Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “radioactive waste processing and disposal”

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 397 records · Page 22
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Dual-Purpose Canister Filling Demonstration Project Progress Report

This report discusses the progress made at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to support direct disposal of dual-purpose canisters (DPCs). Acceptable filler materials should demonstrate that the probability of criticality in DPCs during the disposal timeframe is below the probability threshold for inclusion in a repository performance assessment. This effort, which will ultimately result in a full-scale demonstration, includes computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling developed to gauge the filling process and to uncover any unforeseen issues. Filling simulations of the lower region (mouse holes) of a prototypic DPC show successfully simulate filling of the void space inside the canister and a smooth, even progression of the liquid level. Flow through a pipe that is similar to the drainpipe in a DPC is being investigated separately to gain valuable insight of the flow regime inside a pipe. Three physical experiments validating the computational filling model have been completed using surrogate liquids. One experiment using molten metal has been completed and the results demonstrate adequate filling of the canister void spaces. Although the scale experiment observed some void spaces related to shrinkage of the metal during cooling, the volume filled is expected to be sufficient to meet the purpose of moderator exclusion. Further experiments will scale up the geometry, moving towards a full-sized DPC demonstration, and provide a more rigorous investigation of candidate filler materials.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Hanford Immobilized Low-Activity Waste Transportation System Testing Results - 20043

The immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW) transportation system is a first-of-a-kind system that is being designed and tested to transport ILAW glass-filled containers from Hanford's Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Facility to the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) burial trench for permanent disposal. A prototype design and fabrication of one transport trailer and four engineered ILAW pallets was completed in mid-2018. Prototype qualification testing to verify adequacy of the design was completed in 2019 by Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) and affiliate ATKINS SNC-Lavalin Group. Prototype testing was completed to advance design maturation across all operational and facility interfaces, and under adverse environmental and operating conditions, including thermal assessment of the system at peak projected temperatures. Test design, observation, and feedback was well represented and supported by all ILAW Transportation System interfacing organizations: WTP constructor Bechtel National, Inc.; IDF operator CH2M (CHPRC); transportation contractor Mission Support Alliance (MSA); the U. S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office (DOE/RL) and Office of River Protection (DOE/ORP); and Washington State Department of Ecology. This paper presents the results of prototype qualification testing and opportunities for design improvements based on testing. Changes to the final design as a result of prototype testing include improvements in safety, ergonomics, operational flexibility, and As-Low-As-Reasonably-Achievable (ALARA) applications. (authors)

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

Uranium Partitioning upon Ammonia Gas Treatment on Phyllosilicate Minerals

In the past, > 200,000 kg of U was released to the Hanford Site vadose zone from disposal and leakage of waste byproducts from plutonium production during World War II and the Cold War (Zachara et al., 2007). U is highly mobile due to the presence of carbonates and oxidizing conditions, with K{sub d} of 0.1 - 8 mL/g at the site (Zachara et al., 2007; Szecsody et al., 2013; Serne et al., 2008). NH{sub 3} (gas) injection is being investigated as a remediation technique as it is an in situ method that will not introduce additional liquid that could drive contaminants deeper into vadose zone towards groundwater. Objectives: To understand the impact of alkaline injection on geochemical processes in the Hanford Site vadose zone, including: 1)Long-term fate of uranium (U); 2)Dissolution and re-precipitation of secondary minerals. Apparent K{sub d}'s increase significantly with NH{sub 3} gas treatment, especially for six-month aging. - K{sub d} decreases after aeration, primarily due to U desorption at lower pH. U removal is still significantly greater than natural conditions (K{sub d} < 8 vs. > 100 mL/g). - Three-day aeration has higher loading than six-month after ammonia gas treatment and aeration. However, significantly greater desorption of U occurs with aeration in the six-month aged sample potentially due to transformation into different, more soluble solid phases with longer term aging. - U removal is primarily due to (1) co-precipitation of U with secondary minerals and (2) adsorption to minerals' surface, although further research is required to identify dominant mechanisms. Future experiments will focus on garnering a better understanding of the solid phase U speciation. Solids will be characterized using SEM-EDS, EMPA, XPS, XAFS, and TEM to better understand the effects of basic treatments on initial minerals and formation of secondary precipitates.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Hanford Site Central Plateau (FY 2020) (Rev. 2)

