Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Environmental cleanup”

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 37 records · Page 2

FY23 Laboratory Directed Research & Development Annual Report

At Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL), we put science to work to protect the environment and address nuclear security challenges. Through our transformative science and technology efforts, SRNL provides solutions to the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) for the safe cleanup of environmental legacy resulting from nuclear weapons development and government-sponsored nuclear energy research. SRNL also supports DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as it maintains the nation’s nuclear stockpile and reduces the threat of nuclear proliferation around the world. Investments through SRNL’s Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program drive exploratory research foundational to advancements in mission critical technologies for EM, NNSA and other offices of DOE. Our LDRD program also provides meaningful development opportunities for the people central to innovation. Seven Laboratory Director’s Postdoctoral Research Fellows were supported by LDRD during fiscal year 2023. These named postdoctoral fellows are driving SRNL’s scientific and technical core competencies forward through their dedication to research and advancement of technologies. The LDRD program supports established researchers to explore new concepts, while fueling opportunities for the next generation of scientists to join the SRNL workforce, contributing to the global scientific community through scientific publications. Enjoy reading this Annual Report which summarizes the innovative science and engineering contributions of SRNL staff supported by the LDRD Program. Dr. Vahid Majid

Majidi, Vahid↗

Ecological connectivity and in-kind mitigation in a regulatory decision framework: A case study with an amphibian habitat specialist

Ecological connectivity is critical to the survival and long-term viability of populations but is often overlooked in regulatory frameworks. We integrated landscape-level processes into a mitigation strategy for impacts to aquatic resources on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) in eastern Tennessee. Wetlands on the ORR, which contain significant breeding populations of the imperiled four-toed salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) and tubercled rein orchid (Platanthera flava var. herbiola), will be impacted by construction of an environmental waste disposal facility under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Here, we used a modified Kepner-Tregoe decision analysis to select general mitigation options that balanced regulatory requirements and interest group perspectives. We emphasized habitat connectivity through models that prioritized an area's importance to natural area connectivity (centrality) and maintenance of population structure for an affected habitat specialist (four-toed salamanders). We also emphasized in-kind mitigation through the preservation and enhancement of ecologically similar resources and the translocation and establishment of a new subpopulation of four-toed salamanders elsewhere on the ORR. We ultimately released over 500 juvenile salamanders that originated from the impacted site into the chosen mitigation wetlands. By doing so under the constraints of a time-sensitive CERCLA remediation effort and exceeding its substantive requirements, this work underscores feasibility. Ecological connectivity and the conservation of species that are not afforded explicit regulatory processes can be effectively and efficiently integrated into environmental decision-making and land use planning.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

2021 Idaho National Laboratory Site Environmental Report

The INL Site’s operations, as well as the ongoing cleanup, necessarily involve a commitment to environmental stewardship and full compliance with environmental protection laws. As part of this commitment, the INL Site Environmental Report is prepared annually to inform the public, regulators, stakeholders, and other interested parties of the INL Site’s environmental performance during the year. This report is published for the DOE-ID in compliance with DOE O 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.” Its purpose is to: • Present the INL Site, mission, and programs • Report compliance status with applicable federal, state, and local regulations • Describe the INL Site environmental programs and activities • Summarize results of environmental monitoring • Discuss potential radiation doses to the public residing in the vicinity of the INL Site • Report on ecological monitoring and research conducted by contractors and affiliated agencies and by independent researchers through the Idaho National Environmental Research Park • Describe quality assurance methods used to ensure confidence in monitoring data • Provide supplemental technical data and reports that support the INL Site Environmental Report (https://idahoeser.inl.gov/publications.html).

