Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DOE”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2019

Collaborative development of diffraction-limited beamline optical systems at US DOE light sources

An ongoing collaboration among four US Department of Energy National Laboratories has demonstrated key technology prototypes and software modeling tools required for new high-coherent flux beamline optical systems. New free electron laser (FEL) and diffraction-limited storage ring (DLSR) light sources demand wavefront preservation from source to sample to achieve and maintain optimal performance. Fine wavefront control was achieved using a novel, roomtemperature cooled mirror system called REAL (resistive element adjustable length) that combines cooling with applied, spatially variable auxiliary heating. Single-grating shearing interferometry (also called Talbot interferometry) and Hartmann wavefront sensors were developed and used for optical characterization and alignment on several beamlines, across a range of photon energies. Demonstrations of non-invasive hard x-ray wavefront sensing were performed using a thin diamond single-crystal as a beamsplitter.

Goldberg, Kenneth A.↗
DOE OSTI2023

ESnet Requirements Review Program Through the IRI Lens: A Meta-Analysis of Workflow Patterns Across DOE Office of Science Programs (Final Report)

The Department of Energy (DOE) ensures America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. The DOE’s Office of Science (SC) delivers groundbreaking scientific discoveries and major scientific tools that transform our understanding of nature and advance the energy, economic, and national security of the United States. The SC’s programs advance DOE mission science across a wide range of disciplines and have developed the research infrastructure needed to remain at the forefront of scientific discovery. The DOE SC’s world-class research infrastructure — exemplified by the 28 SC scientific user facilities — provides the research community with premier observational, experimental, computational, and network capabilities. Each user facility is designed to provide unique capabilities to advance core DOE mission science for its sponsor SC program and to stimulate a rich discovery and innovation ecosystem. Research communities gather and flourish around each user facility, bringing together diverse perspectives. A hallmark of many facilities is the large population of students, postdoctoral researchers, and early-career scientists who contribute as full-fledged users. These facility staff and users collaborate over years to devise new approaches to utilizing the user facility’s core capabilities. The history of the SC user facilities has many examples of wildly inventive researchers challenging operational orthodoxy to pioneer new vistas of discovery; for example, the use of the synchrotron X-ray light sources for study of proteins and other large biological molecules. This continual reinvention of the practice of science — as users and staff forge novel approaches expressed in research workflows — unlocks new discoveries and propels scientific progress. Within this research ecosystem, the high-performance computing (HPC) and networking user facilities stewarded by SC’s Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program play a dynamic cross-cutting role, enabling complex workflows demanding high performance data, networking, and computing solutions. The DOE SC’s three HPC user facilities and the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) high-performance research network serve all of the SC’s programs as well as the global research community. Argonne Leadership Computing Facility (ALCF), the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), and Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF) conceive, build, and provide access to a range of supercomputing, advanced computing, and large-scale data-infrastructure platforms, while ESnet interconnects DOE SC research infrastructure and enables seamless exchange of scientific data. All four facilities operate testbeds to expand the frontiers of computing and networking research. Together, the ASCR facilities enterprise seeks to understand and meet the needs and requirements across SC and DOE domain science programs and priority efforts, highlighted by the formal requirements reviews (RRs) methodology. In recent years, the research communities around the SC user facilities have begun experimenting with and demanding solutions integrated with HPC and data infrastructure. This rise of integrated-science approaches is documented in many community and high-level government reports. At the dawn of the era of exascale science and the acceleration of artificial intelligence (AI) innovation, there is a broad need for integrated computational, data, and networking solutions. In response to these drivers, DOE has developed a vision for an Integrated Research Infrastructure (IRI): To empower researchers to meld DOE’s world-class research tools, infrastructure, and user facilities seamlessly and securely in novel ways to radically accelerate discovery and innovation.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Session 058 - Panel: Ensuring Strong Return on Investment for DOE EM Technology Development: DOE Views (1/2) (R1.26)

The panel represented the views of US DOE National Laboratories and DOE Contractors and focused on DOE Technology Development Projects discussing how they approach tech development to maximize return on investment. Successful examples were discussed. Panelists with presentations: Ensuring a Strong ROI for DOE EM Technology Development (Jud Virden); The DOE EM Technology Development Technical Assistance Program (Carol Eddy-Dilek); SRR Liquid Waste Technology Development Program: Encouraging Creativity Maximize Return on Investment (Vijay Jain); Ensuring Strong Return on Investment for DOE EM Technology Development: A Vendor Perspective (Martin Williams)

