Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Waste”

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 217 records · Page 12
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↗
DOE OSTI2020

Declaration of the Chemical Composition of Waste-products for the German Repository Konrad Using Substance Vectors - 20500

The waste acceptance criteria of the German repository Konrad require beside a radiological declaration a compositional declaration to be able to avoid negative impact on the groundwater by a presumed leakage into the groundwater after complete corrosion of the containers in the future. The declaration of the composition has to specify compounds and substances not element analyses, because the chemical behavior and toxicity especially of organic compounds varies strongly The relevant compounds have to be described and quantified using defined substance codes provided by the operator. For simple waste types like pure concrete or steel components, the definition of the composition is rather simple. The composition of more complex waste streams is generally declared using producer specific material vectors, which can be derived for defined waste types (e.g. grouted fluids, ash from combustion, super-compacted mixed waste etc.). Additional substance vectors exist for containers, drums and grout, which together with the waste composition yield the total composition of the waste packages. The substance vectors for homogeneous waste streams like cementitious demolition waste, solidified fluids and ash are mostly based on analyses provided by the waste owner. In some cases, analyses from non-radioactive analogues or data sheets can also be used to demonstrate the composition. For each qualified treatment of radioactive waste streams the material composition is described and balanced on the basis of specific material vectors, which are composed of material codes from the material and cask list provided by the Federal company for radioactive waste disposal. For mixed waste streams like super-compacted or grouted mixed waste or materials simply packed in containers an analyses cannot be used. In these cases, the compositional information from the bookkeeping can be used for the entire waste stream to calculate a mean composition including a compositional range (min / max composition). Only waste packages with an approved material description can be delivered to Konrad. Therefore, the material declaration of all waste streams and the resulting waste products is crucial for all waste owners in Germany to be able to have enough waste packages ready, when the repository is going to open in 2027. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
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 OSTI2020

Key Technical Issues for Greater-Than-Class-C (GTCC) Waste Disposal - 20164

Greater-than-Class C (GTCC) waste is low-level waste (LLW) that exceeds the Class C concentrations tabulated in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 61. Disposal of GTCC waste in the near surface (i.e. upper 30 m of the earth's surface) is prohibited in the United States. Though GTCC waste disposal is generally prohibited, the Commission can approve disposal according to 10 CFR 61.55(a)(2)(iv) on a case-by-case basis. The waste classification tables, developed in the early 1980's, were based on model projections of dose to an inadvertent intruder in agricultural, construction, and discovery exposure scenarios. The assumptions and parameters used were documented in a series of public reports. Though different disposal facility designs and site conditions were considered, the waste classification tables were based on a disposal facility design located in a specific environment. The tables were based on shallow (i.e., top few meters) trench facility designs and did not consider deeper facilities. To determine the suitability of GTCC waste disposal in the near-surface, site-specific analyses must account for differences between GTCC waste and Class A, B, and C LLW (hereafter, traditional LLW). GTCC waste can have concentrations of radionuclides that are much higher than traditional LLW. Because of these higher concentrations, processes that are typically not significant for traditional LLW may be significant with respect to disposal of GTCC waste. These processes include, but are not limited to, heat generation, criticality, and radiolysis. The form of the waste as well as the barriers to release of the waste (e.g. waste package) could be substantially different than they are for traditional LLW. These barriers need to be considered when assessing the impacts of accidents during receipt and placement and in evaluating long-term performance. Some GTCC radioactivity is either embedded in stainless steel or contained in stainless steel barriers. Stainless steel can have very low corrosion rates under a variety of environmental conditions. Finally, and possibly most importantly, GTCC waste would likely need to be disposed deeper than traditional LLW to reduce the probability of disturbance. The waste classification table values of traditional LLW are based on an inadvertent intruder excavating into the waste and bringing some of the material to the land surface. If waste is deeper than approximately 5 m, the excavation scenario becomes very unlikely. Therefore, other intruder scenarios, such as drilling exposure scenarios, need to be evaluated. This paper summarizes key technical issues for the disposal of GTCC waste. Our previous study shows that certain GTCC waste may be suitable for near surface disposal whereas others may not. This study may support ongoing technical analyses assessing potential disposal of GTCC in a near surface disposal facility. (authors)

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

Hanford Site Composite Analysis Special Analysis: Inventory and Solid Waste Release Modeling for the LLBG Sensitivity Case - UCAQ-22-01 Inventory Discrepancies for 218-E-12B, 218-W-3A, and 218-W-3AE in the Hanford Site Composite Analysis

