may or may not adequately attenuate the pesticide to an acceptable level.In the case of lindane, little effective attenuation through adsorption to the sand substrate would be expected from a continuous source. If the pesticide entered the aquifer in a slug, it might be adsorbed immediately and effectively removed from causing potential harm to the water interests. The leaching by uncontaminated waters may cause sufficient dilution to negate potential problems. However, the initially adsorbed lindane would be expected to be readily removed and transported, which could possibly cause harmful results to interests susceptible to chronic low-level exposure.An aquifer contaminated by dieldrin might be expected to react somewhat differently. The considerably increased capacity of the sand for dieldrin would result in an attenuation over a short distance. Once attenuated, the dieldrin might be expected to travel at a much slower rate and in lower concentrations than lindane. This difference would be expected to be magnified in areas where the groundwater contained appreciable amounts of dissolved organics.Variations of pH, particle size, and temperature likely to be found in most subsurface environments would have little effect on the disposition of either pesticide in the aquifer. Simple batch-type tests on the other chlorinated pesticides for comparison of uptake capacity can be expected to yield insight to permit an estimation of their relative disposition in a given aquifer.

No abstract

Auger electron spectroscopy has been used to determine surface concentrations of Mo in Types 304 and 316 stainless steel. The technique involved was Ar+ bombardment removal of the stainless surface with alternate monitoring of the height of the 190 eV Mo peak. Surface concentrations of 14% were observed in mill‐finished Type 316 containing 1.95% bulk Mo. Surface segregation of Mo was also observed in Type 304 containing 0.45% Mo impurity.

No abstract

In the early 1970s the federal government selected an area in southeastern New Mexico containing large underground salt beds as potentially suitable for radioactive waste disposal. An extensive site characterization program was initiated by the federal government. This site became the "Waste Isolation Pilot Plant," better known as WIPP. It is now 1997, over two decades after the initial selection of the New Mexico site as a potential radioactive waste repository. Numerous scientific studies, construction activities, and environmental compliance documents have been completed. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has addressed all relevant issues regarding the safety of WIPP and its ability to isolate radioactive waste from the accessible environment. Throughout the last two decades up to the present time, DOE has negotiated through a political, regulatory, and legal maze with regard to WIPP. New regulations have been issued, litigation initiated, and public involvement brought to the forefront of the DOE decision-making process. All of these factors combined to bring WIPP to its present status at the final stages of working through the licensing requirements for receipt of transuranic (TRU) waste for disposal. Throughout its history, the DOE has stayed true to Congress' mandates regarding WIPP. Steps taken have been necessary to demonstrate to Congress, the State of New Mexico, and the public in general, that the nation's first radioactive waste repository will be safe and environmentally sound. DOE's compliance demonstrations are presently under consideration by the cognizant regulatory agencies and DOE is closer than ever to waste receipt. This paper explores the DOE's journey towards implementing a permanent disposal solution for defense-related TRU waste, including major Congressional mandates and other factors that contributed to program changes regarding the WIPP project. This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or mponsiiility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disdased, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commeMal product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not neCesSarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. This document has been reproduced directly from the best possible copy.