Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Waste Compliance”

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 145 records · Page 8

Environmental Performance Report 2019: Annual Site Environmental Report per the U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B Chg 1

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities in 2019, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have positively affected or could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or workers, the environment, or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the DOE requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) and has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B Chg 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Hanford Site Central Plateau (FY 2020) (Rev. 2)

This document provides an updated Hanford Site composite analysis (CA). A Hanford Site CA was prepared and issued in 1998 (PNNL-11800) with an addendum provided in 2002 (PNNL-11800 Addendum 1). The CA was approved in 2002 (Frei, 2002) and has been maintained (DOE/RL-2000-29 and subsequent revisions) to support low-level waste disposal performance assessments (PAs) and disposal authorizations for facilities at the Hanford Site, including the following: Continued operation of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) and the 200 East and 200 West Low-Level Burial Grounds; Construction of the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF); Forthcoming closure of tank residual waste systems such as Waste Management Area (WMA) C. The CA maintenance program resulted in a determination in 2015 (DOE/RL-2015-66) that the Hanford Site CA needed an update for the following reasons: While the initial Hanford Site CA has been maintained since 2001, the accumulation of basis changes reported in the annual summary reports over the succeeding 14 years merit evaluation in an updated analysis; The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Headquarters requested in a memorandum in 2015 (Gilbertson and Marcinowski, 2015) that “as soon as the relevant PAs are complete, the CA will be revised to account for all of the new information.” This updated Hanford Site CA accounts for the following new information: 1. Inclusion of a detailed Hanford Site baseline disposition that projects remedial activities through site closure. There have been significant changes through decision making in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) process that were not available when the original CA was produced; 2. Inclusion of an updated inventory basis, new modeling capabilities, and new decisions reached in the associated record of decision (ROD) that was provided by issuance of DOE/EIS-0391 in fiscal year (FY) 2013. Development of a Hanford Site groundwater model from the baseline provided in a technical transfer of models for the Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0391) commenced in FY 2014 and resulted in the plateau-to-river (P2R) groundwater flow model that is used in this updated Hanford Site CA; 3. Accounting for pump and treat systems, which were not evaluated in the initial CA. Pump and treat systems have had significant impact on groundwater flow system behavior, contaminant transport, and contaminant removal from Hanford Site groundwater. This process is accounted for in the use of the P2R model for this updated Hanford Site CA; 4. Inclusion of water-level data collected since the initial CA was completed. Data collected as the unconfined aquifer water levels continue to recede since the cessation of large liquid discharges in the late 1990s have led to marked improvement in understanding of the flow system for future conditions, particularly regarding northward flow potential in the critical Gable Gap area. The calibration in the latest version of the P2R model accounts for this information; 5. Inclusion of results from the revised ERDF PA completed in 2013 (WCH-5209) that account for updated inventory and expansion of the ERDF facility to about twice the size that was evaluated in the original CA; 6. Use of updated geoframeworks to provide the structural basis for numerical fate and transport models in the groundwater pathway of this updated CA. The geologic basis for groundwater models has continued to improve with additional data collection and interpretation with the creation and maintenance of the Hanford South Geoframework and the Central Plateau Vadose Zone Geoframework tools; 7. Incorporation of updated tank residual inventory estimates. Tank residual inventory estimates have improved with the incorporation of tank retrieval inventory data for those tanks that have completed retrieval. The CA inventory data package includes this updated information; 8. Incorporation of WMA C PA results. Two additional PAs for tank farm closure decisions are in preparation during the period required to prepare an updated Hanford Site CA: WMA C (FY 2016) and WMA A-AX (in preparation). The WMA C PA results are incorporated into the updated Hanford Site CA, and its grouted residuals model is used as the basis for a release model to account for the other tank farm systems modeling in this updated CA; 9. An update to the IDF PA was submitted in FY 2017 and has been reviewed and approved. The results of the IDF PA are incorporated into this updated CA; 10. Updated risk assessment scenarios. The risk assessment scenarios currently in use for Hanford Site CERCLA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) analyses differ from those evaluated in the initial Hanford Site CA. The representative person exposure scenario evaluated in this updated Hanford Site CA is consistent with recent PAs and CERCLA and RCRA analyses as the Hanford Site. This updated Hanford Site CA provides the following: A comparison of the updated Hanford Site CA all-pathway dose results with the performance measures during the compliance period, which is assumed to begin with site closure in calendar 2070 with the last scheduled disposal action and continue for 1,000 years postclosure (to calendar year 3069); A comparison of Hanford Site CA all-pathway dose results with the performance measures during the postcompliance period to address potential peaks beyond the compliance period. This is accomplished by evaluating dose in the period for 9,000 years following the compliance period (i.e., from calendar year 3070 to 12070).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Analysis of Tank 38H (HTF-38-21-24, -25) and Tank 43H (HTF-43-21-26, -27) Samples for Support of the Enrichment Control and Corrosion Control Programs

