Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “RADIOACTIVITY”

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 667 records · Page 37
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Modeling and Analysis of the Transport and Disposal of Beryllium Moderator Blocks and Greater than Class C (GTCC) Waste

Radioactive waste in the United states is categorized based on its source, radioactivity, and security risk. The categorization method employed by the Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC) for low-level radioactive waste is not currently applied to any waste generated by the Department of Energy (DOE) or disposed of in DOE facilities. As a result, there is a large volume of DOE-generated waste with characteristics similar to the NRC’s “Greater than Class C” (GTCC) waste category which presently do not have a path for long-term disposal. Much of this waste cannot undergo the standard commercial disposition process due to it being categorized as Transuranic (TRU) waste under DOE guidelines, due to elevated concentrations of key fission products. Possible solutions to this dilemma are explored in the Environmental Impact Statement for the “Disposal of Greater-Than-Class-C Low Level Radioactive Wave” (EIS-0375). This paper analyzes several EIS possible paths for disposal for this “orphaned” waste. One example that highlights this categorization issue is the spent beryllium cladding that has been extracted from the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) throughout its operational lifetime. These beryllium blocks surround the reactor’s main chambers and components and serve as neutron moderators. This paper will use this particular waste form to analyze the economic and technological viability of transporting and storing this material under the storage and transportation criteria of the Waste isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which was deemed the most feasible disposition path according to the EIS. The example of this waste form used in this paper that highlights this categorization issue is the spent beryllium cladding extracted from Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL) Advanced Test Reactor (ATR). These beryllium blocks surround the reactor’s components and serve as neutron moderators, and thus have accumulated high concentration of high-activity transuranic isotopes. This paper analyzed the viability of transporting and storing this material under the storage and transportation criteria of the five primary disposition paths covered in EIS-0375. An array of calculations was carried out to assess the viability of the various disposition paths for the beryllium shipments as well as other waste shipments that fall within the GTCC category. Modeling with MCNP 6.2 was conducted to determine whether the beryllium blocks could be safely stored and transported within a 72-B cask; the standard shipping container for remote-handled, transuranic waste, while also meeting regulatory limits at various disposition paths. A cost analysis of the transportation and long-term disposal paths mentioned in the EIS was also carried out using available data and information from similar waste shipments. Lastly, a geochemical analysis of the various geological repository discussed in the EIS was also carried out using the Geochemists Workbench Release 14. Long-term disposal of the beryllium blocks at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) proved to be the most cost-effective long-term disposition option of the ones considered in the EIS. A dose rate calculation at both contact and remote-handling distances indicate that the analyzed beryllium shipments should not exceed the exposure limits at any of the considered locations. Greater-than-class-C waste has been left in a regulatory state of limbo for years, resulting in backlogs of inventory across several research sites in the United States. Due to its high activity and presence of transuranic isotopes, it is imperative to ensure that it remains inaccessible and sequestered both in its short-term interim as well as a long-term geologic time scale. The information and assessments done in the paper could potentially serve as a reference for any future shipments of this waste form at the WIPP facility as well as other disposition paths that may be considered in the future.

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

Annual Summary Report for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility—FY 2025

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requires the performance assessment (PA) (Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office [DOE-ID] 2018a), composite analysis (CA) (DOE-ID 2012), and CA addendum (DOE-ID 2018b) for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (RHLLW) Disposal Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site shall be maintained to evaluate changes that could affect the performance, design, and operating basis for the facility (DOE Manual 435.1-1 Change 3, “Radioactive Waste Management Manual,” Section IV.P. [4]). The RHLLW Disposal Facility became operational in September 2018 after the completion of operational readiness activities required by DOE Order 425.1D, “Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities,” and the issuance of the startup authorization by the Startup Approval Authority (Boston 2018). The first waste disposals at the RHLLW Disposal Facility began in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, no significant operational changes or other activities occurred that would cause deviation from the assumptions in the PA and CA pertaining to disposal geometry, verification of waste characteristics, tracking disposal inventories against total limits, facility closure design, or institutional controls. This FY 2025 annual summary report (ASR) documents the continued adequacy of the PA, CA, operating disposal authorization statement (ODAS) (ODAS 2018), ODAS technical-basis documents, and the radioactive waste management basis (RWMB) (INL 2024a) to meet DOE Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management,” performance objectives for the RHLLW Disposal Facility. Annual review of the adequacy of the PA and CA at the RHLLW Disposal Facility ensures that conclusions of the analyses remain valid in accordance with requirements of DOE Order 435.1.

