Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Nuclear Waste Management”

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

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

At least 721 records · Page 40
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2012

Nye County Nevada Perspectives on the State of the Yucca Mountain Project - 12388

Responding to the Department of Energy decision to try to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application and the Administration actions to close down the Yucca Mountain project, Nye County undertook a number of activities to articulate its support for continuing the Yucca Mountain project. The activities included responding to inquiries from federal agencies, including investigations undertaken by the Government Accountability Office addressing other potential uses for the Yucca Mountain site, responding to a Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the possible use of Yucca Mountain for disposal of Greater than Class C wastes, testifying in hearings, and interacting with the President's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future. The paper summarizes Nye County's position on the Yucca Mountain repository, Nye County's perspectives on the various activities that were developed and considered by the Government Accountability Office, Nye County's concerns with the use of the Nevada National Security Site for Disposal of Greater than Class C Low-Level Radioactive Wastes, testimony of Nye County officials expressing local community support for the Yucca Mountain project, and Nye County's perspectives on recommendations provided by the Blue Ribbon Commission to move the nation's high-level radioactive waste disposal programs forward without consideration of the role Yucca Mountain could have served in those recommendations. Nye County believes that every effort should be made to, at a minimum, fund the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to complete the license application review. Then, if Congress does decide to change the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, there will be valuable information available to support new policy development. This administration contends that Congressional language associated with the FY2010 and FY2011 appropriations and authorization process is sufficient evidence of its intent to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository program. The appropriation process needs to be explicit that, absent explicit language to the contrary, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act stands. It also should include language that requires the Department of Energy to preserve all necessary records until the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is amended or rescinded by specific Congressional action. (authors)

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

Panel Session 1: WMS 2020 Plenary Session

The plenary panel focused on government and industry world leaders speaking on the pressing issues facing radioactive waste management in 2020 and beyond. Panelists included an OECD/ NEA representative for the international community, a Huntington Ingalls Industries representative for the commercial sector, and the US DOE Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary of Science representing DOE Environmental Management. Panelists with presentations: WM2020 Speech (Michael Lempke); Optimization: A Better Path toward Managing Nuclear Decommissioning and Legacies (William Magwood); Update On the DOE Environmental Management Program (William White)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

The Development of a Small-Scale Project Model for Waste Management at the Port Hope Conversion Facility - 19126

Cameco Corporation's (Cameco) Port Hope Conversion Facility (PHCF) was previously owned by the federal Crown Corporation, Eldorado Nuclear, which held a significant inventory of legacy waste material at the time Cameco was formed in 1988. Over time, Cameco's ongoing operations contributed to an increase in the volume of low-level radioactive waste managed onsite. Since 2011, Cameco has completed annual waste management campaigns with the goal of accelerating the recycle/disposal of accumulated legacy radioactive wastes stored at its Ontario operations. With disposal options for low-level radioactively contaminated wastes in Canada limited due to cost considerations and no commercially accessible landfills licensed for radioactive material. In recent years, Cameco has started to ship marginally contaminated wastes (<500 ppm uranium) to the United States for disposal in an appropriate landfill owned by US Ecology in Idaho. Numerous successful campaigns totaling over 1,000 successful shipments, have been completed to transport drummed and/or bagged material by rail in gondola cars to the disposal facility in Idaho since 2011. All shipments have been completed in compliance with all environmental regulations, with a perfect compliance record maintained to date. To achieve this excellent compliance record, the campaigns require careful planning by both organizations, as well as deployment of personnel from the Idaho facility during the campaign for project management, characterization and/or radiation monitoring support. As the accumulated waste inventory has been reduced through these projects, the scope and duration of each campaign has also decreased. In the last few years, road transport directly to the Idaho facility has also been utilized. This option allows for the deployment of small projects that may be completed for a smaller inventory of a specific waste type and to manage newly-generated low-level radioactive wastes on an ongoing basis. These projects have ranged from a single standard van shipment to multiple trucks running continuous loops between the Ontario and Idaho or Ontario and an intermediary site and have been utilized for marginally contaminated wastes (<500 ppm uranium) as well as marginally contaminated wastes with additional hazard classification. Cameco and US Ecology personnel have collaborated to develop characterization and shipment procedures that enable these projects to be executed in full compliance with all Canadian and US regulations, without deployment of personnel from the Idaho facility, while maintaining adequate oversight by both organizations to ensure that the waste is safely and compliantly managed. These protocols have been implemented and optimized for the Port Hope Conversion Facility and will be rolled out to other Cameco facilities in Ontario through 2019. Cameco expects to utilize the small project model for the long term to ensure that eligible marginally contaminated wastes (<500 ppm uranium) are managed appropriately to ensure that once the legacy material is eliminated, it remains so. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2013

