SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
An overview of legal issues as they apply to design, manufacture and use of photovoltaic module/array devices is provided and a methodology is suggested for use of the design stage of these products to minimize or eliminate perceived hazards. Questions are posed to stimulate consideration of this area.
Current research on software reliability does not lend itself to quantitatively assessing the risk posed by a piece of life-critical software. Black-box software reliability models are too general and make too many assumptions to be applied confidently to assessing the risk of life-critical software. We present a model for assessing the risk caused by a piece of software; this model combines software testing results and Hamlet's probable correctness model. We show how this model can assess software risk for those who insure against a loss that can occur if life-critical software fails.
GTI will be discussing our Cool GTL process, a new low cost versatile integrated modular process which can convert CO2, methane, ethane, and biogas, to gasoline jet and diesel with no wax intermediate product. We have tested Cool GTL at small scale and are beginning tests at larger 2 gallon/day scale for biogas conversion ( with DOE funding). Our ultimate goal is to have several commercial deployments of Cool GTL in a variety of applications running in 5 years. Most exciting is the fact that Cool GTL can totally eliminate Global Warming and produce all the worlds transportation fuel by conversion of the excess CO2 currently in the air to liquid transportation fuels, leading to a modern revolution in the way transportation fuels are produced.
Ambitious international greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets demand a rapid transformation to a low-carbon economy. This transformation includes the accelerated adoption of carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS) technology. However, as with any large-scale engineering enterprise, the widespread commercial-scale deployment of geologic carbon storage (GCS) raises important questions about technology and cost-effectiveness, safety, environmental risk, and long-term liability. Effectively assessing and managing risks and liability associated with GCS projects is a key technical need throughout the project life cycle-from site selection and permitting to monitoring design, operational risk management, and post-operational site closure. This presentation highlights recent advancements in tools for quantitative risk assessment, being developed by the National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP). NRAP is a multi-year, multinational laboratory research collaboration sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management. Our focus will be on these tools' applications in addressing critical stakeholder questions related to supporting permitting to ensure secure and environmentally protective storage; designing effective and efficient monitoring plans; evaluating the effectiveness of remedial actions and risk management alternatives; and informing liability assessment and investment decisions. This paper will detail the key functionality of NRAP’s Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM), a computational framework for assessing leakage risk and containment assurance. This model features streamlined workflows for calculating leakage risk profiles, delineating risk-based area of review, and assessing contingency plans and post-injection site care requirements. ORION is an open-source, observation-based ensemble forecasting toolkit to help operators assess the seismic hazard at a carbon storage site. The State of Stress Analysis Tool (SOSAT), designed to assess subsurface stress conditions and evaluate geomechanical risk resulting from CO2 injection in an area of interest will also be presented. We will also introduce a prototype model to evaluate storage project costs and liability associated with risk management. The Technoeconomic and Liability Evaluation for Storage (TALES) model uses results from forecasts of leakage and induced seismicity risk to estimate the lifecycle cost of managing risk. Finally, a preliminary example of how the NRAP Risk-based Adaptive Monitoring Plan (RAMP) tool can be used to design efficient and effective site monitoring plans and estimate the detectability of fluid leakage will be provided. The relevance of these tools for addressing key stakeholder questions amidst uncertainty will be emphasized.