12 - MGMT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Considerations for Regulation and Practical Implementation of Analyses of Inadvertent Human Intrusion - 20169

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)

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

Nuclear Decontamination Evolution and Revolution - 20349

Decontamination, one of the oldest practices in the nuclear industry, is about to change. While no single approach to decontamination is appropriate in all situations, decontamination of highly contaminated surfaces is historically viewed as difficult and/or marginally effective and fixatives and strippable coatings are often called on to manage time sensitive contamination control issues. The deferral of proper decontamination can lead to accumulated concentrations of radioactive material increasing the risk of cross-contamination of workers and equipment while also increasing radiation levels, which further discourages decontamination. The results of the subject testing demonstrate that superior decontamination factors are readily achievable and the ALARA benefit of decontamination is viable through advanced decontamination technologies in conjunction with innovative application techniques. The collateral benefits will save countless radiological man-hours and personnel radiological exposure. The appropriate use of radiological decontamination techniques can prevent or limit the adverse effects of highly radioactive contamination in the work area. High levels of radiological contamination are typically associated with some of the most physically demanding work in the nuclear industry. Additionally, working in highly contaminated environments increases the risk of exposure to elevated levels of airborne radioactivity and radiation from the source term of the contamination, particularly in hard to reach areas or complex equipment. Veolia's Alaron Nuclear Services (Alaron), a fully integrated nuclear facility, has provided the nuclear industry waste treatment, consolidation, repackaging, and broad decontamination services for almost 35 years. In looking at solutions for its customers, as well as for their own facility, Alaron has recently collaborated with Environmental Alternatives, Inc. (EAI), which has provided innovative solutions addressing difficult nuclear decontamination and industrial cleaning challenges since 1989. This broad range of experience along with the products to support the work created an ideal partner for Alaron's needs at their facility. The benefits of collaboration were immediately recognizable to the management of both companies although the decontamination challenge was significant. Due to the nature of the services offered, contamination at the Alaron facility is routine. The recent decontamination experience at Alaron utilized an innovative surfactant process that quickly produces remarkably higher decontamination factors for both removable surface contamination and fixed contamination. Considering the time to decontaminate areas historically designated for high radiological hazard work, the results from this decontamination effort not only reduced contamination levels but also significantly lowered exposure rates in the working environment. The relative ease with which the surfactant is applied, combined with extraordinary decontamination test results, indicates the potential to alter current radiological work processes in a way that improves worker comfort, and removes radiological engineering barriers, allowing Alaron to complete complex radiological tasks more efficiently and effectively. In a series of two simple applications of the decontamination agent to contaminated high bay vertical surfaces, as well as a variety of horizontal and vertical surfaces with variable porousness and surface sealants, there was an overall reduction in removable contamination of approximately 73% with a reduction in area dose of approximately 93%. The results indicate additional reduction in fixed contamination with application of the surfactant. These values are much higher than experienced with more traditional decontamination agents. In conjunction with demonstrating EAI's surfactant on room surfaces, additional studies were conducted on complex geometry equipment including waste processing equipment, tools, and heavily contaminated parts normally handled from Alaron's customers. Evaluations were made with straight application of EAI's surfactant as well as adding additional techniques to the treatment which afforded revolutionary improvements in the levels of contamination removed. Successful decontamination with up to 95% reduction in removable contamination with just one application were demonstrated in several of the trials. This paper outlines the planned approach to use this technology, the variety of surfaces and equipment treated, and the results of the decontamination efforts. Furthermore, this paper discusses options for pretreatment of certain heavily contaminated equipment prior to employees handling and/or working with the equipment. The potential for dose saving and the reduced risk of cross-contamination with the added benefit of lower PPE requirements, produces an enormous potential for cost and time savings. Attendees will benefit from Alaron's experiences and more fully understand the capabilities of EAI's decontamination process. With the variety of contamination agents, forms and surfaces on which the technology was demonstrated, the information will be valuable to a broad cross-section of industry users. The significance of this report demonstrates superior decontamination factors are achievable utilizing the next evolution of decontamination technology and that the ALARA benefits of decontamination are available through advanced and modern decontamination efforts. The collateral benefits will save countless radiological man-hours and valuable personnel radiological exposure. (authors)