Activities ONDRAF/NIRAS related to the decommissioning of nuclear facilities

Since 1980, the Agency is responsible by law for the safe management of all radioactive waste produced in Belgium, including decommissioning wastes. By the law of 11 January 1991 and the implementing Royal Decree of 16/10/1991, ONDRAF/NIRAS has been entrusted with a mission concerning the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. This mission involves the collection and assessment of data concerning decommissioning forecasts for nuclear facilities, the approval of facilities' decommissioning programmes, the establishment - in consultation with operators - of financing conditions for decommissioning, as well as the implementation of these programmes on request by the operator, or in the case of its failure to do so. This is the case for the company Best Medical Belgium SA located at Fleurus (MDS Nordion SA, till April 2011), which produced radioisotopes for medical applications and went bankrupt in 2012. These installations have been entrusted to ONDRAF/NIRAS. A plan of action was developed for taking over the operations in the framework of remediation and decommissioning. Steps have been taken to integrate his new role as a nuclear operator. The installations of Best Medical Belgium SA are now referred to as the 'O/N - Site Fleurus.' Nuclear facility operators, or any person requesting to operate a nuclear facility, are obliged to provide ONDRAF/NIRAS, under their responsibility and in due time, with all the necessary information concerning these facilities' decommissioning forecasts, the nature, quantities and dates of transfer of the resulting waste, and the financing conditions for these facilities' decommissioning. In order to make the necessary funds available for decommissioning a nuclear facility when it will be shut down, operators are obliged to establish provisions during the facility's active life. These provisions are calculated in such a way that the total amount established at the time of the final shutdown covers all costs resulting from the facility's final phase, namely the preparation of decommissioning, decontamination, more or less long-term maintenance, dismantling, treatment, conditioning and disposal of waste produced during this phase. In order to face to multiple and repeated evaluation processes, the Agency, already in the early 90's, started with the implementation of its own integrated data processing system, recording the physical and radiological inventories of nuclear facilities, and allowing the evaluation of the quantities of decommissioning materials and wastes as well as of the decommissioning costs of these facilities. The cost evaluations cover all decommissioning activities from final shutdown of the facility until final release from nuclear control, as well as conventional demolition and site restoration if required. Beside the information related to the inventories, the database involves so called auxiliary tables integrating unit prices of the various decontamination and dismantling techniques, unit rates for radioactive waste processing, interim storage and final disposal. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2018

Lessons Learned From Public Outreach: Effective Incorporation of the Stakeholder Voice - 18447