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)
(1) Executive Summary: End of life batteries (EOLBs) present a cost and safety liability for their owners and stakeholders. This is due flammability, energy, and power with EOLBs. Current approaches include cumbersome, expensive packaging, specialized shipping, regulated storage, and they are responsible for over half of the cost of recycling. They all expensively and inadequately address symptoms. OnTo has developed and proven a simple way to resolve the problem systemically, through depowering of lithium-ion batteries (and most any battery other than lead). The low-cost process removes flammability, power, and energy in EOLBs through non-toxic chemical processing. The opportunity for commerce of inert scrap is at least $5 billion greater than the commerce in hazardous scrap, all made possible through OnTo’s technology for efficiency and safety. (2) Depowering Improves Safety and Decreases Cost of Battery Ownership: OnTo’s depowering technology will remove half of the cost of EOLB management and recycling. Without this technology, EOLB recycling will always be a liability. EOLB is hazardous due to inherent flammability of electrolyte and lithium. The shipping and commerce of EOLBs is costly and dangerous all along the chain of custody from owner, dealership/shop, shipper, second-life sorter, (shipper again), and finally to the destination facility recycler. OnTo’s depowering service renders inert most any EOLB packs, modules, and cells. The technology uses a brief, non-toxic treatment applicable to most any chemistry. The industry needs a safe, simple, modular, and inexpensive method to render EOLBs as inert scrap. OnTo’s deactivation system is scalable to the needs of any customer along the EOLB chain of custody. (3) Evidence of Successful Depowering: Untreated batteries will catch fire and explode under abuse conditions such as heat or crush. Slide 2 below shows that untreated batteries will blow-up and expel their internal components with heating, after OnTo’s depowering treatment, the same battery is inert with the same heat treatment (Fig. 7 in the slide). Depowering also removes electrolyte reactivity, eliminating the production of HF and other toxins (Fig 6. in the slide) The depowering process is applicable to large, 26 Ah cells. Fig. 5 in the slide shows the removal of all the electrolyte from whole cells. Removal of flammable material from an EOLB contributes to the inert behavior. OnTo developed this technology through a project supported by the US Department of Energy EERE program, with partners including Seattle King County Metro Transit. While OnTo has generated evidence of successful depowering of batteries, in 2020, a follow-on voucher opportunity for third party analysis of depowered cells and materials was approved through CalTestBed. The expertise of the battery and materials research groups at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory will characterize these depowered cells to provide better understanding of the materials level changes in depowering. (4) Pilot Plant for Depowering EOLBs: Making the spoke work in hub-and-spoke While other companies are marketing the hub-and-spoke approach for recycling EOLBs, they rely on dangerous, expensive shredding methods with flimsy IP protection. OnTo offers the only patented, proven ability to depower EOLBs from most any chemistry – at half of the capital cost required for shredding, while eliminating the liability, danger, and waste streams inherent with shredding. The proposed commercial pilot facility is (5) OnTo Technology LLC Company: OnTo develops advanced battery recycling innovations that produce manufacturing quality electrode materials from recycled batteries. Their patented Cathode-healing™ and Deactivation/Depowering processes improve safety and reduce the cost of recycling. OnTo’s breakthrough technologies produce advanced materials for manufacturing batteries useful in applications from portable power to electric vehicles. Contact: Steve Sloop OnTo Technology LLC, 63221 Service Road, STE F, Bend, OR 97703, ssloop@onto-technology.com , 541-389-7897
Methods developed in planning and executing system safety engineering programs for Lockheed satellite integration contracts are presented. These procedures establish the applicable safety design criteria, document design compliance and assess the residual risks where non-compliant design is proposed, and provide for hazard analysis of system level test, handling and launch preparations. Operations hazard analysis identifies product protection and product liability hazards prior to the preparation of operational procedures and provides safety requirements for inclusion in them. The method developed for documenting all residual hazards for the attention of program management assures an acceptable minimum level of risk prior to program deployment. The results are significant for persons responsible for managing or engineering the deployment and production of complex high cost equipment under current product liability law and cost/time constraints, have a responsibility to minimize the possibility of an accident, and should have documentation to provide a defense in a product liability suit.
