Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “EPA”

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 343 records · Page 19
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Soil Sample Plan in Support of the Site 300 Explosives Waste Treatment Facility Ecological Risk Assessment Pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Condition #14 a-f. August 2020

The Department of Toxic Substances Control issued the Final Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Site 300 in 2017. As part of the continual process to ensure waste treatment emissions are not impacting ecological receptors, LLNL analyzed soil samples in the vicinity of the Explosive Waste Treatment Facility (EWTF) Burn Units (i.e., Burn Cage and Burn Pan) and the Detonation Pad. Soil samples were analyzed by EPA Solid Waste 846 Methods for furans, explosives, metals, and semivolatile compounds. In all samples, furans, explosives, and semi-volatile organic compounds were not detected. Metals were detected at concentrations below background levels. This soil sample plan will sample the same four downwind areas of the Burn Units and the same downwind areas of the Detonation, as well as including four new sample locations. The four new locations will be located to the northeast and southwest of the Burn Units and Detonation (as shown in Figure 3). The constituents to be analyzed are in Tables 2 and 3. Perchlorate was not identified as a constituent of concern in the 2007 Soil Sampling Plan. However, for this plan, all soil samples will be analyzed for perchlorate. After completion of the sampling event, a soil sample report will be submitted to DTSC in accordance with requirements specified in the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Conditions 16 a-f. This proposed soil sampling plan will be fully implemented no later than one year after receiving DTSC approval, in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Condition 15.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Integrating Health and Energy Efficiency in Multi-Family Buildings

The intersection between health and the built environment has long been known. Since the 18 th century, public health officials have been targeting building issues, such as crowding, poor sanitation, and inadequate ventilation in efforts to reduce infectious diseases and fire hazards. More recently, federal agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HUD, and the DOE have been working to reduce or eliminate indoor building factors that are known to have adverse health impacts on Americans, including reducing lead in housing and indoor air pollution that causes respiratory disease, and ensuring access to adequate heating, cooling, and moisture control. PNNL, in support of FEMP’s HBI, undertook a review of literature and existing best practices to identify current activities and research on the intersection between traditional energy-efficiency measures and occupant health within multi-family buildings. While the HBI methodology has focused on traditional office building spaces, it is now expanding into additional building use types. This overview explores some of the most impactful resources to help property owners and managers understand more about multi-family residential buildings that are both healthy and energy efficient. The federal government provides direct oversight and operation across several types of multi-family residential housing, including dormitories, barracks, and senior community living centers.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

Industry Partnerships & Their Role In Reducing Natural Gas Supply Chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Phase 2

This analysis is the product of collaboration between Our Nation’s Energy Future (ONE Future) and the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). This analysis is an update to Phase 1 of the collaboration between ONE Future and NETL. Phase 1 had three objectives: 1. Calculate a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission profile representative of ONE Future’s supply chain, including methane (CH 4 ) emission rates. 2. Compare ONE Future’s emission profile to the emission profile for the U.S. natural gas supply chain. 3. Evaluate specific emission reduction opportunities. Phase 2 has two key enhancements over Phase 1: 1. The reporting year of the data is updated from 2016 to 2017. 2. The emission profiles and the specific emission reduction opportunities are regionalized for the ONE Future supply chain. The ONE Future supply chain is based on data provided by ONE Future members for all their U.S. onshore assets. ONE Future’s data are mostly representative of their participation in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is supplemented by ONE Future facilities that are not required to report to GHGRP. The U.S. scenario is based on NETL’s life cycle analysis (LCA) of natural gas extraction and power generation, which also uses data from the GHGRP (but does not include non-GHGRP facilities). In addition to the data from these sources, NETL accounted for uncertainty due to data variability, data limitations, and variability in liquids unloading frequency and event duration. This report is a re-issue of the 2020 study (published on July 28, 2020). It revises the device count in the mitigation strategy “pipeline pump-down before maintenance” in the Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) Analysis section of the report (Section 7). Please see the addendum for more details on this revision and resultant changes. This revision does not change most of our conclusions and recommendations. It only changes the total methane reduced from all the mitigation opportunities (low cost and high cost) from 6.5 Bcf CH 4 /yr to 4.8 Bcf CH 4 /yr.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Los Alamos National Laboratory Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Community Relations Plan

