Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Wastes”

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 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Model Package Report: Composite Analysis Solid Waste Release Model (CASWR Model)

This document describes the implementation of a solid waste form release model in GoldSim for the Hanford Site Composite Analysis (CA) Update. This Composite Analysis Solid Waste Release model (CASWR model) was designed to generate deterministic radionuclide release rates for Hanford’s Central Plateau solid waste disposal sites using single realizations of release model coefficients. Five generalized waste form types are used for the conceptual model of waste release: surplus reactor block, cement, soil-debris, grouted residual waste, and ancillary equipment. The surplus reactor block waste form consists of radionuclide leaching from surplus production graphite reactor core blocks via unspecified processes (White et al., 1984 as cited in PNNL-15965). The cement waste form represents solidified wastes whose permeability is much lower than that of the surrounding soil. The soil-debris waste form type is defined as unconsolidated waste mixed with soil material. Tanks and canyon complexes comprise the grouted residual waste form such that their solid waste will be grouted and capped with a surface barrier at the completion of their cleanup. Finally, the ancillary equipment waste form constitutes contaminant releases from ancillary and auxiliary waste form residues associated with tank farms at closure. Individual sub-models are implemented to numerically represent a respective waste form within the CASWR Model: Surplus Reactor Block Sub-model, Cement Sub-model, SoilDebris Sub-model, Grouted Residual Waste Sub-model, and Ancillary Equipment Submodel. Advection is assumed to be the primary transport process governing the release of radionuclides in the Ancillary Equipment and Soil-Debris Sub-models. Diffusion is assumed to be the primary release process in the Grouted Residual Waste and Cement Sub-models. An unspecified zero-order release process is considered in the Surplus Reactor Block Sub-model due to the lack of information regarding actual processes involved in irradiated graphite leaching. The Surplus Reactor Block, Cement, and SoilDebris Sub-models were compared against analytical solutions (PNNL-11800, Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site). The agreement between results of these analytical solutions and the corresponding waste form models verified their correct implementation in GoldSim. A 1-D modeling abstraction approach for the Grouted Residual Waste and Ancillary Equipment Sub-models was adopted from existing Performance Assessment (PA) models. Despite the simplifications made in these sub-models, they were found to be appropriate representations of the waste forms, similar to what was used in the Waste Management Area C PA model (RPP-ENV-58782, Performance Assessment of Waste Management Area C, Hanford Site, Washington, Rev. 0). A sensitivity analysis was conducted to identify the most influential parameters in each waste form sub-model. Suggestions for considering pH-dependent and redox-dependent release mechanisms are formulated through the development of a conditional constant approach in GoldSim.

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

Tank Waste LDR Organics Data Summary for Sample-and-Send (Rev.1A)

