Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12

Post-Closure Report for Closed Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Units, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, For Calendar Year 2021 (Revision 1)

This report serves as the combined annual report for post-closure activities in compliance with the requirements listed in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Permit Number NEV HW0101 associated with the following closed corrective action units (CAUs): CAU 90, Area 2 Bitcutter Containment; CAU 91, Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well; CAU 92, Area 6 Decon Pond Facility; CAU 110, Area 3 WMD U-3ax/bl Crater; CAU 111, Area 5 WMD Retired Mixed Waste Pits; and CAU 112, Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches. This report will address all monitoring requirements noted in the RCRA Permit NEV HW0101, except groundwater monitoring. Groundwater monitoring is documented in the Nevada National Security Site Data Report: Groundwater Monitoring Program Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Corrective Action Decision Document/Corrective Action Plan for Corrective Action Unit 577: Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada

This Corrective Action Decision Document/Corrective Action Plan (CADD/CAP) is for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 577, “Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells,” which is located in Area 5 of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). CAU 577 includes five low-level waste cells at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) where buried waste received from Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS), was subsequently determined to contain chromium that exceeded the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure regulatory limit, which would require the waste to carry hazardous waste code D007. To resolve issues related to this alleged violation of hazardous waste regulations, a Settlement Agreement was executed between the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office on April 25, 2019, which identified agreed-upon mitigation measures. The Settlement Agreement required that the chromium-containing waste received from NFS would be addressed following the closure process laid out in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Post-Closure Report for Closed Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Units, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada: For Calendar Year 2020 (Rev. 2)

This report serves as the combined annual report for post-closure activities in compliance with the requirements listed in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Permit Number NEV HW0101 associated with the following closed corrective action units (CAUs): 1) CAU 90, Area 2 Bitcutter Containment; 2) CAU 91, Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well; 3) CAU 92, Area 6 Decon Pond Facility; 4) CAU 110, Area 3 WMD U-3ax/bl Crater; 5) CAU 111, Area 5 WMD Retired Mixed Waste Pits; 6) CAU 112, Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches The locations of the sites are shown in Figure ES-1. This report covers calendar year 2020. The post-closure requirements for these sites are described in RCRA Permit NEV HW0101 and are summarized in each CAU-specific section of this report. The results of the inspections, a summary of maintenance activities, and an evaluation of monitoring data are presented in this report. Site inspections are conducted annually at CAUs 90, 91, and 112; semiannually at CAUs 92 and 110; and quarterly at CAU 111. Additional inspections are conducted at CAUs 92 and 111 if precipitation occurs in excess of 1.0 inch in a 24-hour period. Inspections include an evaluation of the condition of the units, including covers, fences, signs, gates, and locks. At CAUs 110 and 111, soil moisture monitoring and subsidence surveys are conducted in addition to the visual inspections. At CAU 110, the site fence, gate, lock, and use restriction signs are evaluated. At CAU 111, an ecological survey, direct radiation monitoring, air monitoring, radon flux monitoring, and groundwater monitoring are also conducted. This report will address all monitoring item notes above except groundwater monitoring. Groundwater monitoring is documented in the Nevada National Security Site Data Report: Groundwater Monitoring Program Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site. All required inspections, maintenance, and monitoring were conducted in accordance with the post-closure requirements of the permit. Revision 6 of RCRA Permit NEV HW0101 was issued effective December 10, 2015, and remained in effect until December 10, 2020. At the time of this report submittal, the new RCRA permit application was in review.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

International collaboration in disposal research: comparative modeling of coupled processes in the DECOVALEX project