The licensing process for any facility associated with nuclear power or aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle can be expected to encounter intense stakeholder interest, and often significant challenges. Over the last decade, staff of the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA{sup R}) at Southwest Research Institute{sup R} (SwRI{sup R}) provided comprehensive support to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for public outreach efforts across a wide variety of nuclear activities. Many of these projects included public involvement and consultation activities for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including scoping, public meetings, responding to public comments on draft documents, and holding small meetings with affected local, state, and tribal governments. In addition, we have supported NRC public outreach related to nuclear facility licensing activities (including the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain), rulemaking, and regulatory guidance development. This experience has offered us a broad view of the challenges faced by industry, regulators, and stakeholders. In the process, we have observed some best practices that lead to effective stakeholder communication. Communication about complex technical issues is challenging, particularly for societally controversial topics, such as civilian use of nuclear power and management of radioactive waste. Most commonly, we have observed a lack of mutual trust and respect among industry, regulators, and stakeholders that creates an atmosphere ripe for suspicion and misunderstanding. Stakeholders have, in public comments, criticized the lack of appropriate venues to raise concerns in which they feel they can get meaningful responses from the nuclear industry and regulators. Conversely, industry faces difficulty in reaching compromise with stakeholders, who sometimes misinterpret or misrepresent factual information. Within this contentious environment, regulators are constrained by their statutory framework, even as they are challenged to be more responsive, transparent, and fair to both stakeholders and industry. In spite of these obstacles, there are examples where feedback from stakeholders was heard and utilized. Because of successful collection of appropriate feedback, regulators became more adept at understanding the full range of perspectives from both industry and stakeholders, and subsequently did a better job at effectively incorporating feedback and communicating their decisions and findings in a clear and understandable way. Ultimately, the success of these examples was based on a measure of mutual respect, which was reached through effective communication and implementation of some best practices. These best practices include (i) outreach planning that is abundantly mindful of the various stakeholder points of view, site history, regional characteristics, and probable future and related actions, combined with advance identification of key stakeholders; (ii) development and distribution of information that facilitates public participation; and (iii) use of avenues by which stakeholders can provide meaningful and effective comments. Illustrative examples include (i) how concerns raised by stakeholders were heard by an applicant and resulted in a revised project proposal; (ii) use of a variety of interaction formats that incorporated input across a broad spectrum of stakeholders; (iii) utilizing stakeholder feedback received during scoping; and (iv) how a facility underestimated the impact of 'outsider' stakeholder voices that were in contrast to the known local community. By moving past the viewpoint that public outreach is a 'necessary evil' and engaging only to check a procedural box, each participant can benefit from mutually satisfactory and improved outcomes. (author)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Long history of Cl-36 Assessment of Graphite Waste by EDF Engineering and the Latest Suggested Developments - 17043

Prior to 2005, the EDF initial version for the radiological inventory of graphite was based on the maximum values of the measures, namely a very pessimistic way. In 2008, a scientific method was developed by EDF to evaluate the inventory by reverse activation calculation, in order to limit the overestimation. The radiological inventory computation principles can be compared to those of all engineering studies. First, the calculation is simplified by taking margins, and if the results are not satisfactory enough, some simplifications are suppressed to reduce these margins even if computation becomes more complicated. On EDF piles, the gain obtained in 2008 represented a factor 50 relative to the initial version of Cl-36, even with a very penalizing multiplicative factor for uncertainty. Today, the accurate calculation of the uncertainty no longer justifies such a factor. A gain of about 150 now occurs compared to the initial version of Cl-36. It is more than 2 orders of magnitude, which is already enough to assess again the necessary type of disposal because Cl-36 is one of the key radionuclides. After global presentation of graphite waste management in France, the paper focuses on the inventory scientific process of EDF nuclear graphite, the purity of graphite and its consequences, its particular sampling, the lessons learned, the initial method description, the link with the demonstration of the completely random point process of chlorine in nuclear graphite and the last suggested precise uncertainty computation of inventory of Cl-36. The method confirmation for concentration assessment, the history of the EDF method development and its benefits are also emphasized. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2010

TREATMENT OF GASEOUS EFFLUENTS ISSUED FROM RECYCLING – A REVIEW OF THE CURRENT PRACTICES AND PROSPECTIVE IMPROVEMENTS

The objectives of gaseous waste management for the recycling of nuclear used fuel is to reduce by best practical means (ALARA) and below regulatory limits, the quantity of activity discharged to the environment. The industrial PUREX process recovers the fissile material U(VI) and Pu(IV) to re-use them for the fabrication of new fuel elements e.g. recycling plutonium as a Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel or recycling uranium for new enrichment for Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR). Meanwhile the separation of the waste (activation and fission product) is performed as a function of their pollution in order to store and avoid any potential danger and release towards the biosphere. Raffinate, that remains after the extraction step and which contains mostly all fission products and minor actinides is vitrified, the glass package being stored temporarily at the recycling plant site. Hulls and end pieces coming from PWR recycled fuel are compacted by means of a press leading to a volume reduced to 1/5th of initial volume. An organic waste treatment step will recycle the solvent, mainly tri-butyl phosphate (TBP) and some of its hydrolysis and radiolytic degradation products such as dibutyl phosphate (HDPB) and monobutyl phosphate (H2MBP). Although most scientific and technological development work focused on high level waste streams, a considerable effort is still under way in the area of intermediate and low level waste management. Current industrial practices for the treatment of gaseous effluents focusing essentially on Iodine-129 and Krypton-85 will be reviewed along with the development of novel technologies to extract, condition, and store these fission products. As an example, the current industrial practice is to discharge Kr-85, a radioactive gas, entirely to the atmosphere after dilution, but for the large recycling facilities envisioned in the near future, several techniques such as 1) cryogenic distillation and selective absorption in solvents, 2) adsorption on activated charcoal, 3) selective sorption on chemical modified zeolites, or 4) diffusion through membranes with selective permeability are potential technologies to retain the gas.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2012

