Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Waste management”

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

Innovative Projects on RW Recycling from the French 'Investments for the Future' Program - 20023

The extent and duration of French dismantling operations require to anticipate at the earliest possible stage the management of the large volumes of radioactive waste that will be generated, and to engage collectively in sustainable innovation processes. To anticipate all constraints and requirements related to radioactive waste management and secure the long-term compatibility with waste disposals, the French State has decided to give to Andra, within the 'Investissements d'Avenir' program, an endowment to support innovation at all steps of radioactive waste life cycle with a special emphasis on the dismantling process. Currently, some 30 R and D projects dealing with the optimization of dismantling radioactive waste management are underway. They aim at providing strong innovations in terms of characterization, processing, conditioning and disposal of post dismantling radioactive waste. A specific focus will be made on those dealing with radioactive waste and radionuclides recycling. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Lessons Learned in the Development of Industry Guidance - 20279

The availability of industry guidance on different aspects of waste management forms a valuable reference for waste practitioners. The guidance typically details the principles, processes and practices that should be consulted during each stage of the relevant activities. It also includes relevant regulatory and international requirements, appropriate case studies and examples of best practices to illustrate technical concepts and make the information available to the reader in an accessible manner. Over recent years Wood have developed (or are developing) a number of industry guidance documents on a range of topics including Solid Waste Characterization, Routine Water Quality Monitoring on Nuclear Sites: Pipeline Characterization: Determining Background Radioactivity for Land Quality Assessment: Interim Storage and Aqueous Waste Management. This talk provides an overview of lessons learned along the way including: - the importance of stakeholder engagement through the process: - how to identify 'good practice'; - the importance of iterative development; and - the selection of illustrative and informative case studies. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

TRU Outdoor Operations

This detailed operating procedure (DOP) documents the process for handling, staging, and distributing (i.e., packing/unpacking) transuranic (TRU) waste in compliance with P409, LANL Waste Management, TA55-RD-539, TA-55 FOD Waste Management Requirements, and P409-1, LANL Waste Acceptance Criteria., at designated outdoor storage and operations locations at LANL TA-55.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Consolidated Interim Storage Advantages and Disadvantages from Prior Reports and Studies

The question of whether centralized storage of civilian spent nuclear fuel (SNF) should be part of the federal waste management system as an intermediate step before permanent disposal has been debated for more than four decades. Since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) (U.S. House of Representatives 1982) was enacted, the need for interim storage facilities (ISFs) as part of the federal waste management system has been analyzed and documented in numerous reports and studies. This paper summarizes the advantages and disadvantages as described in those reports of incorporating an ISF into the waste management system.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Consolidated Interim Storage Advantages and Disadvantages from Prior Reports and Studies

The question of whether centralized storage of civilian spent nuclear fuel (SNF) should be part of the federal waste management system as an intermediate step before permanent disposal has been debated for more than four decades. Since the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) [1] was enacted, the need for interim storage facilities (ISFs) as part of the federal waste management system has been analyzed and documented in numerous reports and studies. This presentation summarizes the advantages and disadvantages, as described in those reports, of incorporating an ISF into the waste management system.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Panel Session 99: Commercial LLW Management: Global Perspective

This panel focused on opportunities and challenges in providing commercial nuclear waste management services in a global context. The panelists commented on their approach to establishing new businesses, overcoming communication barriers acquiring / maintaining skills and capabilities and delivering commercial nuclear waste management projects in a range of regulatory and socio-economic environments. The panel discussion was followed by a Q and A session with audience participation. Panelist with presentations: BGE Technology (Thilo von Berlepsch)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Analysis of NuCycle® Process Waste Streams and Identification of Candidate Waste Forms (CRADA 719) Abstract

