Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “federal regulation”

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 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Wetlands Delineation Report and Classification: PNNL – Sequim (formerly MSL) Wetland Delineation for the Water and Sewer Line

A wetlands delineation report summarizes the wetland delineation on the southern portion of PNNL-Sequim campus to support campus development, maintenance, and potential research activities. The delineation was conducted in accordance with state and federal wetland regulations and summarizes the potential jurisdiction. This will used to support biological reports, NEPA documents, and permit applications.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Wetlands Delineation Report and Classification: PNNL – Sequim (formerly MSL) Estuary Wetland Delineation

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) – Sequim, historically known as the Marine Sciences Laboratory (MSL) in Sequim, Washington, is managed and operated by Battelle on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Pacific Northwest Site Office (PNSO). The site provides capabilities for future energy research, climate change effects analyses, wetland and coastal ecosystem restoration, other environmental research involving marine resources and hosts the only marine research facilities in the Department of Energy National Laboratory Complex. In order to support campus development, maintenance, and potential research activities, a wetland delineation was conducted on the northern portion of campus in accordance with state and federal wetland regulations. This technical report details out the delineation.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Navigating United States Standards and Regulation for Digital Energy Systems

This report provides an analysis of the U.S. standards and regulatory landscape for digital energy systems, focusing on cybersecurity, safety, and reliability requirements. It examines the interplay between federal mandates, state regulations, voluntary industry standards, and utility-specific policies, highlighting critical gaps between compliance and real-world risk mitigation. While NERC CIP standards enforce cybersecurity for Bulk Electric System assets, distribution-level infrastructure and emerging technologies often fall outside mandatory oversight, creating vulnerabilities. The report identifies systemic challenges such as reliance on self-attestation, uneven state adoption of safety codes, and lagging standards for advanced technologies like battery energy storage and inverter-based resources. Through a detailed gap analysis, it underscores the urgency of proactive risk-based approaches, independent verification, and strategic engagement with state and federal entities. Recommendations include adopting tiered security frameworks, strengthening procurement practices, and addressing emerging technology risks to ensure resilient and secure digital energy infrastructure. This guidance is intended for utilities, regulators, and stakeholders navigating compliance obligations and seeking to enhance cybersecurity and safety beyond minimum standards.

24 - POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

Regulatory Decision-Making Process Using 'Weight of Evidence: An Evidence Integration Approach' by the State of Washington at the Hanford Site - 20163

Performance Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement Modeling, Human and Ecological Risk Assessments are the tools used by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to make regulatory decisions for permitting and cleanup. These efforts all inherently have large amounts of uncertainty no matter how many alternative approaches are attempted. Professional feedback from tribal governments, stakeholders, federal and state regulators, the public and independent peer review groups are taken into account in this process of informed decision making. The process also includes full evaluation of the comments and the associated reviews made by the various peer review groups such as the Low -Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group (DOE order 435.1) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The evolution of technology has produced quicker and more efficient fate and transport modeling tools with related quantification of uncertainties and their significance. Groundwater and vadose zone models have been expanded across the entire Hanford site. Many of the technical approaches identified in the Washington State Regulations are updated using current knowledge to better understand the complexities of the Hanford Site using the latest state of the art tools for risk assessment and modeling. More emphasis and time are directed on defining uncertainty and then managing the uncertainty. One added tool is to run sensitivity cases based on informed decision making. The weight of evidence approach considers all relevant information in an integrative assessment that takes into account the kinds of evidence available, the quality and quantity, the uncertainty and error associated with each type, and how they fit together. Evidence of integration involves looking at systematic reviews and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses. In conclusion, Ecology, Washington State's lead regulatory agency at the Hanford site, has had to modify its site closure approach compared to the rest of the state. A more holistic approach dealing with the Hanford site as an integrated system has evolved leading to a defensible informed approach for regulatory closure decisions. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Basin-Wide Approaches to Hydropower Licensing