The requirements of the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit are fulfilled through execution of LANL's fourth strategic goal: “Enabling mission delivery through next-generation facility, infrastructure, and operational excellence.” With input from our stakeholders, we will continue to fulfill those requirements and to improve our waste operations. In 2015, the Laboratory purpose statement focused waste management efforts by directing delivery of mission success through operational effectiveness and scientific excellence. This Plan advances that purpose through community involvement. In the process of achieving our national security mission, Los Alamos National Laboratory generates some hazardous and mixed waste. Hazardous waste is solid waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to human health or the environment. Hazardous wastes can be liquids, solids, gases, or sludges. They can be discarded as commercial products, such as cleaning fluids or pesticides, or as the byproducts of operations. Specific substances are listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 261: 40 CFR Part 261. Hazardous waste management activities are regulated by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) pursuant to New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act (HWA; Chapter 74, Article 4 NMSA 1978) and regulations under the Act. In 1989, NMED issued the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (EPA ID Number NM0890010515-1) that established standards for the Laboratory to manage, store, and treat hazardous wastes on-site and to undertake the closure, post closure care, and cleanup as necessary, of permitted waste management units. On November 30, 2010, NMED renewed the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (the Permit). In June 2020 the Permittees submitted a permit renewal application to the NMED for their review and approval. The Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Community Relations Plan (CRP) describes the scope of public involvement in the activities of the Permit. The CRP is specifically designed to facilitate the community outreach, engagement, and relations activities concerning the Laboratory’s Hazardous Waste Facility Permit and coordinates with but does not include public involvement for other Laboratory programs, initiatives, or environmental activities.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Update of Emission Factors of Greenhouse Gases and Criteria Air Pollutants, and Generation Efficiencies of the U.S. Electricity Generation Sector

The last decade has seen a steady evolution of the electricity generation sector. Fuels used for electricity generation have shifted from coal to cleaner energy sources such as natural gas and renewables including solar, wind, and other renewable sources. The share of U.S. electricity generated from coal decreased from 45% in 2010 to 24% in 2019, and is expected to decrease further to 13% by 2050. The conversion efficiency of electricity generation has also increased gradually for fuels such as natural gas due as less-efficient old generators are retired and more-efficient generators replace them. These changes in the electricity generation industry are likely to cause changes in the emissions from power generation units. Emission factors of greenhouse gases (GHG) including CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O, and criteria air pollutants (CAPs) including CO, NO x , PM 10 , PM 2.5 , and SO x , from power plants are important parameters for estimating life-cycle emissions associated with vehicle electrification, energy systems, and the production of materials and chemicals. The electricity generation technologies and associated emission factors in the Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Technologies (GREET) model need to be updated to reflect recent developments in the electricity generation sector. The most recent update of the electricity generation emission factors in GREET adopted a mixed method. The emission factors of CH 4 , N 2 O, NO x , and SOx were estimated using a “topdown” approach by dividing the total emissions by the total net electricity generation, because emission data of these pollutants are readily available in the Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). For other CAPs such as CO, VOC, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 , emission data were not reported in eGRID. A “bottom-up” method was used to estimate the emission factors for these pollutants by considering generic uncontrolled emission factors and the pollutant removal efficiencies of emission control technologies adopted in the electricity generation sector. However, the uncontrolled emission factors and the emission removal efficiencies of various emission control technologies considered in the 2012 study came from the legacy AP-42 emission factors, and may not reflect the actual emission performances of the electricity generation sector of today. To leverage new data that recently became available, especially emission data measured from continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS), we developed a new “top-down” approach to estimate efficiencies and GHG and CAP emission factors for electricity generation from combustion of individual fuel types by individual combustion technologies on the basis of power-generation data from U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) form EIA-923, and plant emission data from Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) dataset and National Emissions Inventory (NEI) dataset. Detailed discussion of the method and data used in this study can be found in Section 2.1. With this topdown approach, we aim to improve the estimates of energy efficiencies and emission factors for power plants using a more consistent methodology, and to update the emission factors, generation efficiencies, and generation technologies mixes in GREET to reflect recent technology advancements in the electricity generation sector.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Using the CAP88 Plume Model & Dose Assessment Code for the FTWC Project

