SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Panelized”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 253 records · Page 14

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 37: Featured Country Canada - Whiteshell Laboratories Decommissioning Successes and Challenges (4/5)

This panel focused on the decommissioning of the AECL Whiteshell Laboratories in Pinawa, Manitoba. The discussion presented successes as well as remaining challenges, including the proposed in-situ disposal of the organic-coated nuclear reactor shell. The panel included representatives from the Owner, the operator, the Canadian regulator, the local municipality and a representative of the indigenous community in the area. Presentations proposed include: 1 - Whiteshell Laboratories - Decommissioning Successes and Challenges (Craig Michaluk, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (Canada)); 2 - Whiteshell Laboratories Decommissioning: Successes and Challenges (Kavita Murthy, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (Canada)); 3 - Successes and Challenges of the Whiteshell Laboratories Closure Project (Brian Wilcox, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (Canada)); 4 - Whiteshell Laboratories Decommissioning Successes and Challenges - Community Point of View (Blair Skinner, Local Government District of Pinawa, Manitoba (Canada))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 51: Idaho Transuranic Waste Challenges, Solutions and Implications for the Future (3/5)

This panel focused on the retrieval, characterization, treatment, certification, and shipping of transuranic (TRU) waste at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site, Idaho, USA. The INL began receiving TRU waste from offsite generators (primarily the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado, USA) beginning in 1954. Until 1970, the INL Site disposed of barrels, boxes, and other debris in a shallow, unlined landfill. Beginning in 1970, the INL Site began storing TRU waste on an asphalt pad, which was then covered with several feet of soil. This practice continued until the late 1980's at which time a large air support building was erected over the waste. In the mid-to-late 1990's, the air support building was removed and a massive building was constructed over the entire dirt mound. Contractors retrieved the waste from the early 2000's through February 2017 to support an Idaho Settlement Agreement milestone that required the retrieval of 65,000 cubic meters of TRU waste and removal from Idaho. This panel focused on the Idaho Transuranic Waste Challenges, Solutions and Implications for the Future. The Idaho Transuranic Waste Program includes buried and stored waste retrieval and processing of contact- and remote-handled transuranic waste. Over the duration of the program, the Idaho site has conducted targeted retrieval of buried waste from the 1950's and 1960's; designed, permitted, built, operated, and completed the mission of a facility to process 65,000 cubic meters of waste; and shipped more than 57,000 cubic meters of waste to WIPP. Presentation proposed: Transuranic Waste Challenges and Solutions (Hoss Brown, Fluor Idaho, LLC (USA), John McCoy, Fluor Idaho, LLC (USA), James Malmo, US DOE (USA), Doug Pruitt, Department of Energy Idaho Field Office (USA), Kenneth Princen, US DOE (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 62: Progress on Deep Repository Programs Around the World

This panel session 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 and deserve to be recognized. Panelists were invited from national, multi-national, and international repository programs and organizations to report upon the status and future as well as the perceived reasons underlying the success and the failure of components of their respective repository program. This panel 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. Presentations proposed include: 1 - Cigeo (French Deep Geological Repository Project) update 2018 (Daniel Delort, Andra (France)); 2 - Progress on Deep Geological Repository Programs Around the World (Bruce McKirdy, Radioactive Waste Management (United Kingdom)); 3 - Geological disposal facility in Belgium (Didier Leonard, ONDRAF/NIRAS (Belgium))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 73: DOE-EM End-State Contracting

US DOE-EM's new end-state contracting model, the ID/IQ (Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quality) approach, is intended to give EM the flexibility to better define discrete scopes of work for site closure or end states. This is the result of several years of dialogue between industry and DOE about the way to collectively improve the way to do business more safely, quickly and cost effectively. This model requires a fine balance between incentives and clearly defined end states, with the ability for contractors and DOE to react quickly to respond to changes. By March 6, DOE and industry were one month into the new end-state contracting model with two requests for proposals issued and contractors responding. The purpose of the panel was to hear from DOE and industry about the status so far. DOE and the contractor community are generally supportive of the new model, but it will require closer partnership and a new mindset and approach among DOE, contractors, regulator and the workforce. This panel focused on the implementation of DOE EM's new End State Contracting Model, which uses a single-award ID/IQ approach to give EM the flexibility to better define discrete scopes of work for site closure or end states. The panelists provided their perspective on the initial implementation of the new approach and the path forward for upcoming opportunities utilizing this model. Presentation proposed: DOE EM End State Contracting (Tamara Miles, US DOE (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 91: Benefits of Commercial Tools and Practices to DOE Cleanup Nuclear Sites