Feed limits have been established for the 2H-Evaporator system to ensure nuclear criticality is not possible and corrosion is minimized. These limits are protected by the Enrichment Control Program (ECP) and the Corrosion Control Program (CCP) that require periodic sampling and analysis to confirm that the waste supernate composition stays within the limits. Savannah River Remediation (SRR) obtained samples from two different heights within each of the two waste tanks supporting the 2H-Evaporator operations on March 26, 2021. The Tank 38H (evaporator drop tank) and Tank 43H (evaporator feed tank) samples were received by the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) Shielded Cells on March 26, 2021. Analysis of these samples provides information necessary for determining compliance with the ECP and CCP. The sample characterization was requested via a Technical Task Request (TTR) and conducted based on a Task Technical and Quality Assurance Plan (TTQAP).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Revolutionizing thermal Management in Next-Generation AI data centers: Challenges and breakthrough innovations

Data centers (DCs) serve as critical infrastructure for powering the growth and evolution of AI. Next-generation AI DCs present unique challenges in thermal management driven by unprecedented computational demands. This paper provides a comprehensive summary of key stakeholder perspectives on technology gaps, infrastructure requirements, test bed needs, emerging opportunities, and preliminary solutions related to thermal management for AI DCs. It establishes six strategic pillars of thermal management for next generation AI DC: reliability, deployability, efficiency, resilience, measurability, and valorization. The discussion spans a range of critical topics, including advanced cooling technologies, thermal strategies for emerging modular and edge DCs, system-level optimization and control frameworks, infrastructure planning and grid integration designs, benchmarking approaches, and pathways for waste heat recovery and reuse. The proposed research, development, and demonstration efforts are aimed at accelerating the deployment of AI DCs while ensuring energy efficiency, reliability, safety, and regulatory compliance.

Wang, Pengtao [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000214713429)↗

Regulatory Testing of WTP HL W Glasses for Compliance with Delisting Requirements, VSL-03R3780-1, Rev. 1

(Part of the data collected for this work and discussed in this report was subject to data quality and bias issues. All the affected tests have subsequently been repeated, as directed by the Waste Treatment Plant Project, and new statistical analyses have been performed on the revised data set. A subsequently-issued report supercedes this report and describes the revised data, together with the revised composition-property models (Kot et al. 2004). The reader should refer to the new report for discussion of the revised data set and composition-property (TCLP cadmium release) models. None of the data for the spike glasses, designed for Case 1 and Case 2 COPCs testing, were affected by this issue.)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Bio-Medical Factors and External Hazards in Space Station Design

The design of space-station configurations is influenced by many factors. Probably the most demanding and critical are the biomedical and external hazards requirements imposed to provide the proper environment and supporting facilities for the crew and the adequate protective measures necessary to provide a configuration'in which the crew can live and work efficiently in relative comfort and safety. The major biomedical factors, such as physiology, psychology, nutrition, personal hygiene, waste management, and recreation, all impose their own peculiar requirements. The commonality and integration of these requirements demand the utmost ingenuity and inventiveness be exercised in order to achieve effective configuration compliance. The relationship of biomedical factors for the internal space-station environment will be explored with respect to internal atmospheric constituency, atmospheric pressure levels, oxygen positive pressure, temperature, humidity, CO2 concentration, and atmospheric contamination. The range of these various parameters and the recommended levels for design use will be analyzed. Requirements and criteria for specific problem areas such as zero and artificial gravity and crew private quarters will be reviewed and the impact on the design of representative solutions will be presented. In the areas of external hazards, the impact of factors such as meteoroids, radiation, vacuum, temperature extremes, and cycling on station design will be evaluated. Considerations with respect to operational effectiveness and crew safety will be discussed. The impact of such factors on spacecraft design to achieve acceptable launch and reentry g levels, crew rotation intervals, etc., will be reviewed.