The Environmental Protection & Compliance Division (EPC) uses the Clean Air Act Assessment Package – 1988 (CAP88) plume model and dose assessment code to evaluate measured emissions or projected emissions of airborne radionuclides from Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) facilities. This software package will use facility data (e.g., stack height and exit velocity), emissions parameters (chemical form and quantity), and environmental data (wind speed and direction) to predict downwind concentrations of radioactive material and subsequent dose to a member of the public at that location. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved CAP88 for use in demonstrating compliance with the Radionuclide NESHAP2, that portion of the Clean Air Act addressing emissions of airborne radioactive material from Department of Energy facilities. EPC Division has two procedures which discuss the use of CAP88.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Argonne National Laboratory Site Environmental Report (CY2019)

This report discusses the status and the accomplishments of the environmental protection program at Argonne National Laboratory for calendar year 2019. The status of Argonne environmental protection activities with respect to compliance with the various laws and regulations is discussed, along with environmental management, sustainability efforts, environmental corrective actions, and habitat restoration. To evaluate the effects of Argonne operations on the environment, samples of environmental media collected on the site, at the site boundary, and off the Argonne site were analyzed and compared with applicable guidelines and standards. A variety of radionuclides were measured in air, surface water, groundwater, and bottom sediment samples. In addition, chemical constituents in surface water, groundwater, and wastewater were analyzed. External penetrating radiation doses were measured, and the potential for radiation exposure to off-site population groups was estimated. Results are interpreted with respect to the origin of the radioactive and chemical substances (i.e., natural, Argonne, and other) and are compared with applicable standards intended to protect human health and the environment. A U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) dose calculation methodology, based on International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommendations and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CAP-88 Version 4 computer code, was used in preparing this report.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Applicability of Public Dose Limits to Individuals on the Nevada National Security Site

Historically all persons working on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) were considered subject to worker dose limits when calculations of potential dose from the air pathway were conducted to demonstrate compliance with Title 42 United States Code (USC) Chapter 85, “The Clean Air Act,” and Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).” Calculations were also conducted for the all-pathways potential dose to demonstrate compliance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order DOE O 458.1 Chg. 3, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment.” The need to evaluate environmental air sampling locations and past regulator questions about the existence of persons potentially subject to public dose limits being on the NNSS drove this assessment (letter from EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] Region 9 to DOE/Nevada Operations Office, dated September 3, 1999). This assessment also supports determining those persons subject to public dose limits from the all pathways perspective. A person that is a member of the public is subject to public dose limits.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Biological Treatment of Flue Gas Desulfurization Wastewater

In order to limit and mitigate the environmental impacts associated with coal combustion, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems have been put into place to reduce the release of contaminates. The main constituent targeted by FGD systems is sulfur oxide gasses (SOx). While FGD systems have been able to achieve high removal rates of SOx gasses, the wastewater effluent requires treatment before release back into the environment. The release of wastewater is heavily regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their effluent guideline limitations rule (ELG). The ELG rule set new limits on discharges containing constituents such as selenium, nitrogenous species, mercury, and arsenic in the effluent. This report seeks to give background on abiotic removal methods as well as highlight the most important issues when utilizing biological treatment to treat the FGD wastewater for the constituents of interest mentioned. This report also seeks to discuss the issues of foaming which can occur during biological treatment.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2021

Processing Meteorological Data for the CAP-88 PC Model at Los Alamos National Laboratory

The Environmental Protection and Compliance-Compliance Programs (EPC-CP) group at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) uses the Clean Air Act Assessment Package 1988 (CAP-88, Littleton 2020) PC model (Version 4.1) to estimate radiological doses for a set of areal sectors surrounding a release location, in order to satisfy the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) dose calculation requirement in 40 CFR 61 Subpart H. Among several types of data that must be prepared for CAP-88 input is a text file of meteorological data (“WIND” file), consisting of the joint frequency of wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric stability categories. EPC-CP produces customized WIND files by running a CAP-88 utility program on a user generated text file of wind data in a different format, known as a STability ARray (STAR) file (Turner, 1964). At LANL, EPC-CP meteorologists prepare customized STAR files with data over desired time periods at selected meteorological towers. A custom program written in Precision Visuals -Workstation Analysis and Visualization Environment (PV-WAVE), a commercial Fortran-like language, is used to read LANL meteorological data and write a STAR file; the executable filename is “Star.out”. However, the outdated PV-WAVE utility program is being phased out by EPC-CP, due to the inefficient process to run it and an inability to modify the code. To preserve the ability to create customized meteorological data for CAP-88 in a way that will be easy to use and maintain, a new replacement utility program, written in the Python programming language, has been developed. The new, improved program reads a data file from any LANL meteorological tower, and at each desired observation time, determines the wind direction, wind speed, and stability categories defined in the CAP-88 documentation. The frequencies of all combinations of the three sets of categories are calculated and written to a file in the STAR format, which can later be converted to a WIND file for input into CAP-88.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Uranium Immobility in Tims Branch Wetland