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

Thermal Process Technology for Nuclear Applications - 20379

ANSTO's Synroc technology has been developed to provide a safe, secure matrix for the immobilization and final disposal of radioactive waste. Synroc technology will be used to manage radioactive wastes from the production of the radioisotope Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99). This paper shall outline various stages of the process development with specific reference to the thermal treatment technology of calcination. Calcination is a key step in the Synroc process [1-2].The rotary thermal processing system includes: an advanced heating element design for increased robustness and ease of remote operation and maintenance, an enhanced modular design of components for ease of remote maintenance in a hot cell and in compliance with hot cell radioactive environment requirements for safety, reliability and maintainability. In addition to thermal treatment of waste from nuclear medicine production, this technology provides solutions for a variety of nuclear materials processing applications including sintering UO{sub 2} pellets for reactor fuel rods, oxidation of UO{sub 2} pellets, swarf, and powder to U{sub 3}O{sub 8}, de-nitration of Uranyl nitrate and hydrofluorination of UO{sub 2} pellets. The paper will also discuss thermal processing solutions for a range of nuclear applications. (authors)

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

The German Site Selection Process - Implementation and Challenges - 20528

Federal Company for Radioactive Waste Disposal (Bundesgesellschaft fuer Endlagerung mbH; hereinafter referred to as BGE) is a state-owned company established in September 2016 following the 'Act on the Organisational Restructuring in the Field of Radioactive Waste Storage'. 'Repository Site Selection Act' (hereinafter referred to as StandAG) defines the site selection procedure, aiming to ensure the best possible safety for storing high-level radioactive waste in Germany for the duration of one million years. The selection procedure is a participatory, transparent, learning and self-questioning process based on scientific expertise. Possible repository sites are sought all over Germany, without excluding or predetermining any potential site at the beginning. The procedure consists of three phases. After each phase, the legislative decides on the regions for further consideration in the next phase of the site selection procedure. The current first phase (Phase I) is divided into two steps. Objective of Step 1 is to determine subareas of favorable geological conditions based on available data. Step 2 of Phase I will lead to identification of specific regions that are considered for further surface-based geoscientific and geophysical exploration. Potential host rocks are rock salt, clay rock and crystalline rock. As part of the site selection procedure, an overview of the status of the planning and implementation of R and D activities is given. Topics of particular interest are, for example, the adaptation of the maximum temperature of 100 deg. C at the container surface, the impact of long-term climate variations as well as minimally invasive exploration methods. (authors)

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

Gamma-ray spectra analyses of molten salts in spent nuclear fuels pyroprocessing facilities for mass measurement

To evaluate radioactive tracer dilution and gamma spectroscopy as a safeguards technique for monitoring the mass of liquid salt in molten salt systems, the gamma spectroscopy data of salt samples from the pyroprocessing facilities in Idaho National Laboratory were acquired and analyzed. The primary focus is the uncertainty analysis of the gamma radioactivity of 154 Eu isotope in the molten salts. The facilities include an electrorefiner for pyroprocessing spent oxide fuels (SOF-ER) and Mark-IV ER for processing the metallic fuels from Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II). The relative gamma radioactivity uncertainty was consistently at 3% for 137 Cs for both Mark-IV ER and SOF-ER salts. However, for 154 Eu, it was 8% for SOF-ER salt and 7% for Mark-IV ER salt. Here, the main reason for the higher uncertainty for 154 Eu is believed to be the lower counting statistics in gamma spectroscopy. To improve the gamma radioactivity uncertainty of isotope 154 Eu, a longer data acquisition time (12 h instead of 4 h) and a higher count rate gamma detector for gamma spectroscopy were tested and it was found that the uncertainty for 154 Eu was significantly improved from 7% or 8–3%.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Modification in Applying Appendix D of 40 CFR Part 61 to Heated Solid Radionuclide Materials With High Melting and Boiling Points