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

Removing the Cloak of Secrecy from Legacy Cleanup at Los Alamos national Laboratory - 20395

With the establishment in 2018 of the Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Contract, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Environmental Management Los Alamos Field Office (EM-LA) and its contractor Newport News Nuclear BWXT Los Alamos (N3B) embarked on an expansive program to engage a broad range of local and regional stakeholders in the decision-making process for cleanup of legacy wastes (pre-1999) at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). From the inception of LANL during the Manhattan Project until the issuance of the new cleanup contract, the site was managed by a single management and operations (M and O) contactor whose main focus was national security. Segmenting from laboratory operations a separate cleanup contract managed by DoE's Office of Environmental Management (EM) brought new opportunities for the cleanup of legacy waste. That change likewise has opened new opportunities for engaging the community on legacy cleanup decisions. The new legacy cleanup contract - an unclassified contract - emphasizes public outreach, marking a cultural shift in how stakeholders in Los Alamos and throughout northern New Mexico are engaged. Without the constraints of classified work, EM-LA and N3B have increased the level of transparency with the public regarding cleanup activities. EM-LA and N3B have crafted an approach that best meets the values, priorities and needs of the neighboring communities by adapting the model successfully employed at Rocky Flats. Through enhanced stakeholder involvement, EM-LA will implement decisions that have considered broad input and deliver a safe and efficient cleanup of the site. EM-LA and N3B began the expanded stakeholder outreach program in January 2019, leading up to four Environmental Management Cleanup Forums held in the summer of 2019. EM-LA and N3B are now in the process of initiating a series of meetings with various stakeholder groups to determine their 'values' as they relate to cleanup using a novel approach that elicits and records values. The entire process is documented, ensuring that should questions arise about how, when and why decisions were made, they can be easily addressed. In addition to other public meetings to present cleanup scenarios and solicit active public involvement in cleanup decisions, the EM-LA and N3B approach involves discussions with stakeholders who want to explore specific technical issues and cleanup discussions in depth. EM-LA and N3B are also evaluating and implementing a variety of communications tools to help ensure the engagement plan sets the gold standard for transparency in legacy cleanup and stakeholder involvement. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Comparison of RESRAD-ONSITE and PRG/DCC Calculators and Application to Navy Environmental Media

The purpose of this project is to develop an improved Navy-wide approach for estimating risk and calculating cleanup goals for radiologically impacted environmental media (e.g., soils). This comparative analysis focused on the new features added (or improved) to the PRG/DCC Calculators since the 2015 comparison study (Yu et al. 2015a). RESRAD-ONSITE code Version 7.2 and the PRG/DCC Calculators available on the USEPA website between January and June of 2024 were used.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

2018 Annual Site Environmental Report Summary

We are committed to act as stewards of our environment to achieve our mission in accordance with all applicable environmental requirements. We set continual improvement objectives and targets, measure and document our progress, and share our results with our workforce, sponsors, and public. We reduce our environmental risk through legacy cleanup, pollution prevention, and long-term sustainability programs.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

ASER Annual Site Environmental Report 2020 Summary

We are committed to act as stewards of our environment to achieve our mission in accordance with all applicable environmental requirements. We set continual improvement objectives and targets, measure and document our progress, and share ourresults with our workforce, sponsors, and public. We reduce our environmental risk through legacy cleanup, pollution prevention, and long-term sustainability programs.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

2022 Site Environmental Report: Idaho National Laboratory

The INL Site’s operations, as well as the ongoing cleanup mission involve a commitment to environmental stewardship and full compliance with environmental protection laws. As part of this commitment, the INL Site Environmental Report is prepared annually to inform the public, regulators, stakeholders, and other interested parties of the INL Site’s environmental performance during the year. This report is published for U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) in compliance with DOE O 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.” The purpose of the report is to provide the following: (1) Present the INL Site, mission, and programs, (2) Report compliance status with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, (3) Describe the INL Site environmental programs and activities, (4) Summarize results of environmental monitoring, (5) Discuss potential radiation doses to the public residing in the vicinity of the INL Site, (6) Report on ecological monitoring and research conducted by contractors and affiliated agencies and by independent researchers through the Idaho National Environmental Research Park, (7) Describe quality assurance methods used to ensure confidence in monitoring data, and (8) Provide supplemental technical data and reports that support the INL Site Environmental Report (https://idahoeser.inl.gov/publications.html).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

