SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
For the GW and air pathways described in Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7, POs are evaluated for MOPs based on a 100-meter POA for all DUs. In this chapter, POs are assessed for the IHI who may physically disrupt the facility at some time after the end of IC and when the POA is at the DUs (Aleman et al., 2021).
Supplemental transport model results for the LAWV from Chapter 5, Section 5.2.2 are provided in Section E.1.1 to compare concentrations at the 100-meter POA for the nominal PA case, best estimate case, and various sensitivity cases (Figure E-1 through Figure E-12). Second, Figure E-13 through Figure E-30 in Section E.1.2 display concentrations at the 100-meter POA for decay-chain daughter and parent radionuclides. Third, Figure E-31 through Figure E-34 in Section E.1.3 show maximum concentration contours for I-129. Only contour plots for I-129 from the remaining sensitivity runs are shown because I-129 is identified as the only radionuclide that impacts disposal limits for the LAWV. All concentration units, whether noted or not in the y-axis labels, are pCi L-1 per Ci parent buried.
This chapter summarizes the results of PA compliance against all relevant PA POs and measures. The final inventory limits presented in Chapters 7 and 8, as well as the methodology employed, provide assurance that POs will be met throughout the compliance periods. Deterministic and stochastic closure analyses also demonstrate a minimal likelihood of exceeding POs. Potential peaks post compliance are also addressed where future work is proposed to improve the understanding in actual uncertainties.
This chapter presents selected GW flow and radionuclide contaminant transport results from PORFLOW for the VZ and aquifer zone for each type of DU (STs, ETs, LAWV, ILV, and NRCDAs). Results for the nominal PA compliance case and various sensitivity cases are given. Results for the VZ include water saturation spatial profiles and radionuclide flux-to-the-water- table time profiles. Aquifer zone results include maximum concentration spatial contours; radionuclide concentration time profiles at the 100-meter POA; and peak concentrations at the 100-meter POA and time of occurrence for each modeled radionuclide.
his chapter presents the site and facility characteristics that potentially influence ELLWF performance, the development of the PA waste inventory, including uncertainty quantification, and the screening approaches used to reduce the number of radionuclides included in the PA model simulations.
As stated in Section 9.1.2.2, a final inventory of parent radionuclides is projected for every DU at the time of facility operational closure in 2065. These final closure inventories are upper-bound estimates wherein each DU is assumed to reach its activity capacity. Composition vectors based on existing DU inventories are employed to estimate the final compositions of all existing and future DUs. Specifically, (1) the existing DU compositions are assumed to remain constant; (2) future DUs are assigned averaged existing compositions based on appropriately averaged DUs. This information is detailed in Appendix H, Section H.7. In addition, the variability in composition among existing DUs is used to generate log-normal distributions for uncertainty quantification, which is detailed in Section I.1.1.
This chapter describes the GW flow and transport conceptual models in the VZ for both generic and special waste forms in STs, ETs, LAWV, ILV, and NRCDAs. The development and implementation of the GoldSim® system model for trenches is also introduced. The Trench System Model is used for sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification as reported in Chapter 6.
The total relative uncertainty, U, reported for each isotope in each waste cut is given by (Eq. 2-2) in Section 2.3.5.3. Waste Cut 1 of Container SD00003950 has a total activity of 737.990 Ci distributed among the isotopes H-3 and Am-241. Table B-1 summarizes the calculation results for the best-effort analysis example presented in Section 2.3.5.9.
This appendix to Chapter 5, Section 5.1 provides supplemental concentration profiles for radionuclide species in STs and ETs that contribute to at least 0.1% of the sum-of-fractions. All concentrations are reported as pCi L -1 per Ci parent buried. The following nomenclature is used for all radionuclides in all DUs: an uppercase letter suffix indicates a SWF (e.g., I-129G, C-14N, H-3F, etc.), while the absence of an uppercase letter denotes a generic waste form (e.g., I-129, C-14, H-3, etc.).
This report is a summary of the international collaboration work conducted by Sandia and funded by the US Department of Energy Office (DOE) of Nuclear Energy Spent Fuel and Waste Science & Technology (SFWST) as part of the Sandia National Laboratories Salt R&D and Salt International work packages. This report satisfies milestone level-three milestone M3SF-205N010303062. Several stand-alone sections make up this summary report, each completed by the participants. The first two sections discuss international collaborations on geomechanical benchmarking exercises (WEIMOS), granular salt reconsolidation (KOMPASS), engineered barriers (RANGERS), and documentation of Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs).
This chapter, together with Appendix H, provides the necessary CWTS inventory limits and trigger values for every parent radionuclide not screened out in Sections 2.3.6, 2.3.7, and 2.3.8. Also provided are details associated with how generic and special waste forms are handled on a DU-specific basis, and a discussion of the conversion of preliminary inventory limits (via transport runs summarized in Chapter 5) into final inventory limits for use in the CWTS limits system. Using the final inventory limits, a projected 2065 CWTS inventory is generated for use in the PA closure analysis outlined in Chapter 9.
