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 235 records · Page 13

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↗

Nuclear waste attributes of near-term deployable small modular reactors

The nuclear waste attributes of near-term deployable SMRs were assessed using established nuclear waste metrics, which are the DU mass, SNF mass, volume, activity, decay heat, radiotoxicity, and decommissioning LLW volumes. Metrics normalized per unit electricity generation were compared to a reference large PWR. Three SMRs, VOYGR, Natrium, and Xe-100, were selected because they represent a range of reactor and fuel technologies and are active designs deployable by the decade’s end. The SMR nuclear waste attributes show both some similarities to the PWR and some significant differences caused by reactor-specific design features. The DU mass is equivalent to or slightly higher than the PWR. Back-end waste attributes for SNF disposition vary, but the differences have a limited impact on long-term repository isolation. SMR designs can vary significantly in SNF volume (and thus heat generation density). However, these differences are amenable to design optimization for handling, storage, transportation, and disposal technologies. Nuclear waste attributes from decommissioning vary depending on design and decommissioning technology choices. Given the analysis results in this study and assuming appropriate waste management system and operational optimization, there appear to be no major challenges to managing SMR nuclear wastes compared to the reference PWR.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

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↗

Issue Resolution During the Development of the Performance Assessment for the Savannah River Site Saltstone Disposal Facility - 20125

In 2019, Savannah River Remediation developed a revision to the performance assessment (PA) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River Operations Office (SR) for the near-surface disposal of low-level waste at the Savannah River Site (SRS) Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Soluble waste from SRS Tank Farms undergoes salt processing to remove cesium and other high-activity constituents. The low-activity decontaminated salt solution (DSS) is then immobilized by mixing it into a cementitious waste form known as saltstone. After mixing, the saltstone is poured into leak-tight concrete vaults, known as saltstone disposal units (SDUs), where the waste form cures. By the time of facility closure, the SDF is expected to consist of 15 SDUs with a combined capacity of 1.06 E+09 L (280 Mgal) of cured saltstone. The facility operates under a Disposal Authorization Statement from DOE and a permit from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Since the start of operations in 1990, the SDF has received almost 6.7 E+07 L (18 Mgal) of DSS, resulting in the safe disposal of 2.7 E+16 Bq (7.3 E+05 Ci) of activity. Due to the radioactive decay of short-lived contaminants, the total remaining activity in the disposed waste is estimated to be approximately 1.4 E+16 Bq (3.9 E+05 Ci), as of September 2018. The Disposal Authorization Statement requires a demonstration that the system of engineered and natural features of the disposal facility will limit releases from the facility and be protective of human health and the environment for at least the next 1,000 years. The long-term performance of the facility was evaluated under the requirements of the DoE's Radioactive Waste Management Manual (US DOE Manual 435.1-1). Simulations were performed to demonstrate that the disposal facility would meet performance objectives specified in the manual. The evaluation was based on numerical models that simulate the releases of contaminants from the saltstone waste form. Contaminants were transported through groundwater and air pathways to points of assessment to evaluate compliance (i.e., 100 m from the SDUs). In addition, the potential consequences of an inadvertent human intrusion (IHI) were also evaluated. A number of issues were overcome during the development of these simulations. These issues were identified as part of internal technical reviews. Simulations are developed by people and people make mistakes, so the internal technical review process is a vital step in PA development. Specific examples of resolved issues include a unit-conversion error, an inappropriate definition for a model boundary condition, a model time-stepping issue, and an error in the calculation for the buildup of contaminants in soil. Actions taken to address these issues resulted in an improved product with a better supported technical basis and more defensible results. The identification and correction of these issues are discussed. By understanding these issues, model developers and technical reviewers working on PAs in the future may avoid repeating these types of mistakes. Transparency with respect to these mistakes builds trust between waste management sites, regulators, and stakeholders. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