Abstract. This presentation gives an overview of an international research collaboration for advancing the understanding and modeling of coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical-chemical (THMC) processes in geological systems. The creation of the international DECOVALEX project, now running for more than 25 years, was motivated by the recognition that prediction of these coupled effects is an essential part of the performance and safety assessment of geologic disposal systems for radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. DECOVALEX emphasizes joint analysis and comparative modeling of state-of-the-art field and laboratory experiments, across a range of host rock options and repository designs. Participating research teams are from radioactive waste management organizations, national research institutes, regulatory agencies, universities, and consulting groups, providing a wide range of perspectives and solutions to these complex problems. The presentation provides examples of the research contributions made collectively in past DECOVALEX tasks and also touches on the unique modeling challenges tackled in the ongoing project phase, referred to as DECOVALEX-2023. The current phase comprises 17 partner organizations, about 50 modeling teams, and 7 modeling tasks, which cover a broad portfolio from fundamental studies on gas migration to full-scale in situ heater experiments in different host rocks to performance assessment studies. Together, these examples illustrate that the insight and scientific knowledge gained within the DECOVALEX project would not have been possible if one group had studied these complex THMC modeling challenges alone rather than within a truly collaborative setting.

Birkholzer, Jens T.↗

Space disposal of nuclear wastes. Volume 1: Socio-political aspects

The history and interpretation of radioactive waste management in the U.S., criteria for choosing from various options for waste disposal, and the impact of nuclear power growth from 1975 to 2000 are discussed. Preconditions for the existence of high level wastes in a form suitable for space disposal are explored. The role of the NASA space shuttle program in the space disposal of nuclear wastes, and the impact on program management, resources and regulation are examined.

Laporte, T.↗

Electrometallurgical Treatment of Used Sodium-Bonded Metal Fuels

This is a teaching presentation for the University of New Mexico, Radioactive Waste Management class. This is a senior/graduate level class. The presentation does not contains any OUO information. All information provided has been previously presented publicly.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Default Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management (RHWM) Dose Conversion Factors (DCFs) and Weighting Factors and plutonium-239 equivalent Curie (PE-Ci) methodology for acceptance into the Waste Storage Facilities

DOE-STD-5506-2007 (Ref. 1) is the standard that provides the methodology for preparing hazard analysis and accident analysis for transuranic (TRU) waste facilities. The Waste Storage Facilities hazard and accident analysis for the DSA is developed in accordance with DOE-STD- 5506-2007. Two related issues need to be addressed when implementing DOE-STD-5506-2007 regarding the calculation of consequences from TRU waste releases in accident analysis: Consequences determined in accident analysis must be modeled using inhalation Dose Conversion Factors (DCFs) that are consistent with those from the International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 72 (ICRP-72, Ref. 2).; The use of a statistical Material at Risk (MAR) representing the distribution of radiological loading of TRU waste containers based on the use of a plutonium-239 equivalent Curie (PE-Ci) methodology. The PE-Ci methodology simplifies accident analysis by allowing one to model releases based on the Curie value of one standard nuclide (e.g., Pu-239) instead of needing to model releases for every potential nuclide of interest. This is accomplished by normalizing the Curie value of all nuclides to a single Curie value of a standard nuclide by using a Weighting Factor that is a ratio of the DCFs associated with the nuclides and that of the standard nuclide. By using the ICRP-72 DCFs to calculate PE-Ci values used in the statistical MAR, the accident analysis that uses that statistical MAR will be consistent with the consequence methodology identified in DOE-STD- 5506-2007.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

An analysis of the technical status of high level radioactive waste and spent fuel management systems

The technical status of the old U.S. mailine program for high level radioactive nuclear waste management, and the newly-developing program for disposal of unreprocessed spent fuel was assessed. The method of long term containment for both of these waste forms is considered to be deep geologic isolation in bedded salt. Each major component of both waste management systems is analyzed in terms of its scientific feasibility, technical achievability and engineering achievability. The resulting matrix leads to a systematic identification of major unresolved technical or scientific questions and/or gaps in these programs.

