW, after treatment, in accordance with the Land Disposal Restrictions. The facility includes a double clay and geosynthetic liner with a leachate collection system to minimize potential leakage of radioactive or hazardous constituents from the landfill. The two clay liners will be capable of achieving a permeability of less than 1 {times} 10{sup {minus}7} cm/s. The two clay liners, along with the two high density polyethylene (HDPE) liners and the leachate collection and removal system, provide a more than conservative, physical containment of any potential radioactive and/or hazardous contamination.

  15. FY 2006 ANNUAL REVIEW-SALTSTONE DISPOSAL FACILITY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Crapse, K; Benjamin Culbertson, B

    2007-03-15T23:59:59.000Z

    The Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) consists of two disposal units, Vaults 1 and 4, described in the Performance Assessment (PA) (WSRC 1992). The FY06 PA Annual Review concludes that both vaults contain much lower levels of radionuclides (curies) than that allowed by the PA. The PA controls established to govern waste operations and monitor disposal facility performance are determined to be adequate.

  16. Will new disposal regulations undo decades of progress?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ward, J. [John Ward Inc. (United States)

    2009-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In 1980, the Belville Amendments to RCRA instructed EPA to 'conduct a detailed and comprehensive study and submit a report' to Congress on the 'adverse effects on human health and the environment, if any, of the disposal and utilization' of coal ash. In both 1988 and 1999, EPA submitted reports to Congress and recommended coal ash should not be regulated as hazardous waste. After the failure of a Tennesse power plant's coal ash disposal facility, EPA will be proposing new disposal regulations.

  17. Processing and waste disposal representative for fusion breeder blanket systems

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Finn, P.A.; Vogler, S.

    1987-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This study is an evaluation of the waste handling concepts applicable to fusion breeder systems. Its goal is to determine if breeder blanket waste can be disposed of in shallow land burial, the least restrictive method under US Nuclear Regulatory regulations. The radionuclides expected in the materials used in fusion reactor blankets are described, as are plans for reprocessing and disposal of the components of different breeder blankets. An estimate of the operating costs involved in waste disposal is made.

  18. Remedial Action and Waste Disposal Conduct of OperationsMatrix

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    M. A. Casbon.

    1999-05-24T23:59:59.000Z

    This Conduct of Operations (CONOPS) matrix incorporates the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) CONOPS matrix (BHI-00746, Rev. 0). The ERDF CONOPS matrix has been expanded to cover all aspects of the RAWD project. All remedial action and waste disposal (RAWD) operations, including waste remediation, transportation, and disposal at the ERDF consist of construction-type activities as opposed to nuclear power plant-like operations. In keeping with this distinction, the graded approach has been applied to the developmentof this matrix.

  19. REGULATIONS ON PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    FTHENAKIS,V.

    2001-01-29T23:59:59.000Z

    Environmental regulations can have a significant impact on product use, disposal, and recycling. This report summarizes the basic aspects of current federal, state and international regulations which apply to end-of-life photovoltaic (PV) modules and PV manufacturing scrap destined for disposal or recycling. It also discusses proposed regulations for electronics that may set the ground of what is to be expected in this area in the near future. In the US, several states have started programs to support the recycling of electronic equipment, and materials destined for recycling often are excepted from solid waste regulations during the collection, transfer, storage and processing stages. California regulations are described separately because they are different from those of most other states. International agreements on the movement of waste between different countries may pose barriers to cross-border shipments. Currently waste moves freely among country members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and between the US and the four countries with which the US has bilateral agreements. However, it is expected, that the US will adopt the rules of the Basel Convention (an agreement which currently applies to 128 countries but not the US) and that the Convection's waste classification system will influence the current OECD waste-handling system. Some countries adopting the Basel Convention consider end-of-life electronics to be hazardous waste, whereas the OECD countries consider them to be non-hazardous. Also, waste management regulations potentially affecting electronics in Germany and Japan are mentioned in this report.

  20. Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Packaging & Disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wheeler, D. M.; Posivak, E.; Freitag, A.; Geddes, B.

    2003-02-26T23:59:59.000Z

    Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) Head replacements have come to the forefront due to erosion/corrosion and wastage problems resulting from the susceptibility of the RPV Head alloy steel material to water/boric acid corrosion from reactor coolant leakage through the various RPV Head penetrations. A case in point is the recent Davis-Besse RPV Head project, where detailed inspections in early 2002 revealed significant wastage of head material adjacent to one of the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) nozzles. In lieu of making ASME weld repairs to the damaged head, Davis-Besse made the decision to replace the RPV Head. The decision was made on the basis that the required weld repair would be too extensive and almost impractical. This paper presents the packaging, transport, and disposal considerations for the damaged Davis-Besse RPV Head. It addresses the requirements necessary to meet Davis Besse needs, as well as the regulatory criteria, for shipping and burial of the head. It focuses on the radiological characterization, shipping/disposal package design, site preparation and packaging, and the transportation and emergency response plans that were developed for the Davis-Besse RPV Head project.

  1. Low-Level Waste Disposal Alternatives Analysis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Timothy Carlson; Kay Adler-Flitton; Roy Grant; Joan Connolly; Peggy Hinman; Charles Marcinkiewicz

    2006-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report identifies and compares on-site and off-site disposal options for the disposal of contract-handled and remote-handled low-level waste generated by the Idaho National Laboratory and its tenants. Potential disposal options are screened for viability by waste type resulting in a short list of options for further consideration. The most crediable option are selected after systematic consideration of cost, schedule constraints, and risk. In order to holistically address the approach for low-level waste disposal, options are compiled into comprehensive disposal schemes, that is, alternative scenarios. Each alternative scenario addresses the disposal path for all low-level waste types over the period of interest. The alternative scenarios are compared and ranked using cost, risk and complexity to arrive at the recommended approach. Schedule alignment with disposal needs is addressed to ensure that all waste types are managed appropriately. The recommended alternative scenario for the disposal of low-level waste based on this analysis is to build a disposal facility at the Idaho National Laboratory Site.

  2. South Carolina Radioactive Waste Transportation and Disposal Act (South Carolina)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Department of Health and Environmental Control is responsible for regulating the transportation of radioactive waste, with some exceptions, into or within the state for storage, disposal, or...

  3. Depleted uranium storage and disposal trade study: Summary report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hightower, J.R.; Trabalka, J.R.

    2000-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The objectives of this study were to: identify the most desirable forms for conversion of depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) for extended storage, identify the most desirable forms for conversion of DUF6 for disposal, evaluate the comparative costs for extended storage or disposal of the various forms, review benefits of the proposed plasma conversion process, estimate simplified life-cycle costs (LCCs) for five scenarios that entail either disposal or beneficial reuse, and determine whether an overall optimal form for conversion of DUF6 can be selected given current uncertainty about the endpoints (specific disposal site/technology or reuse options).

  4. Fees For Disposal Of Hazardous Waste Or Substances (Alabama)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The article lists annual payments to be made to counties, restrictions on disposal of hazardous waste, additional fees collected by counties and penalties.

  5. Title I Disposal Sites Annual Report | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Sites Annual Report 2013 Annual Site Inspection and Monitoring Report for Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Title I Disposal Sites (March 2014) 2013 Annual Site...

  6. alcatraz disposal site: Topics by E-print Network

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

    and Radium-226 are the predominant radioactive contaminents on Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Plan (FUSRAP) sites. Engineering Websites Summary: by the nearby disposal...

  7. Disposable Carbon Nanotube Modified Screen-Printed Biosensor...

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

    Carbon Nanotube Modified Screen-Printed Biosensor for Amperometric Detection of Organophosphorus Pesticides and Nerve Disposable Carbon Nanotube Modified Screen-Printed Biosensor...

  8. Southwestern Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact (South Dakota)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This legislation authorizes the state's entrance into the Southwestern Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact, which provides for the cooperative management of low-level radioactive waste....

  9. ash disposal area: Topics by E-print Network

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

    OF PRINCE GEORGE: SNOW DISPOSAL AT THE LANSDOWNE ROAD WASTEWATER TREATMENT CENTRE DOE FRAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT CENTRE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this study was provided...

  10. ash disposal island: Topics by E-print Network

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

    OF PRINCE GEORGE: SNOW DISPOSAL AT THE LANSDOWNE ROAD WASTEWATER TREATMENT CENTRE DOE FRAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT CENTRE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this study was provided...

  11. ash disposal site: Topics by E-print Network

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

    OF PRINCE GEORGE: SNOW DISPOSAL AT THE LANSDOWNE ROAD WASTEWATER TREATMENT CENTRE DOE FRAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT CENTRE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this study was provided...

  12. ash disposal sites: Topics by E-print Network

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

    OF PRINCE GEORGE: SNOW DISPOSAL AT THE LANSDOWNE ROAD WASTEWATER TREATMENT CENTRE DOE FRAP WASTEWATER TREATMENT CENTRE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this study was provided...

  13. Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact: Waste Disposition Activities at the Paducah Site Paducah, Kentucky

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    N /A

    2002-11-05T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has completed an environmental assessment (DOE/EA-1339), which is incorporated herein by reference, for proposed disposition of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) wastes, low-level radioactive waste (LLW), mixed low-level radioactive waste (MLLW), and transuranic (TRU) waste from the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Site (Paducah Site) in Paducah, Kentucky. All of the wastes would be transported for disposal at various locations in the United States. Based on the results of the impact analysis reported in the EA, DOE has determined that the proposed action is not a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment with in the context of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement is not necessary, and DOE is issuing this Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

  14. Disposable sludge dewatering container and method

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Cole, Clifford M. (1905 Cottonwood Dr., Aiken, SC 29803)

    1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A device and method for preparing sludge for disposal comprising a box with a thin layer of gravel on the bottom and a thin layer of sand on the gravel layer, an array of perforated piping deployed throughout the gravel layer, and a sump in the gravel layer below the perforated piping array. Standpipes connect the array and sump to an external ion exchanger/fine particulate filter and a pump. Sludge is deposited on the sand layer and dewatered using a pump connected to the piping array, topping up with more sludge as the aqueous component of the sludge is extracted. When the box is full and the free standing water content of the sludge is acceptable, the standpipes are cut and sealed and the lid secured to the box.

  15. Radioactive waste disposal in thick unsaturated zones

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Winograd, I.J.

    1981-06-26T23:59:59.000Z

    Portions of the Great Basin are undergoing crustal extension and have unsaturated zones as much as 600 meters thick. These areas contain multiple natural barriers capable of isolating solidified toxic wastes from the biosphere for tens of thousands to perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. An example of the potential utilization of such arid zone environments for toxic waste isolation is the burial of transuranic radioactive wastes at relatively shallow depths (15 to 100 meters) in Sedan Crater, Yucca Flat, Nevada. The volume of this man-made crater is several times that of the projected volume of such wastes to the year 2000. Disposal in Sedan Crater could be accomplished at a savings on the order of $0.5 billion, in comparison with current schemes for burial of such wastes in mined repositories at depths of 600 to 900 meters, and with an apparently equal likelihood of waste isolation from the biosphere. 4 figures.

  16. TMI Fuel Characteristics for Disposal Criticality Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Larry L. Taylor

    2003-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents the reported contents of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) canisters. proposed packaging, and degradation scenarios expected in the repository. Most fuels within the U.S. Department of Energy spent nuclear fuel inventory deal with highly enriched uranium, that in most cases require some form of neutronic poisoning inside the fuel canister. The TMI-2 fuel represents a departure from these fuel forms due to its lower enrichment (2.96% max.) values and the disrupted nature of the fuel itself. Criticality analysis of these fuel canisters has been performed over the years to reflect conditions expected during transit from the reactor to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, water pool storage,1 and transport/dry-pack storage at Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center.2,3 None of these prior analyses reflect the potential disposal conditions for this fuel inside a postclosure repository.

  17. Method for disposing of hazardous wastes

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Burton, Frederick G. (West Richland, WA); Cataldo, Dominic A. (Kennewick, WA); Cline, John F. (Prosser, WA); Skiens, W. Eugene (Richland, WA)

    1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A method and system for long-term control of root growth without killing the plants bearing those roots involves incorporating a 2,6-dinitroaniline in a polymer and disposing the polymer in an area in which root control is desired. This results in controlled release of the substituted aniline herbicide over a period of many years. Herbicides of this class have the property of preventing root elongation without translocating into other parts of the plant. The herbicide may be encapsulated in the polymer or mixed with it. The polymer-herbicide mixture may be formed into pellets, sheets, pipe gaskets, pipes for carrying water, or various other forms. The invention may be applied to other protection of buried hazardous wastes, protection of underground pipes, prevention of root intrusion beneath slabs, the dwarfing of trees or shrubs and other applications. The preferred herbicide is 4-difluoromethyl-N,N-dipropyl- 2,6-dinitro-aniline, commonly known as trifluralin.