Nuclear Crisis Communications: The Plan Worked. A Critique of NRC Communications in the Fukushima Daiichi Reactor Crisis - 12073

'Call the AV-Photo folks and get someone in here to shoot b-roll. We'll never be able to accommodate the network cameras and the only way I can get this to the media is to produce it ourselves'. Eliot Brenner, Director NRC Office of Public Affairs, March 12, 2011. For the past four years we have been speaking to audiences at Waste Management about communications issues. Last year, though we were kept from attending because of the federal budget crisis, our surrogates described to you the lessons the nuclear industry should draw from the BP Gulf oil spill crisis. Those remarks were delivered 11 days before the Fukushima Daiichi tragedy became the nuclear landmark of a generation - an industry changing event with worldwide ramifications, both in science and regulation and in communications. Eliot Brenner cut his teeth on crisis communication in the aviation industry where tragedy unfolds rapidly. He has been a speech-writer to three cabinet secretaries, spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration and now spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 2004. Holly Harrington manages the NRC crisis response program and has 26 years federal public affairs experience, including eight years at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Her crisis experience includes the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, numerous hurricanes and floods, Sept 11, and, now Fukushima Daiichi. Rebecca Schmidt is a veteran government relations professional whose decades in Washington include service with the House Armed Services Committee, the House Budget Committee and the Secretary of Defense. Collectively, the Offices of Public Affairs and Congressional Affairs conducted the largest outreach for the agency since Three Mile Island. We worked with the basic rule, described to Waste Management last year just 11 days before Fukushima - communicate early, often and clearly. The response - while not without its problems and lessons - went as smoothly as a chaotic event like Fukushima could go. That was due in large measure to the fact that the NRC has a well-tested system of responding to nuclear emergencies, and we followed our plan. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

Does the Perfect Waste Package Exist? Development of a Decisional Tool Addressing this Challenge - 17053

The definition of a safe, technically, economically and societally acceptable waste management strategy is highly dependent on the Waste Acceptance Criteria in each country and on the already available disposal routes. It is the reason why there is not a single solution but a combination of optimized solutions depending on the type of waste and on each country's considerations. In fact, when operating a nuclear plant or performing its decommissioning or legacy waste management, one has to consider a large waste diversity in term of natures, types, volumes and radioactivity spectra. All nuclear operators have to take-up the challenge of implementing solutions for conditioning its waste in packages suitable for transport short to long term interim storage and final disposal of it (or prepare for final disposal if the repository is not yet available). Operators have then to answer the following dilemma: either define a complete strategy packaging the waste for final disposal, or 'containerising' it temporarily, pending final disposal. The strategy is highly country dependent; in the first case, one has to take into account the available information and future orientations relative to acceptability of the packages in order to define a robust solution. The approach implemented in France requires a close dialogue between the Operators, the Safety Authority, the Administration and the stakeholders. Moreover it pushes forward whenever possible standardization, contributing to cost minimization. If the second approach has the advantage of leaving the options open, and reducing the initial investments, it inevitably requires future retrieval and re-packaging with potential evolutions/degradation of the initial waste form. It also induces the potential risk to produce additional secondary waste. As an additional drawback, it introduces uncertainties and unknowns related to the future waste management criteria and to the costs. The general idea is that, depending on context, a given route (i.e., treatment, conditioning, and transport), could be considered as efficient or not. Assessing a waste package is certainly highly context dependent. However it should be possible to recognize and to lead an evaluation based on a number of fixed criteria, whatever the context, to be addressed when assessing the development of a final waste package in connection to the overall management route. A waste package is always a combination of a waste container and a waste form and will have to be transported one day from the production site to the final repository or to off-site interim storage facilities. AREVA's approach consists in defining an evaluation grid based on a set of criteria which aim (i) to evaluate whether the different waste treatments, conditionings, transport and packages deserve to be considered within different national contexts, and (ii) to evaluate R and D actions to be performed for improving existing solutions or developing new ones. One of the key lessons to be drawn from AREVA's experience in developing waste packages is that the perfect waste doesn't exist even though the vitrified canister is probably the most efficient one. The performance of a package resulting from a compromise depends on context and is a strength combination between the waste container and the waste form. The approach is to evaluate a waste package development against different set of criteria and to draw optimization diagrams. In such diagram, a given waste package is assessed with respect to selected criteria such as waste form and waste container, stability, level of waste incorporation, integrity lifetime, secondary waste generation, transport, long term behavior, and economical effectiveness, etc. Addressing a waste form is a very key point. This evaluation grid and comparative approach will be presented through examples and comparison providing from AREVA feedback on waste package development related to complex waste management such as problematic waste or legacy waste. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Online Waste Library (OWL) and Waste Forms Characteristics Annual Report

