Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Implementation Plan”

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 91 records · Page 5

Waste Management Project Success - Regulatory Assurance Systems - 20118

Waste management (WM) and remediation projects are essential within a restorative environmental culture. Despite years of experience, challenges and obstacles associated with efficient and effective WM project execution remain. Although some obstacles are project specific, a common challenge is navigating the regulatory landscape from planning through execution, particularly with first of a kind (FOAK) and first in a while (FIAW) projects. The absence of a comprehensive regulatory assurance strategy places significant hurdles in the path of project success. To clear a path for the successful execution of increasingly complex WM projects, this paper focuses on development of a comprehensive regulatory assurance strategy and implementation plan that effectively engages stakeholders, agencies, and performers to produce project plans that fully and cost effectively integrate applicable regulatory requirements. The most reliable way to align regulatory processes and decisions needed for mission success is through a regulatory assurance system. This system establishes a healthy interface with regulatory decision makers, to work in a collaborative manner, to create a common vision for regulatory decisions on an agreed upon schedule. A regulatory assurance system consists of several elements. Although the mission may vary from cleanup to site closure to nuclear component production, the elements of a regulatory assurance system remain essentially constant and must include: 1) identifying a common vision or end state, 2) developing a long-term, integrated strategy and schedule, 3) establishing a regulatory partnering team consisting of key decision-makers, 4) regular and frequent communication with decision-makers, 5) ensuring consistent surveillance for early identification of issues and changes that may impact the project, 6) quick resolution of emerging issues to prevent schedule impact, 7) identifying core compliance functions, 8) periodically assessing progress of the project as it relates to regulatory assurance and, 9) providing constructive feedback to improve the process. A regulatory assurance system provides a living, multi-faceted approach to planning, visioning, communicating and tracking to avoid surprises and ensure smooth and timely progress to the project. The overall success measures will be whether the system produces common sense regulatory decisions supporting the vision on time without appeal. Effective regulatory frameworks rarely happen on their own. Balanced, common-sense regulatory decisions stem from teams that are trained to work together to achieve shared goals. In this paper, particular attention is placed on the importance of starting with a shared vision for a regulatory assurance and execution strategy that leverages experience to establish optimal approaches. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Nevada National Security Site Radiological Control Manual

This manual contains the radiological control requirements to be used for all radiological activities conducted by programs under the purview of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO). (Activities conducted under the purview of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management Nevada[(EM Nevada] may require additional approval authorities as described in the EM Nevada Prime Contractor’s implementation plan.) Compliance with these requirements will ensure compliance with Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 835, “Occupational Radiation Protection.” This manual represents policies, guidelines, and best practices for implementing the DOE/NV/03624--0082, “Nevada National Security Site Radiation Protection Program,” (NNSS RPP) according to the requirements of 10 CFR 835.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Nevada National Security Site Radiological Control Manual

Please have this STIP assigned, documented, and recorded in OSTI as Report Number DOE/NV/03624--0257 Revision 1 and Author as Radiological Control Managers' Council. This manual contains the radiological control requirements to be used for all radiological activities conducted by programs under the purview of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO). (Activities conducted under the purview of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management Nevada[(EM Nevada] may require additional approval authorities as described in the EM Nevada Prime Contractor’s implementation plan.) Compliance with these requirements will ensure compliance with Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 835, “Occupational Radiation Protection.” This manual represents policies, guidelines, and best practices for implementing the DOE/NV/03624--0082, “Nevada National Security Site Radiation Protection Program,” (NNSS RPP) according to the requirements of 10 CFR 835.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

SU-F-T-43: Prediction of Dose Increments by Brain Metastases Resection Cavity Shrinkage Model with I-125 and Cs-131 LDR Seed Implantations