2024 ASER Summary: Annual Site Environmental Report Summary (Rev. 2)

The Laboratory’s Governing Policy for the Environment: (1) We are committed to act as stewards of our environment to achieve our mission in accordance with all applicable environmental requirements. (2) We set continual improvement objectives and targets, measure and document our progress, and share our results with our workforce, sponsors, and the public. (3) We reduce our environmental risk through legacy cleanup, pollution prevention, and long-term management programs.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NDA Systems Deployed at the Savannah River Site

SRNL’s Nuclear Measurements group develops and implements equipment, methods, and techniques to rapidly provide answers to challenging measurement questions in the areas of: • Environmental Monitoring • Legacy Waste Cleanup • Defense Material •Surplus Defense Material • Customers want: • Good, Fast, Cheap –pick three • Simple

Whiteside, Tad↗

Subsurface Biogeochemical Research: Watershed System Science for Energy

The Subsurface Biogeochemical Research (SBR) program within the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Biological and Environmental Research is strategically aligned with DOE’s mission to ensure U.S. security and prosperity through watershed system science. Water resources critical for energy production are under pressure from growing water demand, contamination, drought, flooding, and saltwater intrusion. Sustainable management of watershed systems and their coupling with the built environment rely on understanding the hydrological and biogeochemical processes that control watershed system dynamics and water availability and quality. Next-generation science-based models of watershed systems are needed to address many U.S. energy and environmental challenges, including contaminant cleanup, clean water availability, safe storage of energy and nuclear byproducts in the subsurface, nutrient availability for sustainable biofuel crops, and recovery of subsurface energy resources.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

Investigation of Non-Nuclear Plowshare and Vela Uniform Sites - 20447

The Plowshare Program was initiated by the Atomic Energy Commission, a predecessor agency to the US Department of Energy (DOE), to investigate peaceful uses of nuclear devices. 'Vela Uniform,' part of the broader Project Vela, was designed to use nuclear and other explosions to increase the capability of the United States to detect nuclear tests through seismicity. There were underground nuclear tests conducted off the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) as part of the Plowshare Program (e.g., the Gnome-Coach, New Mexico, Site) and the Vela Uniform Program (e.g., Project Shoal, Nevada, Site) at which the DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM) has been conducting long-term surveillance and maintenance since fiscal year (FY) 2006. There are many additional locations, particularly for the Plowshare Program, that were considered for nuclear tests or used for non-nuclear tests off the NNSS. Some were only named on paper, but at 30 sites, field work such as drilling test wells and conducting tests using conventional explosives was done. A Plowshare nuclear explosion had been proposed at Project Chariot but was canceled in 1962. In 1992, the discovery of soils contaminated with radionuclides from tracer experiments led to a cleanup by the DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM) of the Project Chariot, Alaska, Site, which was completed in 1994. Following the cleanup of the Project Chariot site, EM was concerned that there might be environmental liabilities at other Plowshare or Vela Uniform sites where field investigations were done, even if the nuclear test was never conducted. The EM Program at the Nevada Site Office began examining records and visiting selected locations that were evaluated for Plowshare and Vela Uniform non-nuclear tests. In total, 161 Plowshare and 14 Vela Uniform sites or proposed projects were identified. The Desert Research Institute (DRI) created summaries of the work carried out at these sites and developed a collection of unclassified documents for them. Preliminary investigations had been conducted at these sites by both LM and EM since the early 2000's. In 2016, in preparation for accepting responsibility for the sites, LM started a program to determine if there were any environmental or safety liabilities associated with them. In 2019, LM formally accepted responsibility for these sites off the NNSS where non-nuclear explosive tests were conducted or where underground nuclear tests were proposed as part of the Plowshare and Vela Uniform programs but were never conducted. LM responsibilities will include maintaining institutional knowledge of the sites, responding to public inquiries, and addressing any concerns at each site. To minimize risk associated with site management, LM has archived all historical records compiled by DRI and has performed limited investigations at sites identified by the prior studies as having a higher potential liability. Preserving records related to site operations reduces the risk of doing unnecessary site investigations in the future caused by the loss of institutional knowledge. During the investigations, some maintenance needs were identified and will be addressed by the end of FY 2021. At the end of FY 2021, investigations, maintenance, and archiving activities will be complete. Remnants of test activities found at sites include craters, mud pits, debris, and open boreholes. Open boreholes are being plugged and abandoned in accordance with state regulatory standards. Other issues are being addressed in accordance with land owner requests and preferences as well as state regulations. Archiving activities include the development of project summaries identifying key operational details and current condition to allow site managers to be easily briefed. The LM experience at non-nuclear Plowshare and Vela Uniform sites applies to other programs where there is the potential for liability associated with the non-nuclear aspects of nuclear programs. This may include support activities or early phases of planned nuclear projects. Preserving institutional knowledge enables land managers to adequately address any concerns associated with operations and lowers risk. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Use of Historical EM Practices and Policies for Management of Cleanup Program and Address GAO Concerns - 20222

As Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) program policies and management practices are revised over time, it might be useful to periodically reflect on the DOE EM program's past to identify practices that have worked and those that might be appropriate for possible reuse in the future. An added impetus to examine alternative approaches is the recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled 'Nuclear Waste Cleanup - DOE Could Improve Program and Project Management by Better Classifying Work and Following Leading Practices.' The February 2019 GAO report states that EM categorizes most of its work in a way that does not adequately involve independent experts and DOE senior leadership. It also noted that EM has not followed leading practices for program and project management that could help keep the cleanup efforts on schedule and control costs. The GAO report recommended that EM, working with DOE Office of Project Management (PM): - Establish requirements and then assess EM's ongoing operations activities to determine if some activities should be reclassified as capital asset projects based on these newly established requirements. - Review and revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to include program management leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews. - Update the cleanup policy to require that earned value management (EVM) systems be maintained and used in a way that follows EVM best practices. - Develop a policy to ensure that work is categorized as level of effort (LOE) only in appropriate, specified circumstances, such as when work is not measurable or when measurement is impractical. - Integrate EVM data into EM's performance metrics for operations activities. To assist with improving program performance and implementing audit recommendations, this paper reviewed past successful cleanups such as Weldon Springs, Rocky Flats, Fernald, Ashtabula, Battelle Columbus (abs, and other historical resources and people with experience during the early years of EM program. As such, there are several past practices which may well be suited for reuse today. Some of these practices include: - In 1990's, as the DOE EM cleanup program, known as Environmental Restoration came into effect, the known cleanup scope at each geographic location or site was organized into four levels ranging from overall site-wide cleanup effort to the individual 'release sites', providing high granularity to the program. - The cleanup program was organized by geography (Northwest, Southwest, Eastern Area Programs, etc.). These 'sub-program' managers provided a degree of Headquarters oversight and management allowing upper management (EM-1, 2, and 3) to focus on major decisions and issues. - Budget levels at selected cleanup sites were funded above 'minimum-safety' levels to accelerate actual cleanup work. - Past practice utilized EVM techniques and uniform EM oversight over all discrete project-like activities, providing for a coordinated cleanup effort. - EM managed LOE activities using benchmarking and best in class management practice techniques to help manage costs. - EM managed and reviewed entire site cleanup baselines, not only individual projects, focusing on a successful overall outcome. - Sites had a 'Road map' or 'Management Action Plan' that provided the overall strategy or plan for that site's cleanup - this helped with understanding and coordination of efforts. - EM had a robust lessons-learned program and database to capture and transmit worthy ideas. - EM had well-structured cleanup baseline change control policies to control cost and schedule changes, at the contractor and higher Headquarters levels. Finally, some of the GAO observations may be valid, however it is not clear as to their extent. For example, for some operation types of work, the use of the Level of Effort (LOE) earned value method to track progress may be appropriate. Also, to ensure independence of thought, and to obtain useful insight on past practices, it may be suitable to have former EM employees to assist with understanding past practices or to verify that activities have been properly identified. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Photon detector response function methodology using MCNP and shift hybrid radiation transport code for wide-area contamination assay applications