One of the responsibilities of the federal government is to estimate sound and defensible life-cycle baseline costs for use in federal budget estimates and to meet federal financial reporting requirements. To accomplish this, the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have partnered together to ensure that the liabilities documented in each Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site's life-cycle baseline are specifically tailored. FUSRAP was created in the mid-1970's to clean up radiological contamination resulting from the early development of nuclear weapons. DOE was responsible for FUSRAP until October 1997, when Congress transferred the administration and execution of FUSRAP site cleanups to USACE. By 1997, DOE had completed the cleanup of 25 of the 46 sites that were active within the program and had begun cleanup at 13 additional sites. USACE was assigned responsibility for the cleanup of the 21 remaining FUSRAP sites, and at 8 additional sites that had since been referred for cleanup. The LM mission for the FUSRAP sites is to perform long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTS and M). Currently, LM provides long-term stewardship for 34 completed FUSRAP sites. Another 20 sites are under active remediation by USACE. Within the last 5 years, USACE has completed the cleanup at five FUSRAP sites and the LTS and M responsibility has been transferred to LM. By 2029, USACE will compete remediation at eight additional sites and LTS and M for those sites will transfer to LM. Because responsibilities for the FUSRAP sites transfer between USACE and LM upon completion of remedial actions, both agencies maintain life-cycle baselines for different stages of the project and both must have a strong understanding of the needs and requirements for each site. This understanding ensures that the life-cycle baselines form a complete and accurate picture of what is required for the site and for the FUSRAP program. LM focuses on several things when customizing the life-cycle baseline estimates for the FUSRAP sites, including (1) Understanding the unique requirements for each site. By reviewing site-specific documents prepared by USACE, such as Feasibility Studies and Records of Decision, and partnering with USACE to gain additional insight about site conditions and requirements for stewardship, as well as potential risks, LM can better develop the life-cycle baselines. (2) Developing site-specific labor breakdowns. This ensures the required labor mix is baselined for specific activities by comparing the labor mix required to perform activities at (a) other LM-managed FUSRAP sites and (b) non-FUSRAP LM sites and (c) by USACE at active FUSRAP sites. (3) Taking a tiered approach to life-cycle baseline planning. Estimates for sites transferring to LM in the near term (5 years) are more definitive than for sites transferring in the out-year period. Remedial actions at the near-term sites are at or near completion, providing LM a strong understanding of the LTS and M requirements and remaining liabilities. This in turn allows for site-specific customization of the baseline. (4) Using a robust risk management approach to ensure that liabilities specific to each site are identified, evaluated by probability and severity, and documented in relation to the impact to cost or schedule. To ensure the most accuracy within all the baselines, the FUSRAP life-cycle baselines are updated as needed to support program, project, and contract management needs. (authors)
Idaho National Lab (INL) is investigating the feasibility of providing High-Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) by recovering Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) from spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and downblending the HEU with natural, low-enriched, or depleted uranium (NU, LEU, or DU). That investigation identified that significant quantities of HALEU could be produced with a Hybrid ZIRCEX process to further advanced reactor research while reducing INL's environmental liability. Many new advanced reactor designs are being developed with improved safety, efficiency, and economics. Most require nuclear fuel with U-235 enrichment between 5% and 20%, which is defined as HALEU. Although technically feasible, there is no current domestic capability to make HALEU in the US. While it is anticipated that industry will provide HALEU through commercial enrichment once advanced reactors mature, until a market is established, an interim source of HALEU is needed to enable research and demonstration. An interim source of HALEU could be provided by recovering the HEU in some DOE-managed SNF and downblending it to between 5% and 20% using the Hybrid ZIRCEX Process. ZIRCEX is a dry head-end process to remove cladding (zirconium or aluminum) from SNF. Drying of the SNF is needed prior to introduction to ZIRCEX. After cladding removal, uranium and fission products in the bed material are oxidized and elutriated. In a Hybrid ZIRCEX process, the HEU process stream is sent to a very compact, modular solvent extraction process for uranium purification. The uranyl nitrate from solvent extraction is denitrated and calcined to produce a HALEU product ready for fuel fabrication. The long-lived fission products from solvent extraction are immobilized in glass using a small in-can melt. By removing the cladding before dissolution, the volume of glass waste is reduced by a factor of up to 300 times (when compared to not removing the cladding from the fuel). Other radioactive wastes from the process could be disposed of as Class A or Class B low-level waste. In addition to producing HALEU for advanced reactors, consumption of SNF would reduce DoE's environmental liability. Incorporating low-enriched spent fuel (versus exclusive use of LEU, DU, or NU) into the downblending scheme could reduce the SNF inventory even further. Several downblending and enrichment scenarios using INL fuels were investigated in this study. The results of this analysis show that the Hybrid ZIRCEX process could make a significant contribution to needed HALEU feedstock and reduce the environmental liability of managing SNF at INL. (authors)