Purpose: This work aims to determine dose variability via a brain metastases resection cavity shrinkage model (RC-SM) with I-125 or Cs-131 LDR seed implantations. Methods: The RC-SM was developed to represent sequential volume changes of 95 consecutive brain metastases patients. All patients underwent serial surveillance MR and change in cavity volume was recorded for each patient. For the initial resection cavity, a prolate-ellipsoid cavity model was suggested and applied volume shrinkage rates to correspond to 1.7, 3.6, 5.9, 11.7, and 20.5 months after craniotomy. Extra-ring structure (6mm) was added on a surface of the resection volume and the same shrinkage rates were applied. Total 31 LDR seeds were evenly distributed on the surface of the resection cavity. The Amersham 6711 I-125 seed model (Oncura, Arlington Heights, IL) and the Model Cs-1 Rev2 Cs-131 seed model (IsoRay, Richland, WA) were used for TG-43U1 dose calculation and in-house-programed 3D-volumetric dose calculation system was used for resection cavity rigid model (RC-RM) and the RC-SM dose calculation. Results: The initial resection cavity volume shrunk to 25±6%, 35±6.8%, 42±7.7%, 47±9.5%, and 60±11.6%, with respect to sequential MR images post craniotomy, and the shrinkage rate (SR) was calculated as SR=56.41Xexp(−0.2024Xt)+33.99 and R-square value was 0.98. The normal brain dose as assessed via the dose to the ring structure with the RC-SM showed 29.34% and 27.95% higher than the RC-RM, I-125 and Cs-131, respectively. The dose differences between I-125 and Cs-131 seeds within the same models, I-125 cases were 9.17% and 10.35% higher than Cs-131 cases, the RC-RM and the RC-SM, respectively. Conclusion: A realistic RC-SM should be considered during LDR brain seed implementation and post-implement planning to prevent potential overdose. The RC-SM calculation shows that Cs-131 is more advantageous in sparing normal brain as the resection cavity volume changes with the LDR seeds implementation.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 2025 Site Sustainability Plan With FY 2024 Performance Data

At the close of each fiscal year, the US Department of Energy (DOE) Sustainability Performance Office (SPO) issues instruction documents and technical resource aids/tools necessary for DOE sites and national laboratories to complete sustainability reporting requirements. SPO is part of the DOE Office of Asset Management. As required by DOE Order 436.1A, Departmental Sustainability, each site develops and commits to an annual site sustainability plan (SSP) that identifies its respective contribution toward meeting DOE’s sustainability goals. SPO collects and compiles information reported by each site to develop an agency-wide sustainability report and implementation plan, which are used to report DOE sustainability progress to the federal government as required by all major federal agencies.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Oak Ridge National Laboratory FY 2023 Site Sustainability Plan With FY 2022 Performance Data

At the close of each fiscal year, the US Department of Energy (DOE) Sustainability Performance Division (SPD) issues guidance documents and technical resource aids/tools necessary for DOE sites and national laboratories to complete sustainability reporting requirements. SPD is part of the DOE Office of Asset Management. As required by DOE Order 436.1, Departmental Sustainability, “each site will develop and commit to an annual Site Sustainability Plan (SSP) that identifies its respective contribution toward meeting the DOE’s sustainability goals.” SPD collects and compiles information reported by each site to develop an agency-wide Sustainability Report and Implementation Plan, which is used to report DOE sustainability progress to the federal government as required by all major federal agencies. DOE launched a formal Sustainability Office and annual SSP process in 2011. Each year, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), in concert with the Office of Science (SC), provides the resources essential to fulfill its commitment to deliver a complete and accurate SSP report and quality performance data for entry into the DOE Sustainability Dashboard as managed by SPD. The performance data entered by each DOE site are then combined to disclose the progress of each DOE Program Office and are further combined to show comprehensive progress for the agency. The Office of Asset Management provides assistance to program offices in sustaining their missions, freeing up resources by reducing waste, avoiding excess expenditure on utilities, maximizing productivity, and improving the efficiency of facilities and processes. By focusing on mission needs, programs and associated DOE sites can help the agency meet its sustainability goals, as outlined in federal statutory and regulatory requirements. In FY 2022, the SSP guidance was updated to capture requirements from Executive Order (EO) 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, the Energy Act of 2020 (EAct 20), actions outlined in DOE’s Climate Adaptation & Resilience Plan and Sustainability Plan, and EO 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability. Updates in SSP guidance help to minimize and streamline reporting while simultaneously addressing updated federal requirements. Per DOE, each SSP report should provide an overview of the site’s planned actions, as well as an overview of efforts and accomplishments during the reporting period. SPD collects and compiles information reported by each site to develop DOE’s Annual Sustainability Report, Climate Adaptation & Resilience Plan, and Annual Energy Management Report to Congress. The agency goal has been to lower the reporting burden for sites and increase and improve the consistency of information available to decision makers, allowing them to better identify projects and potential for increased efficiency, as well as to reduce waste, lower emissions, and enhance operational resilience. Sites may elect to produce a more polished publication for their leadership and stakeholders, but this step is no longer required. The ORNL SSP narrative report (this document) and the reporting of DOE SPD Sustainability Dashboard performance data is a collaborative effort of approximately 30 subject matter experts (SMEs) from ORNL facility management and research divisions. Annually, these associates come together to provide a report that can be used by DOE to demonstrate continued agency progress in energy efficiency and sustainable federal operations.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