This panel focused on the benefits of applying commercial tools and best practices to DOE cleanup sites. The panelist presented tools and applications that have been demonstrated on commercial and other government sites that are readily available to address similar challenges found on many DOE cleanup sites. Attendees gained an understanding of a few of the commercial applications that have resulted in innovation and cost savings. Presentations proposed include: 1 - Internet of Things and Humans - IoTH (Javid Kelley, Perma-Fix Environmental Services (USA)); 2 - Commercial Tools and Practices to Cleanup DOE Nuclear Sites (Mark Lesinski, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (Canada)); 3 - Stakeholder-Engaged Structured Decision Making and GISDT - Guided Interactive Statistical Decision Tools (Paul Black, Neptune and Company, Inc. (USA)); 4 - Benefits of Commercial Tools and Practices to DOE Cleanup of Nuclear Sites - Panel 091 (Kevin Smith, PAE (USA)); 5 - MAECTITE Treatment Process Overview (Daniel Caputo, Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc. (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 94: Nuclear and Industrial Robotics, Remote Systems and Emerging Technologies

This panel focused on the use and benefits of robotics in different nuclear environments. Examples of robotics deployed in nuclear environments that come from industry, academia, and the government were presented. It is through these varying perspectives that the panel participants will show the breath of nuclear robotics used across the world. Presentations proposed include: 1 - Robotics and Emerging Technologies at Assystem (Fanny Fouin, Assystem Energy and Infrastructure (United Kingdom)); 2 - An Undergraduate Perspective (Michael DiBono, Applied Research Center - FIU (USA)); 3 - US-ROK International Collaboration on Robotics and Remote Systems for D and D of NPPs (Young Soo Park, Argonne National Laboratory (USA)); 4 - EM's Historical Engagement with Robotics and Universities (Genia McKinley, US DOE (USA)); 5 - Robotic Systems for Environmental Remediation Applications (Leonel Lagos, Applied Research Center - FIU (USA)); 6 - Remote and Nuclear Challenges and Solutions at the Savannah River Site - SRS (Jean Plummer, Savannah River National Laboratory (USA)); 7 - Nuclear and Industrial Robotics, Remote Systems and Emerging Technologies Challenges, Opportunities and Prognostications (Kim 'KD' Auclair, KD Auclair and Associates LLC (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 108: Technology Transfer and Commercialization: Innovative Solutions for Global Opportunities

This panel focus was to build the connection between innovative solutions and the various industries looking for more efficient methods, products, and processes in Tech Transfer and Commercialization. This panel had interest across the entire conference base, whether they are encountering a challenge, introducing an innovative solution, or are the host that is trying to get from a pure research / Research, Development, Demonstration, Testing, and Evaluation solution to one that is commercially viable and robust enough for long term and/or high risk deployment scenarios and which will support greater chance of success and positive outcomes. Panelists with presentations: Practical, Successful Technology Transfer (Laurie Judd); Technology Needs for Clean-up of Mercury Contamination on the Oak Ridge Reservation (Renee Echols); US DOE Office of Technology Transitions (Kyle Wiley); Technology Transfer in Support of Delivering Clean-up Missions (Kristan Schruder); Mission to Market (J. Chris Ford)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 116: Waste Management from Remediation of Legacy Sites or Unplanned Releases

Past experiences have shown that there is often a disconnect between Indigenous societies and Western society. This disconnect can be attributed to different value systems between these two group and is not limited to the USA and Canada but also extends into Australia, New Zealand, and the Central Asia Republics (the 'five Stans'). The intent of this Panel Session to give voice to representatives from Indigenous communities, the challenges presented in remediation processes, and potential solutions. Standard risk assessment assumptions developed for Western societies often do not adequately address the cultural and spiritual values that may be unique to indigenous societies. This panel focused on the perspectives of Indigenous societies (e.g., Indian Tribes (US), First Nations (Canada)) related to risk assessment of environmental remediation challenges, including deep geological disposal of HLW and ILW, near-surface disposal of LLW and in-situ entombment of nuclear reactor components, and environmental remediation of abandoned uranium mines and historic wastes. Standard risk assessment assumptions often do not adequately address the cultural and spiritual values that may be unique to indigenous societies. Factoring those into a risk assessment that still meets regulatory requirements and policies such as reasonably anticipated land use at US EPA CERCLA sites can be challenging but has the potential to lead to a site or facility approach that is more accepted. Panelists with presentations: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Process - A Path for Indigenous Knowledge? (Francis Cameron); Local Community Perceptions and Remediation Projects (Michelle Roberts); Indigenous Perspectives on Risk Assessment (Bob Watts); Navajo Superfund Program: Fundamental Law and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (Dariel Yazzie); Risk Assessment: Two Indigenous Approaches (Whitney Fraser)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