With increasing drug resistance in tuberculosis (TB) patient populations, there is an urgent need for new drugs. Ideally, new agents should work through novel targets so that they are unencumbered by preexisting clinical resistance to current treatments. Benzofuran 1 was identified as a potential lead for TB inhibiting a novel target, the thioesterase domain of Pks13. Although, having promising activity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis, its main liability was inhibition of the hERG cardiac ion channel. This article describes the optimization of the series toward a preclinical candidate. Despite improvements in the hERG liability in vitro, when new compounds were assessed in ex vivo cardiotoxicity models, they still induced cardiac irregularities. Further series development was stopped because of concerns around an insufficient safety window. However, the demonstration of in vivo activity for multiple series members further validates Pks13 as an attractive novel target for antitubercular drugs and supports development of alternative chemotypes.
The 2005 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on CCS raised the profile of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) as an important technology for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CCS is now recognized as a key component of most climate change mitigation scenarios. Since publication of that report the international research, development, and deployment (RD&D) community has advanced key technical aspects, clarified regulatory requirements, explored value chain and infrastructure solutions, and developed incentive paradigms to enable and promote large-scale deployment of CCS. These efforts have included research to better characterize geologic storage resources, to improve injection performance and storage efficiency, to assess and manage subsurface environmental risks, and to advance monitoring technologies to assure system conformance. These efforts have helped to build confidence in the viability of geologic carbon storage (GCS), but stakeholder concerns about long-term risks and liability associated with GCS remain a hurdle to broad acceptance and large-scale deployment of CCS. Since 2010, the U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) – a research collaboration between five contributing national laboratories – has worked to establish and demonstrate methods and tools to quantify and manage the subsurface environmental risks associated with GCS, amidst uncertainty. This work supports the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Carbon Transport and Storage Program’s goal of advancing safe and secure commercial-scale GCS deployment. To address the technical challenge of simulating the physical response of the GCS site to large-scale CO2 injection, NRAP has adopted an approach that relies on coupling computationally efficient reduced-order and/or data-driven proxy models of important system components (i.e., storage reservoir, sealing caprock, leakage pathways, intermediate formations, overlying groundwater aquifers, and the atmosphere) in integrated assessment framework. That integrated model of the physical system is complemented with fit-for purpose functionality to support site characterization and risk-related decisions. The recently released NRAP Phase II toolset includes the Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM) for evaluation of trends in leakage risk and potential impact, tools to support monitoring design optimization (Designs for Risk Evaluation and Management – DREAM v3.0 and Passive Seismic Monitoring Tool - PSMT), and tools for state of stress evaluation (State-of-Stress Analysis Tool - SOSAT) and forecasting induced seismicity risk. The NRAP team has also released a pair of reports describing conceptual workflows to incorporate physics-based, quantitative risk assessment into many of the design, planning, operation, and closure decisions for GCS projects. An online catalogue highlights published studies where these tools and methods are demonstrated. In this presentation, the utility of these products to assess risks and address key stakeholder questions will be highlighted through examples, and related insights about the safety and security of geologic carbon storage in qualified storage sites will be discussed. The prospect of rapid, large-scale deployment of GCS technology to aggressively reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions requires careful consideration of interference between multiple commercial-scale storage projects within a basin. Going forward, NRAP is expanding and adapting site-scale risk quantification tools and methods to enable assessment of risks and inform management decisions for basin-scale deployment. Increasingly, this work will leverage next-generation approaches for surrogate modelling, fast prediction, and advanced visualization enabled by machine learning and artificial intelligence to promote virtual learning, scenario evaluation, and augment risk-based decision making.