Appendix D of Title 40 Part 61 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provides a procedure that US Department of Energy (US DOE) facility owners and operators can use to estimate radionuclide emissions to the atmosphere for dose calculations instead of measuring emissions for minor sources under the 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon From Department of Energy Facilities, regulation. The procedure assumes that any radioactive material heated above 100 °C is completely vaporized and emitted to the atmosphere. In 1991, the US DOE Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) requested approval to use different release fractions (RFs) for uranium because of its high melting and boiling points. In response to the request, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Region IV approved the use of modified RFs for elemental uranium provided no reaction had taken place to alter its chemical form. In 2015, the ORR requested approval to use different RFs for tungsten, again because of its high melting and boiling points. EPA Region IV approved the use of modified RFs for heated radioactive tungsten metal. In accordance with the two precedents set for heating uranium and radioactive tungsten metals, in 2016, the ORR requested approval to use modified RFs in a similar fashion for other radioactive solid metals and compounds with melting and boiling points above 500 °C that might be heated above 100 °C in future research projects and experiments. EPA Region IV again granted approval to use modified RFs for the list of compounds. This note discusses the proposed modified RFs and their development.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI1993

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 34, No. 1, January-March 1993]

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: 1 An Integrated Regional Approach To Risk Management of Industrial Systems, S. Chakraborty and R. Stratton; 9 Annual Technical Meeting of the NRC Cooperative Severe Accident Research Program, E. G. Silver; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 13 Deterministic Severe Accident Criteria as Severe Accident Design Criteria and Policy for the New Production Reactor-Heavy Water Reactor, P. T. Rhoads; 20 Proposed Deterministic Severe Accident Criteria for the Heavy Water Reactor-New Production Reactor Containment, K. D. Bergeron, S. E. Slezak, and C. E. Leach; 33 Quasi-Static Core Liquid Level Depression and Long-Term Core Uncovery During a PWR LOCA, Y. Kukita, R. R. Schultz, H. Nakamura, and J. Katayama; 49 LIRA: An Advanced Containment System to Minimize the Accidental Radioactivity Releases, A. Turricchia; 63 Errata to “A Review of Hydrogen Production During Melt/Water Interaction in LWRs,” Vol. 33, No. 4; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 64 The Nuplex 80+™ Advanced Control Complex from ABB Combustion Engineering, F. Ridolfo, D. Harmon, and K. Scarola; DESIGN FEATURES: 76 A Scheme for Passive Isolation of the Containment of a Reactor, A. K. Ghosh, V. V. Raj, and K. Kakodkar; 84 Utility Requirements for Safety in the Passive Advanced Light-Water Reactor, T. U. Marston, W. H. Layman, and G. Bockhold, Jr.; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 91 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 103 Testing Deficiencies in Auxiliary Systems Feedwater Systems, J. D. Kueck; 110 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 113 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 115 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 133 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 145 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 150 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30, 1992; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 75 Harvard Short Course on Risk: Science, Assessment, and Management; 102 International Conference on Reactor Physics and Reactor Computations; 102 The Fourth International Conference on Nuclear Waste Reprocessing and Waste Management [RECOD ’94]; 132 International Symposium on the Radiological Exposure of the Population of the European Community from Radioactivity in the Mediterranean Sea [MARINA-MED]; 162 International High-Level Radioactive Waste Conference ‘Technology Integration—Above and Below”; 154 The Authors; 158 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 33.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 14: US NRC - Current and Emerging US NRC Regulatory Topics

This panel focused on several current and emerging US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulatory issues impacting the commercial radioactive waste arena in the US. The panelists provided different perspectives on key issues such as the revision of 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 'Licensing Requirements For Land Disposal Of Radioactive Waste', the scoping study on very low-level waste, the consolidated interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and other timely regulatory topics. Panelists with presentations: Overview of NRC Low-Level Radioactive Waste Activities and Initiatives (Patricia Holahan); US Nuclear Power Plant Waste Management - US LLW Disposal Issues (Joe Weismann); Decommissioning Rule (Vern C. Rogers); What is TRU? Definition, Legislation, and Rulemaking (David Carlson); LLRW Regulatory Topics of Interest in Texas (Bobby Janecka); International Low Level Waste Management Practices (Richard McGrath)

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

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

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

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

Update on Development of a U.S. Rail Transport Capability for Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste - 20466

