Janelle L. Downs
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Janelle L. Downs.
Other Information: PBD: 30 Dec 1999 | 1999
Michael J. Fayer; Ellyn M. Murphy; Janelle L. Downs; Fenton Oswald Khan; Clark W. Lindenmeier; Bruce N. Bjornstad
Lockheed Martin Hanford Company (LMHC) is designing and assessing the performance of disposal facilities to receive radioactive wastes that are currently stored in single- and double-shell tanks at the Hanford Site. The preferred method of disposing of the portion that is classified as immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW) is to vitrify the waste and place the product in near-surface, shallow-land burial facilities. The LMHC project to assess the performance of these disposal facilities is known as the Hanford ILAW Performance Assessment (PA) Activity, hereafter called the ILAW PA project. The goal of this project is to provide a reasonable expectation that the disposal of the waste is protective of the general public, groundwater resources, air resources, surface-water resources, and inadvertent intruders. Achieving this goal will require predictions of contaminant migration from the facility. To make such predictions will require estimates of the fluxes of water moving through the sediments within the vadose zone around and beneath the disposal facility. These fluxes, loosely called recharge rates, are the primary mechanism for transporting contaminants to the groundwater. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) assists LMHC in their performance assessment activities. One of the PNNL tasks is to provide estimates of recharge rates for current conditions and long-term scenarios involving the shallow-land disposal of ILAW. Specifically, recharge estimates are needed for a fully functional surface cover, the cover sideslope, and the immediately surrounding terrain. In addition, recharge estimates are needed for degraded cover conditions. The temporal scope of the analysis is 10,000 years, but could be longer if some contaminant peaks occur after 10,000 years. The elements of this report compose the Recharge Data Package, which provides estimates of recharge rates for the scenarios being considered in the 2001 PA. Table S.1 identifies the surface features and time periods evaluated. The most important feature, the surface cover, is expected to be the modified RCRA Subtitle C design. This design uses a 1-m-thick silt loam layer above sand and gravel filter layers to create a capillary break. A 0.15-m-thick asphalt layer underlies the filter layers to function as a backup barrier and to promote lateral drainage. Cover sideslopes are expected to be constructed with 1V:10H slopes using sandy gravel. The recharge estimates for each scenario were derived from lysimeter and tracer data collected by the ILAW PA and other projects and from modeling analyses.
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health | 2016
Joanna Burger; Michael Gochfeld; Amoret L. Bunn; Janelle L. Downs; Christian Jeitner; Taryn Pittfield; Jennifer Salisbury
ABSTRACT Governmental agencies, regulators, health professionals, tribal leaders, and the public are faced with understanding and evaluating the effects of cleanup activities on species, populations, and ecosystems. While engineers and managers understand the processes involved in different remediation types such as capping, pump and treat, and natural attenuation, there is often a disconnect between (1) how ecologists view the influence of different types of remediation, (2) how the public perceives them, and (3) how engineers understand them. The overall goal of the present investigation was to define the components of remediation types (= functional remediation). Objectives were to (1) define and describe functional components of remediation, regardless of the remediation type, (2) provide examples of each functional remediation component, and (3) explore potential effects of functional remediation components in the post-cleanup phase that may involve continued monitoring and assessment. Functional remediation components include types, numbers, and intensity of people, trucks, heavy equipment, pipes, and drill holes, among others. Several components may be involved in each remediation type, and each results in ecological effects, ranging from trampling of plants, to spreading invasive species, to disturbing rare species, and to creating fragmented habitats. In some cases remediation may exert a greater effect on ecological receptors than leaving the limited contamination in place. A goal of this conceptualization is to break down functional components of remediation such that managers, regulators, and the public might assess the effects of timing, extent, and duration of different remediation options on ecological systems.
Archive | 2009
James M. Becker; Jerry D. Tagestad; Corey A. Duberstein; Janelle L. Downs
Proposed development of domestic energy resources, including wind energy, is expected to impact the sagebrush steppe ecosystem in the western United States. The greater sage-grouse relies on habitats within this ecosystem for survival, yet very little is known about how wind energy development may affect sage-grouse. The purpose of this report is to inform organizations of the impacts wind energy development could have on greater sage-grouse populations and identify information needed to fill gaps in knowledge.
Environmental Management | 2017
Joanna Burger; Michael Gochfeld; Amoret L. Bunn; Janelle L. Downs; Christian Jeitner; Taryn Pittfield; Jennifer Salisbury; David S. Kosson
An assessment of the potential risks to ecological resources from remediation activities or other perturbations should involve a quantitative evaluation of resources on the remediation site and in the surrounding environment. We developed a risk methodology to rapidly evaluate potential impact on ecological resources for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hanford Site in southcentral Washington State. We describe the application of the risk evaluation for two case studies to illustrate its applicability. The ecological assessment involves examining previous sources of information for the site, defining different resource levels from 0 to 5. We also developed a risk rating scale from non-discernable to very high. Field assessment is the critical step to determine resource levels or to determine if current conditions are the same as previously evaluated. We provide a rapid assessment method for current ecological conditions that can be compared to previous site-specific data, or that can be used to assess resource value on other sites where ecological information is not generally available. The method is applicable to other Department of Energy’s sites, where its development may involve a range of state regulators, resource trustees, Tribes and other stakeholders. Achieving consistency across Department of Energy’s sites for valuation of ecological resources on remediation sites will assure Congress and the public that funds and personnel are being deployed appropriately.
Archive | 2007
Jerry D. Tagestad; Janelle L. Downs
In 2006, the BLM tasked PNNL to collaborate in research being conducted under the Owyhee Uplands Pilot Project to assess rangeland condition. The objective of this effort was to provide Owyhee Uplands Pilot Project with a sophisticated suite of data and tools to assist in evaluating the health and condition of the Owyhee Uplands study area. We focused on three technical areas. The first involved enhancing existing algorithms to estimate shrub canopy cover in the Lower Reynolds Creek Watershed. The second task involved developing and applying a strategy to assess and compare three vegetation map products for the Idaho portion of the Owyhee study area. The third task developed techniques and data that can be used to identify areas exhibiting anomalous rangeland conditions (for example exotic plants or excessive bare soil exposure). This report documents the methods used, results obtained, and conclusions drawn.
Ecological Applications | 2012
G. M. Davies; Jonathan D. Bakker; E. Dettweiler-Robinson; Peter W. Dunwiddie; Sonia A. Hall; Janelle L. Downs; James R. Evans
Journal of Arid Environments | 1994
Steven O. Link; W.J. Waugh; Janelle L. Downs; M.E. Thiede; J.C. Chatters; Glendon W. Gee
Geoscientific Model Development | 2017
Gautam Bisht; Maoyi Huang; Tian Zhou; Xingyuan Chen; Heng Dai; Glenn E. Hammond; William J. Riley; Janelle L. Downs; Ying Liu; John M. Zachara
Journal of Arid Environments | 2016
Jerry D. Tagestad; Matthew L. Brooks; Valerie I. Cullinan; Janelle L. Downs; Randy McKinley
Energy Procedia | 2014
Vince R. Vermeul; Christopher E. Strickland; Paul D. Thorne; Bruce N. Bjornstad; Rob D. Mackley; Mark E. Kelly; Charlotte Sullivan; Mark D. Williams; James E. Amonette; Janelle L. Downs; Brad G. Fritz; Jim E. Szecsody; Alain Bonneville; Tyler J. Gilmore