This presentation summarizes findings from a 2020 NREL technical report including the FERC relicensing process for non-federal hydropower projects, analyzes FERC-licensed projects with license expiration dates from 2018-2037, discusses FERC's authority to coordinate license terms of hydropower projects within a shared river basin and provides basin-wide case studies and considerations to hydropower relicensing. In the United States there are 1,043 active FERC-licensed hydroelectric projects with a total capacity of 56,097 MW. Of those, 647 with a total capacity of 21,870 MW have license expiration dates from 2018-2037. The expected workload in conjunction with the time, cost, and complexity associated with issuing a single new license has led to initiatives that aim to increase the efficiency of the relicensing process. Federal and state regulators and licensees in California, Maine, New York, and Wisconsin have begun to develop approaches to look at hydropower relicensing as part of a larger system - a river basin. These basin-wide approaches seek to coordinate different stages of the relicensing process for multiple projects at the same time. The goal of these basin-wide approaches is to increase the efficiency of the relicensing process and allow for a more comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of the projects within the basin. These innovative approaches to relicensing could also reduce the workload for regulators and costs associated with relicensing. This presentation discusses some of the findings from the Basin-wide Approaches to Hydropower Relicensing: Case Studies and Considerations including a summary of the key considerations for the FERC relicensing process for non-federal hydropower projects, key findings from the analysis of FERC-licensed projects with license expiration dates from 2018-2037, discusses FERC's authority to coordinate license terms of hydropower projects within a shared river basin and provides basin-wide case studies and considerations to hydropower relicensing.

basin-wide↗
DOE OSTI2025

Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration: Phase III (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) is one of 7 regional partnerships formed in 2003 under the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) initiative. The overall purpose of the initiative was to help determine and implement the technology, infrastructure, and regulations most appropriate to promote carbon storage in different regions of the country. Covering Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and parts of Texas, Wyoming, and Kansas, the SWP evaluated regional carbon storage and utilization potential and focused on technologies and sites that could complement the region’s strong position in energy production. The project progressed through three phases: • Phase I (2003–2005): Characterized regional geologic formations and CO 2 sources, assessed sequestration potential, and identified pilot test sites. • Phase II (2005–2013): Conducted small-scale field tests to validate sequestration methods, including geologic and terrestrial projects. • Phase III (2008–2022): Demonstrated large-scale CO 2 injection at a commercial oil field to test monitoring, verification, and long-term storage strategies. This report covers Phase III. The final project site, the Farnsworth Unit (FWU) in Texas, provided real-world testing of reservoir characterization, monitoring, and risk evaluation tools and processes that could be used in any commercial scale carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) project. Extensive data collection and analysis helped refine best practices for reservoir characterization, injection monitoring, and storage verification. The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Key lessons learned include the importance of robust data management, strategic site selection, regulatory navigation, and effective industry collaboration. The project’s findings will inform ongoing and future carbon storage initiatives. Task 1 (Regional Characterization) • The SWP continued to participate in national outreach efforts and NATCARB. • The SWP evaluated multiple potential sites before selecting the FWU as the primary field test location. Task 2 (Public Outreach and Education) • The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Task 3 (Permitting and Regulatory Compliance) • The SWP ensured compliance with federal and state regulations, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. • The SWP obtained all necessary permits for drilling, injection, and monitoring activities. Task 4 (Site Characterization and Planning) • The SWP developed work plans for four key activities: characterization, simulation, monitoring and verification, and risk evaluation. • The SWP collected and synthesized legacy data from multiple sources to build initial static geological models and dynamic reservoir models demonstrating project feasibility. • The SWP conducted an initial risk evaluation and developed mitigation plans. Task 5 (Field Operations and Data Collection) • The SWP drilled, logged, and cored three characterization wells to gather critical subsurface data. • The SWP conducted multiple geophysical surveys, including 3D seismic, crosswell seismic, and vertical seismic profiling, to improve reservoir characterization. Task 6 (Monitoring and Verification) • The SWP performed extensive geological characterization using data from characterization wells and seismic surveys. • The SWP established a surface monitoring network to track CO 2 flux in soil gas, groundwater chemistry, and near-surface atmospheric CO 2 levels. • The SWP built and refined reservoir models to study the effects of relative permeability on simulation behavior and improve calibration with experimental data. Task 7 (Risk Assessment and Model Refinement) • The SWP conducted multiple studies to evaluate reservoir integrity, predict CO 2 plume behavior and improve predictive modeling capabilities. • The SWP refined geological models and used them to enhance the accuracy of simulation models. • The SWP continued quantitative risk assessment of top-ranked risks and strengthened the link between qualitative and quantitative risk methodologies.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2022

The dynamic nature of risk in DOE facilities in the surveillance and maintenance program–with observations for risk communications