Project Basis for Automation of a Quality Assurance System in Radioactive Waste Management - 17317

A low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste management facility is required to comply with Regulation 1.16 of the Brazilian National Nuclear Energy Commission 'Quality Assurance for the Safety of Nuclear Power Plants and Other Facilities'. However, the text of this regulation is very generic and does not address the more specific controls necessary for the management of quality. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to identify such detailed controls in all applicable activities of the facility and to provide an implementation plan in the form of flowcharts, for further development of an automated system. This work takes as a basis the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the rules and procedures implemented by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Waste Management related to Quality Assurance. In such way, we intend to provide a more reliable implementation system of quality assurance for the management of radioactive waste in Brazil. Keywords: radioactive waste; quality assurance; automated system. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Corrective Action Decision Document/Corrective Action Plan for Corrective Action Unit 97: Yucca Flat/Climax Mine Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, Revision 1

This corrective action decision document (CADD)/corrective action plan (CAP) has been prepared for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 97, Yucca Flat/Climax Mine, Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), Nevada. The Yucca Flat/Climax Mine CAU is located in the northeastern portion of the NNSS and comprises 720 corrective action sites. A total of 747 underground nuclear detonations took place within this CAU between 1957 and 1992 and resulted in the release of radionuclides (RNs) in the subsurface in the vicinity of the test cavities. The CADD portion describes the Yucca Flat/Climax Mine CAU data-collection and modeling activities completed during the corrective action investigation (CAI) stage, presents the corrective action objectives, and describes the actions recommended to meet the objectives. The CAP portion describes the corrective action implementation plan. The CAP presents CAU regulatory boundary objectives and initial use-restriction boundaries identified and negotiated by DOE and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). The CAP also presents the model evaluation process designed to build confidence that the groundwater flow and contaminant transport modeling results can be used for the regulatory decisions required for CAU closure. The UGTA strategy assumes that active remediation of subsurface RN contamination is not feasible with current technology. As a result, the corrective action is based on a combination of characterization and modeling studies, monitoring, and institutional controls. The strategy is implemented through a four-stage approach that comprises the following: (1) corrective action investigation plan (CAIP), (2) CAI, (3) CADD/CAP, and (4) closure report (CR) stages.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Quarterly Technical Progress Report Piperazine Advanced Stripper (PZAS™) Front End Engineering Design