Olling, E. H.↗

Bio-Medical Factors and External Hazards in Space Station Design

The design of space-station configurations is influenced by many factors, Probably the most demanding and critical are the biomedical and external hazards requirements imposed to provide the proper environment and supporting facilities for the crew and the adequate protective measures necessary to provide a configuration in which the crew can live and work efficiently in relative comfort and safety. The major biomedical factors, such as physiology, psychology, nutrition, personal hygiene, waste management, and recreation, all impose their own peculiar requirements. The commonality and integration of these requirements demand the utmost ingenuity and inventiveness be exercised in order to achieve effective configuration compliance. The relationship of biomedical factors for the internal space-station environment will be explored with respect to internal atmospheric constituency, atmospheric pressure levels, oxygen positive pressure, temperature, humidity, CO2 concentration, and atmospheric contamination. The range of these various parameters and the recommended levels for design use will be analyzed. Requirements and criteria for specific problem areas such as zero and artificial gravity and crew private quarters will be reviewed and the impact on the design of representative solutions will be presented. In the areas of external hazards, the impact of factors such as meteoroids, radiation, vacuum, temperature extremes, and cycling on station design will be evaluated. Considerations with respect to operational effectiveness and crew safety will be discussed. The impact of such factors on spacecraft design to achieve acceptable launch and reentry g levels, crew rotation intervals, etc., will be reviewed. Examples of configurations, subsystems, and internal a arrangement and installations to comply with such biomedical factor requirements will ber presented. The effects of solutions to certain biomedical factors on configuration weight, operational convenience, and program costs will be compared.

Olling, Edward H.↗

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring - Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant low activity waste (LAW) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAW stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on these DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for each of the LAW stacks are 815–55,758 scfm for LV-S1, 980–112,078 scfm for LV-S2, 264–22,901 scfm for LV-S3, and 981–79,832 scfm for LV-C2. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAW facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for one LV-S2 Fan A result, which was 13.2°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 1.5 COV and 9.2% COV, which were all within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the four LAW filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan operating conditions for LV-S1 and LV-S2, dual-fan operations for LV-S3 at both the continuous air monitor and record sampler locations, and both the single-fan as well as the dual-fan operations for LV-C2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Management Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Effluent Management facility (EMF) stack monitor location was qualified using the LV-S1 scale model stack as a baseline, augmented by the LB-S1 and LV-S2 scale model stacks to address the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Effluent Management Facility Vessel Vent Process (DVP) injection into the main Active Confinement Ventilation (ACV) system duct. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale models and its sampling locations were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the EMF stack was performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on the LV-S1 scale model test DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for the EMF stack are as listed in Table S1. Table S1. Effluent Management Facility Stack Qualified Flow Range. Stack Parameter EM-1 Minimum Qualified Stack Flow (scfm) 781 Maximum Qualified Stack Flow (scfm) 53,432 The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack test at the EMF. Flow angle results were less than 5°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 2.2% COV and 4.3% COV, which were all within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests on the LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV S2 scale models. Based on these stack verification test results, the EMF filtered exhaust stack sampling location meets the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes each combination of ACV fan with the DVP exhausters. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the qualified flow rates described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Management Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Effluent Management Facility (EMF) stack monitor location was qualified using a combination of scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that the sampling location does not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. The LV-S1 scale model stack was used as a baseline, augmented by the LB-S1 and LV-S2 scale model stacks to address the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Effluent Management Facility Vessel Vent Process (DVP) injection into the main Active Confinement Ventilation (ACV) system duct. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling locations were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. The LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV-S2 scale model stack tests have met the criteria of the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard to demonstrate the stack sampling locations are well mixed. Verification tests of the EMF stack were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value and the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determine the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated while remaining in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rate along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rate based on the LV-S1 scale model DV values. The operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack test at the EMF. Flow angle results were <5°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 2.2% COV and 4.3% COV, all of which were within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests on the LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV S2 scale models. Based on these stack verification test results, the EMF filtered exhaust stack sampling location meets the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all planned fan operating configurations. This includes each combination of ACV fans with DVP exhausters. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the qualified flow rates described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Evaluation of Technologies to Mitigate the Presence of Gaseous Elemental Mercury in Waste Disposal Containers