Here, we explore three case studies of facilities at two US Department of Energy (DOE) former nuclear weapons research and production sites—the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Hanford site—whose risk profiles have changed during their long-term management under the DOE's surveillance and maintenance (S&M) program. These case studies provide examples of the challenges faced in communicating to external stakeholders, such as federal and state regulators, local communities surrounding the site, as well as the general public, the circumstances surrounding unexpected events or the emergence/discovery of new risk-important information at historically high-risk sites. We identify common topics of importance from these case studies and suggest a taxonomy for risk communicators to use in informing the dialogues with individuals and organizations that may not be technically oriented or fully informed on the subject matter. The taxonomy is based on technical insights from the quintessential definition of risk known as the Kaplan–Garrick “risk triplet” as well as insights from regulatory guidance documents on risk communication with external stakeholders originally developed for the commercial nuclear power industry.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗
DOE OSTI2026

National Hydropower Fish Passage Database User's Guide and Methodology

Fish passage facilities are used to mitigate the impacts of hydropower dams on migratory fish in rivers, but information on the location, types, and characteristics of this infrastructure is incomplete at a national scale. Researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory partnered with federal agency and industry stakeholders to create the first national-scale database of fish passage infrastructure at U.S. hydropower developments. This database contains information of great value to a broad range of stakeholders; it includes fish passage facility engineering characteristics, targeted fish species, operational schedules, and costs. This data resource addresses a large gap in knowledge of the deployment of fish passage technology and is freely available to members of the hydropower community, including federal and state regulators and resource agencies, non-governmental organizations, industry, and other user groups to support project planning and regulatory (re)licensing activities. This database supports the U.S. Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office objective to develop decision support tools and data resources that improve environmental performance and ensure hydropower’s long-term value to the American public.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

2026 Annual Molten Salt Reactor Campaign Review

This report documents the 2026 Annual Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) Campaign Review held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, from April 21–24, 2026. The review was organized by Dr. Patricia Paviet, National Technical Director of the Advanced Reactor Technology (ART) MSR program for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE), and included participation from principal investigators, federal managers, developers, regulators, and members of the broader MSR community. The 2026 review expanded beyond the ART-MSR campaign to include related DOE-NE programs supporting molten salt reactor advancement, including the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) program, the Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies (AMMT) program, Advanced Reactor Safeguards and Security (ARSS), Material Protection, Accounting and Control Technologies (MPACT), and relevant advanced fuels activities. Three days were dedicated to technical presentations and panel discussions covering thermal properties, off-gas management, modeling and simulation, safety and licensing, safeguards and security, materials and corrosion, and irradiation activities. A fourth day was dedicated to technical tours of Sandia National Laboratories and Kairos Power facilities. Attendance was strong and comparable to the prior annual review, with approximately 75 in-person participants per day, 75–80 virtual attendees per day, and approximately 30 participants in the tour day. The review fostered significant technical exchange across national laboratories, universities, industry, regulators, and international participants. This report summarizes the review structure, technical themes, participation, tours, feedback, and conclusions relevant to future planning for the MSR campaign.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

ORNL National Hydropower Fish Passage Database

Fish passage facilities are used to mitigate impacts of hydropower dams to migratory fish in rivers, but information on the location, types, and characteristics of this infrastructure is incomplete at a national scale. Researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) partnered with fish passage engineers and hydropower experts from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA NMFS), and the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) to create the first national scale database of fish passage infrastructure at US hydropower developments. This database consists of the ORNL_Fish_Passage_Dataset.zip file with 13 individual .csv files that contain information on fish passage facility engineering characteristics, targeted fish species, operational schedule, and costs. which is of great value to a diverse range of stakeholders. This information was collected between December 2023 and July 2025 from project partners, other hydropower stakeholders, online datasets available for download, and a stakeholder questionnaire Information. This data resource addresses a large gap in knowledge of the deployment of fish passage technology and is freely available to members of the hydropower community, including federal and state regulators and resource agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), industry, and other user groups to support project planning and regulatory (re)licensing activities. This database supports the US Department of Energy Water Power Technologies Office objective to develop decision support tools and data resources that improve environmental performance and ensure hydropower’s long-term value to the American public.