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document summarizes the status of Cooperative Agreement DE-FE0031844, “Piperazine Advanced Stripper (PZAS™) Front-End Engineering Design,” during the reporting period of January 1 through March 31, 2020. The objective of this project is to develop accurate installed costs by conducting a Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) of PZAS™ at Golden Spread Electric Cooperative’s (GSEC) Mustang Station located in Denver City, TX. Complementary benefits include positioning the technology for a commercial project with the 45Q tax credits, qualifying PZAS™ for use on a Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) Cogen facility, and to provide cost detail to optimize PZAS™ and help guide R&D of second-generation solvent CO2 capture technologies. Results from the FEED will be used to evaluate the economic feasibility of the process at Mustang Station. This project is funded by the U.S. DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory under the aforementioned Cooperative Agreement. Exxon, Total, Chevron, UOP-Honeywell, and the University of Texas (UT) are project co-funders. AECOM and Trimeric are project team members; UT is the prime contractor. Summary of Progress Cooperative Agreement DE-FE0031844 was established in October 2019. The current reporting period, January 1 through March 31, 2020, is the second technical progress reporting period for the project. Several milestones were accomplished during this reporting period, including: • Kickoff Meeting with DOE on February 3, 2020. • Kickoff Meeting with GSEC on March 30, 2020. (Note: Due to Covid-19 travel restrictions and shelter-in-place guidelines, the kickoff meeting was conducted remotely via videoconferencing. See attached notes from that telecon.) • Updated Project Management Plan March 2020, submitted with this quarterly report Other activities during the quarter included progress on contracting and other legal agreements (e.g., non-disclosure agreements), internal kickoff meetings at both AECOM and Trimeric, and development of a Technical Implementation Plan (TIP). The TIP will help the team to make critical, early process decisions and, ultimately, to develop a project and process design basis. Note that all agreements between project team participants are complete as of this submittal, except the vendor agreement with Kiewit (steam cycle modeling). Plans for Next Reporting Period Activities during the next reporting period (April 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020) include: the completion of the Project Design Basis and progress towards the Process Design Basis/Process Design Package (PDP). The Project Design Basis is due as a deliverable and milestone during the next reporting period.

Rochelle, Gary T.↗

FY 2018 ARM Radar Plan

The fundamental objective of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility radar facility is to provide high-quality radar observations to the scientific user community with an overarching goal of improving the treatment of clouds and precipitation in climate models. Historically, ARM has operated zenith-profiling cloud radars at millimeter wavelengths at five of its facilities. Since 2010, 16 scanning systems have been added to the radar facility. The ARM radar facility has 33 radars in its possession at three fixed sites and three mobile facilities. A breakdown of the ARM radar assets is given below: 8 Scanning ARM Clouds Radar Systems (SACR: two radars on single pedestal; six 1st- and two 2nd- generation) 7 Ka-band ARM Zenith profiling Radar (KAZR: five 1st- and two 2nd-generation) 5 X-band Scanning ARM precipitation Radar (XSAPR: four 1st- and one 2nd-generation) 3 C-band Scanning ARM precipitation Radar (CSAPR: two 1st- and one 2nd-generation) 1 W-band ARM Cloud Radar (WACR) 1 Marine W-band ARM Cloud Radar (MWACR: configured to be deployed on a stable table or scanning pedestal). Of these radars, all but six (two SACRs [accounting for four radars], one KAZR, and one 1st-generation CSAPR) have operational assignments. Therefore, the current measurement strategy involves operating 27 radars, not including radar wind profilers (RWPs). This array of instruments represents a combination of scanning and profiling radars at ARM’s sites. In addition to the scanning capabilities, the radars at each site differ in operating frequency, technology, and complexity, but all are complex systems. Some of them were custom designed and built specifically for ARM. Typically, newer systems take a few years to reach operational maturity with adequate characterization, calibration, testing, and quality control. Due to various factors, not all of the radars have achieved an operationally mature status sufficient to provide high-quality data in a research environment. In addition, these radars are often deployed in remote locations and harsh environments to meet science needs. The remoteness of such complex systems is a considerable challenge for continuous operations. Tools needed for a research-level operational radar are not readily available from vendors, and many of the necessary system management tools, both hardware and software, to manage these systems must be developed in-house for such deployments. Based on experience over the past seven years, including conclusions from the first phase of the radar plan, implemented in mid-2016, it is clear that ARM cannot support the operation of all 27 currently deployed radars and expect to provide research-quality data (including higher-order products) with the current resources. Experience from the first phase of the radar plan has provided a better indication than has been available previously of what size radar network is reasonable. A preliminary proposal for what that radar network could look like is provided here. The plan presented here uses the available resources to best support this proposed network.