The objective of this study was to address an item identified by the Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group (LFRG) panel during their review of the Savannah River Site’s Composite Analysis. Their concern was that the Tims Branch wetland, which has elevated levels of uranium (U) originating from site operations between 1952 to 1985, may be a secondary source term, posing a human health risk. This report briefly describes three studies dealing with: 1) quantifying the mass of U remaining in the wetland, 2) quantifying the tendency of U to release from Tims Branch sediment, and 3) describing the distribution of U in aqueous and suspended solids in Tims Branch water during episodic storm events. The Tims Branch wetland has been extremely effective for the last 50 years at immobilizing U released to the system. A detailed map including 270,000 gamma spectra of the U distribution in the wetland indicated that 84% of the initial 43,500 kg U introduced in the system remain there after 50 years (Kaplan et al., 2020). The effectiveness of immobilizing U is supported by stream water measurements collected over the last several decades indicating that U concentrations have been consistently below drinking water regulatory limits (i.e., the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level, 30 pg/L (SRNS, 2019)). Furthermore, using contaminated Tims Branch sediments, in situ desorption Kd values (ratio of U sediment/U Water) were extremely high, ranging from 104to 106 L/kg, suggesting the U is strongly bound to these wetland sediments. Finally, a detailed study of Tims Branch stream water properties during episodic rain events indicated that essentially all the U transported in this stream was associated with suspended solids (Batson et al., 1996). Together these findings indicate that the Tims Branch wetland is extremely effective in its present state at immobilizing U and that the small masses of U released downstream will be predominantly in association with suspended solids.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Closeout of Department of Energy Grant – DE-FG02-91CH10493

A Federal Facility Interagency Agreement (lAG), dated February 28,1992, was executed by the State of New York, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to address contamination of operations at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) National Priorities List (NPL) site (site). Section XXXII of the IAG permits New York State to recover expenses for providing administrative and technical services pertaining to the site. The initial mechanism for recovery of State expenses was a DOE grant, identified as DE-FG02-91CH10493, which was established on September 30, 1991. Due to administrative requirements at DOE, the grant was no longer extended and was terminated on May 31, 2020. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was executed on June 1, 2020, to facilitate reimbursement of State expenses moving forward. The grant contained closeout requirements, which included the submission of a report summarizing activities performed by the State of New York. The following sections present the site history and activities performed by New York State as well as the findings and conclusions.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Integrated Monitoring Volume: A Summary of Monitoring Studies Conducted in Niagaran Carbonate Pinnacle Reefs During Enhanced Oil Recovery with CO 2

The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) was founded in 2003 as part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership initiative. Since its founding, MRCSP has made significant strides toward making CCUS a viable option for states in the region. The public/private consortium, funded through the DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Initiative, brings together nearly 40 industry partners and 10 states. Battelle, as the project lead, oversees research, development and operations and coordinates activities among the partners. The incremental, phased approach has built a valuable knowledge base for the industry and paved the way for commercial-scale adoption of CCUS technologies. From 2008 to 2020, MRCSP Phase III focused on the development of large-scale injection projects. This report is part of a series of reports prepared under the Midwestern Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) Phase III (Development Phase). These reports summarize and detail the findings of the work conducted under the Phase III project. During the MRCSP Phase III monitoring period, over 1 million metric tons of CO 2 was injected into ten Silurian-age (Niagaran) pinnacle reef reservoirs in Otsego County, Michigan that are operated by Core Energy, LLC. There are over 800 pinnacle reefs in northern Michigan, and collectively, these geologic features have sufficient capacity to store several hundred million metric tons of CO 2 . Moreover, most of the reefs are oil-bearing and went through primary production in the 1970s and 1980s; therefore, by injecting CO 2 into the reefs, there is a real opportunity to realize additional (enhanced) oil recovery (EOR) and to permanently store CO 2 after EOR. A key objective of the MRCSP Phase III project is to evaluate the effectiveness of various technologies for monitoring CO 2 that has been injected into deep geologic formations. Monitoring may be required at CO 2 storage sites for a variety of reasons, including to meet UIC Class II (EOR sites) or Class VI (storage only sites) permit requirements or EPA greenhouse gas reporting rule requirements or to qualify for tax credits under the 45Q tax credit rule. The results of this monitoring study should prove useful to operators considering using carbonate pinnacle reefs of Northern Michigan for CO 2 storage.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2020

