Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Wastes”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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 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↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Study on Establishment of Scenario Considering to Location and Treatment for Waste Tracking System

Radioactive waste of domestic generated KAERI, KHNP and KNFC etc. Agency of radioactive waste generation have each waste tracking system and waste streaming. We need to establish integrated waste classification for waste tracking and management efficiency. This study main point is the integration of radioactive waste classification and the cording of domestic generators, waste disposal site, etc. We also created a scenario through this coding. First, This study was able to identify the status of domestic radioactive Waste Tracking System. Second, through this study, WTS scenarios were prepared by analyzing each waste management agency and transportation report. If WTS scenario establish from integration of waste streaming, it will be possible tracking, back tracking and management of radioactive waste more efficiency. Third, This study coded all the sources of radioactive waste generators, acceptor agency, waste classification and treatment. Using this code, we tracking the scenario from generator to acceptor and display it as bar-code. Also, if we later convert this bar-code to a Qr-code, it thought that it will be easier tracking radioactive waste.

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

Transporting Non-Compliant TRU Wastes in the OPTIMUS{sup TM} Packages - 20493

The OPTIMUS{sup TM} product line of packages was developed with the purpose of providing a versatile and modular packaging option for shipping problematic wastes and fissile material contents. The product line includes a high-activity design in the OPTIMUS-H and a low activity design in the OPTIMUS-L. The two variants utilize a singular containment vessel design, that is enclosed in different protective components that offer different levels of shielding along with thermal and impact protection. The thick shielding provided by the OPTIMUS-H packaging allows for higher activity contents than the OPTIMUS-L to be transported. But the lightweight design of the OPTIMUS-L packaging allows for more packages to be transported in a single shipment. The containment vessel design shared between the two packages provides leak-tight containment of all radioactive contents along with the capabilities to easily leak test and the option to inert and backfill the contents, as necessary, prior to each shipment of the package. Together the OPTIMUS package designs offer significant flexibility and are capable of handling a wide variety of waste materials and other radioactive contents. One of the primary contents covered in the initial design effort for these packages is TRU waste contents beyond the standard waste materials that are compliant with the WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria. More specifically, the initial content of interest is TRU Waste drums containing sealed containers with potentially flammable gases. While there are multiple other packaging options available for transporting standard WIPP compliant TRU wastes, the goal of the OPTIMUS packages is to offer a superior option for transporting both standard TRU wastes as well as the more problematic non-compliant wastes, among other contents. The non-compliant TRU waste contents explicitly included for the OPTIMUS packages are standard aerosol cans and DOT 3E lecture bottles. However, the methods applied for the package containment can be easily adjusted to cover other sealed container types with potentially flammable gases. The primary challenges with including these items are both the obvious issue of potential for flammable gases (e.g. aerosol propellants) in the package, but also the uncertainty in the exact state of the contents. Because these desired contents are waste materials, the characterization of the materials present in the waste may include some uncertainties. For example, though it may be known that there are one or more aerosol cans in a TRU waste drum, it may not be known if this can is full, spent, or anywhere in between. Also there may be equal uncertainty in the contents of the aerosol can, specifically in the potentially flammable propellant remaining in the can. To include these types of non-compliant items as acceptable contents for the package, the methods utilized in the safety analyses of the OPTIMUS packages must consider all of the uncertainties in the characterization of the waste. The methods utilized cover a range of concerns with transporting contents of this nature including pressure buildup, gas generation, and gaseous combustion for demonstrating the containment of the package. The ability to transport these problematic contents in the OPTIMUS packages gives TRU waste generating sites the option to relocate these drums to an offsite location where the non-compliant items can be properly managed through removal or destruction. (authors)

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

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↗
DOE OSTI2020

GeoMelt{sup R} In-Container Vitrification (ICV){sup TM} for Fukushima Daiichi Water Treatment Secondary Wastes - 20212