English, T.↗

Panel Session 56: Enhanced Performance Through Joint Assurance Review

This panel focused on the benefits of recent DOE-EM efforts to conduct joint oversight reviews. These reviews enhance partnering and alignment and represent an efficient and cost-effective way to identify and prioritize needed project performance improvements. Panelists with presentations: Enhanced Performance Through Joint Assurance Reviews (Jan Preston)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Panel Session 89: Progress on Deep Repository Around the World

This panel focused on the progress of deep repository programs, worldwide. While efforts on a deep geological repository for SNF/UNF and HLW in the USA were terminated in 2010, several other repository programs continue to make considerable progress 10 and deserve to be recognized. Panelists from national, multi-national, and international repository programs and organizations reported on the status and future plans as well as the perceived reasons underlying the success and the failure of components of their respective repository program. This session provided a forum for interested parties to present, exchange, and take advantage of, as appropriate, repository progress, challenges, concepts/designs and other lessons learned around the world, including site characterization, site selection, research and development, licensing, construction, operation, and public acceptance and participation. Panelists with presentations: Switzerland's Geological Repository Program for Radioactive Waste (Tim Vietor); Update on NWMO's Progress in Implementing Canada's Plan (Sarah Hirschorn); Cigeo Project Progress and Next Milestones (Corinne Bauer)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Decommissioning of the V1 Nuclear Power Plant Jaslovske Bohunice - 20270

The paper focuses on introducing the approach and method applied for decommissioning of the V1 nuclear power plant (further the 'V1 NPP') located in Jaslovske Bohunice in the Slovak Republic, to the conference participants. The Paper outlines activities and steps necessary to comply with the requirements contained in the decision of the Slovak government from 1999 regarding the early shutdown of the V1 NPP. The company responsible for the V1 NPP decommissioning is Jadrova a vyradovacia spolocnost, a.s., (further JAVYS) with the State as a sole shareholder. On the basis of the V1 NPP Decommissioning Conceptual Plan, out of four assessed options, JAVYS selected the immediate decommissioning option (the 'IDO') for the V1 NPP. On the basis of multi-criteria analysis, the IDO specified the approach of immediate and continuous dismantling of equipment followed by demolition of buildings and preparation of the site for its further potential use. The IDO also included the summary of technical, environmental, legislative information as well as the determination of assumed costs for decommissioning of the V1 NPP. Prior to commencement of the V1 NPP decommissioning, within the process of termination of operation, activities connected with de-fuelling, monitoring, processing of historical waste and, not to forget, the process of obtaining the license for the V1 NPP decommissioning were executed. JAVYS decided to divide the decommissioning process into two stages. In 2011, JAVYS obtained a license for the first stage of the V1 NPP decommissioning. Within this stage, dismantling of inactive equipment, demolitions of inactive buildings, monitoring of systems and preparatory works for the upcoming stage of decommissioning were implemented. In 2015, in line with the license for the 2. stage of the V1 NPP decommissioning, the activities of decontamination and dismantling of contaminated and active equipment as well as demolitions of remaining buildings began. In this stage radioactive waste (RAW) produced during the decommissioning is to be processed. After decontamination, the material fulfilling the free release criteria is to be released into the environment, the site is to be cleared from the scope of the Atomic Act and released from the surveillance of the national regulators. Future application of certain methods and techniques for decontamination and dismantling in similar environments might bring an added value to the operators. Paper includes a description of best practices for Nuclear Power Plant VVER type reactors decommissioning. Schedule comparison is given to show how the critical path of certain projects is being managed. Application of the International Standard for Decommissioning Costing (ISDC) methodology provides a uniform method which enables comparison of cost estimates to other nuclear facilities under decommissioning. The cost estimate for the V1 NPP decommissioning has been continuously updated based on more advanced and detailed information on the decommissioning activities and projects. Monitoring of progress of the V1 NPP decommissioning is performed via four key-performance indicators. The Earned Value Management (EVM) methodology is used for evaluating time and cost aspect of decommissioning activities while waste conditioning index is calculated by comparing the actually produced waste to planned values of waste for a respective monitored period. Radiological safety index is assessed by comparison of the personnel records on the individual yearly doses received by each respective employee to the boundary value. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Life cycle Management of 324 Project High-Activity, Mixed/Low-Level Radioactive Waste - 20506