This paper provides an overview of the progress to date, and discussion of the path forward, related to designing, fabricating and testing prototype railcars that will comply with the safety standard S-2043. This standard was developed by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) specifically for railcars used to transport High-Level Radioactive Material (HLRM). AAR defines the term HLRM to include both spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW). DOE is in the process of developing and testing prototype railcars that will satisfy Standard S-2043. This is a technical paper that does not take into account contractual limitations or obligations under the Standard Contract for Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-Level Radioactive Waste (Standard Contract) (10 CFR Part 961). For example, under the provisions of the Standard Contract, spent nuclear fuel in multi-assembly canisters is not an acceptable waste form, absent a mutually agreed to contract amendment. To the extent discussions or recommendations in this paper conflict with the provisions of the Standard Contract, the Standard Contract governs the obligations of the parties, and this paper in no manner supersedes, overrides, or amends the Standard Contract. This paper reflects technical work which could support future decision making by the Department of Energy (DOE or Department). No inferences should be drawn from this paper regarding future actions by DOE, which are limited both by the terms of the Standard Contract and a lack of Congressional appropriations for the Department to fulfill its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act including licensing and construction of a spent nuclear fuel repository. (authors)

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

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

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

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

Using Digital and Web-Based Platforms to Enhance Nuclear Power Plant Knowledge Transfer - 20203

As the workforce ages, the loss of experienced personnel can result in a loss of important knowledge. Updating Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) research and guidance with the latest technology developments and operating experience is an important method to transfer knowledge between the retiring and incoming workforce. Studies suggest that the incoming workforce is accustomed to using digital and/or internet-based platforms to find information and may have a higher comfort with these types of platforms than they have with static, written reports. Additionally, the ease and speed of updating and delivering content through digital formats may offer an effective method for knowledge transfer and combining information from multiple reports into a single access point. EPRI has recently produced an online Decommissioning Hub available to members and is working on replicating the effort in the area of radioactive waste management called the Radwaste Web References. EPRI has extensive guidance in both disciplines. The Decommissioning Hub uses a wiki format to provide a platform that allows for both the updating of that guidance resulting from new research and new operating experiences, and combining related topical information from multiple reports. It also allows users to access the information based on key words and topical searches, and can be a tool for users to input experience to share with others. The Decommissioning Hub is accessed via a web-based portal and includes topical pages; experience summaries; a question and answer capability; and a smart search function of all EPRI decommissioning reports. Use of a wiki format allows users to input new experiences or modify existing experience summaries to add additional detail. EPRI moderates all content. The experience data base has been initially populated with information available in published EPRI reports and unpublished information currently available within EPRI. Moving forward, population of the database will continue with information available within the open literature, new information developed from current decommissioning projects, and user inputs. The web site became active in late 2017, and a major update will be issued in early 2020. Larger scale updates are planned biannually, and smaller-scale updates will occur continuously. Capturing and applying lessons learned from industry experiences is a hallmark of the global nuclear industry. This is even more important in the decommissioning technology area since very few plant staff have relevant experience and thus there is a steep learning curve. Moreover, decommissioning involves a number of complex, non-routine and specialized tasks. The web-accessible and searchable experience database provides an easy-to-use resource for capturing and disseminating practical experiences from completed and ongoing decommissioning projects. The EPRI Radwaste Web References will build upon the philosophy and objectives of the Radwaste Desk References that were published in the 1990's. The purpose of the original Radwaste Desk References was to provide nuclear power plant professionals with a how-to manual for managing radioactive waste. The Radwaste Web References will adopt this original purpose and will be a wiki type web site that provide fundamental practical and theoretical information, operating experience (OE), and information about advanced technologies and methods. As much as practicable, features that allow for interaction between users to share OE, best practices, and benchmarking will be added. Where they exist and are appropriate, the various EPRI Guidelines documents on radwaste topics will be updated and incorporated into the Radwaste Web References. The first Radwaste Web Reference will be on Low Level Waste Characterization and will build upon the EPRI Low Level Waste Characterization Guidelines (EPRI Report TR-107201, 1996) and will be available in 2020. The next Radwaste Web Reference will be on the topic of liquid radioactive waste processing and management, tentatively set for unveiling in 2021. This paper summarizes the EPRI's previous experiences with web-based platforms and future plans in this area. (authors)