The presence of organic chemicals regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) adds complexity to treating and disposing of the low activity fraction of Hanford tank waste if a low temperature treatment method such as grouting is used (SRNL-STI-2020-00228). The complexity arises from the fact that the baseline vitrification method is considered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) as providing adequate thermal treatment for organics; a status not automatically extended to a lowtemperature process, such as solidifying the waste in a cementitious waste form. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) LDR program is intended to ensure that wastes are properly treated prior to disposal. Proper treatment makes hazardous waste less harmful to groundwater by reducing the mobility and/or toxicity of the hazardous constituents in the waste. EPA guidance indicates that stabilization/solidification of waste for organics could be considered impermissible dilution under the LDR dilution prohibition. In addition, waste storage activities at Hanford have required transferring and blending waste within the tank system and these activities have potentially altered the concentrations of the hazardous constituents. The LDR dilution prohibition found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 268.3 states that “… no generator, transporter, handler, or owner or operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility shall in any way dilute a restricted waste or the residual from treatment of a restricted waste as a substitute for adequate treatment …”. Hence, if LAW is to be treated using low temperature stabilization (such as cementation), then it is important to demonstrate both how past storage activities have contributed to the removal (by vacuum evaporation), or destruction (by in situ decomposition) of the LDR organics and how future retrieval and waste feed preparation will contribute to their removal (by filtration and ion exchange). Demonstrating these processes helps validate that cementation without additional organic treatment does not necessarily represent impermissible dilution. To aid in implementing cementitious solidification of Low Activity Waste (LAW), WRPS has been developing a regulatory and processing LDR treatment variance strategy termed “Sampleand-Send” that relies, in part, on demonstrating that in situ decomposition reactions along with historic evaporation of tank waste has destroyed or removed most of the LDR organics possibly associated with Hanford Tank Waste (SRNL-STI-2020-00582, SRNL-STI-2021-00453, SRNL-STI-2022-00391). Under the Sample-and-Send concept, Hanford tank waste would be retrieved, processed through a Tank-Side Cesium Removal-like system, and staged as a candidate feed that would then be sampled to confirm the waste acceptance criteria is met for solidification in an LAW cementitious treatment facility. If it can be shown that LDR organics are at concentrations below the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for cementitious stabilization and have been sufficiently removed (by historic evaporation or by filtration and ion exchange during Cs removal), destroyed (by historic in situ decomposition), or are not soluble in LAW above the WAC then additional organic treatment is not needed prior to creating a cementitious final waste form and the concept of Sample-and-Send would be proposed to establish a non-rulemaking site-specific treatment variance using the specified method of treatment “STABL” to remove sampling requirements of the waste form after treatment. Waste not meeting the WAC could either be routed to the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant for LAW vitrification, or further processed by evaporation or chemical oxidation before solidifying in a cementitious waste form. A key component in implementing the Sample-and-Send strategy is identifying which of the 207 LDR organic compounds associated with the RCRA Part A permit application waste codes for the Double Shell Tanks (DSTs) and Single Shell Tanks (SSTs) and any applicable Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHCs) from 40 CFR 268.48 should be considered as potentially present and thus subject to regulation. In addition, it is also necessary to understand the solubility volatility, and reactivity of these compounds in LAW to identify which of the potentially present LDR organic compounds are not soluble above regulatory levels or are likely to have been removed by historic evaporation or destroyed by in situ decomposition reactions. If there are potentially present LDR organic compounds that have not been removed or destroyed and are soluble above regulatorily significant concentrations then a treatability variance may be needed for these species to eliminate any concerns pertaining to impermissible dilution. The spreadsheet accompanying this calculation report contains the data and logic computations needed to screen the list of 207 LDR organics associated with Hanford tank waste to identify those potentially present and to indicate which compounds may need to be included in a treatability variance.

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

Field-Scale Lysimeter Studies of Glass and Cementitious Waste Forms at the Hanford Site - 20392

The Hanford site Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) will receive waste forms from vitrification activities at the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The waste form inventory to be disposed of at the IDF will consist of vitrified low-activity waste (LAW) in glass forms and solidified (or encapsulated) secondary wastes in cementitious forms. The IDF is a near-surface burial facility located near Hanford's Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant in the 200 East Area of the site's Central Plateau. An extensive set of laboratory experimental data has been collected to support IDF performance assessment calculations of the eventual degradation of waste forms and mobility of contaminants. This paper describes the start of a field experiment to generate waste-form performance data on a larger scale (tens of centimeters), over a longer duration (five years or more), and under field conditions representative of the IDF. Results from this study are expected to improve model descriptions of contaminant mobility, reduce uncertainties about the representativeness of laboratory results in the IDF performance assessment, improve stakeholder confidence in the safe disposal of treated waste at the IDF, and facilitate the adoption of informed facility designs with the potential to reduce operational costs. A lysimeter test facility near Hanford's 200 West Area has been repurposed to carry out long-term assessments of waste forms buried in sediments excavated from the IDF. The waste forms are buried in large drainage lysimeters, open caissons that are two meters in diameter and three meters deep. Waste forms are buried in up to six locations in each lysimeter. Samplers collect pore water and drainage water beneath the waste forms and air from the pore space adjacent to waste forms. Sensors measure temperature, soil water content, soil water tension, and drainage flux. One lysimeter containing cementitious waste forms and one containing glass waste forms have been completed, along with a control lysimeter (without waste forms). The cementitious waste forms are Cast Stone grout formulations using a liquid secondary waste simulant and a generic Hanford high-salt simulant, as well as a hydrated lime-based grout formulation using a liquid secondary waste simulant. Technetium-99 and iodine-127 were added as tracers to monitor contaminant mobility. Glass waste forms were fabricated in two formulations (LAWA44 and ORLEC28), with rhenium and molybdenum tracers to monitor waste form degradation. The predicted performance of the waste forms in the lysimeters was modeled prior to installation to determine waste form size, tracer concentration/activity, and locations of sensors and samplers. (authors)