This report represents completion of milestone deliverable M2SF-19SNO10309013 "Online Waste Library (OWL) and Waste Forms Characteristics Annual Report" that reports annual status on fiscal year (FY) 2019 activities for the work package SF-19SN01030901 and is due on August 2, 2019. The online waste library (OWL) has been designed to contain information regarding United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE)-managed (as) high-level waste (DHLW), spent nuclear fuel (SNF), and other wastes that are likely candidates for deep geologic disposal, with links to the current supporting documents for the data (when possible; note that no classified or official-use-only (OUO) data are planned to be included in OWL). There may be up to several hundred different DOE-managed wastes that are likely to require deep geologic disposal. This annual report on FY2019 activities includes evaluations of waste form characteristics and waste form performance models, updates to the OWL development, and descriptions of the management processes for the OWL. Updates to the OWL include an updated user's guide, additions to the OWL database content for wastes and waste forms, results of the beta testing and changes implemented from it. Also added are descriptions of the management/control processes for the OWL development, version control, and archiving. These processes have been implemented as part of the full production release of OWL (i.e., OWL Version 1.0), which has been developed on, and will be hosted and managed on, Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) systems. The version control/update processes will be implemented for updates to the OWL in the future. Additionally, another process covering methods for interfacing with the DOE SNF Database (DOE 2007) at Idaho National Laboratory on the numerous entries for DOE-managed SNF (DSNF) has been pushed forward by defining data exchanges and is planned to be implemented sometime in FY2020. The INL database is also sometimes referred to as the Spent Fuel Database or the SFDB, which is the acronym that will be used in this report. Once fully implemented, this integration effort will serve as a template for interfacing with additional databases throughout the DOE complex.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2016