This environmental calculation file (ECF) documents the methodologies, assumptions, and results of four sensitivity analyses that reevaluate the representativeness of solid-waste radionuclide inventory and release rate from three solid waste sites included in the recently completed Hanford Site Composite Analysis (CA) (DOE-RL-2019-52, Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Hanford Site Central Plateau (FY 2020), Rev. 1) (hereinafter called the CA Update). Specifically, this ECF reevaluates the representativeness of the base case inventory and radionuclide waste release rates from three solid waste sites (i.e., 218-E-12B, 218-W-3A, and 218-W-3AE) and two radionuclides (i.e., carbon-14 [C-14] and technetium-99 [Tc-99]). These three waste sites and two radionuclides were identified as being the most significant contributors to groundwater contamination and dose in the CA Update for the Inner Area boundary at times periods after the compliance period. This ECF first evaluates the representativeness of the C-14 and Tc-99 inventory and second, radionuclide release rates for the three waste sites1. If the inventory and release rates assumed in the CA Update are determined to be not representative, as hypothesized in the CA Update, then this ECF evaluates the impact of more representative inventories and release rates on the transfer of radionuclides to the vadose zone. The four analyses described in this ECF are as follows: 1) 218-E-12B C-14 Inventory and Release Rate Sensitivity Case – Determine the representativeness of the C-14 inventory and associated waste release rate from the 218-E-12B waste site assumed in the CA Update. If the inventory and associated waste release are more appropriately characterized as being different from the assumptions in the CA Update, then update the predicted C-14 release rate and compare the results to the results presented in the CA Update (DOE/RL-2019-52); 2) 218-W-3A C-14 Inventory and Release Rate Sensitivity Case – Determine the representativeness of the C-14 inventory and associated waste release rate from the 218-W-3A waste site assumed in the CA Update. If the inventory and associated waste release are more appropriately characterized as being different from the assumptions in the CA Update, then update the predicted C-14 release rate and compare the results to the results presented in the CA Update (DOE/RL-2019-52); 3) 218-W-3AE Tc-99 Release Rate Sensitivity Case – Determine the representativeness of the Tc-99 inventory and associated waste release rate from the 218-W-3AE waste site assumed in the CA Update. If the inventory and associated waste release are more appropriately characterized as being different from the assumptions in the CA Update, then update the predicted Tc-99 release rate and compare the results to the results presented in the CA Update (DOE/RL-2019-52); 4) 218-W-3AE Tc-99 Release Footprint Sensitivity Case – Determine the representativeness of the Tc-99 waste area footprint for the 218-W-3AE waste site assumed in the CA Update. If the footprint of the waste is more appropriately characterized as being different from the assumptions in the CA Update, then update the predicted Tc-99 release rate and compare the results to the result presented in the CA Update (DOE/RL-2019-52).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

New Tank Mapping Method Improves Waste Removal Process

Savannah River Mission Completion is the Liquid Waste (LW) contractor at the Savannah River Site (SRS). The LW mission is tasked with treating and disposing of legacy nuclear waste. There are multiple facilities involved in this work, including the Concentration, Storage, and Transfer Facilities (CSTF), the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF), the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF), and the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF). The CSTF includes 43 underground waste tanks used to store and support processing of radioactive liquid waste. Waste removal activities, such as salt dissolution campaigns and sludge agitation, are conducted within the CSTF waste tanks to convert the waste into a form that allows for downstream processing at other LW facilities. While performing these waste removal campaigns, camera inspections are performed to assess the quantity and distribution of the remaining waste within the waste tank (i.e. saltcake or sludge). Understanding the quantity and distribution of the salt/sludge within the waste tanks allows for improved waste removal strategies (e.g. mixing pump operation) and refined safety controls. Typically, several camera inspections are performed during a waste removal transfer to verify the elevation of the visible salt/sludge mounds against the known elevation of the liquid surface. The camera inspection footage must then be interpreted by a trained engineer who will develop a 2-D map that depicts the waste distribution at various elevations within the waste tank. This tank mapping is then used in conjunction with conservative assumptions to evaluate the volume of saltcake or sludge that is present within the waste tank.