This document provides an updated Hanford Site composite analysis (CA). A Hanford Site CA was prepared and issued in 1998 (PNNL-11800) with an addendum provided in 2002 (PNNL-11800 Addendum 1). The CA was approved in 2002 (Frei, 2002) and has been maintained (DOE/RL-2000-29 and subsequent revisions) to support low-level waste disposal performance assessments (PAs) and disposal authorizations for facilities at the Hanford Site, including the following: Continued operation of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) and the 200 East and 200 West Low-Level Burial Grounds; Construction of the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF); Forthcoming closure of tank residual waste systems such as Waste Management Area (WMA) C. The CA maintenance program resulted in a determination in 2015 (DOE/RL-2015-66) that the Hanford Site CA needed an update for the following reasons: While the initial Hanford Site CA has been maintained since 2001, the accumulation of basis changes reported in the annual summary reports over the succeeding 14 years merit evaluation in an updated analysis; The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Headquarters requested in a memorandum in 2015 (Gilbertson and Marcinowski, 2015) that “as soon as the relevant PAs are complete, the CA will be revised to account for all of the new information.” This updated Hanford Site CA accounts for the following new information: 1. Inclusion of a detailed Hanford Site baseline disposition that projects remedial activities through site closure. There have been significant changes through decision making in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) process that were not available when the original CA was produced; 2. Inclusion of an updated inventory basis, new modeling capabilities, and new decisions reached in the associated record of decision (ROD) that was provided by issuance of DOE/EIS-0391 in fiscal year (FY) 2013. Development of a Hanford Site groundwater model from the baseline provided in a technical transfer of models for the Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0391) commenced in FY 2014 and resulted in the plateau-to-river (P2R) groundwater flow model that is used in this updated Hanford Site CA; 3. Accounting for pump and treat systems, which were not evaluated in the initial CA. Pump and treat systems have had significant impact on groundwater flow system behavior, contaminant transport, and contaminant removal from Hanford Site groundwater. This process is accounted for in the use of the P2R model for this updated Hanford Site CA; 4. Inclusion of water-level data collected since the initial CA was completed. Data collected as the unconfined aquifer water levels continue to recede since the cessation of large liquid discharges in the late 1990s have led to marked improvement in understanding of the flow system for future conditions, particularly regarding northward flow potential in the critical Gable Gap area. The calibration in the latest version of the P2R model accounts for this information; 5. Inclusion of results from the revised ERDF PA completed in 2013 (WCH-5209) that account for updated inventory and expansion of the ERDF facility to about twice the size that was evaluated in the original CA; 6. Use of updated geoframeworks to provide the structural basis for numerical fate and transport models in the groundwater pathway of this updated CA. The geologic basis for groundwater models has continued to improve with additional data collection and interpretation with the creation and maintenance of the Hanford South Geoframework and the Central Plateau Vadose Zone Geoframework tools; 7. Incorporation of updated tank residual inventory estimates. Tank residual inventory estimates have improved with the incorporation of tank retrieval inventory data for those tanks that have completed retrieval. The CA inventory data package includes this updated information; 8. Incorporation of WMA C PA results. Two additional PAs for tank farm closure decisions are in preparation during the period required to prepare an updated Hanford Site CA: WMA C (FY 2016) and WMA A-AX (in preparation). The WMA C PA results are incorporated into the updated Hanford Site CA, and its grouted residuals model is used as the basis for a release model to account for the other tank farm systems modeling in this updated CA; 9. An update to the IDF PA was submitted in FY 2017 and has been reviewed and approved. The results of the IDF PA are incorporated into this updated CA; 10. Updated risk assessment scenarios. The risk assessment scenarios currently in use for Hanford Site CERCLA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) analyses differ from those evaluated in the initial Hanford Site CA. The representative person exposure scenario evaluated in this updated Hanford Site CA is consistent with recent PAs and CERCLA and RCRA analyses as the Hanford Site. This updated Hanford Site CA provides the following: A comparison of the updated Hanford Site CA all-pathway dose results with the performance measures during the compliance period, which is assumed to begin with site closure in calendar 2070 with the last scheduled disposal action and continue for 1,000 years postclosure (to calendar year 3069); A comparison of Hanford Site CA all-pathway dose results with the performance measures during the postcompliance period to address potential peaks beyond the compliance period. This is accomplished by evaluating dose in the period for 9,000 years following the compliance period (i.e., from calendar year 3070 to 12070).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI1988

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 29, No. 1, January-March 1988]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT: 1 Core History and Nuclide Inventory of the Chernobyl Core at the Time of Accident by Gerald Kirchner and Cornelius C. Noack; GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 6 Nonprescriptive Nuclear Safety Regulation: The Example of Loss of Offsite Power by M. W. Golay, V. P. Manno, and C. Vlahoplus, Jr., 20 Nuclear Power Safety Goals in Light of the Chernobyl Accident by C. Whipple and C. Starr; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 29 Containment Loads from Severe Accidents—U.S. Program by W. Kerr and M. K. Dey; PLANT SAFETY FEATURES: 36 Safety Characteristics of Modern High-Temperature Reactors: Focus on German Designs by W. Kröger, H. Nickel, and R. Schulten; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 49 Radiation Hormesis and Nuclear Safety by C. C. Congdon; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 58 Evaluation of Nonradiological Water Chemistry at Power Reactors by Harvey Zibulsky, James J. Kottan, Walter J. Pasciak, Mary Ann Castrogivanni, and Sujit Banerjee, 64 Reactor Shutdown Experience Compiled by J. W. Cletcher, 67 Operating U.S. Power Reactors Compiled by E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 85 General Administrative Activities Compiled by E. G. Silver, 94 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides by D. S. Queener, 100 Status of Power-Reactor Projects Undergoing Licensing Review Compiled by E. G. Silver, 103 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30, 1987; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 5 Northwestern University Short Course on Radiation Safety, 28 International Approach to Nuclear Safety (After Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl), 57 RPI Short Course on Modern Developments in Boiling Heat Transfer and Two-Phase Flow, 107 20th DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning Conference, 110 Third International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Power Plant Thermal Hydraulics and Operations, 108 The Authors, 111 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 28.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI1988