The objective of this project is to support collaboration between PNNL and Curio to address technical gaps in the immobilization of waste streams generated by the NuCycle® process, thereby improving the overall viability of the technology. This work will be carried out in two phases, described below. Phase 1 – Waste Management Study The first phase consists of a comprehensive waste management study focused on the waste streams produced during the NuCycle® process, including those containing long lived fission products (LLFPs, e.g., I 129) and transuranic elements (TRUs). This phase involves compiling waste compositions and characteristics based on recently completed NuCycle® testing and modeling efforts. Established waste forms and processing methods will be identified for streams where they are applicable.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

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↗

Los Alamos National Laboratory Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Community Relations Plan

The requirements of the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit are fulfilled through execution of LANL's fourth strategic goal: “Enabling mission delivery through next-generation facility, infrastructure, and operational excellence.” With input from our stakeholders, we will continue to fulfill those requirements and to improve our waste operations. In 2015, the Laboratory purpose statement focused waste management efforts by directing delivery of mission success through operational effectiveness and scientific excellence. This Plan advances that purpose through community involvement. In the process of achieving our national security mission, Los Alamos National Laboratory generates some hazardous and mixed waste. Hazardous waste is solid waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to human health or the environment. Hazardous wastes can be liquids, solids, gases, or sludges. They can be discarded as commercial products, such as cleaning fluids or pesticides, or as the byproducts of operations. Specific substances are listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 261: 40 CFR Part 261. Hazardous waste management activities are regulated by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) pursuant to New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act (HWA; Chapter 74, Article 4 NMSA 1978) and regulations under the Act. In 1989, NMED issued the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (EPA ID Number NM0890010515-1) that established standards for the Laboratory to manage, store, and treat hazardous wastes on-site and to undertake the closure, post closure care, and cleanup as necessary, of permitted waste management units. On November 30, 2010, NMED renewed the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (the Permit). In June 2020 the Permittees submitted a permit renewal application to the NMED for their review and approval. The Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Community Relations Plan (CRP) describes the scope of public involvement in the activities of the Permit. The CRP is specifically designed to facilitate the community outreach, engagement, and relations activities concerning the Laboratory’s Hazardous Waste Facility Permit and coordinates with but does not include public involvement for other Laboratory programs, initiatives, or environmental activities.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

A Preliminary Radiological Risk Assessment Model for Disposition of Remote-Handled Transuranic Wastes at Los Alamos National Laboratory Area G - 20116

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) operates a low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal site at Material Disposal Area G, in Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA. Area G has been the primary LLW disposal site for Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) since the 1960's. In addition to LLW, Area G is host to a variety of other wastes, the disposition of which must be determined before closure of the site. A probabilistic Radiological Risk Assessment (RRA) for Area G is used in order to support decision making regarding some wastes that are not addressed in the extant Area G Performance Assessment (PA) and Composite Analysis (CA). Between 1979 and 1987, 33 special shafts were augered into the Bandelier Tuff at Area G. This volcanic tuff is present across Pajarito Plateau on the eastern slopes of the Jemez Mountains, and varies widely in its consistency, from weakly indurated non-welded layers to welded layers that uphold the mesa cliffs of the Plateau. These mesas are home to LANL, Area G, and the townsites of Los Alamos and White Rock, with residences about 1400 m from Area G. The 33 Shafts were lined with steel casing, and contain remote-handled (RH) transuranic wastes (TRU) resulting from experiments and analysis performed in special glove boxes at the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research (CMR) facility at LANL. Some of these wastes originated as used nuclear fuel. The purpose of the Area G RRA is to evaluate the potential future risk to humans and the environment from the RH TRU in the 33 Shafts in the context of the risk associated with the surrounding wastes at Area G. The analysis is responsive to expectations outlined in DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, and is informed by the Manual and Guidance accompanying DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. Because the waste meets the definition of TRU, the regulatory context necessarily takes into consideration the regulation governing the disposal of TRU from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): 40 CFR 191, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes. Given the broader regulatory context for the RRA, the analysis is subject to different assumptions from those made in the existing DOE O 435.1 PA and CA, such as allowing for future occupation of the site. The analysis begins with a comprehensive evaluation of features, events, processes, and exposure scenarios (FEPS) for Area G and the wastes it contains. These FEPSs are screened to eliminate from further consideration those of extremely low probability and/or consequence, and a conceptual site model (CSM) is subsequently developed. The scope and structure of the Area G RRA Model is informed by this CSM, and the Area G RRA Model is developed using the GoldSim systems analysis modeling platform. This paper presents the initial version of a defensible, transparent, and reasonably realistic model, which is based on the state of knowledge of the wastes, the site, and the FEPSs that govern contaminant transport from wastes into the environment and subsequent exposures to humans and other biota. Probabilistic model input distributions represent uncertainties inherent in the real and modeled systems. The results of the Area G RRA Model inform decisions regarding the disposition of the RH TRU in the 33 Shafts. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Nuclear waste Educator's workshop: What and how do we teach about nuclear waste?