Mini, Melany↗
DOE OSTI2021

Modeling and Analysis of the Transport and Disposal of Beryllium Moderator Blocks and Greater than Class C (GTCC) Waste

Radioactive waste in the United states is categorized based on its source, radioactivity, and security risk. The categorization method employed by the Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC) for low-level radioactive waste is not currently applied to any waste generated by the Department of Energy (DOE) or disposed of in DOE facilities. As a result, there is a large volume of DOE-generated waste with characteristics similar to the NRC’s “Greater than Class C” (GTCC) waste category which presently do not have a path for long-term disposal. Much of this waste cannot undergo the standard commercial disposition process due to it being categorized as Transuranic (TRU) waste under DOE guidelines, due to elevated concentrations of key fission products. Possible solutions to this dilemma are explored in the Environmental Impact Statement for the “Disposal of Greater-Than-Class-C Low Level Radioactive Wave” (EIS-0375). This paper analyzes several EIS possible paths for disposal for this “orphaned” waste. One example that highlights this categorization issue is the spent beryllium cladding that has been extracted from the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) throughout its operational lifetime. These beryllium blocks surround the reactor’s main chambers and components and serve as neutron moderators. This paper will use this particular waste form to analyze the economic and technological viability of transporting and storing this material under the storage and transportation criteria of the Waste isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which was deemed the most feasible disposition path according to the EIS. The example of this waste form used in this paper that highlights this categorization issue is the spent beryllium cladding extracted from Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL) Advanced Test Reactor (ATR). These beryllium blocks surround the reactor’s components and serve as neutron moderators, and thus have accumulated high concentration of high-activity transuranic isotopes. This paper analyzed the viability of transporting and storing this material under the storage and transportation criteria of the five primary disposition paths covered in EIS-0375. An array of calculations was carried out to assess the viability of the various disposition paths for the beryllium shipments as well as other waste shipments that fall within the GTCC category. Modeling with MCNP 6.2 was conducted to determine whether the beryllium blocks could be safely stored and transported within a 72-B cask; the standard shipping container for remote-handled, transuranic waste, while also meeting regulatory limits at various disposition paths. A cost analysis of the transportation and long-term disposal paths mentioned in the EIS was also carried out using available data and information from similar waste shipments. Lastly, a geochemical analysis of the various geological repository discussed in the EIS was also carried out using the Geochemists Workbench Release 14. Long-term disposal of the beryllium blocks at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) proved to be the most cost-effective long-term disposition option of the ones considered in the EIS. A dose rate calculation at both contact and remote-handling distances indicate that the analyzed beryllium shipments should not exceed the exposure limits at any of the considered locations. Greater-than-class-C waste has been left in a regulatory state of limbo for years, resulting in backlogs of inventory across several research sites in the United States. Due to its high activity and presence of transuranic isotopes, it is imperative to ensure that it remains inaccessible and sequestered both in its short-term interim as well as a long-term geologic time scale. The information and assessments done in the paper could potentially serve as a reference for any future shipments of this waste form at the WIPP facility as well as other disposition paths that may be considered in the future.

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

Technology Applicable to Remote Hazardous Constituents and Waste Stream Grouping

Originally, Rocky Flats transuranic (TRU) waste was managed from waste streams that were composed of similar chemical constituents and were generated from identical processes. Early waste processing at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) maintained the Rocky Flats record until INL began generating their own item description codes (IDCs). Ultimately TRU waste management at INL was driven to combine wastes from all IDCs that were assigned by Rocky Flats to a summary category group regardless of whether the chemical constituents in the waste were known or not. At this point, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) certified program requirements to process the TRU waste according to waste streams was nearly eliminated. In April 2018, operations in the Sludge Repackage Project (SRP) area were halted by a radiological materials release accident in which drums containing waste experienced a loss of containment after over-pressurization occurred. Four SRP drums, repackaged in the Accelerated Retrieval Project (ARP) V area, had an adverse, delayed chemical reaction event occur when prohibited materials from one container were mixed with chemically-incompatible materials from other containers in the repackaging process. This incident was the direct result of processing unknowns under a protocol where the components of the waste were added to incompatible materials resulting in a run-away reaction. After a Difficult Waste Team (DWT) and Los Alamos National Laboratory – Carlsbad Operations (LANL-CO) subject matter expert (SME) visit in September 2019, it was determined by the team that all of the work observed on the September visit was performed upstream of the certified program and that the Visual Examination (VE) and other methods typically used by the certified program were being used for Acceptable Knowledge (AK) augmentation. This augmentation was needed in order to determine what the constituents in the waste might be, and is based primarily on collections of VE results. The waste at INL that is being processed in what is considered to be the Priority 2 (yellow) and Priority 3 (red) lists either needs AK to be completed before certified characterization can occur or is waiting to be processed because the waste has been mixed with unknown wastes resulting in a lack of information that could have impact of the ability to certify and ship the waste to the WIPP.