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↗

Hydrogen Production from Polyethylene Pyrolysis

Hydrogen is anticipated to play a pivotal role in the future of clean energy and decarbonization efforts, serving as an energy storage medium, a power generation source, and a clean fuel for transportation. While most hydrogen is produced from carbonaceous fossil feedstocks like natural gas, petroleum, and coal, there is growing interest in using refuse-derived fuels such as waste plastics and municipal solid waste (MSW) as alternative feedstocks. Thermochemical processes such as pyrolysis and catalytic cracking can convert nonrecyclable plastics and organic MSW components to produce hydrogen with lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions when coupled with CO 2 capture. Such approaches not only address waste-management challenges but also reduce methane emissions from landfills. Furthermore, waste feedstocks are low cost and can support meeting demands for hydrogen across various industries. In this work we examined production of hydrogen from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) as a model polymer using pyrolysis. Analytical studies of pyrolysis utilizing gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC/MS) provide insights into conversion pathways for plastic waste, potentially reducing the environmental footprint of traditional hydrogen production methods. This work generates a baseline methodology for hydrogen production from plastic pyrolysis with and without a catalyst and the necessary product distribution baseline from key single plastics. The effect of pyrolysis temperature on the conversion of HDPE was evaluated both with and without a catalyst(s), and the product distributions measured via GC/MS were identified and hydrogen formation was quantified. These results will help guide future research efforts to optimize catalysts and processes for more efficient hydrogen production and mixed plastic waste management.

Catalysts↗

FY2019 Performance Assessment Annual Review for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility

The Savannah River Site (SRS) E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (ELLWF) consists of six types of disposal units described in the Performance Assessment (PA) (WSRC, 2008): Low Activity Waste Vault (LAWV), Intermediate Level Vault (ILV), Trenches [Slit Trenches (STs), Engineered Trenches (ETs), and Component-in-Grout (CIG) Trenches], and Naval Reactor Component Disposal Areas (NRCDAs). The ELLWF is a part of the Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF). SWMF is managed and operated by the SRS Management and Operations prime contractor, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS). Within SRNS, the Solid Waste Management (SWM) organization is responsible for operating the SWMF, and the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) is the technical agency responsible for preparing and maintaining the PA. SWMF operations have been performed at SRS since 1952. The mission of the SWMF is to provide storage, processing, disposal, and shipment of radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste. The SWMF is committed to treat, store, and dispose of these waste products in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of the facility worker, the co-located worker, and the offsite general public. Wastes handled in the SWMF include low level waste, transuranic waste, hazardous waste, Toxic Substances Control Act waste, and mixed waste (containing both hazardous and radioactive constituents).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

FY2019 Performance Assessment Annual Review for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility

The Savannah River Site (SRS) E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (ELLWF) consists of six types of disposal units described in the Performance Assessment (PA) (WSRC, 2008): Low Activity Waste Vault (LAWV), Intermediate Level Vault (ILV), Trenches [Slit Trenches (STs), Engineered Trenches (ETs), and Component-in-Grout (CIG) Trenches], and Naval Reactor Component Disposal Areas (NRCDAs). The ELLWF is a part of the Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF). SWMF is managed and operated by the SRS Management and Operations prime contractor, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS). Within SRNS, the Solid Waste Management (SWM) organization is responsible for operating the SWMF, and the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) is the technical agency responsible for preparing and maintaining the PA. SWMF operations have been performed at SRS since 1952. The mission of the SWMF is to provide storage, processing, disposal, and shipment of radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste. The SWMF is committed to treat, store, and dispose of these waste products in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of the facility worker, the co-located worker, and the offsite general public. Wastes handled in the SWMF include low level waste, transuranic waste, hazardous waste, Toxic Substances Control Act waste, and mixed waste (containing both hazardous and radioactive constituents).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

FY2020 performance assessment annual review for the E-area low-level waste facility