Here, radiation transport modeling using the Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) radiation transport code and Monte Carlo code, Shift, were employed to model detector responses for a variety of wide-area photon contamination scenarios. In this study, 2" × 2" and 3" × 3" cylindrical NaI(Tl) scintillation detector configurations at source detector-distances of 0.5 cm, 1 cm, 2.54 cm, 10 cm, and 30 cm were modeled. Media of soil, concrete, and steel were evaluated for contamination depths ranging from surface to a depth of an infinite thickness in each medium for photon energies ranging from 20 keV to 3 MeV, which correspond to the energies that current detectors can discern. Monoenergetic photon surface contamination detector responses for each of the media, source–detector distances, and detectors were estimated using MCNP v6.2. Shift was harnessed for improved variance reduction of particle transport in highly attenuating media to obtain average cell fluxes in the two MCNP NaI(Tl) scintillation detector configurations. Average cell flux values in Shift were coupled with detector responses from MCNP to convert average cell flux in a void to energy distribution of pulses in the NaI(Tl) scintillation detector crystal of interest. An optimized detector response function methodology was developed by coupling the MCNP radiation transport method with the Consistent Adjoint Driven Importance Sampling (CADIS) hybrid radiation transport method built into Shift to significantly decrease the runtime of thousands of MCNP pulse height simulations. The methodology may be utilized to quickly and accurately facilitate the assessment of a broad range of wide-area environmental contamination assay and decommissioning cleanup applications.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

A template of information needs for decision-making about delaying remediation on contaminated lands to protect human health

The contamination legacy of industrialization, militarization, and nuclear arms race poses current or future risks to populations and the environment. Responsible parties and regulators make decisions regarding which sites to clean up, how, how much, and when. This study aimed to provide an information needs template to evaluate and reduce risks to human health when considering whether to initiate or delay remediation. This investigation focused on four aspects of timing and prioritization: 1) management, planning and implementation, 2) source terms, pathways, and exposures, 3) risks and receptors, and 4) external drivers. Within each type, issues were identified and described. Management class included personnel, health and safety data, funding, equipment, and structural integrity. Source term included contaminant sources, pathways, initiating events, and barriers to exposure. Risk included types and exposures to workers and general public. External drivers included regulatory framework, stakeholders, Congressional mandates, and economic and social contexts. Risk may increase over time as contamination spreads, enters aquifers, and reaches receptors, and may decline as radionuclides decay, and plumes dissipate. The overall objective was to provide a template of information that is useful to managers and regulators, and might be used by the public to understand the risks and benefits of re-prioritization cleanup.

Environmental Sciences & Ecology↗

Automated Framework for Groundwater Monitoring Using DWT with LSTM and Transformers

Environmental monitoring is critical for safeguarding public health and ecological well-being. Traditional data structuring and workflow monitoring methods consume significant time and effort, hindering timely insights and effective decision-making. Our study addresses this challenge by presenting an AI framework that automates data cleaning, structuring, and modeling processes, specifically targeting applications in groundwater monitoring. By leveraging automation for data processing and model training, our framework establishes a novel and efficient paradigm for environmental monitoring, with its potential application to the vast network of over a hundred Department of Energy Environmental Management (DoE-EM) cleanup sites across the country. It analyzes data streams from a network of groundwater Internet-of-Things (IoT) sensors deployed at the Savannah River Site (SRS) for prediction modeling. This allows human experts to focus on analysis and decision-making, ultimately leading to better environmental outcomes.The framework employs multivariate time-series forecasting methods to study and model the behavior of varying chemical analytes. The continuous learning process is enabled by utilizing deep learning techniques. It allows the framework to become more nuanced in its analysis over time, adapting to the specific characteristics of the environmental site and the evolving nature of contaminant behavior. Deep learning models known for sequence modeling, LSTM, and Transformers are employed for time series forecasting. Data processing and structuring are essential components significantly impacting the final model's performance. This hypothesis was proven by presenting a comparative analysis of model performance with processed and unprocessed data. The feature engineering approach utilized was the Discrete Wavelet Transform, which works well with time series data.

Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT)↗

Automated Data Review of Analytical Laboratory Results at Los Alamos National Laboratory - 20299

Newport News Nuclear BWXT-Los Alamos, LLC (N3B) collects samples in support of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Contract (LLCC). N3B receives and reviews over 1.6 million sample data points annually in support of various ongoing environmental monitoring and remediation projects of the LLCC. N3B must demonstrate and document that reported external analytical laboratory data produced for the LLCC are of sufficient quality to fulfill their intended purpose and to support defensible decision making as described in EPA QA/G4 Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process 1994. In 2018, N3B assumed management of the LLCC along with the Environmental Information Management (EIM) database that contains all historical and current environmental data associated with the LLCC. The entire EIM database is shared between N3B, Triad National Security, LLC (Triad), and New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). These three parties jointly manage the database, its configuration, and changes / updates. All environmental data that are entered into EIM are updated and available, on a daily basis, in the linked public database Intellus New Mexico (Intellus). The quality and defensibility of the environmental data generated from sampling activities is a key component of an effective remediation process. Providing quality data is accomplished through a data assessment process that includes examination, verification, and validation. Examination is the assessment of completeness of the deliverables, identification of any reporting errors, and determining the usability of the data based on the laboratory's evaluation of its data as described in the case narrative received with the data. Verification consists of an evaluation of the Electronic Data Deliverables (EDD) data report to determine the extent to which the external analytical laboratories met method and contract-specific quality control and reporting requirements. Validation consists of determining the data quality and the extent to which the external analytical laboratories accurately and completely reported all sample and quality control results and satisfied all contract requirements. EIM contains an automatic Data Validation Module which performs automated data review (DVM ADR). DVM ADR is a tool to assist in the validation process. When DVM ADR is used in conjunction with manual examination of sample data packages, the combination of the two will meet and exceed the requirements of verification. N3B recognized an opportunity for process improvement, focusing on DVM ADR configuration and enhancements in EIM. Testing EIM's configuration provided proof of the DVM ADR's capabilities and flexibility to accurately perform routine data checks based on analytical methods and regulatory requirements. In addition, the DVM ADR module was improved through enhancements for all analytes, particularly upgrades for radiochemistry data. Extensive testing of the DVM ADR module occurred using EDDs from actual laboratory analyses on the EIM testing site. During this process, N3B manipulated EDD information to verify that the actual outcomes matched the expected outcomes. The results of this testing were shared with the database architects, and configuration improvements were identified to address these results. During this process, N3B identified that the radiochemical DVM ADR capabilities were underutilized, and so enhanced the DVM ADR functionality with respect to radioanalytical assessment. N3B environmental data uploads to Intellus on a daily basis from EIM, once the analytical data undergoes examination and verification. As such, it is important to have a high level of confidence in the quality and defensibility of the data. The process of manual examination, along with the DVM ADR, in conjunction with full validation of a percentage the data specified through the Data Quality Objectives greatly increases efficiency of data review and confidence level of the quality of the data, and gives the project managers, governmental offices, and the public expedited access to high-quality data. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Permanent Foam Fixatives for Radioactive Contamination Control: Environmental Chamber Testing

The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) is tasked with closing cleanup sites throughout the DOE-EM complex. A major component of successfully closing the sites is the deactivation and decommissioning (D&D) of radioactively contaminated buildings in nuclear facilities. Deactivation consists of the process of placing a contaminated facility in stable condition in order to minimize any risks that could affect workers, the public, and the environment. Successful deactivation and decommissioning consists of leaving the buildings in an agreed upon end state to provide future protection against hazards. Hazards include radiation but can also include asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, and other environmental and physical hazards.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