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Computational Tools and Workflows for Quantitative Risk Assessment and Decision Support for Geologic Carbon Storage Sites: Progress and Insights from the U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership

The 2005 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on CCS raised the profile of CO2 capture and storage (CCS) as an important technology for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CCS is now recognized as a key component of most climate change mitigation scenarios. Since publication of that report the international research, development, and deployment (RD&D) community has advanced key technical aspects, clarified regulatory requirements, explored value chain and infrastructure solutions, and developed incentive paradigms to enable and promote large-scale deployment of CCS. These efforts have included research to better characterize geologic storage resources, to improve injection performance and storage efficiency, to assess and manage subsurface environmental risks, and to advance monitoring technologies to assure system conformance. These efforts have helped to build confidence in the viability of geologic carbon storage (GCS), but stakeholder concerns about long-term risks and liability associated with GCS remain a hurdle to broad acceptance and large-scale deployment of CCS. Since 2010, the U.S. DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) – a research collaboration between five contributing national laboratories – has worked to establish and demonstrate methods and tools to quantify and manage the subsurface environmental risks associated with GCS, amidst uncertainty. This work supports the Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management Carbon Transport and Storage Program’s goal of advancing safe and secure commercial-scale GCS deployment. To address the technical challenge of simulating the physical response of the GCS site to large-scale CO2 injection, NRAP has adopted an approach that relies on coupling computationally efficient reduced-order and/or data-driven proxy models of important system components (i.e., storage reservoir, sealing caprock, leakage pathways, intermediate formations, overlying groundwater aquifers, and the atmosphere) in integrated assessment framework. That integrated model of the physical system is complemented with fit-for purpose functionality to support site characterization and risk-related decisions. The recently released NRAP Phase II toolset includes the Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM) for evaluation of trends in leakage risk and potential impact, tools to support monitoring design optimization (Designs for Risk Evaluation and Management – DREAM v3.0 and Passive Seismic Monitoring Tool - PSMT), and tools for state of stress evaluation (State-of-Stress Analysis Tool - SOSAT) and forecasting induced seismicity risk. The NRAP team has also released a pair of reports describing conceptual workflows to incorporate physics-based, quantitative risk assessment into many of the design, planning, operation, and closure decisions for GCS projects. An online catalogue highlights published studies where these tools and methods are demonstrated. In this presentation, the utility of these products to assess risks and address key stakeholder questions will be highlighted through examples, and related insights about the safety and security of geologic carbon storage in qualified storage sites will be discussed. The prospect of rapid, large-scale deployment of GCS technology to aggressively reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions requires careful consideration of interference between multiple commercial-scale storage projects within a basin. Going forward, NRAP is expanding and adapting site-scale risk quantification tools and methods to enable assessment of risks and inform management decisions for basin-scale deployment. Increasingly, this work will leverage next-generation approaches for surrogate modelling, fast prediction, and advanced visualization enabled by machine learning and artificial intelligence to promote virtual learning, scenario evaluation, and augment risk-based decision making.

quantitative risk assessment, geologic carbon stor↗
DOE OSTI2025

An Integrated ML/AI Framework for Digitizing, Structuring and Searching DOE U-TRU-Fuels Data with Gap Analysis of Non-DOE Records

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced Fuels Campaign (AFC) is advancing transmutation fuel technologies to reduce long-lived radioactive waste by converting minor actinides into shorter-lived or stable elements through irradiation in sodium-cooled fast reactors. Key experiments such as AFC-1, AFC-2, FUels for the transmutation of Trans-URanium elements In phéniX (FUTURIX)-Fortes Teneurs en Actinides (FTA), and Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) X501 have provided fuel fabrication, irradiation, and performance data on various transuranic-bearing fuel forms. This report documents the creation of an artificial-intelligence assisted database, which has consolidated all DOE-owned data related to Transuranic (TRU)-bearing fuel experiments and stored across it across both the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Nuclear Data Management and Analysis System and the INL high performance computing (HPC) infrastructure. A dedicated webpage, hosted on the INL HPC system, has been developed to support role-based access and data interaction. The database architecture allows researchers to navigate large, heterogeneous archives with far greater speed and accuracy than manual search and lays the foundation for future expansion into multimodal nuclear materials analysis environments. The database represents a major step towards a nationally integrated fuels database utilizing artificial intelligence tools.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Scalable Data Center Capacity for DOE's AI Prototype: A Rapidly Available Gigawatt Data Center for DOE