Matson, Paul [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)↗
DOE OSTI2023

Addendum 2 to the Closure Report for CAU 577 Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells, NNSS, Nevada

Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 577, “Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells,” includes five low-level waste cells at the Nevada National Security Site Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site where buried waste received from Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., was subsequently determined to contain chromium that exceeded the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure regulatory limit, which would require the waste to carry hazardous waste code D007. CAU 577 was created to satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement (SA) executed between the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) on April 25, 2019 (NDEP 2019). The SA required that the chromium-containing waste received from NFS would be addressed following the closure process laid out in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO). The FFACO process ensures proper closure of the chromium-containing waste and documentation of that closure through FFACO-type documents. The following three Corrective Action Sites (CASs) were closed, and their closure was documented in the Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 577: Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, DOE/EMNV--0030, dated September 2021 (U.S. Department of Energy [DOE] Environmental Management [EM] Nevada Program 2021a): • CAS 05-21-02, Waste Disposal Cell 12 • CAS 05-21-03, Waste Disposal Cell 15 • CAS 05-21-04, Waste Disposal Cell 17 Closure of the following CAS was previously documented in the Addendum to the Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 577: Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, DOE/EMNV--0030-ADD, dated September 2022 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2022): • CAS 05-21-05, Waste Disposal Cell 20 This second addendum to the Closure Report documents the closure activities that have occurred for CAS 05-21-06, Waste Disposal Cell 21. This is the last CAS in CAU 577. The final waste shipment was placed in the waste disposal cell on November 21, 2022. Following this, closure activities began on November 28, 2022, and were conducted according to the Corrective Action Decision Document/Corrective Action Plan (CADD/CAP) for CAU 577 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2021b). The following closure activities were performed: • Constructing an engineered evapotranspiration cover • Installing two subsidence monuments and vadose zone monitoring equipment • Seeding the cover with a mixture of native plant species • Installing four concrete monuments on the corners of the cover and placing two use restriction (UR) warning signs on each monument These activities fulfill applicable federal and state regulations for closure of CAS 05-21-06 and minimize potential future exposure pathways to buried waste. Completed closure activities are also consistent with closure of the nine historical Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) units included in Section 10.2.2 of the RCRA Permit that governs hazardous waste management activities at the Nevada National Security Site (Permit NEV HW0101) (NDEP 2023). UR documentation for this CAS is included in Appendix B of this report. The post-closure plan is presented in detail in the CADD/CAP for CAU 577 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2021b), and the requirements are summarized in Section 5.2 of this document. In accordance with paragraph 5D of the SA, a request to incorporate the requirements for post-closure monitoring of CAU 577 was included with the permit application for RCRA Permit NEV HW0101 that was submitted in January 2022 (NNSA/NFO 2022). The request included the post-closure requirements for the three CASs that had been closed at the time of submittal of the application as well as requirements that would be implemented upon future approval of closure of the remaining two CASs. All CAU 577 post-closure monitoring requirements have been captured in the April 4, 2023, Revision 7 of the RCRA Permit (NDEP 2023). As the RCRA Permit NEV HW0101 has been revised since the submittal of the original CAU 577 Closure Report (DOE EM Nevada Program 2021a) and Addendum 1 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2022), the post-closure requirements in this Addendum 2 report do not align with the previous documents. Specific changes resulting from the issuance of Revision 7 of the RCRA Permit are discussed in Section 5.2 of this report. The requirements in this report are consistent with the current permit (NDEP 2023) and supersede all requirements listed in the CAU 577 Closure Report and Addendum 1. All CAU 577 post-closure requirements should be conducted in accordance with the version of the RCRA Permit that is current at the time of the activities being performed. The DOE EM Nevada Program is requesting a Notice of Completion from NDEP for closure of CAU 577. Although CAU 577 is not a legacy site, the FFACO process is being followed to ensure proper closure of the chromium-containing waste. Therefore, transfer of CAU 577 from Appendix III of the FFACO to Appendix IV, Closed Corrective Action Units, is requested, as all closure activities have been completed.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Biofuel Air Emissions Analysis

U.S. has goals to produce 3 billion gallons of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) annually by 2030, increasing to 35 billion gallons by 2050 to decarbonize the aviation sector. Meeting these production targets will require large number of biorefineries to be set up. However, ability to comply with federal air quality standards is prerequisite to being issued a construction permit. Negotiating the permitting process for a new biorefinery can be quite onerous and cost the investors significant time and money. Although there can be numerous reasons for delayed biorefinery construction, air permitting is fraught with pitfalls because the permitting process relies on precedence, which the future SAF biorefineries lack. NREL's Biofuel Air Emissions Analysis project is unique and innovative in terms of the tools, approaches, and analyses provided. NREL is the only national laboratory that is actively working at the intersection of Federal air quality regulations, emissions and air quality analysis across the supply chain, and process design. This project is focused on providing much needed data and analyses that address biorefinery air permitting. This project develops models and quantitative analyses and measures progress towards meeting air quality regulatory requirements. These models and methods are applied to analyze air permitting related to wastewater sludge to biofuel conversion pathways using hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL), impacts of HTL pathway on local and regional air quality including an assessment of health and equity impacts. In addition to filling research gaps, this project also disseminates the findings to the relevant stakeholders at BETO, other national labs, and regulatory agencies.