ARM Mobile Facility↗

Calendar Year 2020 Underground Test Area Annual Sampling Report Nevada National Security Site, Nevada (Rev. 1)

This CY 2020 annual sampling report presents the background of the FFACO and Sampling Plan implementation, sampling and analysis methods, sampling results, quality assurance and quality control, regulatory requirements, and analytical data for the CY 2020. Appendix A presents data from samples collected in CY 2020 from the YF/CM CAU and the RM/SM CAU. This sampling was conducted in support of the Sampling Plan at these CAUs prior to approval of the final CRs. Appendix B presents the well completion diagrams for the wells sampled in CY 2020. Appendix C presents data from samples collected in CY 2019. These results were not reported in the previous sampling report because they were not available from the specialized laboratories at the time of the report’s publication.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Using Mapping Tools to Prioritize Electric Vehicle Charger Benefits to Underserved Communities

Mapping tools can play an important role in incorporating equity into planning, implementing, and evaluating investments in electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, also referred to as EV chargers or electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). Federal, state, and local organizations need methodologies for using mapping tools as they pursue equity-focused goals to ensure that the benefits of investments in EV chargers flow to energy and environmental justice (EEJ) underserved communities. This report provides examples of how to apply mapping tools to identify priority locations for installing EV chargers that may benefit EEJ underserved communities through four EV charger planning approaches: corridor charging, community charging, fleet electrification, and diversity in STEM and workforce development. It also explores various methodologies for calculating low-public EVSE density. Ensuring that the benefits of EV charger investments flow to underserved communities involves prioritizing locally identified needs and incorporating community input when choosing charging station locations. Installing EV chargers in a census tract identified as an EEJ underserved community does not inherently mean that those EV chargers provide benefits to residents of that community. In addition, representatives of historically disadvantaged communities or environmental justice communities have concerns that installing EV chargers in their communities could potentially exacerbate or propagate existing inequities. While the methodologies described in this report may help identify priority census tracts for equity-focused EV charger investment, additional community engagement and site evaluation are necessary to determine whether EV chargers are accessible, affordable, and convenient to EEJ underserved community residents and what benefits the local community is looking to realize with EV charger installations. This report is the culmination of many discussions with project leaders from DOE-funded projects deploying EV chargers in communities across the nation, organizations representing EEJ underserved communities, state agencies developing EV investment plans, utilities making major EV investments, and DOE national laboratory experts working in transportation electrification. The authors distributed a draft report for peer review, and reviewer comments are summarized in this report. These methodologies are likely to evolve as more EV charger funding programs are implemented and more real-world data is available to measure the effectiveness of strategies for incorporating equity in EV charger deployment projects. Continued efforts to document best practices and critically evaluate whether equity-focused programs achieve their goals are needed as transportation electrification proceeds at the local, regional, and national levels.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Future Circular Collider Feasibility Study Report

Volume 3 of the FCC Feasibility Report presents studies related to civil engineering, the development of a project implementation scenario, and environmental and sustainability aspects. The report details the iterative improvements made to the civil engineering concepts since 2018, taking into account subsurface conditions, accelerator and experiment requirements, and territorial considerations. It outlines a technically feasible and economically viable civil engineering configuration that serves as the baseline for detailed subsurface investigations, construction design, cost estimation, and project implementation planning. Additionally, the report highlights ongoing subsurface investigations in key areas to support the development of an improved 3D subsurface model of the region. The report describes the development of the project scenario based on the ‘avoid-reduce-compensate’ iterative optimisation approach. The reference scenario balances optimal physics performance with territorial compatibility, implementation risks, and costs. Environmental field investigations covering almost 600 hectares of terrain—including numerous urban, economic, social, and technical aspects—confirmed the project’s technical feasibility and contributed to the preparation of essential input documents for the formal project authorisation phase. The summary also highlights the initiation of public dialogue as part of the authorisation process. The results of a comprehensive socio-economic impact assessment, which included significant environmental effects, are presented. Even under the most conservative and stringent conditions, a positive benefit-cost ratio for the FCC-ee is obtained. Finally, the report provides a summary of the studies conducted to document the current state of the environment.