A study was conducted to evaluate sorbent technologies that can mitigate the presence of elemental mercury (Hg⁰) in waste containers for mercury-contaminated debris (MCD). Decontamination and demolition (D&D) activities at the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) facilities generate MCD requiring offsite disposal. The debris is packaged in appropriate waste containers and may be temporarily stored onsite prior to transport for treatment and/or disposal. During transportation of loads that had no visible liquid Hg at the point of origin, temperature changes can cause Hg⁰ to evaporate, condense, and form droplets on container walls. Furthermore, vibration during transportation could cause beads of Hg to be released from the debris, container walls, and ceiling, resulting in pools of liquid Hg⁰ on the container floor. Waste acceptance criteria (WAC) limitations for commercial disposal facilities, the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), and ORR mixed low-level waste landfills prohibit the presence of any free liquids in containers identified as a solid waste form. Potential solutions to mitigate the presence of residual liquids that could be formed through vapor condensation include the use of sorbents or similar materials to capture and stabilize volatile Hg⁰ vapors and thus ensure compliance with landfill WAC requirements. This report summarizes data from small-scale laboratory experiments conducted to evaluate sorbent materials for Hg⁰ vapor suppression and sorption of liquid Hg⁰ that could form under relevant transportation and disposal conditions. A series of experiments was conducted to evaluate commercial sorbent materials and their effectiveness for Hg⁰ sorption across a temperature range from 19.4°C to 60°C. The impact of residual moisture on sorption was investigated under relevant conditions, and leaching tests were performed to assess the stability of Hg⁰ captured sorbent materials. The results provide estimates for sorbent quantities needed for a given Hg⁰ mass loading based on experimental results exposing sorbents to gaseous and liquid Hg⁰ at various mass ratios. Overall, sorbents that were most effective for Hg⁰ vapor suppression were brominated activated carbons, mackinawite-based sorbents coated on vermiculite, and sulfur-modified granular activated carbon. Elevated temperatures and moisture conditions did not result in significant increases of Hg⁰ headspace concentrations, and the materials also demonstrated high sorption capacities for the sorption of liquid Hg⁰.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

West Valley Demonstration Project Annual Site Environmental Report (CY2019)

The report, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy West Valley Demonstration Project office (DOE-WVDP), summarizes the environmental protection program at the WVDP for calendar year (CY) 2019. Monitoring and surveillance of the facilities used by the DOE are conducted to verify protection of public health and safety and the environment. The report is a key component of DOE’s effort to keep the public informed of environmental conditions at the WVDP. The quality assurance protocols applied to the environmental monitoring program ensure the validity and accuracy of the monitoring data. In addition to demonstrating compliance with environmental laws, regulations, and directives, evaluation of data collected in 2019 continued to indicate that WVDP activities pose no threat to public health or safety, or to the environment.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Process and environmental safety of thermochemical conversion of biomass

Biomass presents a promising opportunity for converting waste into valuable energy, fuels, and chemicals through various thermochemical processes, including hydrothermal carbonization, hydrothermal liquefaction, pyrolysis, gasification, and combustion. However, these processes operate under extreme conditions, introducing significant safety hazards that necessitate meticulous management to prevent accidents. This review discusses potential hazards, risk mitigation strategies, and safety management practices, emphasizing the importance of integrated safety measures into the design and operation of these processes. It also highlights the critical need for robust safety engineering and environmental management strategies tailored to each thermo-chemical process. As these processes transition from laboratory to industrial scale, there is an imperative to develop a clear and concise pathway for emerging industries to achieve regulatory compliance, achieve safety certification, and enable effective stewardship of potential fugitive emissions. By addressing safety and environmental concerns, stakeholders can optimize economic benefits, rural development, and achieve sustained domestic energy generation benefits offered by biomass conversion technologies. Further research on plant design optimization, operational safety, environmental evaluation standardization, and innovative waste management solutions will support the safe and effective scaling of these technologies, ultimately contributing to sustainable management and resource recovery.