This section provides supporting material for the development of DU-specific final inventory limits for the GW pathways for every generic waste form and SWF parent radionuclide requiring an inventory limit. The final inventory limits are based on nominal PA transport simulations using PORFLOW as reported in Chapter 5. The nominal PA settings represent the compliance case where some modeling parameter settings are defined based on conservative (pessimistically leaning) arguments. In the overall computational approach employed in this PA, a multitiered radionuclide screening process is adopted as discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.7. In the multitiered process, the initial list of 1,252 parent radionuclides is shortened substantially using conservative, but simple, transport models, along with a reasonably low cutoff criterion of 0.1% SOF value. Multidimensional PORFLOW flow and transport modeling is employed for every parent radionuclide that failed the GW screening. The generic waste form limits represent Tier-3 analyses, while Tier-4 analyses are employed for SWF limits, where warranted.
The Technical Optimization Model (TOM) is used by Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC) to carry out facility-wide material balance and validate chemistrydependent processes for the purpose of their System Plan.The TOM simulates material movement and chemical reactions at the Tank Farm (TF), Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) and Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF).
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The Centre de Stockage de la Manche (CSM), in La Hague (France) was in 1969 the first radioactive waste disposal facility built and operated in France for Low and Intermediate level waste (LILW). Each chapter of the paper exposes the main achievements of a decade of the CSM history, from the decision to dispose radioactive waste on surface to the preservation of the memory of the site. Through the history of the CSM, it is the evolution of waste management that unfolds over 50 years, shedding light on the choices we make today and the issues of tomorrow. (authors)
Recommendations from the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) identify the need to consider potential inadvertent human intrusion into a near-surface radioactive waste disposal facility when developing limits for radionuclide concentrations that can be disposed. The recommendations also provide perspective on expectations for performance criteria and general assumptions for such analyses. Inadvertent human intrusion analyses are conducted to address the potential failure of institutional controls and loss of memory of a disposal facility. The analyses consider potential consequences of human actions that result in unknowingly bringing waste to the surface. Inadvertent human intrusion scenarios consider potential impacts to someone involved in an activity that actually disturbs the waste (e.g., drilling or excavation of a basement) or that exposes the person to emanations from the waste (e.g., radioactive gases) and also for the case where there may be longer term exposures to waste that has been brought to the surface. In practice, inadvertent human intrusion analyses have proven to be a critical consideration for the development of waste classification systems and for the determination of disposal requirements and limitations on wastes that can be disposed at shallow depths. The IAEA implemented a project on Human Intrusion in the context of Disposal of Radioactive waste (HIDRA) to further explore the regulatory expectations and practical implementation of analyses of potential inadvertent human intrusion. The paper begins with a discussion of international recommendations related to consideration of inadvertent human intrusion and then summarizes examples of some topical considerations related to addressing inadvertent human intrusion that are being discussed as part of the second phase of the HIDRA project. The topical considerations are planned to be addressed in a formal IAEA publication. All information in this paper simply reflects on-going project discussions and no formal recommendations are implied for these topical considerations at this time. (authors)
Proper disposal of waste has never been a human priority. Our history is full of examples of throwing away things with minimal effort or thought to consequence. That is until disease or toxicity become apparent and we realize we need to change. Unfortunately, we almost never have all the information we need at the time we make decisions. In addition to the technical and scientific issues, profits and politics are also factors. Newton's third law also applies to politics and so for every policy (action) put in place, there will be (opposite reaction) forces in play to push back against it. These forces are seldom balanced and so the reaction to the discovery of harm is to over-correct and destroy the benefit to be had. This of course causes those who want the benefit, or profit from it, to work to undermine or repeal those measures put in place to eliminate the harm. The issue is exacerbated when the problem to be solved is highly technical and at the edge of our science so that the harm and benefit cannot be easily or accurately quantified. At these times, reason often goes out the window and our decision makers are influenced by either greed or fear as these emotions are much easier to stoke. Those of us in the middle, with the charge to 'do the right thing for the least cost', are therefore frequently constrained and forced into actions that are neither technically the right thing to do and not cost effective. The cost of radioactive waste disposal is based on the concentrations of various radioisotopes in the waste. Some of these isotopes are relatively easy to quantify and some are not. Most laboratory methods for quantification are limited in the amount of activity that can be present during the measurement process. Current nuclear plants were not designed with the idea that taking truly representative waste samples would be important. The limits used to define waste class and therefore cost are precisely defined but the methods for determining those concentrations are far less precise. Improving the accuracy of radioactivity concentrations in waste and having consistent and reasonable oversight can reduce waste costs through active management of the process. So what can we do about it? Science may provide an answer. (authors)