Benedikt, M. [European Organization for Nuclear Re↗

Global Precipitation Experiment—A New World Climate Research Programme Lighthouse Activity

The future state of the global water cycle and the prediction of freshwater availability for humans around the world remain among the challenges of climate research and are relevant to several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The Global Precipitation Experiment (GPEX) takes on the challenge of improving the prediction of precipitation quantity, phase, timing, and intensity, characteristics that are products of a complex integrated system. It will achieve this by leveraging existing World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) activities and community capabilities in satellite, surface-based, and airborne observations, modeling, and experimental research and by conducting new and focused activities. It was launched in October 2023 as a WCRP Lighthouse Activity. Here, we present an overview of the GPEX Science Plan that articulates the primary science questions related to precipitation measurements, process understanding, model performance and improvements, and plans for capacity development. The central phase of GPEX is the WCRP Years of Precipitation for 2–3 years with coordinated global field campaigns focusing on different storm types (atmospheric rivers, mesoscale convective systems, monsoons, and tropical cyclones, among others) over different regions and seasons. Activities are planned over the three phases (before, during, and after the Years of Precipitation) spanning a decade. These include gridded data evaluation and development, advanced modeling, enhanced understanding of processes critical to precipitation, multiscale prediction of precipitation events across scales, and capacity development. These activities will be further developed as part of the GPEX Implementation Plan.

Climate change↗

Adaptive Site Management Strategies for the Hanford Central Plateau Groundwater

Adaptive site management (ASM) is a systematic and iterative management approach that can be used to expedite the remediation of large and/or complex sites. ASM is defined as a formal and systematic project or site management approach centered on rigorous site planning and a firm understanding of site conditions and uncertainties, using science and technology to routinely re-evaluate and prioritize site remedial actions and characterization activities. The goal of the approach is to create a framework of structured and continuous planning, implementation, and assessment processes that accommodates new information and changing site conditions to develop effective and efficient cleanup approaches that achieves the required outcome(s) while optimizing costs, cleanup timeframe, and performance. Central to ASM is an evolving conceptual site model (CSM). Over time, incremental reductions in uncertainty associated with the CSM will occur, while supporting continued progress toward site cleanup and closure through remedy optimization and evaluation. ASM has the potential to expedite cleanup for the Central Plateau area at Hanford through a planned and systematic approach for reducing uncertainty with targeted characterization activities, while continuing remediation activities that advance cleanup for key risk-driving contaminants. A core component of cleanup within the Central Plateau is the 200 West Pump-and-Treat (P&T) system. Even with an active P&T remedy, uncertainty exists with respect to plume distributions, total mass in the aquifer, and currently known continuing sources. Additional uncertainty is associated with multiple contaminant source locations in the vadose zone, which have the potential to create new groundwater plumes in the absence of any source control measures, although not all contaminant fluxes to groundwater will result in contaminant concentrations above cleanup levels. Collectively, these uncertainties need to be addressed in the CSM to support effective and efficient site progress toward cleanup goal(s). Other nontechnical factors that may warrant an ASM approach at the Hanford Central Plateau are associated with the formation of operable units (OUs) used to manage cleanup. With the exception of the 200-ZP-1 OU, the three remaining groundwater OUs only have interim action records of decision. Nine vadose zone source area OUs are also in the early stages of the remedial investigation and feasibility study process, with pending characterization and technology identification activities. A set of proposed site objectives for the Central Plateau are provided in this document as an initial consideration/example and basis for discussion for ASM implementation. These example site objectives were selected with the goal of maintaining protectiveness at the Columbia River through confinement of contaminant plumes within an administratively controlled area below existing surface waste sites and waste disposal facilities. Although site decision makers and regulators need to provide concurrence, these site objectives are used in this document to describe the elements of an ASM approach, including selection of interim objectives and a long-term adaptive management plan. Interim objectives are also defined to yield measurable incremental progress toward the overall site goals. This document identifies initial technical considerations for developing an ASM framework for the Central Plateau cleanup decisions. These considerations are intended to facilitate more specific decisions, such as objectives, near- and long-term actions, and performance metrics, to develop an overall approach that maintains protectiveness but recognizes the uncertainty, long timeframe, and technical challenges that need to be considered in selecting, implementing, and managing remediation at the Hanford Central Plateau.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Reimagining watershed restoration: a call for new investment and support structures for greater resiliency and long‐term impact