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 29, No. 1, January-March 1988]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT: 1 Core History and Nuclide Inventory of the Chernobyl Core at the Time of Accident by Gerald Kirchner and Cornelius C. Noack; GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 6 Nonprescriptive Nuclear Safety Regulation: The Example of Loss of Offsite Power by M. W. Golay, V. P. Manno, and C. Vlahoplus, Jr., 20 Nuclear Power Safety Goals in Light of the Chernobyl Accident by C. Whipple and C. Starr; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 29 Containment Loads from Severe Accidents—U.S. Program by W. Kerr and M. K. Dey; PLANT SAFETY FEATURES: 36 Safety Characteristics of Modern High-Temperature Reactors: Focus on German Designs by W. Kröger, H. Nickel, and R. Schulten; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 49 Radiation Hormesis and Nuclear Safety by C. C. Congdon; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 58 Evaluation of Nonradiological Water Chemistry at Power Reactors by Harvey Zibulsky, James J. Kottan, Walter J. Pasciak, Mary Ann Castrogivanni, and Sujit Banerjee, 64 Reactor Shutdown Experience Compiled by J. W. Cletcher, 67 Operating U.S. Power Reactors Compiled by E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 85 General Administrative Activities Compiled by E. G. Silver, 94 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides by D. S. Queener, 100 Status of Power-Reactor Projects Undergoing Licensing Review Compiled by E. G. Silver, 103 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30, 1987; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 5 Northwestern University Short Course on Radiation Safety, 28 International Approach to Nuclear Safety (After Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl), 57 RPI Short Course on Modern Developments in Boiling Heat Transfer and Two-Phase Flow, 107 20th DOE/NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning Conference, 110 Third International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Power Plant Thermal Hydraulics and Operations, 108 The Authors, 111 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 28.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Efficient Mesofluidic Separation of Large Particles in nuclear slurries - 20408

Efficient and effective particle separation is essential to cleanup of many nuclear wastes. For example, particle separation may be used to accelerate settle-decant bottlenecks that limit the throughput necessary to achieve the U.S. Department of Energy waste cleanup mission in a timely manner. Particle separation may be used to protect downstream processing equipment from pulses of solids that may be encountered near (within a few feet of) liquid-solid interfaces during waste transfer operations, thereby preventing work stoppages. Effective particle separation may permit efficient sludge washing. These are only a few of the ways in which particle separation is important. Yet, efficient and effective particle separation in nuclear processing environments remains challenging. For example, settle-decant operations permit larger and heavier particles to settle, leaving smaller, lighter particles suspended. However, settle-decant operations are slow, convection currents may resuspend solids, hindered settling of multicomponent slurries remains incompletely understood, and predictive models for settling in graduated cylinders fail to match limited observations of settling in large waste tanks. Additionally, pumping operations can cause turbulent resuspension of particles when the pump intake is close to the settled solids layer. Filtration techniques that use membranes or partially permeable barriers retain larger particles, permitting smaller particles to permeate. However, filters, including dead-end filtration, are prone to clogging and caking, operate at elevated pressures due to minimal void volume, and increase in pressure during operations, which require more control systems. Therefore, the need for high throughput particle separation techniques that operate with modest pressure drops persists. A novel mesofluidic separator presents the opportunity to effectively and efficiently accelerate the waste cleanup mission. The separator separates large particles from process streams across a broad range of particle sizes and has no moving parts or media to replace, regenerate, or clean. This separator design has an unusually large void volume, permitting operation at much higher flow rates (and lower pressures) than traditional filtration (e.g., dead-end filtration). Industrial-scale flow rates have been demonstrated. In performance testing, mesofluidic separators operate at might flow rates (>90 gpm (0.0006 m{sup 3}/s) in piping 3 inches (0.08 m) in diameter; Re>10{sup 5}), with modest pressure drop (∼25 psi (170 KPa) in testing). In complex, aggregating waste simulants, the separator loses <25% of flow projected over months without back pulsing or chemical cleaning. Mesofluidic separation presents infrastructure advantages, reduces risk, and provides mission impact. Infrastructure advantages include implementation within existing transfer systems, plug and play without facility modifications to safety systems, and operation at low pressures. The separator is flexible in location, may be positioned within or outside of waste tanks, and may replace or augment dead-end and cross-flow filters. Mesofluidic separation reduces risk by minimizing waste (no media to replace or regenerate and no cleaning chemicals to handle and dispose) and by minimizing filter change-out consistent with as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) exposure to workers. The potential mission impact of these separators is substantial. The separator has potential to support, simplify, and accelerate in-farm transfers and waste feed delivery. Furthermore, the separator can free up settling and holding tanks in the Direct Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLAW) mission by reducing or eliminating post-transfer settling and wait times with the potential to free up 1 Mgal (4000 m{sup 3}) of double-shell tank space. This paper quantitatively compares mesofluidic separation to dead-end filtration, discusses scale-up results, and considers the separator's potential to efficiently and effectively reduce the long-term environmental ability of particulate-rich nuclear wastes. (authors)