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

E-Area Low Level Waste Generator Inventory Uncertainty Estimation

This report describes the method used to estimate the uncertainty and bias in the low-level waste inventory, as reported by Waste Generators, for waste disposed in the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility at SRS. The waste cut uncertainty and bias is summed to calculate the current total uncertainty and bias in each disposal unit in the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility. This information is used to estimate the future uncertainty and bias when all disposal units are closed. For most waste cuts, there are two areas of inventory uncertainty and bias: in the isotopic characterization of the waste stream and in the measurement of total waste cut activity. Waste stream characterization is accomplished through a combination of process knowledge and analytical measurements. This characterization is documented by a technical baseline that describes the relative quantity of each isotope present in the waste stream. The total activity of each individual waste cut is usually measured directly or is calculated through a ratio of activity per weight or activity per volume. The waste cut total activity is multiplied by the waste stream isotopic fraction to calculate the total isotopic activity present in the waste cut. The waste cut uncertainty and bias is calculated by analyzing the uncertainties and biases in the waste stream characterization and waste cut measurements and adding the uncertainties in quadrature and multiplying the reported isotopic activities by the bias factors. The current isotopic inventory, uncertainty, and bias of a disposal unit is the sum of the currently disposed individual waste cut isotopic activities, uncertainties, and biases. The future uncertainty and bias is estimated based on the average “worst-case” (largest) uncertainties and biases of currently closed and operational disposal units. This report details the method, data sources, and calculation techniques used to calculate these values. It also presents some of the difficulties in working with the reported data and gives examples of the calculations and analysis. The software used to carryout the analysis is included and the location of the complete individual analyses is given. After discussion with waste generators, examination of multiple waste characterization documents, and a review of SRS Manual 1S, the reported ELLWF radionuclide activities are clearly conservative and likely represent reasonable upper bounds for the true activities. However, quantifying the bias and uncertainty in each waste cut requires detailed analysis of the documentation for each waste cut measurement and waste stream characterization.

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

Improving PCM Waste Management Through New Approaches to Screening for LLW Treatment and Disposal - 20145

A major step forward in the management of Plutonium Contaminated Material (PCM) Waste has been taken at the Sellafield site with the introduction of new capabilities to enable wastes previously conservatively designated as PCM Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) to be re-classified for treatment as Low Level Waste (LLW). The Sellafield site, located in the North West of England, within the United Kingdom (UK), has operated plutonium processing plants and waste facilities for almost 70 years. During this time management of the raw PCM waste produced has presented a variety of challenges. The waste is currently processed by high force waste compaction in the Waste Treatment Complex (WTC). The WTC converts 200 litre drums of raw PCM waste into a compacted, grout encapsulated monolith form within stainless steel containment, ready for emplacement within the UK's Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) when it becomes available. To help progress some of the wastes waiting for treatment, recent improvements have been made with the introduction of new waste assay instrumentation which enables the identification of a 'candidate' waste potentially suitable for disposal via the LLW treatment route. Opening a new LLW route for previously designated PCM has been a major advance in PCM waste management policy. It has required a range of technical assessment arrangements to be developed, tested and commissioned and involved the engagement of a wide range of stakeholders. In particular, very detailed technical analysis methods have been developed to ensure that there is a robust and conservative approach to the final sentencing of waste. Following completion of commissioning tests, the first 86 m{sup 3} of previously designated PCM waste was successfully treated through the LLW route and consigned to LLW disposal in June 2019. The direct benefit of sentencing waste to the correct waste route (LLW) is the significant cost savings across the complete range of waste management activities. This work is also strategically important for demonstrating to a range of stakeholders including workforce and regulators, that waste previously designated as PCM can be re-classified in a systematic and justifiable way without increasing risk to personnel or the wider environment. By ensuring that waste is being managed appropriately it will be possible to carry out more remediation work safely, in less time, and at a lower cost. (authors)