09 - BIOMASS FUELS↗

Ames National Laboratory Annual Site Environmental Report for CY2021

The primary purpose of this report is to summarize the performance of Ames National Laboratory’s environmental programs, present highlights of significant environmental activities, and confirm compliance with environmental regulations and requirements for calendar year 2021. This report is a working requirement of Department of Energy Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting. It includes descriptions of the Laboratory’s site, mission, the status of its compliance with applicable environmental regulations, its planning and activities to maintain compliance, and a comprehensive review of its environmental protection, surveillance and monitoring activities. Ames National Laboratory is located on the campus of Iowa State University (ISU) and occupies 13 buildings owned by the Department of Energy (DOE). See the Laboratory’s Web page for location and Laboratory overview. The Laboratory also leases space in ISU owned buildings. In 2021, the Laboratory accumulated and disposed of hazardous waste under a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued generator number. All waste was handled according to applicable EPA, State, and local regulations and DOE Orders. The Laboratory operates as a Small Quantity Generator (SQG) of hazardous waste. There were no radiological air emissions or exposures to the general public due to Laboratory activities in 2021 (See U.S. Department of Energy Air Emissions Annual Report in Appendix A.) The Laboratory has an established Environmental Radiological Protection Program (Plan 10200.041) per DOE Order 458.1 requirements. Plans, policies, and procedures are in place to protect the public and the environment against undue risk from radiation associated with DOE radiological activities. As indicated in prior Site Environmental Reports, formal pollution prevention awareness, waste minimization and recycling programs have been in practice since 1990, with improvements implemented most recently in 2017 with Iowa State University’s shift toward single-stream recycling. Included in recycling efforts are items such as batteries, monitors, corrugated cardboard, lamps, miscellaneous electronic office equipment, mixed paper, newsprint, food/beverage containers, and laboratory glassware. Ames National Laboratory also recycles/reuses salvageable metal, used oil, and foamed polystyrene peanuts, and encourages chemical redistribution and sharing among research groups. Ames National Laboratory reported its contractual performance to DOE-Ames Site Office (AMSO) through the Laboratory’s Performance Evaluation Measurement Plan (PEMP), and a performance level of “B+” was achieved in 2021 for Sustain Excellence and Enhance Effectiveness of Integrated Safety, Health, and Environmental Protection As reported in Site Environmental Reports for prior years, the Laboratory’s Environmental Management System (EMS) has been integrated into the Laboratory’s Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) since 2005. The integration of EMS into Laboratory business practices allows the Laboratory to systematically review, address and respond to environmental impacts. In addition to DOE-identified objectives and targets, the EMS Steering Committee recommends annual environmental goals for the Laboratory. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and limited onsite work staff, goals of reducing water usage and travel/commuting to promote the reduction of scope 3 greenhouse gases were achieved. All contract deliverables and environmental compliance activities were still met during this time.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Panel Session 129: Perspectives (US and Non-US) on the Use of Risk and Dose Assessment Tools (R9.3)

This panel focused on various dose and risk assessment tools for assessments, Deactivation and Decommissioning, remediation, and closure of sites of chemical and radioactive wastes. Representatives from the US government agencies, non-US countries and their representative regulatory bodies or authorities, as well as performance/risk assessment practitioners compared and contrasted the various guidance from regulatory agencies and authorities on how tools such as the Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRG) calculator, the Dose Compliance Concentrations (DCC) calculator, and Residual Radioactivity (RESRAD) should be used in support of analyses and decisions for environmental cleanup activities. Panelists with presentations: Cumulative Impact Evaluation: Innovative Tools for Evaluation of Groundwater Protection (Alaa Aly); Superfund Evaluation Process for Alternative Risk and Dose Models (with Focus on EPA and DOE Tools) (Stuart Walker); NRC Staff Perspective on Risk-Informed Approach and Reasonable Safety Assurance in D and D and LLW (Rateb (Boby) Abu Eid)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Standard Analysis Report INV-SAR-79, Revision 0 Chemical and Cement Components 2023 Inventory Estimates

This standard analysis report provides the estimates for the chemical (oxyanions and complexing agents) and cement components with a data collection cut-off date of December 31, 2023. These estimates will be included in a Performance Assessment Inventory Report developed for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) performance assessment (PA) for the 2026 Compliance Recertification Application (CRA).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Hanford Site Mule Deer Monitoring Report for Fiscal Years 2024 and 2026

The U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Field Office (HFO) conducts ecological monitoring on the Hanford Site to collect and track data needed to ensure compliance with environmental laws, regulations, and policies governing Department of Energy activities. The vision for the HFOmanaged portion of the Hanford Site, hereby referred to as Central Hanford, focuses not only on the cleanup of nuclear facilities and waste sites but on the protection and restoration of the Hanford Site lands. As the HFO moves toward accomplishing this vision, understanding of the ecological resources present and the need for conservation and/or protection of those resources will be critical for making informed decisions for responsible site stewardship. Ecological monitoring data provides baseline information about the plants, animals, and habitats under HFO stewardship at Central Hanford required for decision-making under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Environmental Performance Report 2021: Annual Site Environmental Report per the U.S. Department of Energy Order 231.1B Chg 1

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Environmental Performance Report provides a description of the laboratory's environmental management activities in 2021, including information on environmental and sustainability performance, environmental compliance activities and status, and environmental protection programs, highlights, and successes. The purpose of this report is to ensure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the public receive timely, accurate information about events that have positively affected or could adversely affect the health and safety of the public or workers, the environment, or the operations of DOE facilities. This report meets the DOE requirements of the Annual Site Environmental Report (ASER) and has been prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B Chg 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting.

air quality↗