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

Key results from examinations of seven high burnup pressurized water reactor spent nuclear fuel rods

At present, spent nuclear fuel (SNF) assemblies discharged from US commercial power plants are placed into dry storage following a short cooling time (<10 years) in the plant’s spent fuel pool. The process of packaging the spent fuel into dry-storage canisters includes a drying step to remove residual water from the canister. During the drying process, the fuel rod cladding may reach temperatures as high as 400°C. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is performing destructive examinations of high burnup (HBU) (>45 GWd/MTU) SNF rods to address knowledge and data gaps related to extended interim storage and eventual transportation for disposal. The rods examined include four different kinds of fuel rod cladding: standard Zircaloy-4 (Zirc-4), low-tin (LT) Zirc-4, ZIRLO, and M5. Three rods were subjected to a thermal transient to assess the effects of decay-heat-driven high temperatures expected during vacuum drying of the fuel as it is prepared for interim dry storage. The examinations focus on the composite fuel rod performance, as compared with the performance of defueled rod cladding, and establish the baseline mechanical properties of a fuel rod before interim dry storage. The key results of these examinations are presented, including the measured mechanical and fatigue properties, observations of cladding hydrogen pickup and hydride reorientation effects on rod performance, effects of the simulated drying temperatures on rod performance, and general conclusions of SNF performance in extended interim dry storage and transport. The rods were found to be strong and durable in the expected loading conditions, even considering the formation of radial hydrides associated with vacuum drying. The combined testing provides a broad body of data supporting extended interim storage and transportation performance of HBU spent fuel.

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

An Assessment of Potential Dose Impacts from External Contamination on Naval Reactors Facility Waste Canisters (Special Analysis)

This Special Analysis (SA) was performed to address a request by Naval Reactors Facility (NRF) Waste Programs for a permanent exception to limits of removable surface contamination on the exterior of waste canisters shipped to the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (RHLLW) Disposal Facility as specified in the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) (PLN-5446). The purpose of this SA is to determine if the NRF-requested levels for removable surface contamination on the exterior of all NRF waste canisters is within the bounds of the current performance assessment (PA). This was done by calculating the groundwater all-pathways dose contribution from surface contamination on the exterior of NRF canisters for the following cases: (1) the exteriors of all NRF waste canisters are contaminated to the 10 CFR 835 Appendix D allowable limits in the current WAC, and (2) the exteriors of all NRF waste canisters are contaminated to the limits requested by NRF Waste Programs. Dose impacts for each case were compared to each other and to the all pathways dose for the PA base case. Dose impacts were also compared to the all pathways dose limit specified in DOE O 435.1. A simple assessment of the potential impacts of the increase in surface contamination using the NRF-requested limits on the biotic, air, and inadvertent intruder pathways was also performed. Based on the results of this SA, the increase in canister exterior contamination limits requested by NRF are well within the bounds of the current PA and will not result in a violation of performance objectives. The results also show the increased limits do not reflect or necessitate a fundamental change to the PA conceptual model, nor a change to the way exterior contamination is not included in PA dose calculations. Therefore, it is recommended the NRF request for an exception to the current limits for external surface contamination be accepted and the revised limits for NRF-generated waste canisters be added to the WAC. The monitoring plan will also be revised to identify external canister contamination as a potential mobile source term that may be detected by monitoring earlier than potential releases from waste. The PA, composite analysis (CA), closure plan, and PA/CA maintenance plan do not require revision. Recommendations are also included for inclusion of NRF procedures used to limit water pool radionuclide variability (and thus canister surface contamination variability) to the waste generator certification process.