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↗

DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 133: Integrating Economic Redevelopment and Workforce Transition Into DOE Site Closure Planning (R1.18)

This panel focused on post-closure impacts to the long-term site workforce and communities in DoE's approach to accelerated site cleanup and expedited reduction of long-term financial liabilities. At sites where Cold-War workers shifted from weapons production to the cleanup effort, a more holistic approach to the workforce transition Post-EM cleanup is needed. This holistic approach would include incentives for expedited closure, trade re-training, and a vision for future site commercial activities. The panel discussed the importance of the right workforce incentives that includes appropriate training for displaced workers so that they can be integrated into a next job. A key aspect of this discussion was to re-assess the current and future land use opportunities related to land re-use concepts. By re-arranging cleanup sequencing is it possible to divest land sooner than originally projected for productive commercial use hence reducing the DOE long-term liability and consequently increasing an economic soft landing for those Cold-War workers. Panelists with presentations: Integrating Economic Redevelopment and Workforce Transition Into DOE Site Closure Planning (Sean Todd); Sustaining, Growing and Re-Developing DOD/DOD Facilities and Assets (Jonathan Taylor)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 3: Prospects for Shared Solutions for Solving the WM Challenges for Small and Emerging Nuclear Countries

This panel focused on sharing WM solutions for small and emerging nuclear countries. As countries with substantial inventories of spent nuclear fuel pursue their national repository programs with varying degrees of progress, countries with only a few reactors and those at the beginning stages of their nuclear programs face a far different and substantial challenge toward developing a national solution. This session brought together a panel of experts from government and industry to explore shared solutions and next steps building off the recent progress made by international organizations and the recent efforts and lessons learned. Panelists with presentations: The Rationale for a Multinational Repository (Sean Tyson); Perspectives on the Future of the Multi-National Repository Concept (Alan Brownstein); Why Would any Country Accept Foreign Spent Nuclear Fuel? (Charles McCombie); Dual Track Strategy for Small Countries (Leon Kegel)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 36: Hot Topics in US Commercial Low-Level Waste Management

This panel focused on emerging issues in commercial LLW management in the US from the perspective of active members of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum, Inc. State, compact, federal and industry officials shared their views on a variety of timely and significant topics related to low-level radioactive waste management, disposal and related issues. Session no. 36 Co-Chairs, Patricia Holahan and Daniel Shrum, introduced the panelists and provided a summary of the purpose of the session. This Panel Session focused on several current and emerging issues impacting the commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) management in the US from the perspective of active members of the Low-Level Waste Forum, Inc., States, Compact, as well as Federal and nuclear industries. The panelists provided different perspectives on number of key issues such as: LLW disposal facility status and updates (e.g.; in terms of disposal capacity, plans, and waste acceptance conditions). The panelists also addressed waste disposal rates and potential impacts of ongoing regulatory developments by the NRC and the concerned States. Other timely topics pertaining to the revision of 10CFR Part 61, the Greater-than-Class C (GTCC) and Transuranic (TRU) waste, and Very Low-Level Waste (VLLW) disposal issues were also addressed at this Session. Panelists with presentations: Hot Topics in US Commercial LLW Management (Joe Weismann); Texas LLRW Compact (David Carlson); Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission (John Salsman); Barnwell LLRW Disposal Facility (Benjamin Smith, Bill Carver)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 57: US Nuclear Power Plant Waste Management - US LLW Disposal Issues

This panel focused on senior utility managers discussing specific disposal site issues with the disposal site operators. Representatives from each of the operating commercial disposal sites began by presenting an update of their facility, license, and waste acceptance criteria (WAC) followed by a panel discussion in response to audience questions. Panelists with presentations: Current and Emerging US NRC Regulatory Topics (Joe Weismann); WCS Update (Dan Burns); EnergySolutions Clive Facility Support for US LLW Disposal Issues (Vern C. Rogers)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 68: Key EFCOG Actions: Risk Communication, Supply Chain Management, Human Capital and More