  18. Challenges in Disposing of Anthrax Waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lesperance, Ann M.; Stein, Steven L.; Upton, Jaki F.; Toomey, Christopher

    2011-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Disasters often create large amounts of waste that must be managed as part of both immediate response and long-term recovery. While many federal, state, and local agencies have debris management plans, these plans often do not address chemical, biological, and radiological contamination. The Interagency Biological Restoration Demonstration’s (IBRD) purpose was to holistically assess all aspects of an anthrax incident and assist the development of a plan for long-term recovery. In the case of wide-area anthrax contamination and the follow-on response and recovery activities, a significant amount of material will require decontamination and disposal. Accordingly, IBRD facilitated the development of debris management plans to address contaminated waste through a series of interviews and workshops with local, state, and federal representatives. The outcome of these discussion was the identification of three primary topical areas that must be addressed: 1) Planning; 2) Unresolved research questions, and resolving regulatory issues.

  19. A Change in Envirocare's Disposal Cell Design

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rogers, T.

    2002-02-25T23:59:59.000Z

    Envirocare of Utah, Inc. operates a Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) and 11e. disposal facility in the Utah west dessert. Envirocare disposes of LLRW in above ground cells. A seven-foot excavation lined with two feet of clay comprises the cell floor. Approximately 22 feet of waste is then placed in the cell in one-foot thick compacted lifts. The cover system consists of a nine-foot clay radon barrier and three-foot rock erosion barrier. This is required to prevent radon emissions at the surface of the radon barrier from exceeding 20 pCi/m2s, the radon release standard in Criterion 6 of 10 CFR 40. The required thickness of the current clay radon barrier cover was based on the original radon flux model used to evaluate the safety of Envirocare's proposed LLRW and 11e.(2) license operations. Because of the lack of actual measurements, universally conservative values were used for the long-term moisture content and the radon diffusion coefficients of the waste and radon barrier material. Since receiving its license, Envirocare has collected a number of samples from the radon barrier and waste material to determine their actual radon attenuation characteristics, including the long-term moisture content and the associated radon diffusion coefficient. In addition, radon flux measurements have been performed to compare the model calculations with the calculated results. The results from these analyses indicate that the initial modeling input parameters, specifically the long-term moisture content and the radon diffusion coefficient, are more conservative than that needed to ensure compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements.

  20. EIA Practice Examples of Cumulative Effects and Final Disposal of

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    EIA Practice Examples of Cumulative Effects and Final Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel Antoienette: SLU Service/Repro, Uppsala 2012 #12;EIA Practice. Examples of Cumulative Effects and Final Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel Abstract This thesis is about Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) practice

  1. Procedure for the Recycling Material and Disposal of Waste from

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Guillas, Serge

    assessments must include consideration of storage, handling, movement and disposal of wastes under that waste is produced, stored, transported and disposed of without harming the environment. This is your Clinical Wastes Radioactive Wastes Laboratory Wastes of Unknown Hazard Non-Hazardous Laboratory Wastes

  2. The College of Engineering Electronic Media Disposal Policy

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Demirel, Melik C.

    The College of Engineering Electronic Media Disposal Policy COE­EMD­01 1.0 Purpose The purpose of this policy is to establish requirements for the proper disposal of electronic media containing sensitive data of information resources contain electronic media including, but not limited to: computer systems, personal

  3. User Guide for Disposal of Unwanted Items and Electronic Waste

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Mullins, Dyche

    User Guide for Disposal of Unwanted Items and Electronic Waste January 31, 2012 Jointly developed metal and wood o Waste/trash management o Recycle, reuse or disposal of materials D&S does not process o and electronics of all types (working or not) o Furniture o Reusable/Recyclable items o Assets with UC Property

  4. 3DD - Three Dimensional Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel - 12449

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dvorakova, Marketa; Slovak, Jiri [Radioactive Waste Repository Authority (RAWRA), Prague (Czech Republic)

    2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Three dimensional disposal is being considered as a way in which to store long-term spent nuclear fuel in underground disposal facilities in the Czech Republic. This method involves a combination of the two most common internationally recognised disposal methods in order to practically apply the advantages of both whilst, at the same time, eliminating their weaknesses; the method also allows easy removal in case of potential re-use. The proposed method for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel will reduce the areal requirements of future deep geological repositories by more than 30%. It will also simplify the container handling process by using gravitational forces in order to meet requirements concerning the controllability of processes and ensuring operational and nuclear safety. With regard to the issue of the efficient potential removal of waste containers, this project offers an ingenious solution which does not disrupt the overall stability of the original disposal complex. (authors)

  5. PROCEDURES FOR DISPOSING OF WASTE CHEMICALS 1. All containers submitted for disposal must be clearly labeled with the following information

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    -duty plastic bags. Tape all containers of chemically-contaminated dry materials securely shut and label. Container Is - Indicate P (plastic), G (glass), or M (metal). Physical State - Indicate if the material8/99 PROCEDURES FOR DISPOSING OF WASTE CHEMICALS 1. All containers submitted for disposal must

  6. University of Delaware Laboratory Chemical Waste Disposal Guide ALL CHEMICAL WASTE MUST BE DISPOSED OF THROUGH THE

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Firestone, Jeremy

    containment bin. CHEMICALLY CONTAMINATED SOLID WASTE · Place materials in a heavy duty plastic bag insideUniversity of Delaware Laboratory Chemical Waste Disposal Guide ALL CHEMICAL WASTE MUST BE DISPOSED OF THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SAFETY http://www.udel.edu/ HS EXAMPLES OF CHEMICAL WASTE INCLUDE

  7. The full fuel cycle of CO{sub 2} capture and disposal capture and disposal technology

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Saroff, L.

    1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The overall objective of this study was to develop a methodology for the evaluation of the energy usage and cost both private and societal (external cost)for full fuel cycles. It was envisioned that other organizations could employ the methodology with minor alterations for a consistent means of evaluating full fuel cycles. The methodology has been applied to three fossil fuel electric generation processes each producing 500 MWe (net). These are: a Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plant burning natural gas with direct CO{sub 2} capture and disposal; an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant burning coal with direct CO{sub 2} capture and disposal; and a Pulverized Fuel (PC) power plant burning coal with a managed forest indirectly sequestering CO{sub 2}. The primary aim is to provide decision makers with information from which to derive policy. Thus, the evaluation reports total energy used, private costs to build the facility, emissions and burdens, and the valuation (externalities) of the impacts of the burdens. The energy usage, private costs including capture and disposal, and emissions are reported in this paper. The valuations and analysis of the impact of the plant on the environment are reported in the companion paper. The loss in efficiency (LHV) considering the full fuel cycle as opposed to the thermal efficiency of the power plant is; 0.9, 2.4, and 4.6 for the NGCC, IGCC, and PC+controls, respectively. Electricity cost, c/kWh, including capital, operating and fuel, at a 10% discount rate. ranges from 5.6 to 7.08 for NGCC and 7.24 to 8.61 for IGCC. The range is dependent on the mode of disposal, primarily due to the long pipeline to reach a site for the pope disposal in the ocean. For the PC+ controls then is a considerable range from 7.66 to over 16 c/kWh dependent on the size and cost of the managed forest.

  8. Addendum to the composite analysis for the E-Area Vaults and Saltstone Disposal Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, J.R.

    2000-03-13T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents the composite analysis performed on the two active SRS low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. The facilities are the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility and the E-Area Vaults Disposal Facility.

  9. Generic Argillite/Shale Disposal Reference Case

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Zheng, Liange; Colon, Carlos Jové; Bianchi, Marco; Birkholzer, Jens

    2014-08-08T23:59:59.000Z

    Radioactive waste disposal in a deep subsurface repository hosted in clay/shale/argillite is a subject of widespread interest given the desirable isolation properties, geochemically reduced conditions, and widespread geologic occurrence of this rock type (Hansen 2010; Bianchi et al. 2013). Bianchi et al. (2013) provides a description of diffusion in a clay-hosted repository based on single-phase flow and full saturation using parametric data from documented studies in Europe (e.g., ANDRA 2005). The predominance of diffusive transport and sorption phenomena in this clay media are key attributes to impede radionuclide mobility making clay rock formations target sites for disposal of high-level radioactive waste. The reports by Hansen et al. (2010) and those from numerous studies in clay-hosted underground research laboratories (URLs) in Belgium, France and Switzerland outline the extensive scientific knowledge obtained to assess long-term clay/shale/argillite repository isolation performance of nuclear waste. In the past several years under the UFDC, various kinds of models have been developed for argillite repository to demonstrate the model capability, understand the spatial and temporal alteration of the repository, and evaluate different scenarios. These models include the coupled Thermal-Hydrological-Mechanical (THM) and Thermal-Hydrological-Mechanical-Chemical (THMC) models (e.g. Liu et al. 2013; Rutqvist et al. 2014a, Zheng et al. 2014a) that focus on THMC processes in the Engineered Barrier System (EBS) bentonite and argillite host hock, the large scale hydrogeologic model (Bianchi et al. 2014) that investigates the hydraulic connection between an emplacement drift and surrounding hydrogeological units, and Disposal Systems Evaluation Framework (DSEF) models (Greenberg et al. 2013) that evaluate thermal evolution in the host rock approximated as a thermal conduction process to facilitate the analysis of design options. However, the assumptions and the properties (parameters) used in these models are different, which not only make inter-model comparisons difficult, but also compromise the applicability of the lessons learned from one model to another model. The establishment of a reference case would therefore be helpful to set up a baseline for model development. A generic salt repository reference case was developed in Freeze et al. (2013) and the generic argillite repository reference case is presented in this report. The definition of a reference case requires the characterization of the waste inventory, waste form, waste package, repository layout, EBS backfill, host rock, and biosphere. This report mainly documents the processes in EBS bentonite and host rock that are potentially important for performance assessment and properties that are needed to describe these processes, with brief description other components such as waste inventory, waste form, waste package, repository layout, aquifer, and biosphere. A thorough description of the generic argillite repository reference case will be given in Jové Colon et al. (2014).

  10. Hazardous-Substance Generator, Transporter and Disposer Liability under the Federal and California Superfunds

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Vernon, James; Dennis, Patrick W.

    1981-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act ofincluding spills and hazardous- waste disposal sites thatlabel for the disposal of hazardous wastes. Id. at 607. The

  11. Rules and Regulations for the Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste (Nebraska)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These regulations, promulgated by the Department of Environmental Quality, contain provisions pertaining to the disposal of low-level radioactive waste, disposal facilities, and applicable fees.

  12. Immobilized low-level waste disposal options configuration study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mitchell, D.E.

    1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report compiles information that supports the eventual conceptual and definitive design of a disposal facility for immobilized low-level waste. The report includes the results of a joint Westinghouse/Fluor Daniel Inc. evaluation of trade-offs for glass manufacturing and product (waste form) disposal. Though recommendations for the preferred manufacturing and disposal option for low-level waste are outside the scope of this document, relative ranking as applied to facility complexity, safety, remote operation concepts and ease of retrieval are addressed.

  13. Disposal of liquid radioactive wastes through wells or shafts

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Perkins, B.L.

    1982-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report describes disposal of liquids and, in some cases, suitable solids and/or entrapped gases, through: (1) well injection into deep permeable strata, bounded by impermeable layers; (2) grout injection into an impermeable host rock, forming fractures in which the waste solidifies; and (3) slurrying into excavated subsurface cavities. Radioactive materials are presently being disposed of worldwide using all three techniques. However, it would appear that if the techniques were verified as posing minimum hazards to the environment and suitable site-specific host rock were identified, these disposal techniques could be more widely used.

  14. Analysis of alternatives for immobilized low activity waste disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Burbank, D.A.

    1997-10-28T23:59:59.000Z

    This report presents a study of alternative disposal system architectures and implementation strategies to provide onsite near-surface disposal capacity to receive the immobilized low-activity waste produced by the private vendors. The analysis shows that a flexible unit strategy that provides a suite of design solutions tailored to the characteristics of the immobilized low-activity waste will provide a disposal system that best meets the program goals of reducing the environmental, health, and safety impacts; meeting the schedule milestones; and minimizing the life-cycle cost of the program.