The multilaboratory Gigawatt Data Center working group was commissioned to identify approaches to rapidly establish federal data centers with scalable capacities up to 1,000 MW. These state-of-the-art facilities will serve as hubs for interdisciplinary collaboration, industry partnerships, and transformative applications of artificial intelligence. The proposed strategic shift includes facilitating multilaboratory collaboration, prioritizing operational efficiency, expanding public–private partnerships, optimizing investments, ensuring long-term contractual flexibility, supporting open science and secure data enclaves, and exploiting high-speed national networks. Owing to their extensive experience and best practices, the US Department of Energy national laboratories are uniquely positioned to lead this initiative. We recommend conducting a feasibility analysis to rapidly identify the optimal sites for this initiative, and the effort will likely involve private industry for design, construction, financing, and operational integration. We also propose establishing multiple geographically diverse sites to ensure energy resilience, high operational reliability, and a diverse user base, thereby effectively addressing the nation’s critical needs.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Codisposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW PPT

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties, resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and conditions of SNF, a robust DOE Standard Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard Canister had four variations: 3.05-meter (10-foot) or 4.57-meter (15-foot) length, and 45.7-cm (18-inch) or 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository, these canisters were to be grouped with 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter high level waste (HLW) canisters in a 2.13-meter (84-inch) diameter co-disposal waste package. The smaller 45.7-cm (18-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The larger 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister would take the place of one of the five HLW canisters on the outer ring in the co-disposal waste package. No DOE Standard Canisters have been loaded. A preliminary evaluation has estimated the number of elements of a fuel type that can fit into the different sizes of the DOE Standard Canister, but no definitive loading configuration has been selected. Changing the loading configuration could impact the number of loadable DOE Standard Canisters and the number of co-disposal waste packages needed for eventual disposition. This paper conveys the ranges of DOE Standard Canisters and HLW canisters that may be produced under certain conditions. It also examines the differences in the estimated number of co-disposal waste packages produced for eventual disposal when using different loading strategies in the DOE Standard Canister for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), Peach Bottom, and High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) SNF. Changing the loading configurations of ATR, Peach Bottom, and HFIR SNF slightly impacted the number of co-disposal waste packages that may be needed for ultimate disposal. The change in loading configuration was more impactful when a different canister was used, as opposed to varying the number of elements that could fit inside the same size canister. In one case, a reduction of co-disposal waste packages could be achieved by allowing mixing of short HLW canisters with long DOE Standard Canisters. The main conclusion from this analysis is that the ratio between HLW canisters and DOE Standard Canisters will drive the total number of co-disposal waste packages. If too many HLW canisters (i.e., more than five times the number of 18-inch DOE standard canisters) or DOE Standard Canisters are produced, some co-disposal waste packages may not have all positions filled. A co-disposal waste package may be filled with all HLW with no DOE Standard Canister, or a co-disposal waste package could be filled with a single DOE Standard Canister. A ratio that does not closely align to optimum could allow for the design of waste packages that hold just HLW canisters or just DOE SNF canisters.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Co-Disposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW - 20331

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties, resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and conditions of SNF, a robust DOE Standard Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard Canister had four variations: 3.05-meter (10-foot) or 4.57-meter (15-foot) length, and 45.7-cm (18-inch) or 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository, these canisters were to be grouped with 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter high level waste (HLW) canisters in a 2.13-meter (84-inch) diameter co-disposal waste package. The smaller 45.7-cm (18-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The larger 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister would take the place of one of the five HLW canisters on the outer ring in the co-disposal waste package. No DOE Standard Canisters have been loaded. A preliminary evaluation has estimated the number of elements of a fuel type that can fit into the different sizes of the DOE Standard Canister, but no definitive loading configuration has been selected. Changing the loading configuration could impact the number of loadable DOE Standard Canisters and the number of co-disposal waste packages needed for eventual disposition. This paper conveys the ranges of DOE Standard Canisters and HLW canisters that may be produced under certain conditions. It also examines the differences in the estimated number of co-disposal waste packages produced for eventual disposal when using different loading strategies in the DOE Standard Canister for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), Peach Bottom, and High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) SNF. Changing the loading configurations of ATR, Peach Bottom, and HFIR SNF slightly impacted the number of co-disposal waste packages that may be needed for ultimate disposal. The change in loading configuration was more impactful when a different canister was used, as opposed to varying the number of elements that could fit inside the same size canister. In one case, a reduction of co-disposal waste packages could be achieved by allowing mixing of short HLW canisters with long DOE Standard Canisters. The main conclusion from this analysis is that the ratio between HLW canisters and DOE Standard Canisters will drive the total number of co-disposal waste packages. If too many HLW canisters (i.e., more than five times the number of 18-inch DOE standard canisters) or DOE Standard Canisters are produced, some co-disposal waste packages may not have all positions filled. A co-disposal waste package may be filled with all HLW with no DOE Standard Canister, or a co-disposal waste package could be filled with a single DOE Standard Canister. A ratio that does not closely align to optimum could allow for the design of waste packages that hold just HLW canisters or just DOE SNF canisters. (authors)