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 OSTI2020

Whose Gas is it anyway? Differentiating the Source of a Large Soil Vapor Plume beneath Two Adjacent Waste Sites - 20487

DOE contractor CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company is currently responsible for conducting groundwater contamination monitoring at several RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal units located on the Hanford Site in Richland, Washington State. The Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill treatment, storage, and disposal unit presents a distinct groundwater monitoring problem because of a large multi-contaminant soil vapor plume beneath it that is a likely source of low-level volatile organic compound groundwater contamination. Adjacent to Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill is the Solid Waste Landfill. Volatile organic compounds are inventory components of both the Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill and the Solid Waste Landfill. Therefore, it is possible that both sites could be contributing to the soil vapor plume. For regulatory purposes, it is important to differentiate which site is the primary contributor of volatile organic compounds to the plume. An approach was developed to identify the primary volatile organic compound source of the soil vapor plume beneath Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill and Solid Waste Landfill. The site conceptual model hypothesis of vapor-phase volatile organic compound transport to the dissolved phase in groundwater was tested by a simple mathematical model of vapor/liquid equilibrium concentrations at the groundwater/air interface. Once it was shown that vapor-phase volatile organic compound transport to groundwater was a valid conceptual model for Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill and Solid Waste Landfill, spatial and statistical methods were used to determine the primary site contributing to the majority of volatile organic compounds to the soil vapor plume. Average groundwater chloroform, tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene concentrations from Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill and Solid Waste Landfill monitoring network wells were plotted on maps of the facilities and immediate vicinities and compared to soil vapor sampling probe locations. Principal component analysis and mixing ratios were used to identify source contributions of each treatment, storage, and disposal unit to the plume. Results of the vapor/liquid equilibrium concentrations mathematical model showed that transport phenomena outweigh steady-state equilibria. Estimated vapor/liquid equilibrium concentrations were considerably lower than soil vapor measurements. The results indicate that dynamic vadose zone and groundwater factors such as decreased vapor concentrations with depth, vapor dilution from dispersion in the vadose zone, and advective and diffusional volatile organic compound dilution in groundwater result in groundwater volatile organic compound concentrations much less than would be measured under steady-state equilibrium conditions. Site source contribution differentiation by principal component analysis and mixing ratios was inconclusive using actual soil gas data because of the similarity in concentration values in both datasets for Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill and Solid Waste Landfill. Similar data populations suggest mixing of the vapor contributions from both sites by dispersion through the soil matrix pore spaces. However, when groundwater volatile organic compound data were compared between the Nonradioactive Dangerous Waste Landfill and Solid Waste Landfill monitoring networks, Solid Waste Landfill mean concentrations were higher, suggesting more vapor-phase volatile organic compound transport to groundwater at those locations. Simulated volatile organic compound soil vapor and groundwater datasets created to test the methods developed for this study show that the method can be successful in source differentiation when significantly different datasets are compared. This paper will describe a method of testing a conceptual model for vapor-phase contaminant transport to groundwater and for differentiating site sources of contaminants comprising a mixed-constituent soil vapor plume. (authors)

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

Using Robotic Manipulators for Radioactive Waste Inspection - 20090

The global nuclear industry has a growing volume of nuclear waste which needs to be scanned, sorted according to its activity and material type, then processed into the correct waste packages for long term storage and disposal. It is vital that there is a detailed understanding of the waste inventory stored in long term waste containers, as knowledge of their contents could predict or prevent any adverse effects in storage. The numerous 'scan and sort' tables which are currently used at many different facilities around the world to sort waste into their correct containers are human operated and require very slow gamma scanning procedures combined with educated guesswork to manually sort the waste. This often leads to excessive conservatisms, with placement of lower activity wastes in higher activity containers, which in turn costs significantly more to store. In the United Kingdom it costs UK Pounds 46 k per cubic meter to store intermediate level waste compared to just UK Pound 2.9 k per cubic meter to store low level waste according to a 2008 Department of Energy and Climate Change report in the UK. A proposed solution to this problem, is the use of a robotic manipulator to automatically inspect the 'scan and sort table' in order to produce an accurate 3D model of the table's waste contents and attach an overlaid radiation map. The radiation map contains spectrometry data and can in consequence be used to distinguish and locate specific radioisotopes. The 3D model should be as accurate as possible in order to allow for a second robot arm with an attached gripper to grasp the objects and place them into their designated long-term storage container. Various scanning procedures are explored in this study including basic raster scanning, adaptive raster scanning and point sampling. The optimal solution will in practice be defined by the required application and activity level of the wastes being inspected. The results presented in this study indicate that it is possible to produce a centimeter accurate 3D model of a mixed assortment of components on a nuclear waste 'scan and sort' table. In addition, it was shown that the waste objects emitting radiation could be accurately identified and located, with an overlaid radiation map. This study is applicable across the nuclear waste management sector. Many of the ideas and concepts developed in this study are applicable in other decommissioning settings for example, dismantling of legacy gloveboxes or routine inspection of nuclear waste packages in storage. (authors)