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

BWR Spent Nuclear Fuel Acquisition and Testing to Support DOE-NE High Burnup Spent Fuel Data Project

The Office of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition (SFWD) within the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) established the Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) campaign to conduct research and development (R&D) activities related to the storage, transportation, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste. The SFWST program was created within SFWD to address issues of extended or long-term SNF storage and transportation. Some near-term objectives of SFWST are to use a science-based, engineering-driven approach to: Support the enhancement of the technical bases to support the continued safe and secure dry storage of SNF for extended periods; Support the enhancement of the technical bases for retrieving SNF after extended dry storage; Support the enhancement of the technical bases for transporting high burnup (HBU) fuel and transporting low burnup fuel and HBU fuel after dry storage DOE-NE, in partnership with the Electric Power Research Institute, developed the High Burnup Spent Fuel Data Project to perform a large-scale demonstration and laboratory-scale testing of HBU pressurized water reactor (PWR) fuels (exceeding 45 gigawatt-days per metric ton of uranium [GWd/MTU]). Under this project, 25 sister rods—which are rods that have the same design, power histories, and other characteristics—were removed from assemblies at the North Anna Nuclear Power Station and sent to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in January 2016. ORNL performed detailed nondestructive examination (NDE) on all 25 rods. The NDE consisted of visual examinations, gamma and neutron scanning, profilometry and rod length measurements, and eddy current examinations. After completing the NDE, 10 of the sister rods were delivered to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in a NAC International, Inc. legal-weight truck cask in September 2018 for destructive examination (DE). To date, SFWD work has focused on the PWR fuel that is part of the Sister Rod Test program. No boiling water reactor (BWR) fuel has been tested in the program, and the data needs that were identified for the PWR fuel have not been collected for BWR fuel. The goal to obtain six to nine BWR rods and test them at ORNL will support closing this important data gap. BWR fuel comprises approximately 56% of the total fuel assemblies currently in storage at nuclear power plants in the United States. BWR nuclear fuel and cladding designs and manufacturing are significantly different from PWRs. Differences include the following: BWR fuel pellets are larger than PWR pellets; Variations of Zircaloy-2 (including liners) are used instead of the Zircaloy-4 cladding materials used in PWRs; Clad manufacturing and stress-relief processes are different between PWRs and BWRs; The fuel rod dimensions are different because larger rod diameters and thicker cladding are used in BWRs; BWR fuel typically has lower internal rod pressures and sees vastly different operating conditions than PWR fuel (i.e., two-phase flow); BWR assemblies are “canned,” meaning each assembly is surrounded by a metal fuel channel; BWR cladding is often composed of an inner pure Zr liner that has widely different mechanical properties than the Zircaloy-2 alloy and exhibits a stronger affinity for hydrogen; The BWR SNF generally has more total hydrogen in the cladding/liner than typical PWR fuel; The construction of the PWR and BWR assemblies is vastly different; BWR rods are solidly attached to the assembly nozzles and experience a much different vibration and shock load than PWR rods, which are “floating” within a grid system attached to guide tubes, and the rods sit loosely on the bottom end plates. These numerous differences will affect the way the BWR SNF responds under dry storage preparation processes (e.g., vacuum drying) and during transportation. The results collected in the PWR experimental program must be compared with a subset of similar data collected on BWR SNF to establish a technical basis for whether the larger PWR database is sufficient to bound the BWR SNF end-of-life conditions as is currently assumed for several fuel/clad properties. Changes that occur in both fuel types at HBU could exacerbate any mechanical property differences. As the fuel burnup increases, several changes occur that might affect the performance of the fuel, cladding, and assembly hardware in storage and transportation. These changes include increased cladding corrosion layer thickness, increased cladding hydrogen content, increased cladding creep strains, increased fission gas release, and the formation of the HBU structure at the surface of the fuel pellets. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) limits the current maximum rod-averaged burnup to 62 GWd/MTU due to these changes and the lack of data at higher burnups.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Application of the immobilized low-activity waste glass corrosion model to the static dissolution of 24 statistically-designed alkali-borosilicate waste glasses

Glass corrosion models that capture the complex mechanisms of the glass-water reaction enable the prediction of nuclear waste glass durability in disposal scenarios. Parameterization of such models is challenging because of the need to capture changes in corrosion behavior with time, reaction conditions, and glass composition. In this report we describe and employ the immobilized low activity waste (ILAW) glass corrosion model (IGCM) in geochemical simulations of static dissolution tests, at two temperatures (40 °C and 90 °C), for a matrix of 24 enhanced low activity waste (eLAW) glasses statistically designed to cover a processable composition space defined by 8 major glass components (Al 2 O 3 , B 2 O 3 , CaO, Na 2 O, SiO 2 , SnO 2 , ZrO 2 , and Others as defined in the text). The IGCM includes a first-order chemical affinity term and an ion-exchange term that represents the net exchange of Na+ ions in the pristine glass with protons in aqueous solution. Constant, time-dependent, and time- and pH-dependent functional forms of the ion-exchange term are evaluated to reproduce the change in corrosion behavior with time in saturated, static dissolution tests. The agreement with measured aqueous concentrations of the main glass components (B, Na, and Si) improved significantly upon addition of a time-dependent term, which therefore constitutes a simple representation of the glass-water reaction progress. Due to the limited changes in pH in the static dissolution tests, past a short initial period of rapid increase, addition of a pH dependent term did not appreciably improve the fits, indicating that comprehensive model parameterization requires more than one type of glass corrosion test to capture a wide range of solution chemistries. IGCM parameters were found to be dependent on glass composition, and the parameter sets generated in this work will enable the development of composition–parameter correlation models that offer the promise of predicting IGCM parameters, and thus glass corrosion behavior, solely based on glass composition.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI1989