Overview on the Energy Facility Contractor Group's (EFCOG) most recent work in partnership with DOE to improve performance and EFCOG's mission is to ensure safety, security, and quality across the US DOE complex. Best practices were highlighted in discussions with US DOE/ NNSA leaders and key project executives. EFCOG's key priorities for 2020 were featured in the panel discussions to include: addressing human capital issues to ensure future mission needs can be met; addressing supply chain issues for nuclear projects; improving the data quality and performance assurance; and improving risk communication and stakeholder relations. EFCOG accomplishes its mission through working groups that provide forums to address common challenges and exchange proven techniques and other management and technical information among member contractors. Panelists with presentations: WM EFCOG Panel Slides (Morgan Smith); EFCOG DOE Supply Chain Initiative (SCI) - Enabling The DOE Mission - (Darrell Graddy); Data Quality and Performance Assurance (JD Dowell); Risk Communication - Different Events - Very Different Responses from the Community (Rick McLeod); Current State of Cybersecurity (Liz Porter)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 94: US DOE Procurement Opportunities and End-State Contracting Model Status

This panel focused on DoE's procurement implementation strategy and planned activities for its first-tier contractors (Tier 1 procurements). This panel also focused on the implementation status of DoE's End State Contracting Model, which uses a single-award ID/IQ approach to give DOE flexibility to better define discrete scopes of work for site closure or end states. The panelists provided their prospective on progress toward the implementation of this new approach, lessons learned and the path forward for upcoming opportunities utilizing this contracting model. Panelists with presentations: EFCOG (Billy Morrison); DOE Procurement Opportunities - 4 Ways for Small Business Participation (Anne Marie Bird); US DOE Procurement and Contracting Opportunities (Aaron Deckard)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Session 097B - Panel: Pathway to End State at the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, TN (2/4) (R1.16b)

This panel was to focus on the 'Pathway to End State at the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP)'. It was to discuss the DoE's long-term vision for the ETTP site and the process for converting the site into a multi-use industrial park, historic preservation and national park, and conservation area. The Panelists were to discuss the challenges in executing a cleanup project of this magnitude, the waste management, and the monitoring efforts that supported the achievement of the Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM) Vision 2020. This session integrated with panel sessions 97A, 97C, and 97D. Panelists with presentations: Beginning with the End in Mind (Kevin Ironside); Project Execution (Daniel Macias); Waste Management (John Wrapp); Environmental Remediation (Samantha Pack); Waste Management (Josh Pemberton); DOE's Long-Range Vision (Laura Wilkerson)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Session 097C - Panel: Reuse of Federal Land on the Oak Ridge Reservation, TN (3/4) (R.16c)

This panel was to focus on what is being done to enable federal reuse across the DOE's Oak Ridge Reservation, including how the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET) plays a critical role, how the community is benefiting, and the experience of the private sector companies now occupying the site. The Panelists were to discuss how resources from the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) are being transitioned to support cleanup efforts that enable critical NNSA and Office of Science missions. This session integrated with panel sessions 97A, 97B, and 97D. Panelists with presentations: Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET) (Ryan Overton); Community Perspective (Ron Woody); ETTP Tenant Point of View (Bradley Spears); Enabling NNSA and Office of Science Missions (Stephen Phillips); Enabling Federal Land Reuse (David Adler)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 98B: Treatment of Low-Activity Tank Waste at Hanford: Considering the Alternatives

This panel focused on alternative treatment of the Hanford Low-Activity Tank Waste. Currently, Tank Waste at the Hanford Site is to be separated into low-activity (LAW) and high-level waste (HLW) fractions, and then vitrified to produce immobilized LAW glass for onsite disposal, and HLW glass for ultimate geologic disposal. This panel discussed several commissioned studies by the National Laboratories, National Academies, and General Accountability Office to evaluate the risks, costs, and benefits associated with considering options for immobilizing portions of the Hanford LAW waste forms. Panelists with presentations: Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches for Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Overview and Conclusions (Michael Stone); Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches for Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Disposal Performance Evaluation (Tom Brouns); National Academies Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation (Charles Ferguson); GAO Observations on Immobilizing Low-Activity Waste at DoE's Hanford Site (David Trimble)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