  15. IMPROVING CONSISTENCY OF PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENTS IN THE DOE COMPLEX

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Seitz, R; Elmer Wilhite, E

    2009-01-20T23:59:59.000Z

    The low-level waste (LLW) performance assessment (PA) process has been traditionally focused on disposal facilities at a few United States Department of Energy (USDOE) sites and commercial disposal facilities. In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the scope of the use of PA-like modeling approaches, involving multiple activities, facilities, contractors and regulators. The scope now includes, for example: (1) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assessments, (2) CERCLA disposal cells, (3) Waste Determinations and High-Level Waste (HLW) Closure activities, (4) Potential on-site disposal of Transuranic (TRU) waste, and (5) In-situ decommissioning (including potential use of existing facilities for disposal). The dramatic increase in the variety of activities requiring more detailed modeling has resulted in a similar increase in the potential for inconsistency in approaches both at a site and complexwide scale. This paper includes a summary of USDOE Environmental Management (EM) sponsored initiatives and activities for improved consistency. New initiatives entitled the Performance Assessment Community of Practice and Performance Assessment Assistance Team are also introduced.

  16. Proof of Proper Solid Waste Disposal (West Virginia)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This rule provides guidance to persons occupying a residence or operating a business establishment in this state regarding the approved method of providing proof of proper solid waste disposal to...

  17. Canister design for deep borehole disposal of nuclear waste

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Hoag, Christopher Ian

    2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The objective of this thesis was to design a canister for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level waste in deep borehole repositories using currently available and proven oil, gas, and geothermal drilling ...

  18. ORS 466 - Storage, Treatment, and Disposal of Hazardous Waste...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    ORS 466 - Storage, Treatment, and Disposal of Hazardous Waste and Materials Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- StatuteStatute: ORS...

  19. Waste Disposal Site and Radioactive Waste Management (Iowa)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This section describes the considerations of the Commission in determining whether to approve the establishment and operation of a disposal site for nuclear waste. If a permit is issued, the...

  20. Radionuclide limits for vault disposal at the Savannah River Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, J.R.

    1992-02-04T23:59:59.000Z

    The Savannah River Site is developing a facility called the E-Area Vaults which will serve as the new radioactive waste disposal facility beginning early in 1992. The facility will employ engineered below-grade concrete vaults for disposal and above-grade storage for certain long-lived mobile radionuclides. This report documents the determination of interim upper limits for radionuclide inventories and concentrations which should be allowed in the disposal structures. The work presented here will aid in the development of both waste acceptance criteria and operating limits for the E-Area Vaults. Disposal limits for forty isotopes which comprise the SRS waste streams were determined. The limits are based on total facility and vault inventories for those radionuclides which impact groundwater, and or waste package concentrations for those radionuclides which could affect intruders.

  1. Minor actinide waste disposal in deep geological boreholes

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Sizer, Calvin Gregory

    2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate a waste canister design suitable for the disposal of vitrified minor actinide waste in deep geological boreholes using conventional oil/gas/geothermal drilling technology. ...

  2. Supporting Calculations For Submerged Bed Scrubber Condensate Disposal Preconceptual Study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pajunen, A. J.; Tedeschi, A. R.

    2012-09-18T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides supporting calculations for the preparation of the Submerged Bed Scrubber Condensate Disposal Preconceptual Study report The supporting calculations include equipment sizing, Hazard Category determination, and LAW Melter Decontamination Factor Adjustments.

  3. Used Nuclear Fuels Storage, Transportation, and Disposal Analysis...

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

    Used Nuclear Fuels Storage, Transportation, and Disposal Analysis Resource and Data System (UNF-ST&DARDS) Apr 08 2014 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM John M. Scaglione, ORNL staff, Oak Ridge...

  4. Laboratory to demolish excavation enclosures at Material Disposal...

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

    Excavation Enclosures At MDA B Laboratory to demolish excavation enclosures at Material Disposal Area B near DP Road Pre-demolition activities are beginning this week and the work...

  5. Laboratory to demolish excavation enclosures at Material Disposal...

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

    Excavation enclosures at MDA B Laboratory to demolish excavation enclosures at Material Disposal Area B near DP road Pre-demolition activities are beginning this week and the work...

  6. EIS-0026; Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final Supplementa...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    by calling 1 (800) 336-9477 COVER SHEET Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Energy Title: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal Phase Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement...

  7. Evaluation of Options for Permanent Geologic Disposal of Spent...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    other within a single repository; 5) salt allows for more flexibility in managing high-heat waste; 6) direct disposal of commercial SNF in existing dual-purpose canisters is...

  8. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act (Pennsylvania)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This act provides a comprehensive strategy for the siting of commercial low-level waste compactors and other waste management facilities, and to ensure the proper transportation, disposal and...

  9. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Regional Facility Act (Pennsylvania)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This act establishes a low-level radioactive waste disposal regional facility siting fund that requires nuclear power reactor constructors and operators to pay to the Department of Environmental...

  10. Disposable endoscope tip actuation design and robotic platform

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Chen, Yi

    A disposable endoscopic platform with actuation motors inside the body of the endoscope is presented. This platform can enable new medical devices for diagnosis and for minimally invasive surgeries. This paper addresses ...

  11. Salt disposal of heat-generating nuclear waste.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Leigh, Christi D. (Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM); Hansen, Francis D.

    2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report summarizes the state of salt repository science, reviews many of the technical issues pertaining to disposal of heat-generating nuclear waste in salt, and proposes several avenues for future science-based activities to further the technical basis for disposal in salt. There are extensive salt formations in the forty-eight contiguous states, and many of them may be worthy of consideration for nuclear waste disposal. The United States has extensive experience in salt repository sciences, including an operating facility for disposal of transuranic wastes. The scientific background for salt disposal including laboratory and field tests at ambient and elevated temperature, principles of salt behavior, potential for fracture damage and its mitigation, seal systems, chemical conditions, advanced modeling capabilities and near-future developments, performance assessment processes, and international collaboration are all discussed. The discussion of salt disposal issues is brought current, including a summary of recent international workshops dedicated to high-level waste disposal in salt. Lessons learned from Sandia National Laboratories' experience on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and the Yucca Mountain Project as well as related salt experience with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve are applied in this assessment. Disposal of heat-generating nuclear waste in a suitable salt formation is attractive because the material is essentially impermeable, self-sealing, and thermally conductive. Conditions are chemically beneficial, and a significant experience base exists in understanding this environment. Within the period of institutional control, overburden pressure will seal fractures and provide a repository setting that limits radionuclide movement. A salt repository could potentially achieve total containment, with no releases to the environment in undisturbed scenarios for as long as the region is geologically stable. Much of the experience gained from United States repository development, such as seal system design, coupled process simulation, and application of performance assessment methodology, helps define a clear strategy for a heat-generating nuclear waste repository in salt.

  12. Selected biological investigations on deep sea disposal of industrial wastes

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Page, Sandra Lea

    1975-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    SELECTED SIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON DEEP SEA DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES A Thesis by SANDRA LEA PAGE Submitted to the Graduate College of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE... December 1975 Major Subject: Civil Engineering SELECTED BIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON DEEP SEA DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES A Thesis by SANDRA LEA PAGE Approved as to style and content by: ((chairman of Committee) / / (Head of Department) bger...

  13. LLW Notes, Volume 12, Number 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Norris, C.; Brown, H. [eds.; Colsant, J.; Lovinger, T.; Scheele, L.; Shaker, M.A.

    1997-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Contents include the following articles: National Environmental Justice Advisory Council considers Ward Valley resolution; NGA urges Congressional and Presidential support for low-level radioactive waste compacts and transfer of federal land in Ward Valley; RFP issued for SEIS on Ward Valley land transfer; Illinois siting criteria finalized; Consideration of tribal concerns during Ward Valley siting process; State legislators` LLRW working group meets in D.C.; Upcoming state and compact events; Court calendar; Texas compact legislation introduced in Congress; Superfund reform is a priority for 105th Congress; High-level waste bill gets off to an early start; Fort Mojave petition NEJAC for Ward Valley resolution; EPA withdraws cleanup rule from OMB; Board ruling raises doubts about proposed Louisiana enrichment facility; DOE recommends external regulation by NRC; and Supplement--Background on environmental justice.

  14. LLW Notes, Volume 12, Number 6

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Norris, C.; Brown, H. [eds.; Gedden, R.; Lovinger, T.; Scheele, L.; Shaker, M.A.

    1997-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Contents include articles entitled: GAO concludes most Ward Valley SEIS issues previously addressed; Midwest compact halts facility development; Texas publishes proposal to issue WCS radioactive materials license; Central Compact issues export authorizations over NE`s objection; Nebraska governor to host LLRW summit; California regulators reassured re US ecology facility in WA; Southeast Compact augments funding for North Carolina; State and compact calendar of events; IAEA Director General to UN: reexamine nuclear power; DOI convenes meetings on Ward Valley Title VI complaint; California BLM: Tribes fully represented and consulted; MW, NE, and SW file amici curiae briefs in Ward Valley suit; Court denies state`s motion for protective order; WCS files suit against Envirocare and others; States attack DOE`s claim re lack of authority to store spent fuel; House committee passes Texas legislation; Ward Valley land transfer bill introduced in Senate; Senate committee holds hearing on Ward Valley legislation and related GAO report; NRDC threatens to sue DOE re Envirocare; NRC chair criticizes Deputy Interior Secretary`s use of Ward Valley fact sheet; Utility consortium submits license application for storage on Goshute land to NRC; Envirocare cited for SNM violation; EPA begins audit; and EPA rejects Title VI claim re Texas site.

  15. LLW Notes supplement, Volume 12, Number 6

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1997-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Contents include articles related to environmental justice concerns and Title VI, entitled as follows: Civil Rights Act of 1964; Exec order on environmental justice; Applicability to states; Philosophical differences -- Environmental justice and Title VI; Ambiguities in existing Title VI guidance; Clarification of existing Title VI guidance; Federal financial assistance; Administrative complaints vs. lawsuits; Effect and disparate impact; Termination, suspension or refusal to grant federal financial assistance; DOJ guidance defines environmental justice; NEJAC meets, adopts far-reaching resolution re siting; Indigenous Peoples Resolution No. 23; and States meet, support environmental justice concept and express concerns about federal approach and composition of NEJAC.

  16. LLW Notes, Volume 12, Number 8

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Norris, C.; Brown, H. [eds.; Gedden, R.; Lovinger, T.; Scheele, L.; Shaker, M.A.

    1997-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Contents include articles entitled: Chem-Nuclear documents new plan for Barnwell; Nebraska releases technical analysis of LLRW facility; Southeast Compact suspends funding for NC facility development; NC governor and Southeast Compact differ on proposed MOU; Midwest Compact to return export fees; State legislators` group revises radioactive waste policy; Internal documents discuss administration`s policy on Ward Valley; BLM issues EA for Ward Valley testing; California DHS, NRC criticize DOI`s testing protocols; Army removes training mines from Ward Valley site; The 1997 gubernatorial elections and a look ahead to 1998; Court throws out case challenging Pennsylvania`s siting law; DOE files notice of appeal in WCS suit; Central Compact moves to dismiss ``Veto`` authority suit; Congress exempts NAS from FACA; Judge sets schedule for Ward Valley case; Court won`t order DOE to accept spent fuel by deadline; NRC chairman expresses concern re CERCLA reauthorization; Senators question EPA`s guidance on remediation; EPA issues guidance, criticizes NRC decommissioning rule; Members of Congress clarify FUSRAP transfer; HLW legislation passes House by wide margin; Takings legislation passes House; Energy and water bill signed into law; and Senate confirms 5 of 6 DOE appointees.

  17. Geological Disposal Concept Selection Aligned with a Voluntarism Process - 13538

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Crockett, Glenda; King, Samantha [Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Building 587, Curie Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RH (United Kingdom)] [Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Building 587, Curie Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RH (United Kingdom)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The UK's Radioactive Waste Management Directorate (RWMD) is currently at a generic stage in its implementation programme. The UK site selection process is a voluntarist process and, as yet, no communities have decided to participate. RWMD has set out a process to describe how a geological disposal concept would be selected for the range of higher activity wastes in the UK inventory, including major steps and decision making points, aligned with the stages of the UK site selection process. A platform of information is being developed on geological disposal concepts at various stages of implementation internationally and, in order to build on international experience, RWMD is developing its approach to technology transfer. The UK has a range of different types of higher activity wastes with different characteristics; therefore a range of geological disposal concepts may be needed. In addition to identifying key aspects for considering the compatibility of different engineered barrier systems for different types of waste, RWMD is developing a methodology to determine minimum separation distances between disposal modules in a co-located geological disposal facility. RWMD's approach to geological disposal concept selection is intended to be flexible, recognising the long term nature of the project. RWMD is also committed to keeping alternative radioactive waste management options under review; an approach has been developed and periodic reviews of alternative options will be published. (authors)

  18. Analysis of environmental regulations governing the disposal of geothermal wastes in California

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Royce, B.A.