U.S. DOE contractor CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) manages the 324 Building and is preparing to remotely excavate and disposition the radioactive soil beneath the building to allow further deactivation of the building. The 324 Building is a non-reactor Category 2 Nuclear Facility located in the 300 Area of the Hanford Site. Records indicate that in October 1986, approximately 516 liters of a concentrated liquid waste stream containing cesium-137 ({sup 137}Cs) and strontium-90 ({sup 90}Sr) spilled onto the floor of a hot cell, B-Cell, in the 324 Building. The spill contained an estimated 1.3 million curies (Ci) of radioactivity. A breach in the sump of B-Cell was discovered in November 2009 during characterization of the soil under the building. Exposure rates in excess of 10,000 R/hr were detected through a system of access pipes installed under the hot cell, and an estimated 1.557 E+05 Ci of {sup 137}Cs and 6.842 E+04 Ci of {sup 90}Sr are in the soil beneath B-Cell. The magnitude of the soil contamination below B-Cell represents one of the most challenging remediation activities in the DOE complex. The objective of CHPRC's 324 Project is to remotely excavate and disposition the highly contaminated soil under the hot cell so building deactivation and stabilization activities can resume. Depending on the volume and radioactivity of contaminated soil under B-Cell, the material will be dispositioned either at the Hanford Site's Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) or in grout monoliths that will be created in the hot cells (A, C and D) next to B-Cell during future building demolition activities. The current project scope includes installing structural supports under the walls of B-Cell and using remotely operated equipment to remove debris from the hot cell, remove debris mixed with grout on the floor, saw through and remove the cell floor and liner, and excavate contaminated soil under B-Cell to a depth of up to 3.66 meters (12 feet). Addition or removal of debris in A-Cell may be required to support B-Cell cleanout and excavation activities. The base approach is to disposition debris and soil bins in the Radiochemical Engineering Cell (REC) monoliths, and subsequently disposition the monoliths during building demolition. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 30, No. 1, January-March 1989]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 International Conference on Thermal Reactor Safety: NUCSAFE 88 by A. P. Malinauskas and J. G. Pruett; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 18 Chernobyl Today: State of Research by A. Yu. Gagarinskii; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 23 Problems Associated with Routine In-Plant Radioactive Effluent Monitoring Systems at U.S. Light-Water Reactors by Barry G. Wahlig, David M. Walker, Mahmoud R. Ghavi, and John M. Palms; DESIGN FEATURES: 34 Twentieth DOE/NRC Nuclear Air-Cleaning Conference by R. R. Bellamy, D. W. Moeller, and M. W. First, 46 Design Options for the Core Support Structure for Liquid-Metal-Cooled Reactor Plants by J. P. Burelbach, W. J. Kann, J. G. Saiveau, and R. W. Seidensticker; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 53 The Radiological Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident by L. V. Konstantinov and A. J. González; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 70 Activities Related to Waste Management Compiled by E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 80 Fuel Performance Annual Report for 1986 by W. J. Bailey, 103 Safety Considerations Related to 12-Hour Shift Schedules by S. Gould, 105 Reactor Shutdown Experience Compiled by J. W. Cletcher, 108 Operating U.S. Power Reactors Compiled by E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 130 General Administrative Activities Compiled by E. G. Silver, 140 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides by D. S. Queener, 145 Status of Power-Reactor Licensing Activities Compiled by E. G. Silver, 153 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30, 1988; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 69 Northwestern University Short Course on Radiation Safety, 79 International Seminar on Fission Product Transport Processes in Reactor Accidents, 129 Harvard School of Public Health Offers Short Courses, 152 MIT Offers Summer Short Courses on Reactor Safety and Nodal Analysis, 152 Seminar on Use of PCs in Probabilistic Safety Analysis, 157 The Authors, 160 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 29.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Panel Session 128: Best Practices in Project Communications

This panel focused on a sustainable, holistic and integrated approach to structure nuclear waste management, disposal and remediation decisions. This panel had participation from internal and external stakeholders and demonstrate use of tools and techniques to effectively communicate factors that inform decisions. The desired outcome was to effectively communicate how risk is evaluated at complex sites, highlight holistic site level approaches that are protective of human health and the environment, and incorporate policy and technical concerns related to achieving alternative end points. This discussion included existing decision-making tools in conjunction with case studies. Panelists with presentations: Removing the Cloak of Secrecy from Legacy Cleanup at Los Alamos National Laboratory (David Nickless); Best Practice In Project Communications (Alan Paulley); Stakeholder and Public Engagement (Mark Lesinski); Stakeholder Engaged Structured Decision Making (Kelly Black)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