Hundreds of locally based watershed initiatives have mobilized stakeholders to take voluntary action to restore the ecological conditions of North America's watersheds. Lead organizations rely on project‐based grant funding, alignment with government programs, and volunteerism to incrementally restore what is ultimately a vast and complex ecosystem. Structurally, the vision and goals of these initiatives often exceed available resources and capacity. In 1999, the Bonneville Environmental Foundation began to test ways by which a funder might increase the capacity of local watershed organizations to achieve long‐term watershed restoration goals through a 10‐year commitment of funding and technical support. We partnered with other funders, collectively seeking solutions to increase the impact of this work. Reflecting on 13 years experience across 21 watersheds in 7 western states ( USA ), we have concluded that the scale of ecological change desired requires a time frame for planning, implementation, and public engagement that is inconsistent with present‐day approaches. This has left us asking how can the capacity and impact of a watershed initiative be sustained over many decades—a time frame that exceeds the tenure of any individual leader, the proven life cycles of many nonprofit organizations, and the commitment of most funders? Clear themes have emerged: (1) engaging diverse stakeholders in planning, (2) orienting the work around broader goals, (3) emphasizing human well‐being, and (4) developing resilient partnerships. Reimagining watershed restoration in this context, we suggest a new agenda for action and research that emphasizes a multidecadal planning horizon integrating climate change projections and changing demographics and social values. WIREs Water 2017, 4:e1174. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1174 This article is categorized under: Water and Life > Conservation, Management, and Awareness Engineering Water > Planning Water Human Water > Water Governance

Warren, Robert F.↗

Resource distribution under spatiotemporal uncertainty of disease spread: Stochastic versus robust approaches

We consider the problem of optimizing locations of distribution centers (DCs) and plans for distributing resources such as test kits and vaccines, under spatiotemporal uncertainties of disease spread and demand for the resources. We aim to balance the operational cost (including costs of deploying facilities, shipping, and storage) and quality of service (reflected by demand coverage), while ensuring equity and fairness of resource distribution across multiple populations. We compare a sample-based stochastic programming (SP) approach with a distributionally robust optimization (DRO) approach using a moment-based ambiguity set. Numerical studies are conducted on instances of distributing COVID-19 vaccines in the United States and test kits, to compare SP and DRO models with a deterministic formulation using estimated demand and with the current resource distribution plans implemented in the US. We demonstrate the results over distinct phases of the pandemic to estimate the cost and speed of resource distribution depending on scale and coverage, and show the “demand-driven” properties of the SP and DRO solutions. Furthermore, our results further indicate that if the worst-case unmet demand is prioritized, then the DRO approach is preferred despite of its higher overall cost. Nevertheless, the SP approach can provide an intermediate plan under budgetary restrictions without significant compromises in demand coverage.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation Planning: Three Relevant Case Studies - 16056

Executive Order 13653, Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change, was issued in 2013. The President emphasized the importance for federal agencies to take action to enhance climate preparedness and resilience. The U.S. Department of Energy released the DOE Climate Change Adaptation Plan in 2014 to build resilience and mitigation across the Department, and to assure inclusion of climate change adaptation as part of its planning and operations. DOE's Office of Environmental Management has an important mission to manage safe cleanup of environmental legacy contamination brought about from five decades of nuclear weapons development and government sponsored nuclear energy research. Specifically, Environmental Management is responsible for remediation of soil and groundwater, deactivation and decommissioning of facilities, and disposal of hazardous and radioactive waste. Three case studies are discussed in this paper that demonstrate the cost benefit and importance for Environmental Management to assess climate change vulnerability and implement planning procedures: 1. Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has experienced $0.5 billion in unanticipated costs as a result of climate-related events including: extreme drought, wildfires, deluge rains, and historic flooding over the past 15 years. 2. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency American Cyanamid Superfund Site, situated on the New Jersey coast was hit by Hurricane Irene in 2011. Three major contaminated, solvent impoundment berms were breached within the 100-year flood plain, causing major damage to the facility. 3. For radioactive waste disposal facilities in low-lying areas in proximity to groundwater, climate change vulnerability and assessment is prudent for operational management. One such Superfund hazardous and radioactive waste disposal facility, the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility located at the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee, has documented surface and ground water management challenges since construction began in 2001, driven by changing regional weather patterns. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