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

Nuclear Criticality Safety Assessment of Criticality Control Containers without Moderation Control at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) provides for safe, permanent disposal of government-owned transuranic (TRU) and TRU mixed wastes. Receipt and disposal of waste at the WIPP site began in March 1999. The Sandia report, Consideration of Nuclear Criticality When Disposing of Transuranic Waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, addressed potential nuclear criticality safety issues based on the projected inventory characteristics known at the time [1]. As designs for inventory, waste forms, and disposal packages have changed, new analyses have been performed, and updates have been made to address any potential effects to the WIPP safety basis. New analyses performed include Saylor 2017 [2] and Brickner 2019 [3], which address certain waste containers with specified loadings under post-closure conditions. Both examined several hypothetical scenarios and included analyses to bound (from a criticality potential standpoint) credible configurations that could occur at WIPP during the repository regulatory post-closure disposal time period for feature, event, and process (FEP) considerations—10,000 years. During this post-closure period at WIPP, the screening of FEPs is governed by the risk-based standards and implementing regulations of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (i.e., 40 CFR 191 and 40 CFR 194, respectively) [4,5]. An FEP screening can be based on either a low-consequence or low-probability rationale. A low-probability rationale includes either (a) a qualitative rationale that the FEP is not credible or (b) a quantitative demonstration that the probability is less than 10-4 in 104 years. In this evaluation, a qualitative lowprobability rationale of not credible is used by demonstrating that bounding configurations of the waste are not critical. The demonstration of subcriticality is through quantitative calculations, but a probability of criticality is not evaluated. Rather, the rationale for this evaluation is that bounding configurations with an effective neutron multiplication factor (keff) well below the upper subcriticality limit (USL) make criticality incredible. Reference [2] documented a nuclear criticality assessment of the WIPP repository for disposal of dilute surplus plutonium materials using the Dilute and Dispose Approach and packaging in criticality control overpacks (CCOs). The CCO is the waste disposal container recently designed to allow for up to 380 fissile gram equivalent (FGE) 239 Pu per drum, which is a higher fissile loading than typical waste containers. The CCO consists of a criticality control container (CCC) positioned by upper and lower plywood spacers within a standard 55 gal drum. The CCC is used to establish a geometry control for fissile materials during transportation and WIPP emplacement operations. The current WIPP waste acceptance criteria for CCO payloads limit beryllium to less than or equal to 1% by weight of the waste contents and require the waste form to be non-machine compacted. Reference [2] considered two scenario progressions—room closure from salt creep, hereafter referred to as the reconfigured dry scenario, and flooding with brine, hereafter referred to as the reconfigured wet scenario. The subsequent drying out of the reconfigured wet scenarios was also considered. For all scenarios, subcriticality was maintained when 50 g of B 4 C (acting as a neutron absorber) per CCC was intermixed within the plutonium disposition waste form. The analysis used a waste form description that limits the amount of moderation that could be present within the waste form (i.e., it limits the amount of water and polyethylene that could be present based on planned processing conditions). This analysis to evaluate increased limits on the amount of moderation that could be present was performed as a companion to Reference [2] to address concerns associated with verifying moisture and/or plastic contents of waste materials following packaging of dilute surplus plutonium in the CCO. To that end, this analysis used the models and methods from Reference [2] to evaluate a more generic base waste form consisting of water and polyethylene that is more similar (and nearly identical) to the generic waste forms utilized in other models/analyses supporting the TRU Package Transporter Model II (TRUPACTII) safety analysis [6] (all are without moderation controls). The waste form in this analysis uses a base mixture of 75% water and 25% polyethylene, the total amount of which is varied to determine the optimum moderation to fissile material (H/Pu) ratio. The fissile loading is maintained at up to 380 FGE 239 Pu (modeled as PuO 2 ) per CCO with an additional 545 g of beryllium (to bound the 1% by weight contents restriction) and 50 g of B 4 C intermixed per CCO. The beryllium content (1% by weight) is based on the total allowed waste weight (this does not include packaging and container weights). Figures ES-1 and ES-2 display summary results, showing that with this model including 50 g of B 4 C per CCO, the system keff remains under 0.85 for all moderator amounts and provides a significant margin against post-closure criticality under postulated bounding conditions for compaction. Figure ES-1 compares an infinite model with a room model at the initial emplacement spacing and under full radial compaction. Full radial compaction places each CCC in direct contact and does not credit any anticipated spacing associated with current post-closure geomechanical modeling of the repository [7]. The effects of variations in the H/Pu ratio were evaluated by varying the amount of the water/polyethylene component of the waste model, with fissile loading maintained at 380 239 Pu FGE. Similarly, Figure ES-2 illustrates how various amounts of B 4 C per CCO influence k eff at different radial compactions, all at the H/Pu ratio of 200 (in the room array model). Therefore, while the results from Saylor 2017 [2] modeled more realistic process limits associated with packaging of dilute surplus plutonium, this analysis demonstrates that limits on moderation (plastic and water content) are not necessary to ensure subcriticality in the WIPP repository, provided the requisite B 4 C absorber is present.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