Remote Retrieval, Disruption and Processing of Legacy Nuclear Waste - 16179

The UK National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) is currently undertaking, in conjunction with Sellafield Ltd, a series of high profile trials of robotic equipment on a full scale test facility at their Workington Laboratory in England. These trials are designed to underpin and substantiate the processes proposed for the remote retrieval, disruption and processing of legacy Miscellaneous Beta Gamma Waste (MBGW) from a number of different donor plants on the Sellafield site, including some of the older fuel storage ponds and storage silos. These processes will be conducted inside the new Box Encapsulation Plant (BEP) which is due to be commissioned at Sellafield by 2020. These processes will subsequently enable Sellafield Ltd to safely recover legacy Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) from the older storage facilities on site and process it into a safer form which is more suitable for long term storage and then ultimately final disposal in a Geological Disposal Facility. As part of this legacy waste processing within the BEP plant, MBGW waste items will have to be remotely removed from a variety of different types of import skips. This waste will then be transferred, using robots, into the export container, which is a 3 m{sup 3} box liner, where the processed waste will be flood grouted to produce an encapsulated waste package. As part of this processing, any MBGW items consisting of sealed containers will have to be remotely disrupted before being grout encapsulated. This disruption is in order to (a) release any trapped liquors or gases from the containers and (b) ensure full grout infiltration of the container contents, thus minimising the amount of free liquors and voids within the final waste product. The NNL are conducting this technical work to confirm the viability of the proposed concept, processes and equipment. The developed solution consists of a linear layout of processing equipment with a pair of heavy duty, standard industrial, 'commercially off the shelf' (COTS) robots positioned around a Waste Handling Table. These robots have a 500 kg payload capacity and are operated remotely to handle all of the various types of MBGW waste, including the heavy and bulky items. The robots can be operated in manual tele-operation mode as well as pre-programmed automatic mode and have a range of primary and secondary tooling in order to perform the waste processing and disruption tasks as well as undertake general house-keeping and cleaning duties within the cell. The main tools include two types of hydraulic grab for the main waste recovery and handling tasks and a hydraulic shear for the waste disruption activities, but a number of other tools have also been designed and built for ancillary activities, such as a set of general purpose gripper jaws, drilling tool, bolt removal tool, pump tool, spray tool and a number of different housekeeping tools etc. The robot trials were started in November 2014, and have attracted a significant degree of high level stakeholder interest, including the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), Environment Agency (EA) and Radioactive Waste Management Limited (RWML) witnessing a number of the critical demonstration trials. Robots of the type selected are readily available, robust, reliable and easy to use. The trials have been very successful in proving the retrieval, processing and disruption operations, reducing the burden in the legacy waste facilities. Utilising robots to perform these tasks will lower the probability of producing non-compliant waste packages. In addition the robots can increase the consolidation of incoming waste skips into outgoing 3 m{sup 3} box liners, significantly increasing packing efficiencies and reducing the overall number of export containers produced thus lowering the decommissioning and waste storage/disposal costs. The trials have also enabled an assessment of the optimum way to operate the robots, as well as their reliability and maintainability issues. Engineering work associated with recovering failed robots and removing them from a typical Sellafield plant environment and then subsequently replacing them with functioning robots has also been undertaken and further work is now planned. The success of the trials, completed safely to a very challenging timescale, has enabled the use of robots in BEP to be endorsed as a viable option by the key stakeholders. Following a robust decision making process, this was a clear cut decision. The technical development and testing of the robot technology is currently continuing in order to investigate areas such as robot reliability, failure recoveries, human factors, ease of waste identification, optimisation of throughput rates, nuclearisation modifications etc. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2016

Application of Field Evaluations of Ecological Resources at Hanford and Other DOE Sites for Consistency of Resource Protection and Sustainability - 16404