A workshop was held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on July 25th and 26th, 2022. The objective was to develop a blueprint for educating next-generation engineers and scientists about nuclear waste management and disposal, which requires knowledge from diverse disciplines, including nuclear, chemical, civil, environmental, and geological science and engineering. The 49 participants included university professors, researchers, industry experts, and government officials from different areas. First, we have developed a list of key fundamental knowledge on waste management and disposal across the nuclear fuel cycle. In addition, we discussed strategies on how to teach students with diverse backgrounds through innovative teaching strategies as well as how to attract students into this area. Through the workshop, we identified the critical needs to (1) develop community resources for nuclear waste education; (2) synthesize historical perspectives, including past contamination and the management of general hazardous waste; (3) emphasize a complete life-cycle perspective, including proper waste management as the key component for energy sustainability; (4) teach students how to communicate about the key facts and risks to technical and non-technical audiences; and (5) accelerate the use of the state-of-art-technologies to attract and retain a young workforce. Furthermore, we aim to build a diverse, inclusive community that supports students in developing their own narratives about nuclear waste, particularly in recognizing that antagonistic views have been important to improving safety and protecting public health and the environment.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DECOVALEX-2019 (Task E Final Report)

The DECOVALEX Project is an on-going international research collaboration, established in 1992, to advance the understanding and modeling of coupled Thermal (T), Hydrological (H), Mechanical (M) and Chemical (C) processes in geological in geological systems. DECOVALEX was initially motivated by the recognition that prediction of these coupled effects is an essential part of the performance and safety assessment of geologic disposal systems for radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. Later it was realized that these processes also play a critical role in other subsurface engineering activities, such as subsurface CO 2 storage, enhanced geothermal systems, and unconventional oil and gas production through hydraulic fracturing. Research teams from many countries (e.g., Canada, China, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and the United States) various institutions have participated in the DECOVALEX Project over the years, providing a wide range of perspectives and solutions to these complex problems. These institutions represent radioactive waste management organizations, national research institutes, regulatory agencies, universities, as well as industry and consulting groups. This document is the final report of Task E which was proposed and coordinated by Andra, the National Radioactive Waste Management Agency in France, presenting the technical definitions of the problems studied, approaches applied, achievements made and outstanding issues for future research. The purpose of Task E of the DECOVALEX-2019 project is to investigate upscaling THM modelling from small-scale experiments (some cubic meters) to full-scale experiments (some ten cubic meters) and finally to the scale of the waste repository (cubic kilometers). To achieve this aim, the data of two in-situ heating experiments performed by Andra (the French National Radioactive Waste Management Agency) in the Meuse/Haute-Marne Underground Research Laboratory (MHM URL) have formed the basis for the understanding of the THM behavior of the COx at different scales. The first experiment provided the reference values of the THM parameters by means of a calibration exercise and they were used for a blind prediction and an interpretative analysis of the second one.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