State Charlton & MRCSP 1 Characterization Well Report

The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) was founded in 2003 as part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership initiative. Since its founding, MRCSP has made significant strides toward making CCUS a viable option for states in the region. The public/private consortium, funded through the DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Initiative, brings together nearly 40 industry partners and 10 states. Battelle, as the project lead, oversees research, development and operations and coordinates activities among the partners. The incremental, phased approach has built a valuable knowledge base for the industry and paved the way for commercial-scale adoption of CCUS technologies. From 2008 to 2020, MRCSP Phase III focused on the development of large-scale injection projects. This report is part of a series of reports prepared under the Midwestern Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) Phase III (Development Phase). These reports summarize and detail the findings of the work conducted under the Phase III project. This report describes the efforts to drill and complete a well in the St. Peter sandstone for characterization and evaluation of storage potential in norther Michigan. However, as presented in this report, the well was not drilled and completed up to the intended target intervals due to drilling related difficulties. While the drilling issues were being resolved, the new Class VI injection well regulations were finalized by the US EPA. MRCSP efforts focused on evaluating CO 2 storage and containment using site characterization, modeling, and monitoring in conjunction with the ongoing CO 2 -EOR operations in the same area. This report describes work associated with the initial test well, the State Chester and MRCSP Well No. 1, drilled to a depth of about 7,968 feet TVD, and subsequently plugged and designated as temporarily abandoned. A high-level overview of data collected and analyzed is provided for shallower units.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2021

A Circular Economy for Solar Photovoltaic System Materials: Drivers, Barriers, Enablers, and U.S. Policy Considerations

As PV capacity increases, owners are also decommissioning older system assets. Estimates based on a 30-year lifetime assumption found that cumulative U.S. end-of-life (EoL) PV modules could total one million metric tons (Mt) by 2030 and up to 10 million Mt by 2050 (Weckend, Wade, and Heath 2016). Beyond maintenance replacements, early retirements that are due to efficiency upgrades and extreme weather, as well as PV deployment beyond earlier expectations, would increase these projections. PV system owners must evaluate equipment management options for used modules and system components retired during maintenance activities, refurbishment, repowering and system decommissioning. PV manufacturers must also evaluate material management options from customer returns, defects, and scrap. Management options for early retired and EoL PV system material include reuse, repair for reuse, recycling-based resource recovery, storage, and disposal. Disposal of PV system material increases the burden on landfill capacity, while reuse, repair for reuse, and recycling-based resource recovery (reuse/repair/recovery) options salvage valuable materials and provide secondary market opportunities and ancillary benefits (Weckend, Wade, and Heath 2016; EPA 2019c; SWEEP 2019). PV system owners may also decide store used modules and components as spares, or in the interim before a reuse or EoL management decision is made. Despite potential secondary market opportunities and the potential benefits associated with the repair/reuse/recovery of PV system material, anecdotal evidence suggests that in the United States decommissioned PV modules are stored, landfilled or otherwise disposed of (Salim et al. 2019; CPUC 2019b; DTSC 2019b; NREL 2019a). Some modules are being disposed of in municipal nonhazardous landfills and federally regulated hazardous treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, and others are being stored in warehouses until economically viable repair/reuse/recycling becomes available (CPUC 2019b; DTSC 2019b; NREL 2019a; Libby and Shaw 2018). As awareness of current practices grows, and the demand for critical PV module material increases, U.S. industry stakeholders, regulators, and policymakers are starting to (1) consider solutions to drive and enable environmentally sustainable materials management decisions and behaviors and (2) identify barriers to a circular economy for PV system materials. Circular economy principles attempt to transition from a "take-make-consume-dispose" linear economic system to a circular system that allows for the long life, and the reuse/repair/recovery of products and materials (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2020). We begin this report by summarizing the drivers, barriers, and enablers to a circular economy for PV system materials in the United States. We then report on our analysis of federal and state regulatory considerations that may impact the repair/reuse/recovery of PV materials, and potential civil and criminal liabilities associated with noncompliance. We then discuss state policies and initiatives in the United States that expressly address PV system decommissioning and repair/reuse/recovery of PV materials. We conclude by providing case studies of U.S. business models for the repair/reuse/recovery of PV system materials. Our results are based on legal and literature-based research and interviews with solar industry stakeholders, regulators, and policymakers.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Analytical Action Level Calculator in Turbo FRMAC (FY2020 Close-Out) [Slides]