Remediation and management of contaminated facilities, soil, sediment and biota is an essential element of the DOE-EM mission for site completion, contaminant footprint reduction, and protection of human health and the environment. Protecting ecological resources is an integral part of protecting human health because people are part of the ecosystem and rely on ecological resources for food, fiber, clean air and water, recreational, aesthetic, and cultural values. Evaluation and management require understanding the past and current conditions, as well as protecting, preserving, and enhancing ecological resources. Understanding past and current resources includes evaluation of individual and population health within a local and regional context. The objective of this research is to describe a field method of evaluating ecological resources, based on work at the Hanford Site, which can be applied to sustainability of ecological resources as another mandate of DOE. This requires objective methods to characterize and evaluate resources spatially, within a context of local and regional importance. The DOE complex is large, diverse, and multi-state. The habitats and ecological resources are diverse, and the relative importance of ecological resources to the local ecosystem, region, and human communities varies. Large and diverse sites such as Hanford, Idaho National Laboratory, Los Alamos, hold resources of substantial importance to local and regional ecosystems, as well as to the ecology and cultural values of Tribes and other residents. However, other smaller sites (e.g. Oak Ridge, Brookhaven) also hold key ecological resources to local and regional ecosystems, cultures, and economics. Understanding the relative importance of ecological resources on each remediation site at different spatial scales, within and among DOE-EM sites is critical to management, stewardship, and ensuring sustainability for generations to come. Without a standardized methodology it is difficult to develop sound remediation and management plans to protect human health and the environment. The Ecological Evaluation of Resources described in this paper is part of the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation's (CRESP) Risk Review Project on the Hanford Site. It is an independent assessment based of on-site field evaluations that encompasses evaluations of site resources in comparison to the Columbia Basin Ecosystem prior evaluations made by DOE, the States of Washington and Oregon, Nature Conservancy and Tribes. The on-site field evaluations are the focus of the current paper. The on-site field evaluation methodology was developed to update existing information on habitat values in light of changing landscape features (edge, patch size and shape, connectivity) and the current presence of invasive species. Both aspects change with time, especially given that remediation of remediation units changes the landscape. That is, every time there is a remediation and restoration of an operable unit (remediation site) on a DOE site, it changes the adjacent landscape (and ecological resources). The changes are greater where new roads were built to access a remediation site, staging areas constructed, and as a function of the size and time-frame for the remediation. Since ecological resources form a continuum across the landscape, and activities from remediation on a given site can affect those on adjacent areas, we evaluated resources both on the remediation site itself, and on a buffer equal to the largest diameter of the remediation site. The field evaluation methodology developed at Hanford Site makes use of existing resource level maps (DOE/RL-96-32 2013) and field surveys and measurements of current vegetation and habitat conditions to evaluate potential ecological impacts associated with cleanup activities at the evaluation unit. Additional information used in the ecological resource evaluations include current Endangered and Threatened Species distribution data (both state and federal), aerial imagery, locations of waste sites and infrastructure, and species and habitats of special concern. We suggest that the field methodology developed for the Hanford Site could be used across the DOE complex to evaluate ecological resources. This would provide DOE-EM with a common data base to make long-term decisions about the protection and sustainability of resources on the DOE complex, and would provide Tribes and the public with information on ecological resources on DOE sites. Such information could be provided in a web-based format which DOE, regulators, Tribes, and the public could easily access. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

Innovative Solutions To Solve Complex Radioactive Waste Management Problems In The U.S. - 2017 Richard S. Hodes, M.D. Honor Lecture Award - 17609

Ever since Wilhelm Roentgen, Henri Becquerel, and Marie Curie discovered x-rays, radioactivity, and radium, respectively, at the turn of the nineteenth century, nuclear technologies have continued to evolve and significantly enrich the quality of life for mankind. The evolution of such technologies has enabled our society to diagnose medical illnesses without the need for invasive surgeries, treat cancers, conduct research, develop new kinds of pharmaceuticals, preserve our food supply, and generate over 20% of our nation's electricity from commercial nuclear power plants. While these life-changing technologies have significantly enriched our quality of life and advanced our understanding of the sciences, they also generate radioactive waste that must be managed responsibly in a manner that protects public health. Over the past several decades, decision makers have developed a patchwork of policies to safely manage radioactive wastes-policies that are not necessarily based on the risk posed to public health, but more often on the origins of the waste and the manner in which they are defined in federal legislation. However, in the past several years, much progress has been made to better risk-inform the practices of managing Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) in the United States. In 2012, the nation's first regional commercial facility for disposing of Class A, B, and C LLW since the U.S. Congress enacted the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended in 1985, was opened in Andrews County, Texas. Since then, other innovative LLW management solutions have emerged, ranging from cost-effective disposal options for wastes with very low levels of radioactivity to depleted uranium, and perhaps ultimately, for waste exceeding the concentration-based limits for Class C LLW (i.e., Greater Than Class C LLW) as specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chap. 61.55. Most recently, a license application for a consolidated interim storage facility for Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) is currently under review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Should the NRC approve the license application, SNF currently located at 12 shutdown and decommissioned nuclear reactors could be placed into interim storage in Texas. Approval of this license application would facilitate the complete decommissioning of nuclear power plants, returning them to green-fields, and allowing the local communities to re-purpose the lands for further economic development. Over the next decade, many of these waste management challenges that once seemed insurmountable may soon be transformed into a reality. As will be discussed at the award lecture, achieving such possibilities clearly aligns with the vision of creating innovative radioactive waste management solutions for our nation that were championed by the late physician and statesman, Dr. Richard S. Hodes. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2018