Evaluation of a Combined Raffinate Waste Stream for Mo-99 Production

Niowave, Inc., based in Lansing, Michigan, intends to produce Mo-99 from the fission of low enriched uranium (LEU) targets. In FY20, SRNL was tasked to provide technical assistance in identifying the primary waste raffinate present in Niowave’s commercial scale system and evaluating methods for disposal. Due to limited information on Niowave’s complete flowsheet and isotope recovery plans, a combined raffinate stream including the entire radionuclide inventory from the irradiated fuel was used for this evaluation. Results of the evaluation indicated the majority of the waste generated can be expected to be Class A; however radioisotopes such as Pu-239, Cs-137, Sr-90, and some of the shorter lived (< 5 year half-life) may challenge Niowave’s ability to meet the waste acceptance criteria for land burial. With appropriate waste management strategies, it is probable that Niowave’s waste could meet Class C requirements for all constituents, with the possible exception of Pu-239. More detailed information of Niowave’s processes are needed to form a more accurate understanding required to execute and effective, economic, and feasible waste management strategy.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Developing a Process for Collaboration-Based Siting of a Federal Consolidated Interim Storage Facility in the United States: Learning from Communities Living with Legacy Waste

In June of 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) announced the selection of its Collaboration-Based Siting (CBS) Consortia, a group of 12 awardees, including the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) (led by Vanderbilt University) to assist DOE-NE with the development of its process for siting a federal consolidated interim storage facility (FCISF) for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) storage. At this time, DOE NE is not soliciting interested host communities, rather the CBS Consortia are tasked with in-depth engagement, mutual learning, and capacity building to provide DOE NE with feedback on the CBS process. CRESP’s objective is to engage communities in two regions (the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast) with sites currently storing defense- and research-related SNF to foster learning concerning the best and worst practices in community participation in risk-informed decision making. This includes learning from existing structures for public input in radioactive waste management decision making [e.g. citizen advisory boards (CABs)] and other local parties about how to build and sustain trust among the parties. CRESP has been working to engage stakeholders and Tribes surrounding two DOE sites historically differing in receptiveness to engaging with DOE and trusting in DOE to accomplish its missions. CRESP’s approach to date has consisted of (1) engaging voluntarily members and former members of the DOE Office of Environmental Management’s CABs to develop a mutual understanding of their perspectives, values, and experiences related to risk and participatory decision making; (2) engaging members of those communities that would likely be part of any radioactive waste management discussions and who may provide valuable feedback for the development of the CBS process; and in the longer term, (3) engaging communities to foster knowledge sharing on understanding and definitions of risk and how risk is factored into community decision making. Our emphasis is to identify opportunities for improving risk communication frameworks, strategies, and decision making. The selection of a future FCISF site is likely to result in the creation of a structure similar to a CAB composed of members of the local community. We anticipate that these insights can help DOE NE learn from existing participatory risk communication structures in place at sites storing defenseor research-related SNF to understand best practices for fostering enduring and participatory relationships with future CABs. Within this paper, we (1) describe CRESP’s overall approach to assisting DOE NE with maturing the CBS process; (2) present a summary of preliminary phase 1 project results, including the development of a body of knowledge (describing available resources to support community engagement, risk communica tion, and participatory decision making) and community ecosystem information (leveraging demographic, social, economic, and environmental attribute mapping and advanced sentiment analysis of social media data); and (3) based on these results, provide observations for future research opportunities to support the development of CBS processes for radioactive waste management facilities, generally.

collaboration-based siting↗

Stakeholder-Engaged Structured Decision Making for the Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Mission - 20501