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

Aerosol Measurement from Plasma Arc Torch Cuts on Various Metal for D and D Workers' Internal Dose Calculation - 20253

When dismantling a nuclear power plant, structures must be cut to reduce size. The cutting of radioactive material produces radioactive aerosols, which pose a health risk including radiation risk to site workers and the general public. However, due to a lack of research on the physical and chemical characteristics of aerosols produced in these processes, the calculation of internal dose in the event of an expected or unexpected accident is inaccurate. For the measurement of aerosols generated from cutting for internal dose calculations, we measured the number concentration distribution and nuclide distribution of aerosols from plasma arc cutting in a laboratory experimental setup, considering isokinetic sampling and automatic cutting. The results may suggest internal dose assessment without characteristics of radioactive aerosol has uncertainty and the possibility of being undervalued. (authors)

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

The Port Hope Areas Initiative's Port Granby Project: The Decontamination of Site Equipment from a Low Level Waste Facility - 20330

The Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI) is the Government of Canada's response to the community recommended solutions for the remediation and safe, long-term management of historic low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) that was the result of uranium and radium processing operations in the Municipality of Port Hope, Ontario from the 1930's to the 1980's. The Eldorado refinery, on the shores of Lake Ontario, began refining radium-226 from pitchblende ore, later transitioning to the refining of uranium ore. Process residues were deposited at the Welcome Waste Management Facility in Port Hope until the mid-1950's switching to the Port Granby Waste Management Facility (PGWMF), which continued to accept waste until the late 1980's. The Port Granby Project involves the construction of a new, secure long-term waste management facility (LTWMF) and supporting infrastructure, and the excavation and relocation of approximately 1,200,000 m{sup 3} of historic low-level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated soil from the PGWMF to the newly constructed LTWMF. Since the project's inception in 2016, the bulk of the material has since been moved to the final long term storage cell. This has taken over 500,000 person-hours and a large amount of one site heavy equipment to accomplish including excavators, bulldozers, rock trucks, baker tanks and vacuum trucks. While many of the pieces of heavy equipment and water management equipment has further work to do on site, several of the sites larger items have already undergone the decontamination process prior to release from the site. This process has posed a serious challenge as the waste has a caustic nature to it and over the last few years it has had time to work its way into the metallic structures and framework of the equipment. Coupled with the tight work spaces and in some cases confined work areas there have been many issues that needed to be addressed to successfully reach a state where items can be free released to the unrestricted limits of the sites license. This ongoing process has led to a more refined decontamination program at the Port Granby Facility and has had a rather high success rate considering the length of time the equipment has been exposed to the waste materials on site. This paper discusses the varied challenges of decontamination faced at a low-level radioactive waste facility with a focus on the following aspects: - Challenges faced regarding different equipment types and the solutions implemented by Wood to address these challenges; - An examination of various decontamination methods employed throughout the project; and - Lessons learned over three years of remediation work and how they impact the decontamination process. (authors)

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

Updates to a Preliminary Probabilistic Performance Assessment Model for Radiological and Chemical Contamination at the West Valley Site, New York - 20420