The Japanese government is supporting development work implemented jointly by Veolia subsidiaries Kurion Japan, K.K., Veolia Nuclear Solutions (VNS), Inc., and Veolia Nuclear Solutions Federal Services, LLC for treating radioactive waste generated from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station (NPS) water treatment using the GeoMelt{sup TM} In-Container Vitrification (ICV){sup TM} technology. The initial work consisted of glass formulation and engineering-scale testing which was completed in 2018, in the frame of an IRID (International Research Institute for Nuclear Decommissioning) program as part of a project subsidized by Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). The Fukushima Daiichi NPS Mid- and Long-Term Road-map requires investigation of methods to stabilize solid wastes (and to immobilize radioisotopes in the wastes) generated as a result of emergency response and decommissioning activities. Cooling water treatment has resulted in a significant amount of solid and slurry secondary wastes (mostly adsorbents and ion-exchange materials) which will require processing at some point. GeoMelt{sup R} ICV{sup TM} is a joule-heated melter technology which uses a refractory-lined single-use container combining the melter and disposal container. There is no pouring required nor concerns with refractory corrosion which allows the process to accommodate a wide range of waste chemistries and high waste loadings. The testing described here consisted of three engineering-scale melts, each processing between 212 kg and 240 kg of waste simulants, glass formers, and non-radioactive cesium (Cs) and strontium (Sr) tracers. Continuous isokinetic stack sampling of off-gas emissions was performed for each test in order to calculate Cs and Sr retention in the glass wasteform. Single-pass retention of Cs in the final glass wasteform ranged from 91.46 to 99.30%, and single-pass retention of Sr ranged from 99.76 to 100%. Planned particulate recycle will increase these retention levels. Melt 1 processed a mixture of KUR-EH (a zeolite-based ion-exchange material), simulated Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) Carbonate and Iron Slurries, and glass additives. Melt 2 processed a mixture of KUR-EH, KUR-TSG (a titanate-based adsorbent), and glass additives. Melt 3 processed a mixture of KUR-EH, simulated barium sulfate/iron ferrocyanide sludge (AREVA sludge), and glass additives. Waste loadings for these melts ranged from 70 weight percent (wt%) to 82 wt%. Vitrification produces a waste form much denser than the stored water treatment secondary waste wastes, resulting in significant volume reduction. Volume reductions for the three tests ranged from 74 to 79 vol%. Vitrification produces a chemically durable wasteform. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) tested three glass samples from each engineering-scale melt) by the Materials Characterization Center 1 (MCC-1) test, an international standard leach test of the chemical durability of nuclear waste glasses. PNNL also obtained one U.S. reference glass (EA Glass) and two Japan reference glasses P0798) and tested these under the same MCC-1 conditions (90 deg. C, 10 m-1, DIW, and 7, 14, 28-day) as the GeoMelt{sup R} ICV{sup TM} glasses. The GeoMelt{sup R} ICV{sup TM} glasses exhibited lower total normalized releases and 14- to 28-day normalized release rates than the three reference glasses. These results suggest that the GeoMelt{sup R} ICV{sup TM} glasses have durabilities on par with high-level waste glasses under standard test conditions. Post-melt process sampling and analysis indicated no Cs migration into the melter refractory materials and very little deposition of Cs or Sr onto the melter hood or off-gas piping internals. The results of the testing indicated good Cs retention in the glass, high volume reduction and waste loadings, and excellent chemical durability. These factors are important to minimize treatment costs and to protect workers and the environment. (authors)

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

Managing Hanford's Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Program - 20002

The Office of River Protection (ORP) is responsible for the management and completion of the River Protection Project (RPP) mission, which comprises both the Hanford Site tank farms operations and the completion and operation of the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project. The RPP mission is to safely retrieve, treat, and immobilize Hanford's high-level and low-activity tank waste and close the tank farms to protect the Columbia River. The Direct-Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLAW) Program is a major subset of the overall RPP mission, providing disposition of low-activity waste. The scope is to retrieve, treat, and immobilize the low-activity waste at the Low-Activity Waste Facility. DFLAW will begin operations no later than December 2023. The DFLAW Program overarches a suite of individual projects, activities, and infrastructure upgrades. The major projects and activities include multiple contractors under both ORP and the Richland Operations Office, underscoring the need for effective integration, coordination, and collaboration. The objectives of the DFLAW Program leadership team are to: - Effectively coordinate and integrate the projects that comprise the DFLAW Program - Manage the interfaces between the projects so that the integrated DFLAW Program is completed successfully - Ensure the DFLAW portfolio of projects operate as required without gaps or conflicts at the interfaces. DOE is accomplishing these objectives through a newly established leadership model that integrates the DOE and contractor work streams and promotes a teamwork model to enable collaborative success. Long considered one of the most formidable cleanup challenges at Hanford, the Department of Energy and its contractors are on the verge of achieving a cleanup commitment that has been decades in the making. DOE is preparing to vitrify (turn to glass) Hanford's chemical and radioactive tank waste using the DFLAW process. The Modified Consent Decree milestone for completing hot commissioning of the Hanford Site's Low- Activity Waste Facility is Dec. 31, 2023. While this milestone may seem distant under normal project management circumstances, it is a relatively short period of time for the operational and cultural transformation necessary to successfully begin treating tank waste at Hanford. Direct feed means separating the waste at a tank farm to remove the more radioactive portion (i.e., solids and cesium) so that the resulting low-activity (less radioactive) waste can be fed directly to the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant's Low-Activity Waste Facility. Starting DFLAW will require a singular, intensive leadership focus, along with a sustained, collective commitment to excellence and teamwork by the Department and its contractors. Major upgrades to Hanford's infrastructure will occur prior to startup. Supporting DFLAW operations requires significant integration between the DFLAW facilities - the Waste Treatment Plant, Hanford's tank farms, effluent treatment facilities, disposal facilities - and between all of the site contractors to achieve success. (authors)