    1985-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Federal and California regulations governing the disposal of sludges and liquid wastes associated with the production of electricity from geothermal resources were evaluated. Current disposal practices, near/far term disposal requirements, and the potential for alternate disposal methods or beneficial uses for these materials were determined. 36 refs., 3 figs., 15 tabs. (ACR)

  19. Costs for off-site disposal of nonhazardous oil field wastes: Salt caverns versus other disposal methods

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Veil, J.A.

    1997-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    According to an American Petroleum Institute production waste survey reported on by P.G. Wakim in 1987 and 1988, the exploration and production segment of the US oil and gas industry generated more than 360 million barrels (bbl) of drilling wastes, more than 20 billion bbl of produced water, and nearly 12 million bbl of associated wastes in 1985. Current exploration and production activities are believed to be generating comparable quantities of these oil field wastes. Wakim estimates that 28% of drilling wastes, less than 2% of produced water, and 52% of associated wastes are disposed of in off-site commercial facilities. In recent years, interest in disposing of oil field wastes in solution-mined salt caverns has been growing. This report provides information on the availability of commercial disposal companies in oil-and gas-producing states, the treatment and disposal methods they employ, and the amounts they charge. It also compares cavern disposal costs with the costs of other forms of waste disposal.

  20. Waste disposal technology transfer matching requirement clusters for waste disposal facilities in China

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dorn, Thomas, E-mail: thomas.dorn@uni-rostock.de [University of Rostock, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Department Waste Management, Justus-v.-Liebig-Weg 6, 18059 Rostock (Germany); Nelles, Michael, E-mail: michael.nelles@uni-rostock.de [University of Rostock, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Department Waste Management, Justus-v.-Liebig-Weg 6, 18059 Rostock (Germany); Flamme, Sabine, E-mail: flamme@fh-muenster.de [University of Applied Sciences Muenster, Corrensstrasse 25, 48149 Muenster (Germany); Jinming, Cai [Hefei University of Technology, 193 Tunxi Road, 230009 Hefei (China)

    2012-11-15T23:59:59.000Z

    Highlights: Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer We outline the differences of Chinese MSW characteristics from Western MSW. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer We model the requirements of four clusters of plant owner/operators in China. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer We examine the best technology fit for these requirements via a matrix. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Variance in waste input affects result more than training and costs. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer For China technology adaptation and localisation could become push, not pull factors. - Abstract: Even though technology transfer has been part of development aid programmes for many decades, it has more often than not failed to come to fruition. One reason is the absence of simple guidelines or decision making tools that help operators or plant owners to decide on the most suitable technology to adopt. Practical suggestions for choosing the most suitable technology to combat a specific problem are hard to get and technology drawbacks are not sufficiently highlighted. Western counterparts in technology transfer or development projects often underestimate or don't sufficiently account for the high investment costs for the imported incineration plant; the differing nature of Chinese MSW; the need for trained manpower; and the need to treat flue gas, bunker leakage water, and ash, all of which contain highly toxic elements. This article sets out requirements for municipal solid waste disposal plant owner/operators in China as well as giving an attribute assessment for the prevalent waste disposal plant types in order to assist individual decision makers in their evaluation process for what plant type might be most suitable in a given situation. There is no 'best' plant for all needs and purposes, and requirement constellations rely on generalisations meaning they cannot be blindly applied, but an alignment of a type of plant to a type of owner or operator can realistically be achieved. To this end, a four-step approach is suggested and a technology matrix is set out to ease the choice of technology to transfer and avoid past errors. The four steps are (1) Identification of plant owner/operator requirement clusters; (2) Determination of different municipal solid waste (MSW) treatment plant attributes; (3) Development of a matrix matching requirement clusters to plant attributes; (4) Application of Quality Function Deployment Method to aid in technology localisation. The technology transfer matrices thus derived show significant performance differences between the various technologies available. It is hoped that the resulting research can build a bridge between technology transfer research and waste disposal research in order to enhance the exchange of more sustainable solutions in future.

  1. Disposal of oil field wastes into salt caverns: Feasibility, legality, risk, and costs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Veil, J.A. [Argonne National Lab., Washington, DC (United States). Water Policy Program

    1997-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Salt caverns can be formed through solution mining in the bedded or domal salt formations that are found in many states. Salt caverns have traditionally been used for hydrocarbon storage, but caverns have also been used to dispose of some types of wastes. This paper provides an overview of several years of research by Argonne National Laboratory on the feasibility and legality of using salt caverns for disposing of oil field wastes, the risks to human populations from this disposal method, and the cost of cavern disposal. Costs are compared between the four operating US disposal caverns and other commercial disposal options located in the same geographic area as the caverns. Argonne`s research indicates that disposal of oil field wastes into salt caverns is feasible and legal. The risk from cavern disposal of oil field wastes appears to be below accepted safe risk thresholds. Disposal caverns are economically competitive with other disposal options.

  2. Remediation of a Former USAF Radioactive Material Disposal Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hoffman, D. E.; Cushman, M; Tupyi, B.; Lambert, J.

    2003-02-25T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper describes the remediation of a low-level radiological waste burial site located at the former James Connally Air Force Base in Waco, Texas. Burial activities at the site occurred during the 1950's when the property was under the ownership of the United States Air Force. Included is a discussion of methods and strategies that were used to successfully exhume and characterize the wastes for proper disposal at offsite disposal facilities. Worker and environmental protection measures are also described. Information gained from this project may be used at other similar project sites. A total of nine burial tubes had been identified for excavation, characterization, and removal from the site. The disposal tubes were constructed of 4-ft lengths of concrete pipe buried upright with the upper ends flush with ground surface. Initial ground level observations of the burial tubes indicated that some weathering had occurred; however, the condition of the subsurface portions of the tubes was unknown. Soil excavation occurred in 1-foot lifts in order that the tubes could be inspected and to allow for characterization of the soils at each stage of the excavation. Due to the weight of the concrete pipe and the condition of the piping joints it was determined that special measures would be required to maintain the tubes intact during their removal. Special tube anchoring and handling methods were required to relocate the tubes from their initial positions to a staging area where they could be further characterized. Characterization of the disposal tubes was accomplished using a combination of gamma spectroscopy and activity mapping methods. Important aspects of the project included the use of specialized excavation and disposal tube reinforcement measures to maintain the disposal tubes intact during excavation, removal and subsequent characterization. The non-intrusive gamma spectroscopy and data logging methods allowed for effective characterization of the wastes while minimizing disposal costs. In addition, worker exposures were maintained ALARA as a result of the removal and characterization methods employed.

  3. A new method of petroleum sludge disposal and utilization

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kanakamedala, R.D.; Islam, M.R. [South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, SD (United States)

    1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Disposal of the oil sludge is one of the fundamental problems of petroleum production. Increasingly stringent environmental control regulations, lack of final disposal sites, and high costs involved in disposal have resulted in limitations off oil sludge disposal options. In this study, two options for disposing the oil sludge are investigated. One option is the use of solid-liquid centrifugal separation. The second option is the use of the oil sludge as a cementing material. It is shown that the two options can be used in tandem for total remediation of the petroleum sludge. If the initial oil concentration in the sludge is high, high temperature centrifugation with biodegradable surfactant is recommended to lower the concentration to a reasonable value. The resulting solid extract was mixed with cement and silica fume and examined for cementing properties. Evaluation of compressive strengths of the mortar cubes indicates that it is possible to produce cement from the oil sludge which will satisfy the strength requirements in the ASTM standard for masonry cement.

  4. Repository disposal requirements for commercial transuranic wastes (generated without reprocessing)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Daling, P.M.; Ludwick, J.D.; Mellinger, G.B.; McKee, R.W.

    1986-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report forms a preliminary planning basis for disposal of commercial transuranic (TRU) wastes in a geologic repository. Because of the unlikely prospects for commercial spent nuclear fuel reprocessing in the near-term, this report focuses on TRU wastes generated in a once-through nuclear fuel cycle. The four main objectives of this study were to: develop estimates of the current inventories, projected generation rates, and characteristics of commercial TRU wastes; develop proposed acceptance requirements for TRU wastes forms and waste canisters that ensure a safe and effective disposal system; develop certification procedures and processing requirements that ensure that TRU wastes delivered to a repository for disposal meet all applicable waste acceptance requirements; and identify alternative conceptual strategies for treatment and certification of commercial TRU first objective was accomplished through a survey of commercial producers of TRU wastes. The TRU waste acceptance and certification requirements that were developed were based on regulatory requirements, information in the literature, and from similar requirements already established for disposal of defense TRU wastes in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) which were adapted, where necessary, to disposal of commercial TRU wastes. The results of the TRU waste-producer survey indicated that there were a relatively large number of producers of small quantities of TRU wastes.

  5. DOE SNF technology development necessary for final disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hale, D.L.; Fillmore, D.L.; Windes, W.E. [Idaho National Engineering Lab., Idaho Falls, ID (United States)

    1996-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Existing technology is inadequate to allow safe disposal of the entire inventory of US Department of Energy (DOE) spent nuclear fuel (SNF). Needs for SNF technology development were identified for each individual fuel type in the diverse inventory of SNF generated by past, current, and future DOE materials production, as well as SNF returned from domestic and foreign research reactors. This inventory consists of 259 fuel types with different matrices, cladding materials, meat composition, actinide content, and burnup. Management options for disposal of SNF include direct repository disposal, possible including some physical or chemical preparation, or processing to produce a qualified waste form by using existing aqueous processes or new treatment processes. Technology development needed for direct disposal includes drying, mitigating radionuclide release, canning, stabilization, and characterization technologies. While existing aqueous processing technology is fairly mature, technology development may be needed to apply one of these processes to SNF different than for which the process was originally developed. New processes to treat SNF not suitable for disposal in its current form were identified. These processes have several advantages over existing aqueous processes.

  6. Crystalline ceramics: Waste forms for the disposal of weapons plutonium

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ewing, R.C.; Lutze, W. [New Mexico Univ., Albuquerque, NM (United States); Weber, W.J. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States)

    1995-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    At present, there are three seriously considered options for the disposition of excess weapons plutonium: (i) incorporation, partial burn-up and direct disposal of MOX-fuel; (ii) vitrification with defense waste and disposal as glass ``logs``; (iii) deep borehole disposal (National Academy of Sciences Report, 1994). The first two options provide a safeguard due to the high activity of fission products in the irradiated fuel and the defense waste. The latter option has only been examined in a preliminary manner, and the exact form of the plutonium has not been identified. In this paper, we review the potential for the immobilization of plutonium in highly durable crystalline ceramics apatite, pyrochlore, monazite and zircon. Based on available data, we propose zircon as the preferred crystalline ceramic for the permanent disposition of excess weapons plutonium.

  7. Earth melter and method of disposing of feed materials

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Chapman, Christopher C. (Richland, WA)

    1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    An apparatus, and method of operating the apparatus, wherein a feed material is converted into a glassified condition for subsequent use or disposal. The apparatus is particularly useful for disposal of hazardous or noxious waste materials which are otherwise either difficult or expensive to dispose of. The apparatus is preferably constructed by excavating a melt zone in a quantity of soil or rock, and lining the melt zone with a back fill material if refractory properties are needed. The feed material is fed into the melt zone and, preferably, combusted to an ash, whereupon the heat of combustion is used to melt the ash to a molten condition. Electrodes may be used to maintain the molten feed material in a molten condition, and to maintain homogeneity of the molten materials.

  8. Earth melter and method of disposing of feed materials

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Chapman, C.C.

    1994-10-11T23:59:59.000Z

    An apparatus, and method of operating the apparatus is described, wherein a feed material is converted into a glassified condition for subsequent use or disposal. The apparatus is particularly useful for disposal of hazardous or noxious waste materials which are otherwise either difficult or expensive to dispose of. The apparatus is preferably constructed by excavating a melt zone in a quantity of soil or rock, and lining the melt zone with a back fill material if refractory properties are needed. The feed material is fed into the melt zone and, preferably, combusted to an ash, whereupon the heat of combustion is used to melt the ash to a molten condition. Electrodes may be used to maintain the molten feed material in a molten condition, and to maintain homogeneity of the molten materials. 3 figs.