air quality↗
DOE OSTI2020

Achieving the End State for the Pahute Mesa Corrective Action Units at the Nevada National Security Site - 20355

Underground nuclear testing at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) ended in 1992. To address the impact of radionuclide contamination from underground nuclear testing on the groundwater resources of Nevada, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) Nevada Program created the Underground Test Area (UGTA) activity to characterize the radionuclides in groundwater, understand the nature and extent of radionuclide migration, and forecast the distribution of radionuclides in groundwater for 1,000 years. The UGTA activity is regulated by the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO), an agreement negotiated between the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), DOE, and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). DOE is close to achieving the end state (closure in place with monitoring and institutional control) for three of the five UGTA corrective action units (CAUs) on the NNSS. A number of challenges remain to achieve the end state of the other two CAUs, both located on Pahute Mesa. Pahute Mesa was the location of 82 underground nuclear tests, less than 10% of the total number of tests on the NNSS. Yet, Pahute Mesa contains slightly more than 60% of the total radionuclides (in curies). Based on groundwater sampling in monitoring wells, two radionuclide plumes have migrated several kilometers (km) in groundwater from selected test cavities and have crossed the boundary of the NNSS (yet remain within the boundaries of Federally controlled land). The path to achieve the end state continues to evolve as more data are collected and a better understanding of radionuclide migration in groundwater is developed. DOE has invested in drilling and sampling more than 50 characterization and monitoring groundwater wells over the past 25 years. The data indicate that the primary radionuclide of concern is tritium as it is about 89% of the total radionuclide inventory (in curies). As well, only tritium has been measured in groundwater outside of cavities at concentrations exceeding the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standard. For one of the tritium plumes that has migrated across the NNSS boundary, the average rate of migration has been measured as about 45 meters (m) per year with the rate of migration at the leading edge of the plume of about 85 meters per year. At that rate of migration, the tritium plume will decay to safe levels and not reach the publicly accessible environment at concentrations above the SDWA standard. Other radionuclides, at concentrations below the SDWA standards, will be monitored to ensure they remain at safe levels. Consequently, the end state path forward for Pahute Mesa has evolved to take full advantage of the data from the monitoring network to constrain uncertainty in model forecasts and to reduce reliance on probabilistic simulations. The focus of the end state approach relies on developing a monitoring well network that is protective of human health by increasing confidence that no radionuclide plume in the groundwater will migrate undetected to the accessible environment, located about 22 km from the nearest up-gradient underground nuclear test. Using the measured data to remove uncertainty, the evaluation of radionuclide migration from Pahute Mesa is directed toward meeting the goals of the end state. (authors)

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

Analysis of Exposure during Transportation of Waste to the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) - 20445