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

Removal of High Specific Activity Fission Products from Uranyl Sulfate Waste Solutions

The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) is currently providing support to SHINE Medical Technologies (SHINE) which plans to deploy a low energy, accelerator-based neutron source to fission low enriched U in a uranyl sulfate target solution for 99 Mo production. The 99 Mo is initially separated from the fission products and target solution by an extraction column. Subsequent washing of the column will generate waste solutions containing residual U and fission product activity. A small number of high specific activity fission products (e.g., 90 Sr, 137 Cs, and 144 Ce) in these streams will likely control the classification of the low level waste (LLW). If a sufficient amount of the high specific activity isotopes are separated from the SHINE waste streams and concentrated into a waste form, it would be possible to treat a majority of the wash solutions from the column operations as a lower class of LLW (Class A versus Class B or C or Class B versus Class C). The high specific activity fission product elements could then be dispositioned as a much smaller volume of waste rather than requiring the disposal of the entire waste stream at the higher waste classification. The Savannah River Site (SRS) has experience with using monosodium titanate (MST) and crystalline silicotitanate (CST) to remove Cs and Sr from high salt content waste solutions generated during the reprocessing of nuclear fuels and targets. Both of these materials have worked very well for their intended purposes at the SRS where the fission product elements are removed from highly alkaline waste. On the other hand, SHINE waste streams from the extraction column contain H 2 SO 4 which makes the solution acidic. Additionally, the SRS waste streams do not contain other fission product elements such as transition metals or lanthanides because they precipitate upon neutralization of the SRS waste and are not present in the supernate which is dispositioned as LLW following treatment. As such, there are inherent differences between SHINE and SRS waste treatment strategies. Savannah River National Laboratory was tasked with performing scoping studies to see if MST and CST would remove Sr, Cs, and Ce from an acidic mixed metal simulant solution. Batch contact experiments were performed using MST and two CST type materials. The MST material is a 15 wt % powder in 0.15 M NaOH slurry. The MST showed low adsorption for elements of interest from acidic solution. Furthermore, the powder size makes MST non-ideal for column operations. A CST IE-911 ion exchange material had high Cs adsorption, moderate Sr, and marginal Ce adsorption. Based on adsorption of all species, the ion exchange capacity was found to be 0.032 meq/mL. A bench-top column experiment to measure elemental breakthrough curves was performed using CST IE-911 where chromatographic separations of the mixed simulant were expected to occur. While most elements behaved as expected, the lanthanide series, containing Ce, broke though the column earlier than expected. The second CST material, CST R9120, displayed high adsorption for all elements in the acidic mixed simulant solutions in a batch contact study, and had a calculated loading capacity of 0.091 meq/mL. Future studies to develop a waste treatment flowsheet should focus on CST R9120 to treat SHINE waste solutions.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS1971

Detection of Pollution Caused by Solid Wastes

To develop a means of detecting pollution, it s necessary to know something about the source and nature of the pollution. The type of pollution rising from solid wastes differs considerably from hat from liquid wastes or that from gaseous wastes ni its effect on the immediate environment. It may be "defined" by a series of negatives. When solid wastes are discarded on land, the resulting pollution is not land pollution in the sense of air and water pollution. For one thing, the solid wastes do not become a "part" of the land in that the wastes are neither intimately mixed nor homogenized into the land as are liquid and gaseous wastes into their respective media. The waste particles retain not only their chemical identity but also their visible (i.e., physical) characteristics. When buried, for example, the soil is under, above, and around the solids, because the wastes are there as discrete units. Secondly, solid wastes neither diffuse nor are they carried from the place at which they were deposited. In other words they remain stationary, providing of course the disposal site is land and not moving water. In a given area, solid wastes be not distributed uniformly over that area. Even the solid wastes falling into the specification of letter meets these specifications. In contrast liquid and gaseous wastes become intimately mixed, homogenized, and even dissolved in their media. Because solid wastes remain stationary, pollution constituted by their presence is highly localized and heavily concentrated, even to the extent that the pollution could be termed "micro" when compared to the macro-pollution arising from liquid and gasequs wastes.

Golueke, Clarence G.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Issues that Drive Waste Management Technology Development for Space Missions

Waste management technologies for space life support systems are currently at low development levels. Manual compaction of waste in plastic bags and overboard disposal to earth return vehicles are the primary current waste management methods. Particularly on future missions, continuance of current waste management methods would tend to expose the crew to waste hazards, forfeit recoverable resources such as water, consume valuable crew time, contaminate planetary surfaces, and risk return to Earth of extraterrestrial life. Improvement of waste management capabilities is needed for adequate management of wastes. Improvements include recovery of water and other resources, conversion of waste to states harmless to humans, long-term containment of wastes, and disposal of waste. Current NASA requirements documents on waste management are generally not highly detailed. More detailed requirements are needed to guide the development of waste management technologies that will adequately manage waste. In addition to satisfying requirements, waste management technologies must also recover resources. Recovery of resources such as water and habitat volume can reduce mission cost. This paper explores the drivers for waste management technology development including requirements and resource recovery.