  9. Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility Complex Waste Acceptance Criteria

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    W. Mahlon Heileson

    2006-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Idaho Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Disposal Facility (ICDF) has been designed to accept CERCLA waste generated within the Idaho National Laboratory. Hazardous, mixed, low-level, and Toxic Substance Control Act waste will be accepted for disposal at the ICDF. The purpose of this document is to provide criteria for the quantities of radioactive and/or hazardous constituents allowable in waste streams designated for disposal at ICDF. This ICDF Complex Waste Acceptance Criteria is divided into four section: (1) ICDF Complex; (2) Landfill; (3) Evaporation Pond: and (4) Staging, Storage, Sizing, and Treatment Facility (SSSTF). The ICDF Complex section contains the compliance details, which are the same for all areas of the ICDF. Corresponding sections contain details specific to the landfill, evaporation pond, and the SSSTF. This document specifies chemical and radiological constituent acceptance criteria for waste that will be disposed of at ICDF. Compliance with the requirements of this document ensures protection of human health and the environment, including the Snake River Plain Aquifer. Waste placed in the ICDF landfill and evaporation pond must not cause groundwater in the Snake River Plain Aquifer to exceed maximum contaminant levels, a hazard index of 1, or 10-4 cumulative risk levels. The defined waste acceptance criteria concentrations are compared to the design inventory concentrations. The purpose of this comparison is to show that there is an acceptable uncertainty margin based on the actual constituent concentrations anticipated for disposal at the ICDF. Implementation of this Waste Acceptance Criteria document will ensure compliance with the Final Report of Decision for the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, Operable Unit 3-13. For waste to be received, it must meet the waste acceptance criteria for the specific disposal/treatment unit (on-Site or off-Site) for which it is destined.

  10. UESC Workshop Materials

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

    Policy Act (NEPA) Detailed disposal requirements statement for hazardous materials related to the project are essential It is in the FAR Subpart 23.3. Acquisition...

  11. Acceptance test procedure: RMW Land Disposal Facility Project W-025

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Roscha, V. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States)

    1994-12-12T23:59:59.000Z

    This ATP establishes field testing procedures to demonstrate that the electrical/instrumentation system functions as intended by design for the Radioactive Mixed Waste Land Disposal Facility. Procedures are outlined for the field testing of the following: electrical heat trace system; transducers and meter/controllers; pumps; leachate storage tank; and building power and lighting.

  12. General Safety Guidelines for Bio-Hazardous Waste Disposal

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Holland, Jeffrey

    General Safety Guidelines for Bio-Hazardous Waste Disposal · Determine if you have a Bio-Hazardous, cell cultures, Petri dishes, and etc. NOT fitting the category 1 description. · ALL BIO-HAZARDOUS WASTE OF CATEGORY 1 NEEDS TO BE TREATED BY AUTOCLAVE OR WITH HIV/HBV KILLING AGENT BEFORE PICK-UP · Bio-hazardous

  13. Doctoral Defense "Biogeochemical evaluation of disposal options for arsenic-

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Kamat, Vineet R.

    generated during drinking water treatment" Tara Clancy Date: December 2, 2014 Time: 9:00 AM Location: GM Lutgarde Raskin Professor, Civil & Environmental Engineering Arsenic contamination of drinking water of arsenic removal technologies requires disposal options for produced wastes that limit the release

  14. Advance disposal fees and recycling: Partners or foes?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Woods, R.

    1995-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A political trend of shifting government responsibilities from the federal to the state and local level is beginning to take hold in many municipalities this year. Evidence of this shift recently was codified by the passage of Congress`s unfunded mandates bills, which require a panel review of any federal government mandates that create a cost burden of at least $50 million on state and local government. Expecting to be freed from the yoke of the most costly unfunded federal laws, many states are taking a second look at their expensive recycling laws and considering reassessment of how funding mechanisms are structured. This search for ways to raise revenue has renewed the continuing debate over advance disposal fees (ADFs), which are included in the cost of a product to pay for its ultimate disposal or reuse. These ADFs have been used for several years in a majority of US states to help handle scrap tire disposal. Due to concern over fire hazards posed by the nation`s growing scrap tire piles, several states have implemented a $1--$2 fee on each tire to help pay for disposal, most of which have been reasonably successful.

  15. Guidelines for Disposing Electronic Items on Campus STATE PROPERTY ONLY

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Harms, Kyle E.

    Association of Electronics Recyclers Throwing e-waste away and having it end up in a landfill is also a directGuidelines for Disposing Electronic Items on Campus STATE PROPERTY ONLY As technology advances more and more, electronics become obsolete. Broken or faulty electronic items sometimes end up in dumpsters

  16. Disposing of Hazardous Waste EPA Compliance Fact Sheet: Revision 1

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Wikswo, John

    will be utilized. Please visit the VEHS website to submit an electronic Chemical Waste Collection Request FormDisposing of Hazardous Waste EPA Compliance Fact Sheet: Revision 1 Vanderbilt Environmental Health WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM VEHS has implemented a Hazardous Waste Collection Program to collect hazardous

  17. Disposal of CCA-treated Wood: An Evaluation of

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Florida, University of

    Disposal of CCA-treated Wood: An Evaluation of Existing and Alternative Management Options (FINAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CCA-TREATED WOOD ASH II.1 Sample Preparation 10 II.2 Laboratory Methods 15 II.3 Laboratory Results 24 CHAPTER III, SORTING TECHNOLOGIES FOR SEPARATING TREATED WOOD FROM UNTREATED WOOD III.1

  18. Integrated Disposal Facility FY 2012 Glass Testing Summary Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pierce, Eric M.; Kerisit, Sebastien N.; Krogstad, Eirik J.; Burton, Sarah D.; Bjornstad, Bruce N.; Freedman, Vicky L.; Cantrell, Kirk J.; Snyder, Michelle MV; Crum, Jarrod V.; Westsik, Joseph H.

    2013-03-29T23:59:59.000Z

    PNNL is conducting work to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the engineered portion of the disposal facility for Hanford immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW). Before the ILAW can be disposed, DOE must conduct a performance assessment (PA) for the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) that describes the long-term impacts of the disposal facility on public health and environmental resources. As part of the ILAW glass testing program, PNNL is implementing a strategy, consisting of experimentation and modeling, to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the glass waste form in support of future IDF PAs. Key activities in FY12 include upgrading the STOMP/eSTOMP codes to do near-field modeling, geochemical modeling of PCT tests to determine the reaction network to be used in the STOMP codes, conducting PUF tests on selected glasses to simulate and accelerate glass weathering, developing a Monte Carlo simulation tool to predict the characteristics of the weathered glass reaction layer as a function of glass composition, and characterizing glasses and soil samples exhumed from an 8-year lysimeter test. The purpose of this report is to summarize the progress made in fiscal year (FY) 2012 and the first quarter of FY 2013 toward implementing the strategy with the goal of developing an understanding of the long-term corrosion behavior of LAW glasses.

  19. Support of the Iraq nuclear facility dismantlement and disposal program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coates, Roger [International Atomic Energy Agency - IAEA, Wagramer Strasse 5, P.O. Box 100 - 1400 Vienna (Austria); Cochran, John; Danneels, Jeff [Sandia National Laboratories (United States); Chesser, Ronald; Phillips, Carlton; Rogers, Brenda [Center for Environmental Radiation Studies, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409 (United States)

    2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Available in abstract form only. Full text of publication follows: Iraq's former nuclear facilities contain large quantities of radioactive materials and radioactive waste. The Iraq Nuclear Facility Dismantlement and Disposal Program (the Iraq NDs Program) is a new program to decontaminate and permanently dispose of radioactive wastes in Iraq. The NDs Program is led by the Government of Iraq, under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) auspices, with guidance and assistance from a number of countries. The U.S. participants include Texas Tech University and Sandia National Laboratories. A number of activities are ongoing under the broad umbrella of the Iraq NDs Program: drafting a new nuclear law that will provide the legal basis for the cleanup and disposal activities; assembly and analysis of existing data; characterization of soil contamination; bringing Iraqi scientists to the world's largest symposium on radioactive waste management; touring U.S. government and private sector operating radwaste disposal facilities in the U.S., and hosting a planning workshop on the characterization and cleanup of the Al-Tuwaitha Nuclear Facility. (authors)

  20. 1 INSTRODUCTION In the concept of geological radioactive waste disposal,

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Boyer, Edmond

    , thermal solicitation comes from the heat emitting from the radioactive waste packages. On one hand1 INSTRODUCTION In the concept of geological radioactive waste disposal, argillite is being elements from the waste package towards the environment. During the construction and exploitation phase

  1. Geosynthetic Clay Liner applications in waste disposal facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McGrath, L.T.; Creamer, P.D. [RMT, Inc., Madison, WI (United States)

    1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs) are becoming a popular alternative to compacted clay barrier layers, and represent the state of the art in waste disposal facility design. They possess many of the same qualities of compacted clay barrier layers while occupying only a small fraction of the airspace. This is a very attractive feature to waste disposal facility owners and operators. There are many manufacturers of GCLs in the marketplace, providing numerous products that can be used in a wide variety of applications. Designing for the constructing with a GCL an be a challenging task; stability issues must be evaluated, selecting the appropriate product should be considered, comprehensive specifications are needed to ensure proper product selection and installation, and steps must be taken during installation to prevent damage to the GCL. Perhaps most importantly, state regulatory agencies must be convinced that GCLs will provide long-term protection equivalent to a clay barrier layer. This paper will discuss design considerations, specification guidelines, installation criteria, construction quality assurance guidelines and regulatory issues pertaining to GCL. The paper will also present three brief case histories of relevant GCL applications in waste disposal facility design and construction. The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate that GCLs are a viable alternative to compacted clay barrier layers and to provide useful information in designing, specifying and installing them in waste disposal facilities.

  2. Laboratory to demolish excavation enclosures at Material Disposal Area B

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    to hazardous and radiological contamination while excavating and packaging contaminated debris and soil from of a highly successful environmental cleanup project at Material Disposal Area B," said Ed Worth, federal project manager #12;- 2 - with the National Nuclear Security Administration's Los Alamos Site Office. "We

  3. Hydrological Evaluation of Septic Disposal Field Design in Sloping Terrains

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Walter, M.Todd

    . Steenhuis7 Abstract: The most common form of onsite domestic wastewater treatment in the United States; Slopes; Wastewater treatment; Waste disposal. Introduction The most common form of onsite wastewater treatment is the septic system Wastewater 1991 . Over 50 million people in the United States use septic

  4. Update on cavern disposal of NORM-contaminated oil field wastes.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Veil, J. A.

    1998-09-22T23:59:59.000Z

    Some types of oil and gas production and processing wastes contain naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). If NORM is present at concentrations above regulatory levels in oil field waste, the waste requires special disposal practices. The existing disposal options for wastes containing NORM are limited and costly. Argonne National Laboratory has previously evaluated the feasibility, legality, risk and economics of disposing of nonhazardous oil field wastes, other than NORM waste, in salt caverns. Cavern disposal of nonhazardous oil field waste, other than NORM waste, is occurring at four Texas facilities, in several Canadian facilities, and reportedly in Europe. This paper evaluates the legality, technical feasibility, economics, and human health risk of disposing of NORM-contaminated oil field wastes in salt caverns as well. Cavern disposal of NORM waste is technically feasible and poses a very low human health risk. From a legal perspective, a review of federal regulations and regulations from several states indicated that there are no outright prohibitions against NORM disposal in salt caverns or other Class II wells, except for Louisiana which prohibits disposal of radioactive wastes or other radioactive materials in salt domes. Currently, however, only Texas and New Mexico are working on disposal cavern regulations, and no states have issued permits to allow cavern disposal of NORM waste. On the basis of the costs currently charged for cavern disposal of nonhazardous oil field waste (NOW), NORM waste disposal in caverns is likely to be cost competitive with existing NORM waste disposal methods when regulatory agencies approve the practice.