The overall objective of this project is to produce a rare earth elements product with greater than 8% rare earth elements from coal-based resources using an economically viable and environmentally benign processing methodology. The objective of the coal processing work will be to acquire appropriate coal feed and produce a viable clean coal product, a concentrated REE feed stream, and a pyrite stream (where available) that can be used to enhance leaching. The objective of the bio-oxidation portion of the project is to utilize bacteria to oxidize sulfide minerals and ferrous ions to ferric ions to accelerate leaching and remove the sulfides to prevent future acid mine drainage and related liabilities. The objective of the solution conditioning work is to remove iron and control leaching solution conditions to facilitate extraction of REEs without significant thorium extraction. The objective of the column leaching work is to engineer/model and simulate heap leaching to demonstrate low-cost extraction of REEs from coal-based resources. The objective of the solvent extraction work is to selectively extract and recover through controlled stripping of REEs that are solubilized through leaching. The objective of the precipitation portion of the project is to recover the REEs from the solvent extraction stripping solutions and dry them to achieve the final product of rare earth elements that is > 8 % REEs. The objective of the technical, economic, and environmental analysis is to determine the overall viability of the processing approach that is demonstrated in this project. This project encompasses a range of technologies that are currently in industrial practice that are applied and engineered to produce rare earth element product from coal feed sources. The potential sources include large coal feed resources in active coal mines in addition to coal waste. This technology involves the utilization of advanced coal processing technology that can be used to deliver clean coal for the market as well as rare-earth-element-bearing non-coal rock that is of the correct size for heap leaching applications in addition to providing concentrated sulfide minerals (for mid to high sulfur coals) for cleaner coal and for enhanced bio-oxidation to accelerate leaching of REEs from the non-coal rock. The removal of the sulfide minerals cleans the coal, accelerates subsequent REEs extraction, and it removes the future potential for most acid-rock drainage. (For low sulfur coals some pyrite may be purchased if needed.) The processing method also utilizes bio-oxidation to enhance ferric ion production to enhance leaching, while also consuming the sulfide mineral and its associated environmental liability. The project includes a technical, economic, and environmental analysis to facilitate an appropriate assessment of commercial viability for this processing technology.
The designing of STS Launch Services Agreements (LSAs) in order to balance the U.S. public policy concerns and the needs of domestic and foreign users is described. The subject matter of an LSA is defined by the customer's needs; when and what will be launched is also stated in the LSA. The technical requirements of the launch are contained in the Payload Integration Plan. The price for launching payloads is determined based on factors such as payload control weight and length. The allocation of risks and liability for damage to person and property involved in STS operations is examined; a cross-policy waiver governs property damage, and third-party liability coverage is required. Consideration is given to the policy governing reflying of a commercial mission in the event of an initial failure and to modified LSAs.