Fisher, John W.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Advanced Retrieval and Disposition Techniques for Remote Handled Mixed Low-Level Waste - 20319

Legacy waste generated by the sodium-cooled fast reactor, EBR-II, program at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) (owned by the U.S. Department of Energy and managed and operated by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC) is challenging to treat and disposition using conventional methods. As a result, Veolia Nuclear Solutions is under contract with the Idaho National Laboratory to demonstrate an integrated retrieval and disposition solution for Remote-Handled Mixed Low-Level Waste currently stored in underground liners at INL. Delivery of the integrated solution builds on the expertise and successes of Veolia Nuclear Solutions under its Problematic Waste Treatment Initiative with INL. This initiative focuses solely on the treatment of problematic (reactive metal containing) waste streams using the Veolia Nuclear Solutions GeoMelt{sup R} In-Container Vitrification (ICV{sup TM}) technology. Under the contract, Veolia Nuclear Solutions will provide a fully commissioned prototype remote retrieval system to semi-remotely retrieve and size-reduce problematic waste liners into a safe and consolidated package for transport. The consolidated package will be shipped to Richland, Washington for demonstration treatment using the robust GeoMelt Richland system at Perma-Fix Northwest. The treated waste will ultimately be disposed of as a vitrified Low-Level Waste glass monolith. Veolia Nuclear Solutions has delivered countless remotely operated systems globally to solve some of the industry's most challenging problems. To ensure risk is mitigated in the best possible manner, a methodical phased approach is being utilized to validate the integrated solution. This contract focuses on the delivery and deployment of the prototype retrieval system onsite and the treatment of a single liner. Following successful demonstration treatment using GeoMelt ICV, the project is planning to make prototype enhancements before retrieving and treating another liner. Establishing a new integrated approach for retrieval and disposition of waste offers many benefits to INL and the U.S. Department of Energy. It is anticipated that the integrated solution will provide significant cost and schedule savings by increasing the number of liners dispositioned per year. In addition, the complexity of the overall waste disposition process will be reduced. Remotely retrieving and size-reducing waste in the field will provide additional safety to operational personnel and allow critical resources, such as hot cells, to focus on the primary missions at hand. Vitrification (using the GeoMelt ICV technology) allows for the direct processing of metal clad waste thereby significantly reducing pretreatment steps while providing a robust waste form for long-term disposal. The results from this ongoing contract are presented in this paper. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2026

Knowledge-Based Hazardous Waste Determinations for Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Modules: A Foundational Study

This report explores using "generator knowledge" to determine whether a solar photovoltaic (PV) module must be managed as hazardous waste prior to recycling or landfilling. Generator knowledge is a legal term and existing regulatory pathway for making a hazardous waste determination that has been used by other industries but is a relatively unknown option to the PV industry. In the United States, a hazardous waste determination often acts as a pre-requisite to recycle or landfill a PV module. The results of the hazardous waste determination dictate whether the PV module must be managed as hazardous waste or nonhazardous solid waste. Managing a PV module as hazardous waste requires compliance with stringent U.S. federal and state hazardous waste law. In addition to increased management costs, which can be ten times higher, legal liability for PV modules regulated as hazardous waste is also heightened with both civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance which includes making an inaccurate or faulty hazardous waste determination. The most common reason a PV module would be regulated as hazardous is if it contains a regulated metal in an amount that equals or exceeds the toxicity characteristic limits. To determine whether a PV module exhibits a hazardous characteristic, the regulated person/entity must "apply knowledge...in light of the materials and processes used." In the absence of adequate knowledge to determine whether the PV module is hazardous, it must be tested using Test Method 1311 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) or an equivalent EPA-approved method. Although TCLP is the predominant method used to today to make a hazardous waste determination for PV modules, evidence from this study concludes it is not practical to TCLP test every PV module even in a single utility-scale installation, and a scalable solution is needed. This study finds that knowledge-based hazardous waste determinations may allow a regulated person/entity to make a hazardous waste determination for more than one PV module at one time - making this regulatory pathway a potential scalable solution. Through legal analysis and interviews with 44 experts, the authors explore what it means to make an accurate knowledge-based hazardous determination for PV modules considering sources and forms of information as well as potential limitations. The work aims to provide a foundation for building consensus on whether knowledge-based hazardous determinations are a viable, scalable industry approach for solar.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