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

A Decade of Innovative Approaches to Treating and Dispositioning Radioactive Waste at the Savannah River Site - 20620

This year marks the 70. anniversary of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Savannah River Site (SRS), located near Aiken, South Carolina. SRS is a key industrial complex responsible for environmental stewardship, environmental cleanup, waste management, and disposition of nuclear materials. SRS also continues to have a role in critical defense-related activities and the reprocessing of used reactor fuel. The SRS encompasses 803 square kilometers (310 square miles) in parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale counties. The Liquid Waste Mission starts with the safe receipt and storage of radioactive liquid waste in the waste tanks, which principally includes Cold War legacy waste, but also waste from support of National Aeronautics Space Administration missions, medical isotope production, and research activities. This 133,000 cubic meters (m{sup 3}) (35 million gallons [Mgal]) of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) is currently held in 43 large underground waste tanks. The capacity of each of these tanks range from 2,800 m{sup 3} to 5,000 m{sup 3} (0.75 to 1.33 Mgal) and were placed in operation between 1954 and 1986. In July 2009, the DOE awarded a stand-alone contract to execute the Liquid Waste Mission at SRS. The Liquid Waste Contractor selected was Savannah River Remediation LLC1 (SRR), which is responsible for receipt, storage, retrieval and treatment of all HLW, disposal of the decontaminated low-activity waste fraction, as well as operationally closing cleaned HLW tanks. Since July 2009, SRR has successfully grouted and operationally closed six large underground tanks, poured 1,476 canisters of vitrified HLW (a stable glass waste form), treated approximately 34,200 m{sup 3} (9.0 Mgal) of HLW, and dispositioned over 41,200 m{sup 3} (10.9 Mgal) of decontaminated salt solution as low-level waste (LLW) into the Saltstone Disposal Units (SDUs) being constructed by SRR on site. The innovative work performed by SRR in the LLW portion of its mission has earned it the Richard S. Hodes Award. The work conducted by SRR is the same work championed by the late Richard S. Hodes, a respected physician, statesmen, and Chairman of the Southeast Compact Commission for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management. (authors)

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

Remote Handled Hot Cell Facility and Other Research Transuranic Waste (Debris)

This acceptable knowledge (AK) Summary Report has been prepared for the Central Characterization Program (CCP) for remote-handled (RH) transuranic (TRU) waste generated and managed by Sandia National Laboratories/New Mexico (SNL/NM) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The waste described in this report was predominately generated in the SNL/NM Hot Cell Facility (HCF) during the removal and packaging of experimental material and decontamination operations in Building 6580 at Technical Area (TA)-V. The waste stream also includes a very small amount of waste (estimated at less than 1 gram of fuel similar to that used for research at the HCF) originating from classified research at TA-I. In addition, the waste also includes secondary waste termed by SNL/NM as process generated waste (PGW), created during repackaging operations for this waste at the Auxiliary Hot Cell Facility (AHCF). The waste has been stored at the Sandia Pulsed Reactor (SPR) Dense Pack Storage Facility within TA-V or the Manzano Bunkers located at Manzano Base within Kirtland Air Force Base. All of the waste is being repackaged at the AHCF. This report was prepared in accordance with CCP-TP-005, CCP Acceptable Knowledge Documentation (Reference 1), to implement the AK requirements of DOE/WIPP-02-3214, Remote-Handled TRU Waste Characterization Program Implementation Plan (WCPIP) (Reference 2); Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Waste Analysis Plan (WIPP-WAP) (Reference 3); and DOE/WIPP-02-3122, Transuranic Waste Acceptance Criteria for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP-WAC) (Reference 4).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