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)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Cabrera Services are conducting a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Pilot Test treatment of a fractured bedrock aquifer at the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) Maywood Superfund Site (FMSS) located in Maywood, New Jersey (NJ), USA. The Maywood Chemical Company Superfund Site in Bergen County, NJ is listed on the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). The National Superfund Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) identification number is NJD980529762. The Maywood Chemical Company Superfund Site (hereafter referred to as the FMSS) consists of 92 designated properties in the communities of Maywood, Lodi and Rochelle Park, NJ. These are collectively known as FMSS 'Vicinity Properties' and include property owned by the federal government (the Maywood Interim Storage Site, or MISS); the Stepan Company (former location of the Maywood Chemical Works, or MCW); 62 residential properties; three properties owned by the state or federal government; four municipal properties; and 21 commercial properties. The Stepan Company property includes contaminated buildings and three remediated U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensed burial pits; the MISS also includes a contaminated building. Contamination on the FMSS is being addressed under three separate actions coordinated by the lead regulator USEPA Region 2. The USACE is addressing thorium (Th) and other wastes at the site defined as 'FUSRAP waste' in the Soils and Buildings and Groundwater Records of Decision (ROD) for the FMSS. Stepan Company is addressing other chemical wastes (non-FUSRAP waste) at the FMSS. The Groundwater ROD [1] was signed into agreement by USACE Division Commander in June 2012 and USEPA Region 2 Administrator in July 2012 and presents the selected remedial actions for Operable Unit (OU) 2 groundwater at the MISS and adjacent properties. The selected remedial action is removal of non-radiologically contaminated soils on the MISS containing arsenic, lithium, and benzene with concentrations above cleanup levels, and monitored natural attenuation (MNA) of arsenic, lithium, and benzene in groundwater. In situ treatment of arsenic in the overburden aquifer using oxidation reduction (redox) alteration will also be performed if needed to meet the groundwater cleanup levels after the source soil is removed. The need for in situ treatment will be determined during the Groundwater ROD review at least three to four years after the contaminated source soil removal is completed. The third action addressing non-FUSRAP chemical wastes will be the responsibility of the Stepan Company as a primary responsible party in this action. (authors)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with its prime contractor, Aptim Federal Services, LLC (APTIM), recycled 5,260 metric tons (11.6 million pounds) of material from Sturgis Barge (Sturgis) during the Decommissioning and Dismantlement of the MH-1A nuclear power reactor. The overall objective of the project was to reduce residual radioactivity associated with MH-1A to levels that permitted release of Sturgis for dismantlement and termination of the Army Reactor Office permit. By effectively applying waste hierarchy's three Rs - reduce, reuse and recycle - the Sturgis project not only minimized the amount of waste that required disposal at landfills, but also reduced the potential for long-term environmental liability emanating from these landfills. The project team completed the physical decommissioning efforts in June 2018 in Galveston, TX. In September 2018, radiological surveys were completed to demonstrate the vessel could be released for shipbreaking. Sturgis was towed from Galveston, TX to Brownsville, TX in late September 2018. Shipbreaking, dismantlement and recycling efforts began in early October 2018 and were completed on 15 March 2019. As part of the decommissioning effort in Galveston, the team shipped 69 shipments (860 metric tons) of low-level radioactive waste and radioactive components to the Waste Control Specialist (WCS) facility in Andrews TX for disposal. Certain radioactive components had to be transferred to the Department of Energy prior to placing the materials into the Federal Waste Facility located within WCS. However, most of the radioactive waste was characterized, profiled, approved and managed under the WCS permitted radioactive waste exemption process authorized and implemented by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Radioactive Materials Division. This allows LLRW and LLMW to be shipped as regulated waste and then upon receipt at WCS through satisfying the relevant waste acceptance criteria the waste is exempted and placed into the WCS RCRA permitted cell. An additional 35 shipments (544 metric ton) of contaminated hazardous waste water were transported to U.S. Ecology in Robstown, TX for treatment/disposal. An additional 36 shipments (500 metric tons) of non-hazardous wastewater was sent to Republic Waste Services' facility in Fresno, TX. The disposal of these materials required close coordination with State of Texas regulators. During decommissioning, the project team recycled approximately 270 metric tons (600,000 pounds) of lead and steel. As part of the dismantlement in Brownsville, TX the team recycled approximately 5,000 metric tons (11 million pounds) of ferrous and non-ferrous material, limiting our disposal requirements to about 180 metric tons (400,000 pounds) of material (<4% from entire shipbreaking activity). Although the primary hazard being mitigated by this project was radiological, recycling was always a priority for the project. The team strived to achieve sustainability goals as we implemented this one of a kind project. Scrap metal recycling has a large positive impact on the environment and can