The Savannah River Site (SRS) E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (ELLWF) consists of six types of disposal units described in the Performance Assessment (PA) (WSRC, 2008): Low Activity Waste Vault (LAWV), Intermediate Level Vault (ILV), Trenches [Slit Trenches (STs), Engineered Trenches (ETs), and Component-in-Grout (CIG) Trenches], and Naval Reactor Component Disposal Areas (NRCDAs). The ELLWF is a part of the Solid Waste Management Facility (SWMF). SWMF is managed and operated by the SRS Management and Operations prime contractor, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS). Within SRNS, the Solid Waste Management (SWM) organization is responsible for operating the SWMF, and the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) is the technical agency responsible for preparing and maintaining the PA. SWMF operations have been performed at SRS since 1952. The mission of the SWMF is to provide storage, processing, disposal, and shipment of radioactive, hazardous, and mixed waste. The SWMF is committed to treat, store, and dispose of these waste products in a manner that protects the environment and the health and safety of the facility worker, the co-located worker, and the offsite general public. Wastes handled in the SWMF include low level waste, transuranic waste, hazardous waste, Toxic Substances Control Act waste, and mixed waste (containing both hazardous and radioactive constituents). The FY2020 PA Annual Review for the ELLWF affirms that the disposal facility continued to operate within the bounds of the current PA and Composite Analysis (CA) baseline and the subsequent SA’s and satisfied all the requirements, conditions, and limitations identified in the 2008 DAS (DOE 2008a), RWMB SRNL_STI-2020-00588 Revision 0 vi (McGill, 2020), and ELLWF Low-Level Waste Acceptance Criteria (SRS-1S, 2014). This annual review affirms that the supporting studies performed in FY2020 do not alter the conclusions of the ELLWF PA (WSRC, 2008) and that there is a reasonable expectation that the ELLWF will meet the performance objectives delineated in DOE Manual 435.1-1 (DOE 2011)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Special Considerations for the Removal and Disposal of Micro-Reactor Experiments

Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is preparing to host several microreactor experiments through 2030 and beyond. Two new test beds currently under development will operate as microreactor or nuclear system experiment user facilities. Test bed experiments will be performed in series, with each nuclear experiment installed, operated, and removed before installation of the subsequent experiment. The necessarily brief transition period between experiments introduces unique equipment removal and radioactive waste disposal challenges. This paper evaluates equipment removal and radioactive waste management topics associated with tight sequencing of nuclear experiments and presents some of the solutions and approaches currently planned to meet these special considerations for one such experiment, the Molten Chloride Reactor Experiment (MCRE), slated for operation at INL’s Laboratory for Operation and Testing in the United States (LOTUS). The MCRE project is a collaboration between Southern Company Services, TerraPower, and INL, among others, to provide integral nuclear data that will advance molten salt fast reactor technology. MCRE will be the first critical fast-spectrum circulating fuel system ever operated and the first experiment operated in the LOTUS test bed. The experiment will nominally operate at zero power with planned low power excursions as part of operational planning for MCRE has been to minimize at-power operations to limit fission product formation while still achieving experimental objectives. After the experiment is complete, MCRE will be allowed to radioactively decay for a short period (nominally 90 days) prior to system defueling, flushing, removal, and disposal of all MCRE equipment, readying the test bed for the next nuclear experiment. Equipment removal and radioactive waste disposal have been integral to MCRE project planning since the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement was formalized in 2021. Due to requirements for future use of the test bed, the MCRE system, of necessity, must be removed in a much shorter time frame than typical for historic reactor decommissioning projects at INL. This results in minimal time for radioactive decay, resulting in not only elevated radiation dose rates but also the presence of short-to-medium-lived isotopes not typically encountered in the reactor decommissioning and radioactive waste management space. Additional unique constraints placed on the project include lack of intrinsic remote-operations capabilities in the test bed, space constraints in the test bed once MCRE has been installed, and contamination minimization requirements to return the test bed to as-found conditions to enable future use. This paper discusses planned solutions to these challenges. Approaches for implementing remote or semi-remote technologies in a non-hot cell environment with limited space availability are discussed. The paper also summarizes the systems engineering approach for concept development and design of equipment removal systems, which are being implemented concurrent with the MCRE design phase, providing feedback to system designers to incorporate features enabling efficient and safe equipment removal approaches. The timing of this paper at a relatively early phase of the project is meant to highlight the importance of early planning for nuclear system decommissioning while reactor design is ongoing to allow design feedback on componentry driven from decommissioning system needs. As new, innovative nuclear reactor technologies enter the nuclear market sector, reactor experiments are crucial for providing new integral nuclear data that establish safe operational margins for technology advancement. Microreactor experiments at INL will require safe, effective, and timely decommissioning approaches, which in turn require nuclear systems designed to expedite decommissioning. In addition to the advancement of nuclear reactor technologies, these nuclear experiments provide an opportunity to demonstrate, deploy, and test new removal and disposal capabilities to support the next generation of nuclear reactor technology.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Validation Testing for Molten Chloride Reactor Experiment Equipment Removal and Disposal Techniques