The HRA/Solarium Project: Feedback Based on 20 Years of Experience in Treatment of Medium Level Waste - 20185

Since the 1980's the management of the historical site of Mol has been transferred to the National Agency for Radioactive Waste and Enriched Fissile Materials (ONDRAF/NIRAS). Belgoprocess is entrusted by ONDRAF/NIRAS with the operational waste management and site remediation. One of the major challenges has been the characterization, treatment and conditioning of approximately 200 m{sup 3} of medium level waste. These waste packages were stored in poor conditions in storage vaults ('HRA') or concrete containers ('Solarium'). They have been produced in various research programs and reactor operations at the Belgian nuclear energy research centre SCK.CEN, isotope production, decontamination and dismantling operations from the 1960's up to the 1980's. Despite the limited volume, this historical waste consists of a great variation of waste characteristics and waste configurations. To tackle these liabilities, a new processing facility was built in the 1990's to allow safe transfers, handling, characterization and treatment of these packages. Also some auxiliary facilities have been built to deal with the by-products, like emptied concrete containers. The engineering of the installation, safety procedures and (characterization) methodology that has been developed generically have been proved to be successful. Nevertheless, the specific nature of some items made it necessary to organize a step-by-step treatment in distinct campaigns in which some relevant extra (safety) measures had to be taken into account. This dynamic approach made it possible to process a great variety of waste types in order to to ensure that this legacy is no longer left for subsequent generations. After about 20 years of operations, there has been a great build-up of experience and feed-back concerning the waste management of these specific waste streams. Some cases will be highlighted to specify the approach followed for treatment of e.g.: - Na/NaK containing equipment; - spent radioactive sources; - fuel element residues; - medium level waste originating from activation experiments; - radium bearing medium level waste originating from Ac-227 production research. (authors)

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗

Opportunities for an Integrated Web-Based Workbench for Data Access and Analysis - 20244

Management of environmental issues can require integration of multiple types of data and information, conducting data analysis and interpretation, and providing data visualization for effective communications. These data elements are important for site management to support regulator interactions and provide defensibility for remedial decisions. Databases and information repositories are core elements of managing data; however, efficient data access and analysis also enable effective site management. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site is an example of a complex site with a voluminous quantity of environmental data and a need for efficient site management. Different tiers of data and information tools have been developed and deployed to address site needs. These tools are configured for ready access via the web site interfaces and meet the rigorous quality requirements for environmental site management. Evolving efforts are focused on an integrated platform to meet site environmental management needs. In this platform, users can access site information at multiple levels of detail based on their need and permissions, so that data and associated analyses are presented within the context of the site mission and the user's management or technical needs. This concept is not only applicable at individual sites like Hanford but also applicable at other sites within the DOE complex. An integrated web-based architecture that links data visualization, data analytics, and management tools can provide holistic access to large data sets, minimize complexity, and maximize interactivity and technical communication. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

New Beginnings: Optimising Waste and End-state at UK Nuclear Sites to Enable Environmental Permit surrender (the GRR) - 20193