also favorably impact project disposal costs. Steel is among the most recycled material in the world. Nearly 40% of the world's steel production is made from scrap. Recycling steel also requires 75% less energy than producing it from raw materials. By using recycled steel rather than virgin materials, 2.33 kg of carbon emissions are eliminated per kg of steel [1]. The project recycled more than 4,500 metric tons (10 million pounds) of steel, which eliminated about 10,400 metric tons (23 million pounds) of CO{sub 2}. By implementing a recycling initiative for the Sturgis project, the team was able to realize cost avoidance for disposal of scrap, cost savings from the metals recycled, plus the project provided benefits to the environment through our recycling efforts. Once the dismantlement was complete, the team prepared a detailed decommissioning closure report, which allowed for the termination of the Army Reactor Decommissioning Permit. While it not only reduced any potential long-term environmental liability, this project to decommission and dismantle a floating nuclear power plant is truly unprecedented - it is a prime example of the USACE mission which is: 'Engineering solutions for the Nation's toughest challenges'. This unique, one of a kind, historical power plant was never designed to be taken apart, and the available information about its construction was lacking in many details. The hazards that required mitigation dictated a painstaking and deliberate process in order to avoid any release to the environment and the community, and to protect the health and safety of the workers involved while keeping the waste hierarchy's three R's - reduce, reuse and recycle at the forefront. (authors)
Uranium mining in Europe began in the ' 40's for civil and military applications. The great majority of the uranium mines have now been closed and are going through the stages of decommissioning and/or rehabilitation. Today, the main uranium producers are outside the EU; only a few mines are still in operation inside the EU. In 2006, the situation of the uranium mines and mill tailings in Europe, identifying the tailings liabilities, their status, the plans for these sites and any associated hazards, was reported to the EC. The legacy of uranium mines and mill tailing disposals in the EU are located mainly in 12 Member States where, in total, 87 tailing objects were identified at 63 sites. The volume of each one of these tailings disposal varies from a few thousand to several tens of million m{sup 3}. The majority of these sites are no longer in operation. More than 40 tailing embankments have already been completely remediated. Approximately 20 are currently being remediated while for the remaining objects, remediation has yet to start. After ten years, and for a few cases where the respective projects have not yet been completed, it seems that most of Europe's uranium mines and milling legacies were remediated according to acceptable environmental standards. Nevertheless, Europe is about to face a new challenge that comes from the concluded remediation projects for which an effective set of measures for coordinated institutional control, known as 'long-term stewardship', is needed including, in most cases, continuous and active maintenance. Moreover, the uncertainty of what will happen to these sites if institutional control fails at some point in time is a major concern. This work presents a summary of the situation and current issues of the uranium mine and mill tailings in Europe and their remediation status. It addresses not only the management of existing uranium mine and mill legacies but also the methods and strategies that have been used to prevent the creation of new future legacy sites from uranium mines still in operation. (authors)
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) manages numerous environmental remediation projects in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, otherwise known as CERCLA. These include projects for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). Utilizing the CERCLA framework to address these projects requires detailed cost estimates and a significant portion of costs are associated with the volume of material to be excavated and that material's final disposition. Accordingly, understanding the expected volumes and uncertainty associated with those volumes is vital to project cost estimating. These estimates are completed at various stages of the CERCLA process, thus the project team has varying degrees of information available from which to develop these estimates depending on how far along the project is. Understanding the factors contributing to volume growth (increase in volume of material from that originally estimated) is a crucial element to determining volume and cost uncertainty. This paper presents a case study of a FUSRAP site which involves excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soils from complex commercial, industrial, and residential properties. Original volume estimates were compared to post excavation volumes on a property by property basis. Reasons for differences are determined along with magnitude of impacts to cost estimating. For both residential and commercial property types, volume estimating factors, uncertainty considerations, and methods to account for each are discussed with emphasis on volume growth considerations. Cost estimating model input considerations are discussed with specific emphasis on accounting for volume uncertainty at the Feasibility Study (FS) phase of CERCLA. Underestimating or overestimating costs at the FS phase has repercussions under CERCLA that may impact project close out or completion schedule. Discussions presented will be helpful to both reviewers and preparers of cost estimates involving excavations. Additionally, project planners may be able to use the information to plan for volume growth contingencies. (authors)