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

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Title II DOE Due Diligence and Lessons Learned from a Previous Site Transfer - 20352

Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) established that a government agency will provide perpetual care for closed uranium and thorium ore-processing sites that were operating under an NRC source material license in 1978 or were licensed thereafter. Commercial owners (licensees) operating under an NRC or agreement state specific license when UMTRCA was passed are responsible for conducting reclamation of any byproduct material remaining from uranium-ore processing operations in accordance with an NRC or agreement state approved reclamation plan. Reclamation includes both surface and groundwater remedies. Upon completion of reclamation and approval by NRC, the site is required to be transferred to either the host state or the DOE for long-term surveillance and maintenance. Since UMTRCA's enactment, six Title II sites have been transferred to DOE; an additional 24 Title II sites are anticipated to be transferred before 2050. DoE's role mandated under UMTRCA Title II as the long-term care custodian is to perform 'monitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures necessary to protect the public health and safety.' UMTRCA requires that the licensee pay a long-term surveillance charge 'sufficient to cover the annual costs of site surveillance.' However, at some sites such as the Bluewater, New Mexico, Disposal Site, this mandate has required additional effort and expense by DOE, beyond the originally anticipated and intended scope within UMTRCA, but within the authority of DOE under UMTRCA. In 1997, the Bluewater site became the second UMTRCA Title II site to be transferred to DOE. The site was the location of a uranium mill operated from 1953 until 1982. The specific licensee began site reclamation in 1991, and by 1995 all tailings and contaminated materials were encapsulated in two tailings disposal cells and other disposal areas. In addition to surface contamination, milling activities impacted groundwater in the two upper aquifers. In 1989, the specific licensee attempted active groundwater remediation; however, no significant reduction in contaminant concentrations was observed. As a result, the specific licensee applied to NRC for alternate concentration limits (ACLs) in 1990, which were approved in 1996 as being protective, after additional corrective actions were performed. Since transfer of the Bluewater site to DOE, unforeseen challenges have occurred, requiring additional actions. The first challenge is the occurrence of surface depressions located on the northern section of the main tailings disposal cell. The depressions were first observed during DoE's initial inspection in 1998; however, evidence of these can be observed on satellite images taken prior to transfer. Since being first observed, the depressions have continued to grow both in depth and areal extent. Due to the design of the main tailings disposal cell, the depressions impede storm water from being effectively shed off the 101- hectare (250-acre) top slope of the main tailings disposal cell. Instead, storm water accumulates in the depressions, forming a large ephemeral pond that has stored up to 16.3 x 10{sup 6} liters (4.3 million gallons) of stormwater. The ponding poses a potential risk to the integrity of the main tailings disposal cell in the case of a large storm event, with the potential to cause the pond to overtop and erode the cover material and underlying waste. DOE has taken a number of short-term actions to monitor, measure, and reduce the ponding and is currently working with the US Army Corps of Engineers to design and construct a repair. Additional challenges are associated with groundwater at the Bluewater site. Nine wells were present on the 1335-hectare (3300-acre) site upon transfer. Groundwater compliance was called into question after the State of New Mexico reduced its uranium groundwater standard from 5.0 to 0.03 milligrams per liter in 2004, and when an ACL for uranium was exceeded in a site monitoring well in 2010. Acquiring historical groundwater data and subsequent evaluations as well as additional DOE groundwater monitoring led to installing 10 new monitoring wells and performing additional site hydrogeology recharacterization. DOE continues to evaluate groundwater conditions at the site and works with the NRC to determine regulatory requirements and a path forward. As a result of lessons learned at the Bluewater site and other Title II sites, improved processes have been implemented at a programmatic level to increase due diligence before site transfer and prevent similar issues from occurring at other UMTRCA Title II sites under long-term management. DoE's due diligence process is documented in the Process for Transition of UMTRCA Title II Disposal Sites to DOE for Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance and is designed to ensure that DOE has no technical or compliance concerns with regulatory decisions that might compromise protectiveness following site transfer to DOE. Implementation of the due diligence process has increased DoE's role prior to site transfer and has been effective in identifying potential issues. Actions by NRC and specific licensees, in response to enhanced due diligence efforts by DOE, are expected to minimize, if not totally prevent, the need for unanticipated actions by DOE pertaining to the surface and groundwater remedies after site transfer. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Evolution of Stakeholder Relations at the Mound Laboratory-End of DoE's Mission to the Present - 19551