The decommissioning of nuclear sites involves the management of large volumes of radioactive waste, other conventional waste, and the clean-up of land and groundwater contamination. In the UK, the disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear sites is regulated by the Environment Agency (England), Natural Resources Wales (Wales) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Scotland). All three environment agencies seek to make sure that the generation and disposal of radioactive waste is optimised: ensuring impacts to people are 'as low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA). With a large proportion of UK nuclear sites embarking on decommissioning, the environment agencies have collaboratively developed new guidance: the 'Management of radioactive waste from the decommissioning of nuclear sites: Guidance on the Requirements for Release from radioactive substances regulation' (referred to as the GRR)[1]. The environment agencies worked in liaison with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), the UK nuclear safety regulator, and the UK government body responsible, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). Prior to finalising the guidance, a 12 month trial was completed at three of the NDA's nuclear sites, enabling the environment agencies to test their draft GRR guidance against 'real world scenarios' and the challenge of incorporating its requirements into decommissioning plans. Experience gained during the trial was incorporated into the current version of the GRR, published in July 2018. The GRR represents the 'new beginning' of this paper's title because for the first time, the UK environmental regulators have expressed in detail their requirements for surrender of environmental permits for nuclear sites. The GRR provides a framework for a UK nuclear site to plan, assess and justify its management of radioactive waste and deliver through decommissioning, an optimal, environmentally safe and sustainable end-state. This paper will describe the requirements and technical standards within the GRR, the establishment of defensible clean-up criteria and the production of a Waste Management Plan (WMP), supported by a Site-Wide Environmental Safety Case (SWESC). It will describe the experience gleaned by operators and regulators during the trial and it will highlight current work by regulators to implement the new approach proportionately. Finally, this paper will look forward and outline planned amendments to legislation in the UK affecting nuclear sites that should enable the full benefits of the GRR to be realised in the future. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Expedited Walkdowns and Preparation of Cost Estimates for Decontamination and Demolition of Excess Facilities - 20335

Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS) is the prime contractor responsible for managing and operating Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The mission of the LLNL is to strengthen security of the United States through development and application of world-class science and technology to enhance the nation's defense, reduce the global threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and respond with vision, quality, integrity, and technical excellence to scientific issues of national importance. To accomplish its mission, LLNL must plan and manage its campus space and facilities to optimize use of its relatively small one-square-mile footprint. LLNL currently has numerous excess facilities that require decontamination and demolition (D and D). The LLNL Legacy Facility Program is responsible for stewardship and risk reduction programs to effectively manage these excess assets at LLNL. The Legacy Facility Program identified 10 excess facilities at LLNL that were candidates for demolition based on risks from further degradation of the facilities, potential exposure to hazardous materials, or need for removal to make way for new program facilities. The buildings range from a structure built in 1943 to serve as a US Navy drill hall during World War II, to a facility that provided neutrons to study material properties for the fusion energy program. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) appropriated FY19 funding for the development of Class 3 estimates for these 10 excess facilities that would be used to develop a Program Management Plan for funding consideration. Class 3 estimates are not conceptual, nor overly detailed, but adequate to be used for budget and appropriation purposes. Using existing strategic sourcing agreements, LLNL was able to organize a team of senior subject matter experts (SMEs) with diverse technical backgrounds across the Department of Energy (DOE) Complex to complete extensive process knowledge (PK) reviews and walk-downs of each excess facility and to deliver accurate and complete estimates under an expedited schedule (i.e., within eight weeks). To facilitate the expedited schedule, LLNL was fully prepared for the arrival of the JGMS team, which consisted of the following companies: J.G. Management Systems, Inc. (JGMS); Strata-G, LLC; and Michael Baker International. LLNL provided background and PK information on the excess facilities, pictures, supporting historical documentation, and radiological survey history as well as escorted access to the facilities. The JGMS team has previous experience supporting Program Management Plans for excess facilities at the Y-12 National Security Complex. The team mobilized to LLNL and performed the facility walk-downs from January 22-25, 2019. Using a methodical evaluation process, expertise, and experience, the team was able to deliver walk-down draft reports and estimates to LLNL before their February 8, 2019 deadline. LLNL then in turn reviewed, completed the estimates by adding waste management costs and other LLNL costs, and delivered the estimates to NNSA by February 15, 2019. The completed final reports, including draft D and D estimates, were delivered to LLNL before their March 6, 2019 deadline. The work was successfully completed ahead of the expedited schedule required by LLNL, resulting in a commendation from the client. This paper describes how the partnership and collaboration as a fully integrated team comprised of the prime contractor, LLNS, and the JGMS team successfully met the needs of the US government, resulting in the performance of expedited site walk-downs, the development of summary evaluation reports, and the preparation of draft Class 3 estimates and preliminary schedules for the D and D of 10 excess facilities at LLNL. The efforts of the team will enable the D and D of the first excess facility in the 2020-2021 time frame. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