  5. Special Analysis: Revision of Saltstone Vault 4 Disposal Limits (U)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, J

    2005-05-26T23:59:59.000Z

    New disposal limits have been computed for Vault 4 of the Saltstone Disposal Facility based on several revisions to the models in the existing Performance Assessment and the Special Analysis issued in 2002. The most important changes are the use of a more rigorous groundwater flow and transport model, and consideration of radon emanation. Other revisions include refinement of the aquifer mesh to more accurately model the footprint of the vault, a new plutonium chemistry model accounting for the different transport properties of oxidation states III/IV and V/VI, use of variable infiltration rates to simulate degradation of the closure system, explicit calculation of gaseous releases and consideration of the effects of settlement and seismic activity on the vault structure. The disposal limits have been compared with the projected total inventory expected to be disposed in Vault 4. The resulting sum-of-fractions of the 1000-year disposal limits is 0.2, which indicates that the performance objectives and requirements of DOE 435.1 will not be exceeded. This SA has not altered the conceptual model (i.e., migration of radionuclides from the Saltstone waste form and Vault 4 to the environment via the processes of diffusion and advection) of the Saltstone PA (MMES 1992) nor has it altered the conclusions of the PA (i.e., disposal of the proposed waste in the SDF will meet DOE performance measures). Thus a PA revision is not required and this SA serves to update the disposal limits for Vault 4. In addition, projected doses have been calculated for comparison with the performance objectives laid out in 10 CFR 61. These doses are 0.05 mrem/year to a member of the public and 21.5 mrem/year to an inadvertent intruder in the resident scenario over a 10,000-year time-frame, which demonstrates that the 10 CFR 61 performance objectives will not be exceeded. This SA supplements the Saltstone PA and supersedes the two previous SAs (Cook et al. 2002; Cook and Kaplan 2003).

  6. Long-Term Performance of Uranium Tailings Disposal Cells - 13340

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bostick, Kent; Daniel, Anamary; Pill, Ken [Professional Project Services, Inc., 1100 Bethel Valley Road, Oak Ridge, TN, 37922 (United States)] [Professional Project Services, Inc., 1100 Bethel Valley Road, Oak Ridge, TN, 37922 (United States); Tachiev, Georgio; Noosai, Nantaporn; Villamizar, Viviana [Florida International University, 10555 W. Flagler St., EC 2100, Miami FL, 33174 (United States)] [Florida International University, 10555 W. Flagler St., EC 2100, Miami FL, 33174 (United States)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Recently, there has been interest in the performance and evolution of Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project disposal cell covers because some sites are not compliant with groundwater standards. Field observations of UMTRA disposal cells indicate that rock covers tend to become vegetated and that saturated conductivities in the upper portion of radon barriers may increase due to freeze/thaw cycles and biointrusion. This paper describes the results of modeling that addresses whether these potential changes and transient drainage of moisture in the tailings affect overall performance of the disposal cells. A numerical unsaturated/saturated 3-dimensional flow model was used to simulate whether increases in saturated conductivities in radon barriers with rock covers affect the overall performance of the disposal cells using field data from the Shiprock, NM, UMTRA site. A unique modeling approach allowed simulation with daily climatic conditions to determine changes in moisture and moisture flux from the disposal cell. Modeling results indicated that increases in the saturated conductivity at the top of radon barrier do not influence flux from the tailings with time because the tailings behave similar hydraulically to the radon barrier. The presence of a thin layer of low conductivity material anywhere in the cover or tailings restricts flux in the worst case to the saturated conductivity of that material. Where materials are unsaturated at depth within the radon barrier of tailings slimes, conductivities are typically less than 10{sup -8} centimeters per second. If the low conductivity layer is deep within the disposal cell, its saturated properties are less likely to change with time. The significance of this modeling is that operation and maintenance of the disposal cells can be minimized if they are allowed to progress to a natural condition with some vegetation and soil genesis. Because the covers and underlying tailings have a very low saturated hydraulic conductivity after transient drainage, eventually the amount of moisture leaving the tailings has a negligible effect on groundwater quality. Although some of the UMTRA sites are not in compliance with the groundwater standards, the explanation may be legacy contamination from mining, or earlier higher fluxes from the tailings or unlined processing ponds. Investigation of other legacy sources at the UMTRA sites may help explain persistent groundwater contamination. (authors)

  7. UMTRA project disposal cell cover biointrusion sensitivity assessment, Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This study provides an analysis of potential changes that may take place in a Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project disposal cell cover system as a result of plant biointrusion. Potential changes are evaluated by performing a sensitivity analysis of the relative impact of root penetrations on radon flux out of the cell cover and/or water infiltration into the cell cover. Data used in this analysis consist of existing information on vegetation growth on selected cell cover systems and information available from published studies and/or other available project research. Consistent with the scope of this paper, no new site-specific data were collected from UMTRA Project sites. Further, this paper does not focus on the issue of plant transport of radon gas or other contaminants out of the disposal cell cover though it is acknowledged that such transport has the potential to be a significant pathway for contaminants to reach the environment during portions of the design life of a disposal cell where plant growth occurs. Rather, this study was performed to evaluate the effects of physical penetration and soil drying caused by plant roots that have and are expected to continue to grow in UMTRA Project disposal cell covers. An understanding of the biological and related physical processes that take place within the cover systems of the UMTRA Project disposal cells helps the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) determine if the presence of a plant community on these cells is detrimental, beneficial, or of mixed value in terms of the cover system`s designed function. Results of this investigation provide information relevant to the formulation of a vegetation control policy.

  8. DEVELOPMENT OF DATABASE ON FECAL SLUDGE COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL IN THACHIN,

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Richner, Heinz

    i DEVELOPMENT OF DATABASE ON FECAL SLUDGE COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL IN THACHIN, CHAOPRAYA Sludge (FS) management and lacking of data on FS collection, treatment and disposal. Nevertheless, FS

  9. Environmental effects of dredging. Implementation approach for thalweg disposal of dredged material. Technical notes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Olin, T.J.; Miller, A.C.; Palermo, M.R.

    1993-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This technical note introduces the concept of thalweg disposal and associated considerations for implementation, including disposal site selection, environmental and regulatory considerations, and suitable dredging methods and equipment. Monitoring procedures are also outlined.

  10. The Very Deep Hole Concept: Evaluation of an Alternative for Nuclear Waste Disposal

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    1979-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    OF AN ALTERNATIVE FOR NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL M.T. O'Brien,OF AN ALTERNATIVE FOR NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL M. T. O'Brien,from commercial nuclear wastes in geologic storage. Oak

  11. Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and Spent Nuclear Fuel Assessment of Disposal Options for DOE-Managed High-Level Radioactive Waste and...

  12. Geochemical factors affecting radionuclide transport through near and far fields at a Low-Level Waste Disposal Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kaplan, D.I.; Seme, R.J. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States); Piepkho, M.G. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States)

    1995-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The concentration of low-level waste (LLW) contaminants in groundwater is determined by the amount of contaminant present in the solid waste, rate of release from the waste and surrounding barriers, and a number of geochemical processes including adsorption, desorption, diffusion, precipitation, and dissolution. To accurately predict radionuclide transport through the subsurface, it is essential that the important geochemical processes affecting radionuclide transport be identified and, perhaps more importantly, accurately quantified and described in a mathematically defensible manner.

  13. Interface control document between PUREX Plant Transition and Solid Waste Disposal Division

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carlson, A.B.

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The interfacing responsibilities regarding solid waste management are described for the Solid Waste Disposal Division and the PUREX Transition Organization.

  14. Taxes In, Garbage Out The Need for Better Solid Waste Disposal

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    .................................................................................................................... 8 THE FISCAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF CURRENT DISPOSAL PRACTICES.....................9 Fiscal..................................................................................... 2 History of the Municipal System Impact

  15. Disposal Activities and the Unique Waste Streams at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arnold, P.

    2012-10-31T23:59:59.000Z

    This slide show documents waste disposal at the Nevada National Security Site. Topics covered include: radionuclide requirements for waste disposal; approved performance assessment (PA) for depleted uranium disposal; requirements; program approval; the Waste Acceptance Review Panel (WARP); description of the Radioactive Waste Acceptance Program (RWAP); facility evaluation; recent program accomplishments, nuclear facility safety changes; higher-activity waste stream disposal; and, large volume bulk waste streams.

  16. River Protection Project (RPP) Tank Waste Retrieval and Disposal Mission Technical Baseline Summary Description

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    DOVALLE, O.R.

    1999-12-29T23:59:59.000Z

    This document is one of the several documents prepared by Lockheed Martin Hanford Corp. to support the U. S. Department of Energy's Tank Waste Retrieval and Disposal mission at Hanford. The Tank Waste Retrieval and Disposal mission includes the programs necessary to support tank waste retrieval; waste feed, delivery, storage, and disposal of immobilized waste; and closure of the tank farms.

  17. INCO-WBC-1-509173 Reintegration of coal ash disposal sites and mitigation of

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    1 INCO-WBC-1-509173 RECOAL Reintegration of coal ash disposal sites and mitigation of pollution of coal ash disposal sites Due date of deliverable: 12.2007 Actual submission date: 02.2008 Start date of the consortium (including the Commission Services) #12;2 Handbook on treatment of coal ash disposal sites Preface

  18. Monthly Theme Hazardous Waste Disposal July 2009 Monthly Theme for discussion at Department Meetings -July 2009

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Calgary, University of

    Monthly Theme ­ Hazardous Waste Disposal ­ July 2009 Monthly Theme for discussion at Department Meetings - July 2009 Hazardous Waste Disposal Often a waste pick-up is initiated but the waste isn't picked that it would be beneficial to have a stand and deliver course on Hazardous Waste Disposal offered

  19. Generation, Use, Disposal, and Management Options for CCA-Treated Wood

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Florida, University of

    Generation, Use, Disposal, and Management Options for CCA-Treated Wood May 1998 Helena Solo, INVENTORY OF CCA-TREATED WOOD IN FLORIDA II.1 Characteristics of the Florida Wood Treatment Industry in 1996 10 II.2 Generation and Disposal of Cca-treated Wood 14 II.3 Disposal Reservoirs for Cca-treated Wood

  20. LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR WASTE DISPOSAL (MAIN SITE) Landfill (England & Wales) Regulations 2002

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Paxton, Anthony T.

    the Chemicals Technicians when they have empty glass bottles for disposal. EMPTY PLASTIC CHEMICAL BOTTLES Plastic containers that have open necks, e.g. solvent bottles, may be washed out and disposed of via be disposed of as non-hazardous waste. EMPTY (GLASS) CHEMICAL BOTTLES University regulations governing

  1. Final Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement Richland, Washington

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    N /A

    2004-02-13T23:59:59.000Z

    This Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program Environmental Impact Statement (HSW EIS) provides environmental and technical information concerning U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) ongoing and proposed waste management practices at the Hanford Site in Washington State. The HSW EIS updates some analyses of environmental consequences from previous documents and provides evaluations for activities that may be implemented consistent with the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM PEIS; DOE 1997c) Records of Decision (RODs). The draft HSW EIS was initially issued in April 2002 for public comment (DOE 2002b). A revised draft HSW EIS was issued in March 2003 to address new waste management alternatives that had been proposed since the initial draft HSW EIS was prepared, and to address comments received during the public review period for the first draft (DOE 2003d). The revised draft HSW EIS also incorporated alternatives for disposal of immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW) from treatment of Hanford Site tank waste in the waste treatment plant (WTP) currently under construction, an activity that was not included in the first draft (68 FR 7110). This final HSW EIS describes the DOE preferred alternative, and in response to public comments received on the March 2003 revised draft, provides additional analyses for some environmental consequences associated with the preferred alternative, with other alternatives, and with cumulative impacts. Public comments on the revised draft HSW EIS are addressed in the comment response document (Volume III of this final EIS). This HSW EIS describes the environmental consequences of alternatives for constructing, modifying, and operating facilities to store, treat, and/or dispose of low-level (radioactive) waste (LLW), transuranic (TRU) waste, ILAW, and mixed low-level waste (MLLW) including WTP melters at Hanford. In addition, the potential long-term consequences of LLW, MLLW, and ILAW disposal on groundwater and surface water are evaluated for a 10,000-year period, although the DOE performance standards only require assessment for the first 1000 years after disposal (DOE 2001f). This document does not address non-radioactive waste that contains ''hazardous'' or ''dangerous'' waste, as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (42 USC 6901) and Washington State Dangerous Waste regulations (WAC 173-303). Following a previous National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 USC 4321) review (DOE 1997d), DOE decided to dispose of TRU waste in New Mexico at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), a repository that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 191 (63 FR 3623). This HSW EIS has been prepared in accordance with NEPA, the DOE implementing procedures for NEPA 10 CFR 1021, and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508).