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is the owner of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center (WNYNSC), a 1,351-ha site located approximately 48 km south of Buffalo, New York. In 1962, Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (NFS) entered into agreements with the Atomic Energy Commission and New York State to construct the first commercial reprocessing plant of nuclear fuel in the United States at the WNYNSC. NFS built and operated the spent fuel reprocessing plant and waste disposal facilities, processing 640 Mg (640 metric tons) of spent nuclear fuel from 1966 to 1972 under an Atomic Energy Commission license. Nuclear fuel reprocessing operations halted in 1972 and never restarted, leaving behind radioactive and chemical wastes. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) was required to complete certain waste management activities under the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) Act of 1980 including decommissioning of WVDP facilities. As collaborating agencies, NYSERDA and the DOE are tasked with making decisions about decommissioning and risk reduction for the West Valley Site. Neptune and Company, Inc. (Neptune) was contracted to develop a probabilistic performance assessment (PPA) model to assist the agencies in their decision making process for decommissioning the WVDP and WNYNSC. One important tool that is needed in order to inform the decision-making process is a science-based model of the West Valley Site that evaluates potential future consequences for human health and the environment. This forms the core of the spatial domain of the West Valley PPA Model. The PPA Model, developed using the GoldSim system modeling software, is a tool intended to provide support for decision making that evaluates uncertainty, in a manner that is transparent, defensible, and robust. The PPA Model includes contaminant transport and health effects components, and is organized around geographically-grouped contaminated facilities. These include the waste disposal areas licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the State of New York, a waste tank farm for storage of high level radioactive waste resulting from reprocessing operations, and several areas contaminated with radioactive and chemical constituents. The PPA Model evaluates contaminant transport from these sources to points of exposure across the site and into receiving surface waters and sediments. Hypothetical people and wildlife could be exposed to contamination at these locations, and the effects of these exposures are evaluated. Contaminant transport processes to be evaluated in the PPA Model include groundwater and surface water transport, contaminant translocation by plants and animals, diffusion, and erosion. The evaluation of exposures to people in this preliminary model is limited to a resident farmer scenario, and ecological assessment is performed at the level of a screening analysis. The results of these preliminary evaluations inform future model developments. PPA Model results are subjected to sensitivity analysis in order to determine those pathways and parameters that are most significant in influencing the results. This information allows analysts and decision makers to focus on those aspects of Site behavior and processes. With this information, the decision makers can drive informed, defensible decisions regarding decommissioning of the Site. This paper includes an update of the information presented at WM2019 [1]. (authors)

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

Choosing the Best Modeling Platform for Radiological Risk Assessment Models - 20468

Radiological risk assessments, in the form of performance or safety assessments, are often required under regulations or guidance for remediation of contaminated land, decommissioning of contaminated buildings or structures, and radioactive waste disposal. These risk assessments are usually supported by fate and transport models that address decay and ingrowth of radionuclides, as well as their movement through engineered systems and the natural environment. These models are often projected thousands, or more, years into the future, largely because the radioactive species change through decay and ingrowth, and hence the magnitude of the radioactive effect changes with time. There are many computer codes that are available to address this type of modeling. They range from addressing specific pathways or processes such as infiltration of water, groundwater, surface water, air, biota, diffusion and advection of water and gases, to those that try to couple all processes together to evaluate the impact of fate and transport through the entire system to places in space and time to which access is assumed. These different types of codes are sometimes separated with the monikers process-level and systems-level codes, although it is often not clear that this separation does justice to the capabilities of the many codes that are available to evaluate fate and transport of radionuclides. The focus of this paper is the latter group of modeling codes. Several systems level modeling codes exist and are used. There are differences between these codes in terms of utility, flexibility, complexity and cost. The purpose of this paper is to compare a few of these codes in the context of work currently being performed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Modeling and Data for Radiological Impact Assessments (MODARIA) II Working Group 1 (WG1). The MODARIA II WG1's main focus is how stakeholder engaged decision analysis can, or should, be applied to radiological contamination problems so that better, longstanding, sustainable, solutions are reached. However, the WG1 also recognizes the potential impact of the modeling tools that are chosen to address radiological risk, which is often a primary objective of decision making for radiological problems. Other objectives might also be important, such as constraining costs, obtaining financing, minimizing impact on ecosystems, saving cultural resources, saving jobs, farmland, environmental justice, etc., in a full decision analysis for a given radiological contamination problem, but none of these other objectives have the same types of complex modeling needs as minimize radiological dose. Consequently, a further focus of WG1 is to evaluate the potential impacts on decision making of the choice of fate and transport, and risk assessment, modeling codes that are used to support decision making. The WG1 will produce a report at the end of 2020 that will focus on an approach to effective decision making and stakeholder engagement. The report will also consider the role that performance assessment modeling should play in the decision-making process, including the impact of the choice of modeling tools or computer codes on risk-informed decision making. Several sites around the World have been made available by Member States for these model comparisons, and several modeling tools have been considered. However, the focus of this paper is on two of the sites, one in Belgium and one in Ukraine, and on three of the tools: NORMALYSA (NORM And Legacy Site Assessment); GoldSim{sup C}, and AMBER{sup C}. The final report from this working group will also cover other modeling tools, including RESRAD, and PC-Cream{sup R}. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