In November 1989, the same month the Berlin Wall fell, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed the Mound Laboratory (Mound Plant or Mound site) in Ohio on the National Priorities List (NPL) due to volatile organic compound contamination in the groundwater. As a result of the Cold War ending, the United States sought to greatly reduce the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal, consolidate the US Department of Energy's (DOE) mission, and close many DOE facilities. In 1991, the City of Miamisburg learned that DOE was planning to close the Mound Laboratory. The city spent two years lobbying in Washington, DC, to keep the facility open; however, that effort was not successful. By 1993, DOE, EPA, and Ohio EPA had signed a Federal Facility Agreement that formalized EPA and Ohio EPA oversight of the DOE environmental cleanup of the Mound NPL site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The decontamination and cleanup of the Mound site fell under two federal laws, CERCLA and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. DOE, EPA, Ohio EPA, the City of Miamisburg, and other local stakeholders all agreed that the Mound site should be cleaned up to an industrial/commercial land use standard. This would allow the site to transition into a privately owned business park. In 1994, the City of Miamisburg created the nonprofit Miamisburg Mound Community Improvement Corporation (MMCIC) that would own, market, and redevelop the site. The City also chartered the Mound Reuse Committee to act as an independent advisory organization, composed of representatives from the local community and business, government, education, and special interest groups. In 1994, DOE and the MMCIC entered into a lease agreement that facilitated immediate reuse of site buildings that were no longer required by DOE and did not require remediation. In 1995, DOE, EPA, and Ohio EPA developed the Mound 2000 Process to more effectively use CERCLA Removal Action authority to evaluate and remediate, as necessary, disparate areas of the Mound site. The Mound 2000 process divided the site into smaller, more manageable areas that accelerated cleanup and allowed areas to be reused more quickly. All areas of the Mound site were cleaned up to meet the EPA standard for industrial/commercial land use. The CERCLA process included opportunities for the public to review proposed cleanup strategies. Public input on cleanup and reuse included that from local citizens, businesses, Miamisburg City Council, local schools and financial institutions, Ohio EPA, Montgomery County, and the State of Ohio. In 1998, while site cleanup was still in process, DOE agreed to sell the entire Mound property to the MMCIC for $10.00. The site sales agreement accelerated reuse by allowing DOE to offer ownership of discrete land parcels to MMCIC as soon as EPA confirmed those areas met CERCLA standards for property transfer. This allowed the Mound site to become one of the first former DOE weapons sites to transition to reuse as a privately owned and operated community asset. Many other former DOE production facilities require continued federal ownership to protect the integrity of the environmental cleanup. In 2011, the MMCIC changed its name to the Mound Development Corporation (MDC) and continued to transition the site for reuse as part of the Mound Business Park. The MMCIC/MDC is a nonprofit economic development arm of the City of Miamisburg. DOE supported the economic development efforts with grants and matching funds. Individual land parcels were transferred from DOE to the MDC according to the DOE Mound Land Transfer Process. Ownership of parcels was transferred to the MDC via quitclaim deeds with no repair, replacements, or rebuild of areas. Each parcel's quitclaim deed contains the CERCLA institutional controls. To reduce the property tax burden, the Miamisburg City Council passed an ordinance that allowed the City to accept temporary ownership of specific parcels and hold ownership until the MDC could either lease or sell them. With the exception of one 23-acre parcel that includes the Operable Unit 1 area (site of former sanitary landfill), the entire site has been transferred to the MDC. Today, the former Mound Laboratory site is home to the vibrant Mound Business Park operated by the MDC. The site contains numerous buildings with active businesses and multiple areas suitable for new construction. Private companies continue cutting-edge work that carries forward the legacy of more than 50 years of DOE research, development, production, and inspiration from the former Mound Laboratory scientists, engineers, technicians, and support personnel. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