  2. Memorandum for Federal NEPA Contacts: Emergency Actions and NEPA |

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn't YourTransport(FactDepartment3311, 3312), OctoberMay 18-19, 2004MWMemo of IntentDepartment of

  3. Regulatory requirements affecting disposal of asbestos-containing waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Many U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities are undergoing decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) activities. The performance of these activities may generate asbestos-containing waste because asbestos was formerly used in many building materials, including floor tile, sealants, plastics, cement pipe, cement sheets, insulating boards, and insulating cements. The regulatory requirements governing the disposal of these wastes depend on: (1) the percentage of asbestos in the waste and whether the waste is friable (easily crumbled or pulverized); (2) other physical and chemical characteristics of the waste; and (3) the State in which the waste is generated. This Information Brief provides an overview of the environment regulatory requirements affecting disposal of asbestos-containing waste. It does not address regulatory requirements applicable to worker protection promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHAct), the Mining Safety and Health Act (MSHA), or the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

  4. Remote-Handled Low Level Waste Disposal Project Alternatives Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    David Duncan

    2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report identifies, evaluates, and compares alternatives for meeting the U.S. Department of Energy’s mission need for management of remote-handled low-level waste generated by the Idaho National Laboratory and its tenants. Each alternative identified in the Mission Need Statement for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Treatment Project is described and evaluated for capability to fulfill the mission need. Alternatives that could meet the mission need are further evaluated and compared using criteria of cost, risk, complexity, stakeholder values, and regulatory compliance. The alternative for disposal of remote-handled low-level waste that has the highest confidence of meeting the mission need and represents best value to the government is to build a new disposal facility at the Idaho National Laboratory Site.

  5. On-Farm Storage and Disposal of Sorghum Grain.

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Brown, Charles W.; Moore, Clarence A.

    1963-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    APRIL 1963 ON-FARM - STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF SORGHUM GRAIN -- THE AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. E. PATTERSON. DIRECTOR. COLLEGE ST+TION, TEXAS IN COOPERATION WITH THE U. S. DEPARTMENT... of its relative feeding value, an increasing number of livestock on feed, increases in concentrates fed per animal unit, a favorable price relative to other feed grains and gains in exports to foreign markets. Off-farm storage space in Texas...

  6. Subseabed Disposal Program. Annual report, January-December 1978

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Talbert, D.M. (ed.)

    1980-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This is the fifth annual report describing the progress and evaluating the status of the Subseabed Disposal Program (SDP), which was begun in June 1973. The program was initiated by Sandia Laboratories to explore the utility of stable, uniform, and relatively unproductive areas of the world as possible repositories for high-level nuclear wastes. The program, now international in scope, is currently focused on the stable submarine geologic formations under the deep oceans.

  7. Ultimate disposal of low and medium radioactive waste in France

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ringeard, C. [National Radioactive Waste Management Agency, Fontenay aux Roses (France). Environmental, Safety, Quality Dept.

    1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The National Radioactive Waste Management Agency (ANDRA) has been entrusted with the long-term management of radioactive waste. This paper presents the methodology of safety assessment used by ANDRA for a land disposal facility of radioactive waste with short or medium half-life and with low or medium specific activity. This methodology was used in the design of ``the Centre de stockage de l`Aube``.

  8. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis: Management plan assessment report. Dredged Material Management Year 1990

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA) is an interagency program for the management of unconfined, open-water disposal of dredged material into Puget Sound, Washington. The Management Plans for the PSDDA program identify disposal sites, describe dredged material evaluation procedures, and establish site monitoring and management practices. The plans also commit the involved agencies to a cooperative annual review process which evaluates disposal site use and conditions, dredged material testing results, and new scientific information, in order to determine if changes to the evaluation procedures and/or disposal site management practices are needed. Sampling was conducted to determine any chemical/biological contamination.

  9. A critical comparison of ten disposable cup LCAs

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Harst, Eugenie van der, E-mail: eugenie.vanderharst@wur.nl [Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, NL-6700 AA Wageningen (Netherlands); Potting, José, E-mail: jose.potting@wur.nl [Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, NL-6700 AA Wageningen (Netherlands) [Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, NL-6700 AA Wageningen (Netherlands); Environmental Strategies Research (fms), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-110 44 Stockholm (Sweden)

    2013-11-15T23:59:59.000Z

    Disposable cups can be made from conventional petro-plastics, bioplastics, or paperboard (coated with petro-plastics or bioplastics). This study compared ten life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of disposable cups with the aim to evaluate the robustness of their results. The selected studies have only one impact category in common, namely climate change with global warming potential (GWP) as its category indicator. Quantitative GWP results of the studies were closer examined. GWPs within and across each study show none of the cup materials to be consistently better than the others. Comparison of the absolute GWPs (after correction for the cup volume) also shows no consistent better or worse cup material. An evaluation of the methodological choices and the data sets used in the studies revealed their influence on the GWP. The differences in GWP can be attributed to a multitude of factors, i.e., cup material and weight, production processes, waste processes, allocation options, and data used. These factors basically represent different types of uncertainty. Sensitivity and scenario analyses provided only the influence of one factor at once. A systematic and simultaneous use of sensitivity and scenario analyses could, in a next research, result in more robust outcomes. -- Highlights: • Conflicting results from life cycle assessment (LCA) on disposable cups • GWP results of LCAs did not point to a best or worst cup material. • Differences in GWP results are due to methodological choices and data sets used. • Standardized LCA: transparency of LCA studies, but still different in approaches.

  10. Pyramiding tumuli waste disposal site and method of construction thereof

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Golden, Martin P. (Hamburg, NY)

    1989-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    An improved waste disposal site for the above-ground disposal of low-level nuclear waste as disclosed herein. The disposal site is formed from at least three individual waste-containing tumuli, wherein each tumuli includes a central raised portion bordered by a sloping side portion. Two of the tumuli are constructed at ground level with adjoining side portions, and a third above-ground tumulus is constructed over the mutually adjoining side portions of the ground-level tumuli. Both the floor and the roof of each tumulus includes a layer of water-shedding material such as compacted clay, and the clay layer in the roofs of the two ground-level tumuli form the compacted clay layer of the floor of the third above-ground tumulus. Each tumulus further includes a shield wall, preferably formed from a solid array of low-level handleable nuclear wate packages. The provision of such a shield wall protects workers from potentially harmful radiation when higher-level, non-handleable packages of nuclear waste are stacked in the center of the tumulus.

  11. Hanford land disposal restrictions plan for mixed wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1990-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    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.

  12. Proceedings of the 1981 subseabed disposal program. Annual workshop

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1982-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The 1981 Annual Workshop was the twelfth meeting of the principal investigators and program management personnel participating in the Subseabed Disposal Program (SDP). The first workshop was held in June 1973, to address the development of a program (initially known as Ocean Basin Floors Program) to assess the deep sea disposal of nuclear wastes. Workshops were held semi-annually until late 1977. Since November 1977, the workshops have been conducted following the end of each fiscal year so that the program participants could review and critique the total scope of work. This volume contains a synopsis, as given by each Technical Program Coordinator, abstracts of each of the talks, and copies of the visual materials, as presented by each of the principal investigators, for each of the technical elements of the SDP for the fiscal year 1981. The talks were grouped under the following categories; general topics; site studies; thermal response studies; emplacement studies; systems analysis; chemical response studies; biological oceanography studies; physical oceanographic studies; instrumentation development; transportation studies; social environment; and international seabed disposal.

  13. Does Dual Ownership of Waste Imply a Regional Disposal Approach?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mele, I. [ARAO - Agency for Radwaste Management, Parmova 53, Si-1000 Ljubljana (Slovenia)

    2006-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The construction of the Nuclear Power Plant Krsko, being located in Slovenia near the Slovenian-Croatian border, was a joint investment by Slovenia and Croatia, two republics of the former Yugoslavia. The plant was completed in 1981 and the commercial operation started early in 1983. The obligations and rights of both investors during the construction and operation were specified in two bilateral contracts signed in 1974 and 1982. These contracts were fairly detailed on construction, operation and exploitation of the nuclear power plant (NPP), but they said very little about future nuclear liabilities. The electricity production was equally shared between the two countries and both parties participated in management of the NPP. In 1991, after Slovenia and Croatia became two independent countries, the agreement on the ownership and exploitation of the NPP Krsko was re-negotiated and a new contract signed in 2003. By the new contract the decommissioning and the disposal of spent fuel (SF) as well as low and intermediate level waste (LILW) is the responsibility of both parties, and the financial resources for covering these liabilities should be equally provided. Regardless of shared ownership of waste, the agreement opts for a single disposal solution for LILW as well as for SF, but the details are left open. More clear elaboration of these responsibilities is given in the programme of the decommissioning and disposal of radioactive waste from the NPP which was jointly prepared by the Slovenian and Croatian waste management organisations in 2004. The programme is clearly opting for only one repository for LILW and one repository for spent fuel, which can be located either in Slovenia or Croatia. Irrespective of the country where such a repository will be sited, dual ownership of waste opens up another dimension of such a solution: will such a repository be regarded as a national facility or as a regional or multinational facility? Both options-national and regional/multinational- may have a strong influence on future agreements on waste disposal, but so far these aspects have not been addressed either in Slovenia or Croatia. The paper brings reflections and discussion on these aspects of waste management in Slovenia and reveals the current situation of the waste disposal project in the country. (authors)

  14. Soil Segregation Methods for Reducing Transportation and Disposal Costs - 13544

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Frothingham, David; Andrews, Shawn; Barker, Michelle; Boyle, James; Buechi, Stephen; Graham, Marc; Houston, Linda; Polek, Michael; Simmington, Robert; Spector, Harold [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, 1776 Niagara St., Buffalo, NY 14207 (United States)] [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, 1776 Niagara St., Buffalo, NY 14207 (United States); Elliott, Robert 'Dan' [U.S. Army Reserve, 812A Franklin St.,Worcester, MA 01604 (United States)] [U.S. Army Reserve, 812A Franklin St.,Worcester, MA 01604 (United States); Durham, Lisa [Argonne National Laboratory, Environmental Science Division, 9700 S. Cass Ave., Argonne, IL 60439 (United States)] [Argonne National Laboratory, Environmental Science Division, 9700 S. Cass Ave., Argonne, IL 60439 (United States)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    At Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) sites where the selected alternative for contaminated soil is excavation and off-site disposal, the most significant budget items of the remedial action are the costs for transportation and disposal of soil at an off-site facility. At these sites, the objective is to excavate and dispose of only those soils that exceed derived concentration guideline levels. In situ soil segregation using gross gamma detectors to guide the excavation is often challenging at sites where the soil contamination is overlain by clean soil or where the contaminated soil is located in isolated, subsurface pockets. In addition, data gaps are often identified during the alternative evaluation and selection process, resulting in increased uncertainty in the extent of subsurface contamination. In response, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District is implementing ex situ soil segregation methods. At the remediated Painesville Site, soils were excavated and fed through a conveyor-belt system, which automatically segregated them into above- and below-cleanup criteria discharge piles utilizing gamma spectroscopy. At the Linde Site and the Shallow Land Disposal Area (SLDA) Site, which are both in the remediation phase, soils are initially segregated during the excavation process using gross gamma detectors and then transported to a pad for confirmatory manual surveying and sampling. At the Linde Site, the ex situ soils are analyzed on the basis of a site-specific method, to establish compliance with beneficial reuse criteria that were developed for the Linde remediation. At the SLDA Site, the ex situ soils are surveyed and sampled based on Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) final status survey guidance to demonstrate compliance with the derived concentration guideline levels. At all three sites, the ex situ soils that meet the site- specific DCGLs are retained on-site and used as backfill material. This paper describes the ex situ soil segregation methods, the considerations of each method, and the estimated cost savings from minimizing the volume of soil requiring transportation and off-site disposal. (authors)

  15. NEPA Documents | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed off Energy.gov. Are you sure you wantJoin us for #SpaceWeek JoinMission Mission

  16. NEPA Updates | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613 122Commercial602 1,39732onMake Your NextHow EMMinutes:Energy Success Stories

  17. OpenEI Community - NEPA

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are beingZealand Jump to: navigation, searchOfRoseConcernsCompany Oil and GasOff the GridHomeWrap-up courtesy5/0

  18. NEPA Documentation | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742Energy China 2015of 2005 attheMohammed Khan - TechnologyJanuary 29, 2008CITE:DepartmentNote

  19. NEPA History | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742Energy China 2015of 2005 attheMohammed Khan - TechnologyJanuary 29,

  20. NEPA Implementation | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742Energy China 2015of 2005 attheMohammed Khan - TechnologyJanuary 29,guidance on the implementation

  1. NEPA Policy | Department of Energy

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742Energy China 2015of 2005 attheMohammed Khan - TechnologyJanuary 29,guidance on theon the topic of

  2. NEPA | OpenEI Community

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directedAnnual SiteofEvaluatingGroup |JilinLu anMicrogreenMoonNASA/Ames Global Emissions Datasource

  3. Considering Cumulative Effects under NEPA

    National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn AprilA Approved:AdministrationAnalysisDarby/%2AO 474.2 Chg U.S. S p e c t i

  4. NEPA - Categorical Exclusions - Hanford Site

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC)Integrated Codes |IsLove Your1 SECTIONES2008-54174MoreMuseum|NEES EFRC PosterOfficial

  5. NEPA - Environmental Assessments - Hanford Site

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

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC)Integrated Codes |IsLove Your1 SECTIONES2008-54174MoreMuseum|NEES EFRC

  6. Disposal of oil field wastes and NORM wastes into salt caverns.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Veil, J. A.