The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) environmental legacy cleanup program requires decisions to be made for environmental remediation, decommissioning and disposal or management of radioactive waste. This legacy cleanup program was established to address groundwater contamination, material disposal areas (MDAs) that have been used to dispose of radioactive and other waste material, and 'aggregate areas' that might produce radioactive or other chemical waste as a result of remediation activities. The LANL site is regulated for environmental concerns under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). However, some parts of LANL, such as material disposal area G (MDA G), have disposed of radioactive waste under DOE Order 435.1, and are subject to other regulations. For example, decommissioning the remote-handled TRU material stored in 33 shafts at MDA G falls under EPA's 40 CFR 191. Collectively, the regulations are all aimed in the same direction of finding the best solution, either through constructs such as 'as low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA), considering balancing factors as opposed to only cost and human health risk, and, under EPA regulations such as RCRA and NEPA, evaluating impact from all chemicals and both human health and ecological endpoints. Despite the basic goals and objectives of the regulations or their guidance, the main challenge is in their implementation. Arguably perhaps, but really in principle, all of these (and similar) regulations are asking for a decision analysis to be performed. Implementation challenges encountered have included lack of understanding of decision analysis in the industry, lack of effective stakeholder engagement in the decision analysis process, and lack of appreciation of the need to separate value judgments from science, the latter leading to developing conservative, or protective, science-based models. Conservative models lead to poor solutions, lack of effective stakeholder engagement leads to long drawn out protracted approaches to finding a solution (which also might never be found with this approach), and lack of understanding of decision analysis and Bayesian statistics causes poor models to be built, which creates unfortunate situations of 'garbage in, garbage out' becoming the basis for decision making. Stakeholder-engaged structured decision making (SDM) is an approach to solving problems that relies on the theory of decision science to involve stakeholders in the decision-making process. This approach incorporates stakeholder values using a scientifically rigorous methodology that separates value judgments from science in a way that helps avoid the pitfalls of biased, protective, or conservative modeling. This approach has its foundation in Keeney's 1992 treatise on value-focused thinking [1]. Keeney advocated a paradigm shift in decision making based on the idea that the standard way of thinking about decisions is backwards. The standard approach of focusing first on identifying alternatives rather than on articulating values results in a reactive approach with the emphasis on mechanics and fixed choices instead of the core values that have meaning to stakeholders. This paradigm shift effectively engages all stakeholders in the decision-making process while using a values focused thinking approach that can lead to the identification of decision opportunities and the creation of better alternatives. The intent is to be proactive and generate solutions that are related directly to values and objectives as identified by stakeholders. There are, perhaps, two overarching reasons why SDM can be used to benefit LANL's environmental legacy cleanup. Some of LANL's remaining waste management and environmental management problems are challenging and complex (for example, the Cr and RDX plumes, and MDAs) and while the traditional approach has, arguably, worked well for relatively simple risk-based problems, it cannot, or should not, be applied to more complex problems if the most effective and efficient solutions are desired. The second reason is cost. This has perhaps become more critical since publication of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that DoE's environmental liability is considered a high-risk concern for the nation [2]. The focus of SDM is on structuring solutions to decision risk problems by first addressing stakeholder and decision maker values and subsequently developing decision objectives and ways to measure those objectives, preference weighting across objectives, identifying decision alternatives that best achieve those values, and characterizing uncertainty in predictions of the measures. Because a complete decision model is created using SDM, it can be evaluated to find the main elements of the model that drive, or predict, the best solution. This approach creates complete decision models that are transparent, traceable, reproducible and technically defensible. The science behind SDM, or decision analysis, is well founded, yet it is not unusual to see ad hoc approaches to decision making implemented under various environmental regulations that are pertinent to the LANL site, including NEPA, RCRA and DOE Order 435.1. Such ad hoc approaches are often not transparent or traceable, and lack reproducibility and technical defensibility. The LANL legacy cleanup program has embarked on using SDM to address the complex problems that remain. Stakeholder meetings have been held, and a prototype version of the stakeholder value system has been developed. Further meetings are expected in the future to address specific project needs. This is a long-term endeavor considering the complex environmental problems faced by DOE EM in Los Alamos (EM-LA), and careful planning, consideration of stakeholder value systems, and engagement with stakeholders throughout the SDM process is expected to lead to a successful endpoint. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