Safety is a priority for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) Nevada Program. This commitment to safety is integrated into requirements and work procedures at DOE sites across the U.S. that generate low-level radioactive waste, mixed low-level radioactive waste, and classified waste that is transported to the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) for permanent disposal. Generators of this waste are responsible for ensuring it is packaged and transported in a safe and compliant manner. These generators and their contracted commercial carriers must comply with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations; the Nevada National Security Site Waste Acceptance Criteria (NNSSWAC); and other applicable federal, state, and local regulations and requirements. This includes packaging and shipping the waste to meet DOT regulatory radiation dose limits to ensure public safety during transportation. NNSS waste generators have a solid safety record for complying with these stringent regulations as demonstrated by the fact that no shipments exceeding DOT dose rate limits were received at the NNSS Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) during FY 2014 through FY 2018. A 2005 study conducted by the Desert Research Institute validated shipments to the NNSS comply with DOT radiation dose limits. In response to recent Nevada stakeholder requests for an updated study, an analysis was conducted to verify and provide evidence that the public continues to be safe from exposure to radioactive waste shipment to the NNSS. Radiation exposure from radioactive waste shipments in transit to the NNSS was evaluated. Three studies were performed: 1. Confirm compliance of waste shipments to the DOT radiation limits using dose rate surveys taken at the generator site and at the disposal site. 2. Estimate the dose to the public from waste shipments using the dosimetry results for disposal site personnel by comparing time of exposure for various individuals/scenarios. 3. Estimate the truck driver dose using the receipt dose rate surveys and time of exposure, and from dosimetry results. Study 1 confirmed compliance with the DOT dose rate limits for a sample of waste shipments (123 of 1,038) received during fiscal year (FY) 2017. Study 2 showed that the average annual radiation equivalent dose for disposal site personnel during FY 2017 was approximately 6.7% [0.415 mSv (41.5 millirem)] of the annual average dose that a person living in the U.S. receives from all sources [6.2 mSv (620 mrem)]. Maximum dose to a member of the public, a person resting/sleeping in an adjacent truck at a rest area to a waste shipment, was 0.0166 mSv (1.66 mrem), which is less than the dose received from a person taking a round trip from the east coast to the west coast of the continental U.S. on an airplane [0.07 mSv (7 mrem) per round trip]. Study 3 showed that the truck driver who made the most shipments of radioactive waste to the NNSS, who drove the most hours (estimated time of exposure 2,520 hours), during FY 2017 had a total dose of 0.15 mSv (15 mrem), which was obtained from their personal dosimeter. The annual dose recorded for disposal site personnel, the dose estimates for the public, and the truck driver dose were all a small percentage of the average radiation dose a person receives from all sources (e.g., background and medical radiation). At these levels, risk should only be described qualitatively. Radiation exposure from radioactive waste shipments to the NNSS were shown to be compliant with the DOT dose rate limits, safe, and very low (i.e., within background levels). (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2022 (Final Report)

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), one of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science’s 10 national laboratories, provides innovative science and technology development in the areas of energy and the environment, fundamental and computational science, and national security. There are three DOE offices within the Richland area. Two are responsible for the Hanford Site, whereas the Pacific Northwest Site Office (PNSO) oversees PNNL. PNNL prepares this Annual Site Environmental Report to meet the requirements of DOE Order 231.1B, Environmental, Safety and Health Reporting, and DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, assuring that the public is informed of any PNNL-Richland Campus or PNNL-Sequim Campus event that could adversely affect the health and safety of the public, site staff, or the environment. The report provides a synopsis of ongoing environmental management performance and compliance activities for operations that occur on the PNNL-Richland Campus in Richland, Washington, and at the PNNL-Sequim Campus near Sequim, Washington. It describes the location of and background for each facility; addresses compliance with applicable DOE, federal, state, and local regulations, and site-specific permits; documents environmental monitoring efforts and their status; presents potential radiation doses to staff and the public in the surrounding areas; and describes DOE-required data quality assurance methods used for data verification. The ASER summarizes site compliance with federal, state, and local environmental laws, regulations, policies, directives, permits, and Orders, and provides environmental management performance benchmarks and their status to the public, regulatory agencies, community officials, Native American tribes, and public interest groups.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2023

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), one of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science’s 10 national laboratories, provides innovative science and technology development in the areas of energy and the environment, fundamental and computational science, and national security. There are three DOE offices within the Richland area. Two are responsible for the Hanford Site, whereas the Pacific Northwest Site Office oversees PNNL. PNNL prepares an Annual Site Environmental Report to meet the requirements of DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting, and DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, thus assuring that the public is informed of any PNNL-Richland campus or PNNL-Sequim campus event that could adversely affect the health and safety of the public, site staff, or the environment. The report provides a synopsis of ongoing environmental management performance and compliance activities for operations that occur at the PNNL-Richland campus in Richland, Washington, and at the PNNL-Sequim campus near Sequim, Washington. It describes the location of and background for each facility; addresses compliance with applicable DOE, federal, state, and local regulations, and site-specific permits; documents environmental monitoring efforts and their status; presents potential radiation doses to staff and the public in the surrounding areas; and describes DOE-required data quality assurance methods used for data verification. The ASER report describes Compliance with Federal, State, and Local Laws and Regulations in 2023, Environmental Sustainability, Environmental monitoring and dose assessment, Natural and Cultural Resource Management, and Quality Assurance activities that took place during Calendar Year 2023.

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗
DOE OSTI2023

Guidebook for Federal Funding Opportunities: BIL, IRA, Disaster Preparedness

The United States is making historic investments in infrastructure resilience and renewal through legislation such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The goal of the Guidebook is to equip regulators to evaluate how federal funding opportunities might best serve ratepayer interests and state objectives.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