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 30, No. 3, July-September 1989]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 325 Safety of Framatome Advanced Nuclear Steam Supply Systems Designs by J. A. Charles and D. Lange, 333 Book Review of Nuclear Accidents: Intervention Levels for the Protection of the Public by H. B. Piper; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 335 Living PRA Computer Systems by S. C. Dinsmore and H.-P. Balfanz, 343 Summary of ICAP Assessments of RELAP5/MOD2 by W. E. Driskell and R. G. Hanson; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 352 Thermal Performance Monitoring System at Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant by H.-J. Chao, Y.-P. Lin, G.-H. Jou, L.-Y. Liao, and Y.-B. Chen; DESIGN FEATURES: 358 Warning Systems for Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies by J. H. Sorensen and D. S. Mileti; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 371 Activities Related to Waste Management Compiled by E G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 382 Steam Generator Tube Performance: Experience with Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors During 1985 by O. S. Tatone and R. L. Tapping, 400 Systems Interaction Analyses: Concepts and Techniques (Part II) by M. D. Muhlheim and G. A. Murphy, 413 Reactor Shutdown Experience Compiled by J. W. Cletcher, 416 Operating U.S. Power Reactors Compiled by E G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 440 General Administrative Activities Compiled by E G. Silver, 460 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides by D. S. Queener, 466 Status of Power-Reactor Licensing Activities Compiled by E G. Silver, 470 Proposed Rule Changes as of Mar. 31, 1989; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 334 Proceedings Published, 351 CEC Seminar on Methods and Codes for Assessing the Off-Site Consequences of Nuclear Accidents, 357 Short Course on Multiphase Flow and Heat Transfer: Bases and Applications in A: The Nuclear Power Industry B: The Process Industries, 357 International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, 478 International Topical Meeting on the Safety, Status, and Future of Non-Commercial Reactors and Irradiation Facilities, 475 The Authors.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI1989

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 30, No. 3, July-September 1989]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 325 Safety of Framatome Advanced Nuclear Steam Supply Systems Designs by J. A. Charles and D. Lange, 333 Book Review of Nuclear Accidents: Intervention Levels for the Protection of the Public by H. B. Piper; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 335 Living PRA Computer Systems by S. C. Dinsmore and H.-P. Balfanz, 343 Summary of ICAP Assessments of RELAP5/MOD2 by W. E. Driskell and R. G. Hanson; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 352 Thermal Performance Monitoring System at Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant by H.-J. Chao, Y.-P. Lin, G.-H. Jou, L.-Y. Liao, and Y.-B. Chen; DESIGN FEATURES: 358 Warning Systems for Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies by J. H. Sorensen and D. S. Mileti; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 371 Activities Related to Waste Management Compiled by E G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 382 Steam Generator Tube Performance: Experience with Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors During 1985 by O. S. Tatone and R. L. Tapping, 400 Systems Interaction Analyses: Concepts and Techniques (Part II) by M. D. Muhlheim and G. A. Murphy, 413 Reactor Shutdown Experience Compiled by J. W. Cletcher, 416 Operating U.S. Power Reactors Compiled by E G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 440 General Administrative Activities Compiled by E G. Silver, 460 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides by D. S. Queener, 466 Status of Power-Reactor Licensing Activities Compiled by E G. Silver, 470 Proposed Rule Changes as of Mar. 31, 1989; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 334 Proceedings Published, 351 CEC Seminar on Methods and Codes for Assessing the Off-Site Consequences of Nuclear Accidents, 357 Short Course on Multiphase Flow and Heat Transfer: Bases and Applications in A: The Nuclear Power Industry B: The Process Industries, 357 International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, 478 International Topical Meeting on the Safety, Status, and Future of Non-Commercial Reactors and Irradiation Facilities, 475 The Authors.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Vadose Zone Model for S Farms Area for Composite Analysis