The Molten Chloride Reactor Experiment (MCRE) will be the first reactor featuring a fast-spectrum molten chloride circulating nuclear fuel system in the world. Planning for equipment removal and disposal (ERD) of MCRE has identified several technology gaps due to the unique environment of this nuclear experiment. Some of the gaps arise from the application of existing disassembly and/or sizing methods to novel material forms or in novel configurations. Others arise from unknown material behavior. This paper summarizes proposed test plans for ERD validation experiments to address these complicated or unknown equipment removal procedures. At the Waste Management Symposia in 2024, the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) MCRE ERD team presented the challenges associated with hosting multiple nuclear experiments in series with only brief transition periods between systems. Such difficulties include higher dose rates, the presence of radioisotopes infrequently encountered in reactor decommissioning and radioactive waste management, lack of intrinsic remote-operations infrastructure in the test bed, space constraints in the test bed, and contamination minimization requirements. To address these challenges, remote or semi-remote technologies are planned to be implemented in a non-hot cell environment with limited space availability. The team also discussed how a systems engineering approach is being used for conceptual development and design of equipment removal systems to address these challenges. For example, to reduce constraints for the removal of more difficult components, non-activated, noncontaminated elements are planned to be taken out first where possible. Still, there are complexities associated with the remaining components. In this work, the operational framework for MCRE ERD was reviewed for technical gaps and open questions, and test plans were drafted to address these areas. The tests plans were written for the following categories: vision systems, pipe cutting, drill/grout/filler, flush salt, and miscellaneous, with the miscellaneous group consisting of tests like techniques for removing bearings and reflector bricks. The test plans explore material, infrastructure, and staffing requirements needed for test execution. The test plans additionally focus on the evaluation of success. Determining the outcome of a test is imperative - as these explorative actions have the potential to rearrange or re-scope planned ERD activities. Success criteria identified thus far include required tool output, required area(s), debris production and mitigation, and repeatability. Test plans are an essential aspect of the systems engineering approach to MCRE ERD. They are used as the beginning steps in defining use cases for the ERD system. Performance of the validation tests is expected to begin in the summer of 2025 and will take approximately 9 to 12 months to complete. Execution of these plans will be expedited by specifying test needs ahead of time, facilitating efficient interactions with any subcontractors tasked with running the requested tests. Evaluating the outcomes of these tests will inform MCRE ERD procedures and timing and will also identify additional technical constraints for the MCRE ERD System. This upfront process optimization effort will help the project save time and resources at the end of the experiment.

21 - SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLAN↗

FOURTH QUARTER / ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2021

Waste Shipments to and from the Nevada National Security Site, Radioactive Waste Management Complex. This report satisfies the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) commitment to prepare a quarterly summary of waste shipments to the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) in Area 5.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Systematic Analysis of Drivers and Barriers of Cross-Sectorial Learning Between Nuclear and Oil and Gas Decommissioning Projects - 20139

Project and megaproject management in the energy sector have historically focused on the planning and delivery of the construction of infrastructure. Therefore, policies are predominantly oriented to support the construction of infrastructure rather than its decommissioning. However, globally, several facilities have reached (or will soon reach) their end-of-life and need to be decommissioned. These facilities span across the energy sector, including nuclear power plants and oil and gas rigs, whose decommissioning present unprecedented techno-socio-economic challenges. Moreover, globally, their decommissioning cost is estimated to reach hundreds of billions of US dollars and this budget keeps increasing, with limited knowledge-transfer across industries to mitigate the spiraling increase of this figure. Cross-sectorial knowledge-transfer is a way to tackle this matter and improve the planning and delivery of decommissioning and waste management projects. The aim of this research is to build a road-map based on cross-sectorial industrial experience, designed to promote the sharing of good practices between projects both within and across industries dealing with major decommissioning and waste management challenges. To reach this aim, the tacit knowledge of senior practitioners on several large scale nuclear and oil and gas decommissioning projects is made explicit by the means of semi-structured interviews, systematically analyzed through directed content analysis. The results of this analysis include a list of good practices that could and should be transferred to nuclear decommissioning projects, including the need to promote the adoption of incentives explicitly linked to the project deliverables, and to develop long-term plans to support smooth transition from operations to decommissioning. Suggestions about how the knowledge-transfer can be promoted within and across organizations are also discussed. In this way, this research provides practical guidance for project managers and policymakers on how to support the planning and delivery of projects with improved performance. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