    1999-01-27T23:59:59.000Z

    Salt caverns can be formed through solution mining in the bedded or domal salt formations that are found in many states. Salt caverns have traditionally been used for hydrocarbon storage, but caverns have also been used to dispose of some types of wastes. This paper provides an overview of several years of research by Argonne National Laboratory on the feasibility and legality of using salt caverns for disposing of nonhazardous oil field wastes (NOW) and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM), the risk to human populations from this disposal method, and the cost of cavern disposal. Costs are compared between the four operating US disposal caverns and other commercial disposal options located in the same geographic area as the caverns. Argonne's research indicates that disposal of NOW into salt caverns is feasible and, in most cases, would not be prohibited by state agencies (although those agencies may need to revise their wastes management regulations). A risk analysis of several cavern leakage scenarios suggests that the risk from cavern disposal of NOW and NORM wastes is below accepted safe risk thresholds. Disposal caverns are economically competitive with other disposal options.

  7. Disposal of NORM-Contaminated Oil Field Wastes in Salt Caverns

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Blunt, D.L.; Elcock, D.; Smith, K.P.; Tomasko, D.; Viel, J.A.; and Williams, G.P.

    1999-01-21T23:59:59.000Z

    In 1995, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fossil Energy, asked Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) to conduct a preliminary technical and legal evaluation of disposing of nonhazardous oil field waste (NOW) into salt caverns. That study concluded that disposal of NOW into salt caverns is feasible and legal. If caverns are sited and designed well, operated carefully, closed properly, and monitored routinely, they can be a suitable means of disposing of NOW (Veil et al. 1996). Considering these findings and the increased U.S. interest in using salt caverns for NOW disposal, the Office of Fossil Energy asked Argonne to conduct further research on the cost of cavern disposal compared with the cost of more traditional NOW disposal methods and on preliminary identification and investigation of the risks associated with such disposal. The cost study (Veil 1997) found that disposal costs at the four permitted disposal caverns in the United States were comparable to or lower than the costs of other disposal facilities in the same geographic area. The risk study (Tomasko et al. 1997) estimated that both cancer and noncancer human health risks from drinking water that had been contaminated by releases of cavern contents were significantly lower than the accepted risk thresholds. Since 1992, DOE has funded Argonne to conduct a series of studies evaluating issues related to management and disposal of oil field wastes contaminated with naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). Included among these studies were radiological dose assessments of several different NORM disposal options (Smith et al. 1996). In 1997, DOE asked Argonne to conduct additional analyses on waste disposal in salt caverns, except that this time the wastes to be evaluated would be those types of oil field wastes that are contaminated by NORM. This report describes these analyses. Throughout the remainder of this report, the term ''NORM waste'' is used to mean ''oil field waste contaminated by NORM''.

  8. Modeling Coupled Processes in Clay Formations for Radioactive Waste Disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Liu, Hui-Hai; Rutqvist, Jonny; Zheng, Liange; Sonnenthal, Eric; Houseworth, Jim; Birkholzer, Jens

    2010-08-31T23:59:59.000Z

    As a result of the termination of the Yucca Mountain Project, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) has started to explore various alternative avenues for the disposition of used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The overall scope of the investigation includes temporary storage, transportation issues, permanent disposal, various nuclear fuel types, processing alternatives, and resulting waste streams. Although geologic disposal is not the only alternative, it is still the leading candidate for permanent disposal. The realm of geologic disposal also offers a range of geologic environments that may be considered, among those clay shale formations. Figure 1-1 presents the distribution of clay/shale formations within the USA. Clay rock/shale has been considered as potential host rock for geological disposal of high-level nuclear waste throughout the world, because of its low permeability, low diffusion coefficient, high retention capacity for radionuclides, and capability to self-seal fractures induced by tunnel excavation. For example, Callovo-Oxfordian argillites at the Bure site, France (Fouche et al., 2004), Toarcian argillites at the Tournemire site, France (Patriarche et al., 2004), Opalinus clay at the Mont Terri site, Switzerland (Meier et al., 2000), and Boom clay at Mol site, Belgium (Barnichon et al., 2005) have all been under intensive scientific investigations (at both field and laboratory scales) for understanding a variety of rock properties and their relations with flow and transport processes associated with geological disposal of nuclear waste. Clay/shale formations may be generally classified as indurated and plastic clays (Tsang et al., 2005). The latter (including Boom clay) is a softer material without high cohesion; its deformation is dominantly plastic. For both clay rocks, coupled thermal, hydrological, mechanical and chemical (THMC) processes are expected to have a significant impact on the long-term safety of a clay repository. For example, the excavation-damaged zone (EDZ) near repository tunnels can modify local permeability (resulting from induced fractures), potentially leading to less confinement capability (Tsang et al., 2005). Because of clay's swelling and shrinkage behavior (depending on whether the clay is in imbibition or drainage processes), fracture properties in the EDZ are quite dynamic and evolve over time as hydromechanical conditions change. To understand and model the coupled processes and their impact on repository performance is critical for the defensible performance assessment of a clay repository. Within the Natural Barrier System (NBS) group of the Used Fuel Disposition (UFD) Campaign at DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, LBNL's research activities have focused on understanding and modeling such coupled processes. LBNL provided a report in this April on literature survey of studies on coupled processes in clay repositories and identification of technical issues and knowledge gaps (Tsang et al., 2010). This report will document other LBNL research activities within the natural system work package, including the development of constitutive relationships for elastic deformation of clay rock (Section 2), a THM modeling study (Section 3) and a THC modeling study (Section 4). The purpose of the THM and THC modeling studies is to demonstrate the current modeling capabilities in dealing with coupled processes in a potential clay repository. In Section 5, we discuss potential future R&D work based on the identified knowledge gaps. The linkage between these activities and related FEPs is presented in Section 6.

  9. Deep borehole disposal of high-level radioactive waste.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Stein, Joshua S.; Freeze, Geoffrey A.; Brady, Patrick Vane; Swift, Peter N.; Rechard, Robert Paul; Arnold, Bill Walter; Kanney, Joseph F.; Bauer, Stephen J.

    2009-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Preliminary evaluation of deep borehole disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel indicates the potential for excellent long-term safety performance at costs competitive with mined repositories. Significant fluid flow through basement rock is prevented, in part, by low permeabilities, poorly connected transport pathways, and overburden self-sealing. Deep fluids also resist vertical movement because they are density stratified. Thermal hydrologic calculations estimate the thermal pulse from emplaced waste to be small (less than 20 C at 10 meters from the borehole, for less than a few hundred years), and to result in maximum total vertical fluid movement of {approx}100 m. Reducing conditions will sharply limit solubilities of most dose-critical radionuclides at depth, and high ionic strengths of deep fluids will prevent colloidal transport. For the bounding analysis of this report, waste is envisioned to be emplaced as fuel assemblies stacked inside drill casing that are lowered, and emplaced using off-the-shelf oilfield and geothermal drilling techniques, into the lower 1-2 km portion of a vertical borehole {approx}45 cm in diameter and 3-5 km deep, followed by borehole sealing. Deep borehole disposal of radioactive waste in the United States would require modifications to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and to applicable regulatory standards for long-term performance set by the US Environmental Protection Agency (40 CFR part 191) and US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR part 60). The performance analysis described here is based on the assumption that long-term standards for deep borehole disposal would be identical in the key regards to those prescribed for existing repositories (40 CFR part 197 and 10 CFR part 63).

  10. Design and Installation of a Disposal Cell Cover Field Test

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Benson, C.H. [University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; Waugh, W.J. [S.M. Stoller Corporation, Grand Junction, Colorado; Albright, W.H. [Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada; Smith, G.M. [Geo-Smith Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado; Bush, R.P. [U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colorado

    2011-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Legacy Management (LM) initiated a cover assessment project in September 2007 to evaluate an inexpensive approach to enhancing the hydrological performance of final covers for disposal cells. The objective is to accelerate and enhance natural processes that are transforming existing conventional covers, which rely on low-conductivity earthen barriers, into water balance covers, that store water in soil and release it as soil evaporation and plant transpiration. A low conductivity cover could be modified by deliberately blending the upper layers of the cover profile and planting native shrubs. A test facility was constructed at the Grand Junction, Colorado, Disposal Site to evaluate the proposed methodology. The test cover was constructed in two identical sections, each including a large drainage lysimeter. The test cover was constructed with the same design and using the same materials as the existing disposal cell in order to allow for a direct comparison of performance. One test section will be renovated using the proposed method; the other is a control. LM is using the lysimeters to evaluate the effectiveness of the renovation treatment by monitoring hydrologic conditions within the cover profile as well as all water entering and leaving the system. This paper describes the historical experience of final covers employing earthen barrier layers, the design and operation of the lysimeter test facility, testing conducted to characterize the as-built engineering and edaphic properties of the lysimeter soils, the calibration of instruments installed at the test facility, and monitoring data collected since the lysimeters were constructed.

  11. Update on onshore disposal of offshore drilling wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Veil, J. A.

    1999-11-29T23:59:59.000Z

    The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing effluent limitations guidelines to govern discharges of cuttings from wells drilled using synthetic-based muds. To support this rulemaking, Argonne National Laboratory was asked by EPA and the US Department of Energy (DOE) to collect current information about those onshore commercial disposal facilities that are permitted to receive offshore drilling wastes. Argonne contacted state officials in Louisiana, Texas, California and Alaska to obtain this information. The findings, collected during October and November 1999, are presented by state.

  12. B Plant complex treatment, storage, and disposal units inspection plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Beam, T.G.

    1994-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Owners or operators of facilities that treat, store, and/or dispose of dangerous waste and/or mixed waste as defined by WAC 173-303, {open_quotes}Dangerous Waste Regulations,{close_quotes} must inspect their facilities to prevent malfunctions and deteriorations, operator errors, and discharges that may cause or lead to the release of hazardous waste constituents to the environment and/or cause a threat to human health. The WAC regulations require a written inspection schedule be developed, implemented, and kept at the facility.

  13. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR SALTSTONE DISPOSAL UNIT COLUMN DEGRADATION ANALYSES

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Flach, G.

    2014-10-28T23:59:59.000Z

    PORFLOW related analyses supporting a Sensitivity Analysis for Saltstone Disposal Unit (SDU) column degradation were performed. Previous analyses, Flach and Taylor 2014, used a model in which the SDU columns degraded in a piecewise manner from the top and bottom simultaneously. The current analyses employs a model in which all pieces of the column degrade at the same time. Information was extracted from the analyses which may be useful in determining the distribution of Tc-99 in the various SDUs throughout time and in determining flow balances for the SDUs.

  14. Title I Disposal Sites Annual Report | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33Frequently AskedEnergyIssuesEnergy SolarRadioactiveI Disposal Sites Annual Report Title I

  15. Title II Disposal Sites Annual Report | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33Frequently AskedEnergyIssuesEnergy SolarRadioactiveI Disposal Sites Annual Report Title III

  16. DOE - Office of Legacy Management -- Clive Disposal Cell - 036

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn AprilA group currentBradleyTable ofArizonaBuffalo - NYBowen LabSouth,Clive Disposal Cell

  17. DOE - Office of Legacy Management -- Maryland Disposal Site - MD 05

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn AprilA group currentBradleyTable ofArizonaBuffaloJohns0-04Maryland Disposal Site -

  18. DOE - Office of Legacy Management -- Pennsylvania Disposal Site - PA 43

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn AprilA group currentBradleyTableSelling Corp - CTOregon MetallurgicalWestPaulDisposal

  19. Salt Lake City, Utah, Processing and Disposal Sites Fact Sheet

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn AprilA groupTuba City, Arizona, DisposalFourthN V O 1 8B100B100WWNASCUBA80 ' ,19.7Salt

  20. Shirley Basin South, Wyoming, Disposal Site Fact Sheet

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn AprilA groupTuba City, Arizona, DisposalFourthN V O