The objectives of the vadose modeling for the updated Hanford Site composite analysis (CA) are to simulate the flow and transport of water and radionuclide releases from the surface to the water table and to provide radionuclide transfer rates for the plateau to river (P2R) model, version 8.3 (CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Model, Version 8.3). Water additions include natural recharge and water discharged to the ground as a result of industrial processes associated with Hanford Site operations. Contaminant sources include radionuclides in water discharged to the ground during operations and radionuclides disposed "dry" in solid waste burial grounds or other means. The following 16 radionuclides were selected for this modeling effort: carbon-14 (C-14), chloiine-36 (Cl-36), tritium (H-3), iodine-129 (I-129), neptunium-237 (Np-237), rhenium-187 (Re-187), strontium-90 (Sr-90), technetium-99 (Tc-99), uranium-232 (U-232), uranium-233 (U-233), uranium-234 (U-234), uranium-235 (U-235), uranium-236 (U-236), uranium-238 (U-238), radium-226 (Ra-226), and thmium-230 (Th-230). The simulation time struts in 1943 and ends at 12070, which is 10,000 years after assumed Hanford Site closure in 2070. The parallel version of the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP) simulator, officially named the exascale Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases ( eSTOMP), is used to simulate flow and transport for the vadose models. The documentation for the STOMP code is comprehensive. The theoretical and numerical approaches applied in the STOMP code are documented in a published theory guide (PNNL-12030, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 2.0 Theory Guide). The code has undergone a rigorous verification procedure against analytical solutions, laboratory-scale experiments, and field-scale demonstrations. The application guide (PNNL-11216, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Application Guide) provides instructive examples in the application of the code to classical groundwater problems. The user's guide (PNNL-15782, STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 4.0: User 's Guide) describes the general use, input file formatting, compilation, and execution of the code. The primary output of the vadose zone modeling is radionuclide transfer rates to the groundwater for input into the P2R model. The rates will be summed over the 100 by 100 m P2R grid cells that fall within the vadose zone model source domain.

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

Hanford Site Composite Analysis: LLBG-200-W B Vadose Zone Model

The objectives of the vadose modeling for the updated Hanford Site Composite Analysis (CA) are to simulate the flow and transport of water and radionuclide releases from the surface to the water table and to provide radionuclide transfer rates to the CA saturated zone model (CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Model, Version 8.3). Water additions include natural recharge and water discharged to the ground as a result of industrial processes associated with Hanford Site operations. Contaminant sources include radionuclides in water discharged to the ground during operations and radionuclides disposed “dry” in solid waste burial grounds or other means. The following 16 radionuclides were selected for this modeling effort: carbon-14 (C-14), chlorine-36 (Cl-36), tritium (H-3), iodine-129 (I-129), neptunium-237 (Np-237), rhenium-187 (Re-187), strontium-90 (Sr-90), technetium-99 (Tc-99), uranium-232 (U-232), uranium-233 (U-233), uranium-234 (U-234), uranium-235 (U-235), uranium-236 (U-236), uranium-238 (U-238), radium-226 (Ra-226), and thorium-230 (Th-230). The simulation time starts in 1943 and ends at 12070, which is 10,000 years after assumed Hanford Site closure in 2070. The parallel version of the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP 1 ) simulator, officially named the exascale Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (eSTOMP), is used to simulate flow and transport for the vadose models. The documentation for the STOMP code is comprehensive. The theoretical and numerical approaches applied in the STOMP code are documented in a published theory guide (PNNL-12030, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 2.0 Theory Guide). The code has undergone a rigorous verification procedure against analytical solutions, laboratory-scale experiments, and field-scale demonstrations. The application guide (PNNL-11216, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Application Guide) provides instructive examples in the application of the code to classical groundwater problems. The user’s guide (PNNL-15782, STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 4.0: User’s Guide) describes the general use, input file formatting, compilation, and execution of the code. The primary output of the vadose zone modeling is radionuclide transfer rates to the groundwater for input into the saturated zone model. The rates will be summed over the 100 by 100 m saturated zone model grid cells that fall within the vadose zone model source domain.

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

Vadose Zone Model for B-63 Area for Composite Analysis

The objectives of the vadose modeling for the updated Hanford Site composite analysis (CA) are to simulate the flow and transport of water and radionuclide releases from the surface to the water table and to provide radionuclide transfer rates for the plateau to river (P2R) model, version 8.3 (CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Model, Version 8.3). Water additions include natural recharge and water discharged to the ground as a result of industrial processes associated with Hanford Site operations. Contaminant sources include radionuclides in water discharged to the ground during operations and radionuclides disposed “dry” in solid waste burial grounds or other means. The following 16 radionuclides were selected for this modeling effort; carbon-14 (C-14), chlorine-36 (Cl-36), tritium (H-3), iodine-129 (I-129), neptunium-237 (Np-237), rhenium-187 (Re-187), strontium-90 (Sr-90), technetium-99 (Tc-99), uranium-232 (U-232), uranium-233 (U-233), uranium-234 (U-234), uranium-235 (U-235), uranium-236 (U-236), uranium-238 (U-238), radium-226 (Ra-226), and thorium-230 (Th-230). The simulation time starts in 1943 and ends at 12070, which is 10,000 years after assumed Hanford Site closure in 2070. The parallel version of the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP1) simulator, officially named the exascale Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (eSTOMP), is used to simulate flow and transport for the vadose models. The documentation for the STOMP code is comprehensive. The theoretical and numerical approaches applied in the STOMP code are documented in a published theory guide (PNNL-12030, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 2.0 Theory Guide). The code has undergone a rigorous verification procedure against analytical solutions, laboratory-scale experiments, and field-scale demonstrations. The application guide (PNNL-11216, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Application Guide) provides instructive examples in the application of the code to classical groundwater problems. The user’s guide (PNNL-15782, STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 4.0: User’s Guide) describes the general use, input file formatting, compilation, and execution of the code. The primary output of the vadose zone modeling is radionuclide transfer rates to the groundwater for input into the P2R model. The rates will be summed over the 100 by 100 m P2R grid cells that fall within the vadose zone model source domain.