Objectives: Automate the labor-intensive process of generating Analytical Action Levels (AALs) in Turbo FRMAC to shorten the timeline for planning sampling campaigns and sample analysis during a response. Make the tool output results in a format that is easily imported to RadResponder as a Mixture for use in Analysis Request Forms. Deliver training to EPA on using this new tool in Turbo FRMAC (Delayed due to COVID.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Air Pathway Dose Modeling for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 performance assessment (PA) process (USDOE 1999) prescribes a performance objective (10 mrem y -1 ) for evaluating atmospheric releases of radionuclides from DOE low-level waste (LLW) disposal facilities. The potential dose to an individual from exposure to radionuclides released into the atmosphere from LLW disposals can be estimated by application of radionuclide -specific dose-release factors (DRFs) (mrem Ci -1 ) to estimated flux rates (Ci y -1 ) at a particular time and location. In Revision 0 of this report, Lee (2006) calculated DRFs for potential atmospheric releases of 15 volatile radionuclides from seven ELLWF disposal units in support of the 2008 ELLWF PA (WSRC 2008). The mainframe version of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) dose model CAP88 was used in the Revision 0 assessment. In Revision 1 of this report (Dixon and Minter 2017), the site-specific Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) atmospheric dose models MAXDOSE-SR version 2013 (Stone and Jannik 2013a) and MAXINE version 2017 (Bell 2017) were used to calculate DRFs for ten radionuclides. This work (Revision 2) supersedes Revision 0 (Lee 2006) and Revision 1 (Dixon and Minter 2017) of this report. The Revision 2 method for estimating new DRFs for the ELLWF disposal units is described in this report.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Soil Sample Workplan in Support of the Site 300 Explosives Waste Treatment Facility Ecological Risk Assessment Pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (Part V, Special Condition #14 a-f)

The Department of Toxic Substances Control issued the Final Hazardous Waste Facility Permit to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Site 300 in 2017. As part of the continual process to ensure waste treatment emissions are not impacting ecological receptors, LLNL analyzed soil samples in the vicinity of the Explosive Waste Treatment Facility (EWTF) Burn Units (i.e., Burn Cage and Burn Pan) and the Detonation Pad. Soil samples were analyzed by EPA Solid Waste 846 Methods for furans, explosives, metals, and semi-volatile compounds. In all samples, furans, explosives, and semi-volatile organic compounds were not detected. Metals were detected at concentrations below background levels. This soil sample plan will sample the same four downwind areas of the Burn Units and the same downwind areas of the Detonation, as well as including four new sample locations. The four new locations will be located to the northeast and southwest of the Burn Units and Detonation (as shown in Figure 3). The constituents to be analyzed are in Tables 7 and 8. Perchlorate was not identified as a constituent of concern in the 2007 Soil Sampling Plan. However, for this plan, all soil samples will be analyzed for perchlorate. Nitrate and all CAM17 metals have been added to the sampling plan to comply with DTSC comments received in correspondence dated June 4, 2021. After completion of the sampling event, a soil sample report will be submitted to DTSC in accordance with requirements specified in the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Conditions 16 a-f. This proposed soil sampling plan will be fully implemented no later than one year after receiving DTSC approval, in accordance with the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Part V, Special Condition 15.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