System Analysis Modeling and Intermodal Transportation for Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has long term goals to develop solutions for managing the nation’s spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level waste (HLW) inventory. The Integrated Waste Management (IWM) program under the DOE office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) is employing system-level engineering and analysis principles to inform potential future waste management system architectures. Managing the spent nuclear waste requires the use of system-level analysis software that takes various aspects of the fuel cycle into account like waste generation, on-site/centralized storage, transportation infrastructure, and long-term disposal. The Next Generation System Analysis Model (NGSAM) is an agent-based model that was developed to simulate the transportation and storage of SNF and HLW. As an agent-based model, NGSAM has the capability to detail the interaction and movement of individual components and groups, such as rail cars and casks. The SNF inventory from commercial nuclear reactors is currently in temporary storage at multiple locations spread across the United States. Shipping of SNF from these locations relies on one of three transportation modes: rail, heavy-haul truck, or barge. Out of the three modes identified, rail is generally the most preferred due to the size of the canisters and casks the SNF would be shipped in. However, under some scenarios, a direct rail route might not be readily available to a reactor site or improving the rail infrastructure at shutdown sites might be too cost-prohibitive for utilities to opt for a direct rail transfer. Under such scenarios, using a barge or heavy haul truck to de-inventory the site and transfer the SNF to a nearby intermodal transfer site with adequate rail infrastructure where the payload could be transferred to a rail car might prove to be an attractive option. This work initially presents the various intermodal transportation options that could be used to transfer SNF from reactor sites to rail cars. This is followed by exploring the operational steps in each of these modes to move the SNF from a reactor site and transfer it to a rail car. This work also presents the procedure of implementing the intermodal transfer methodology in NGSAM using various Java methods. Finally, the process times for accomplishing each of the individual steps are furnished. The implementation ideology, assumptions, and future steps are presented in this work.

Gadey, Harish Reddy↗

A Monte-Carlo Method for Evaluating the Economic Performance of Plastics Recycling Systems Using Historical Pricing

The management of plastic waste is a considerable emerging global concern. Conventional plastics recycling rates range from 5–10% in the US, which results in considerable material being sent to landfill. New sorting technologies using artificial intelligence have the potential to dramatically increase the ability of waste management companies to sort out valuable fractions of plastic waste and create high-purity streams for secondary markets. However, several fractions of the plastics recycling stream, i.e., low-density polyethylene, polypropylene, and polystyrene, do not have well-developed markets. These materials may be sent to pyrolysis facilities for thermal recycling, but the economics of the pyrolysis industry are currently uncertain. This work aims to identify the breakeven price of the plastic fractions that would be sent to pyrolysis in order to determine the economic viability of the sorting facility. The work will use Monte Carlo analysis to evaluate several scenarios and understand how compositional variation, price variability, and facility attributes affect the breakeven price. Here, the presorting conditions in Materials Recovery Facilities strongly affects the profitability of the sorting facility. High residual high density polyethylene (HDPE) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET) content in presorted bales are important revenue drivers for the facility, even in presorted 3-7 bales. Key variables that lead to profitability include a high sale price of polyethylene terephthalate, a high sale price of high-density polyethylene, and if polypropylene can be sold to recycling markets (as opposed to pyrolysis facilities).

Plastics↗

A Framework to Assess Advanced Reactor Spent Fuel Management Facility Deployment

Advanced nuclear reactors offer various operational advantages over existing light water reactors but could produce types of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) with a wide variety of forms and characteristics depending on how many different concepts are deployed. Each advanced reactor SNF type potentially poses unique management challenges. New planning efforts will be necessary to anticipate how the management requirements of advanced reactor SNF will affect the deployment of an integrated waste management system. This paper applies a framework of high-level facility deployment milestones to a generic SNF management system, reviewing them together with the advanced reactor SNF characteristics and management requirements. This allows for the investigation of factors that influence facility and system deployment, and ultimately, the identification of challenges facing the deployment of different kinds of SNF management facilities. Here, the back end of the once-through fuel cycle is examined for four advanced reactor system technology types: sodium-cooled fast reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, liquid-fuel molten salt reactors, and lead-cooled fast reactors. It is observed that milestones earlier in the facility deployment process (e.g., siting and facility design) are more impacted by the uniqueness of advanced reactor SNF characteristics than others (e.g., construction and testing). Ultimately, none of the differences are seen as fundamentally disqualifying in a technical sense; however, they should be considered early, potentially as part of reactor design, to avoid issues in the future.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