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

Vadose Zone Model for U Plant Area for Composite Analysis

The objectives of the vadose modeling for the updated Hanford Site composite analysis (CA) are to simulate the flow and transport of water and radionuclide releases from the surface to the water table and to provide radionuclide transfer rates for the plateau to river (P2R) model, version 8.3 (CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Model, Version 8.3). Water additions include natural recharge and water discharged to the ground as a result of industrial processes associated with Hanford Site operations. Contaminant sources include radionuclides in water discharged to the ground during operations and radionuclides disposed “dry” in solid waste burial grounds or other means. The following 16 radionuclides were selected for this modeling effort: carbon-14 (C-14), chlorine-36 (Cl-36), tritium (H-3), iodine-129 (I-129), neptunium-237 (Np-237), rhenium-187 (Re-187), strontium-90 (Sr-90), technetium-99 (Tc-99), uranium-232 (U-232), uranium-233 (U-233), uranium-234 (U-234), uranium-235 (U-235), uranium-236 (U-236), uranium-238 (U-238), radium-226 (Ra-226), and thorium-230 (Th-230). The simulation time starts in 1943 and ends at 12070, which is 10,000 years after assumed Hanford Site closure in 2070. The parallel version of the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP1) simulator, officially named the exascale Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (eSTOMP), is used to simulate flow and transport for the vadose models. The documentation for the STOMP code is comprehensive. The theoretical and numerical approaches applied in the STOMP code are documented in a published theory guide (PNNL-12030, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 2.0 Theory Guide). The code has undergone a rigorous verification procedure against analytical solutions, laboratory-scale experiments, and field-scale demonstrations. The application guide (PNNL-11216, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Application Guide) provides instructive examples in the application of the code to classical groundwater problems. The user’s guide (PNNL-15782, STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 4.0: User’s Guide) describes the general use, input file formatting, compilation, and execution of the code. The primary output of the vadose zone modeling is radionuclide transfer rates to the groundwater for input into the P2R model. The rates will be summed over the 100 by 100 m P2R grid cells that fall within the vadose zone model source domain.

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

Vadose Zone Model for LLBG-200W B for Composite Analysis

The objectives of the vadose modeling for the updated Hanford Site composite analysis (CA) are to simulate the flow and transport of water and radionuclide releases from the surface to the water table and to provide radionuclide transfer rates for the plateau to river (P2R) model, version 8.3 (CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Model, Version 8.3). Water additions include natural recharge and water discharged to the ground as a result of industrial processes associated with Hanford Site operations. Contaminant sources include radionuclides in water discharged to the ground during operations and radionuclides disposed “dry” in solid waste burial grounds or other means. The following 16 radionuclides were selected for this modeling effort: carbon-14 (C-14), chlorine-36 (Cl-36), tritium (H-3), iodine-129 (I-129), neptunium-237 (Np-237), rhenium-187 (Re-187), strontium-90 (Sr-90), technetium-99 (Tc-99), uranium-232 (U-232), uranium-233 (U-233), uranium-234 (U-234), uranium-235 (U-235), uranium-236 (U-236), uranium-238 (U-238), radium-226 (Ra-226), and thorium-230 (Th-230). The simulation time starts in 1943 and ends at 12070, which is 10,000 years after assumed Hanford Site closure in 2070. The parallel version of the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP1) simulator, officially named the exascale Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (eSTOMP), is used to simulate flow and transport for the vadose models. The documentation for the STOMP code is comprehensive. The theoretical and numerical approaches applied in the STOMP code are documented in a published theory guide (PNNL-12030, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 2.0 Theory Guide). The code has undergone a rigorous verification procedure against analytical solutions, laboratory-scale experiments, and field-scale demonstrations. The application guide (PNNL-11216, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Application Guide) provides instructive examples in the application of the code to classical groundwater problems. The user’s guide (PNNL-15782, STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 4.0: User’s Guide) describes the general use, input file formatting, compilation, and execution of the code. The primary output of the vadose zone modeling is radionuclide transfer rates to the groundwater for input into the P2R model. The rates will be summed over the 100 by 100 m P2R grid cells that fall within the vadose zone model source domain.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