Radioactive Waste Disposal Strategies within the US Army Corps of Engineers FUSRAP - 18328

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) highest priority is the protection of human health and the environment and public and worker safety during the cleanup, transportation, and disposal of Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) material. In addition to following all appropriate federal and state rules and regulations, the USACE has its own safety program that ensures that we are being protective. One aspect of the USACE FUSRAP is the radioactive waste disposal strategies that we must consider. The USACE will only dispose of FUSRAP material in a facility that is licenses/permitted to accept it. The estimated exposures to facility workers and members of the public from the permitted disposal of FUSRAP wastes is evaluated as part of this process. The USACE uses the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process to study and remediate FUSRAP sites. An evaluation is performed to decide whether it is best to manage the waste on-site or off-site and the requirements for disposal. The action selected must be protective of human health and the environment and must comply with regulations. When making the decision, there are several other factors taken into consideration including cost of the disposal and whether the public and state agencies support the action. Prior to determining disposal options, wastes must first be characterized. This involves an evaluation of both site history and analytical data. Determining the proper disposal requirements and subsequent disposal option involves: Characterizing the waste as stated above. This is important because there are several regulatory agencies which may oversee management of the waste. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the US Department of Transportation, and state hazardous waste and/or radiation protection agencies may all have varying degrees of involvement. Identifying disposal requirements. Certain wastes must be disposed at licensed radioactive waste disposal facilities. Wastes containing US EPA regulated hazardous waste must be disposed at permitted hazardous waste disposal facilities. Certain wastes must be disposed at facilities licensed/permitted for both radioactive and hazardous waste. Some lower activity wastes may be accepted for disposal at other types of landfills. Considering acceptance criteria of the disposal facility. Radionuclides and/or hazardous constituents in the waste, as well as physical and chemical form of the waste, are evaluated to ensure they meet the acceptance criteria of the receiving facility's license and/or permit. If they don't, another disposal location must be used. Considering the accessibility and location of the disposal facility. Some facilities are able to accept shipments only by truck and others can accept material via railcar as well. The distance to a disposal facility impacts the risk of transportation accidents and efficient use of project resources such as the number of trucks required to perform the transportation. These factors are also important in evaluating whether material can be cost effectively shipped to a disposal facility. Evaluating the compliance status of the receiving facility. It is not assumed that just because a facility has a license or permit that it is acceptable for the USACE' waste. Prior to selecting a facility for disposal of FUSRAP waste, a site visit, audit and consultation with the US EPA is required to determine whether there are any known relevant violations at the facility. Facilities that have violations that negatively impact the USACE or US EPA approval of the facility are not used for disposal of FUSRAP waste. Once a facility is selected. The USACE procures contracts, or utilizes existing contracts, to facilitate the transportation and disposal action. Additionally, the USACE continues to consult with US EPA routinely to confirm the compliance status of the facility. Considering state acceptance of wastes to a facility. The USACE seeks to obtain written authorization from the facility state regulator indicating the action is compliant with existing licenses, permits, laws, and regulations. Each of these factors is considered by the USACE in selecting a FUSRAP disposal location. The goal is to provide safe, cost effective disposal which is protective of human health and the environment and which complies with all regulatory requirements. These steps all feed in to the disposal strategy consideration that USACE must go through for our FUSRAP waste streams. There are a number of challenges in the process to include In order to achieve the Congressional mandate of completing cleanup work under FUSRAP in a more cost effective, timely manner, while assuring protection of public health and safety. USACE must determine all disposal options that are available for the types of waste at each FUSRAP site. As a solution, completion of a disposal strategy document can help ensure this goal is met and will foster consistency across the FUSRAP. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2018

Management of Metals from Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities - 18411

The EDF group companies within the Cyclife platform have for decades performed treatment and recycling of metals. With different approaches but all considered international Good Practice, as valuable materials are recovered for safe recycling and volumes in the repositories for radioactive waste are saved. For an efficient decommissioning project, a well-defined waste management process is one of the critical paths, not least when it comes to routes for clearance and recycling of materials. It is easy to underestimate the complexity and bottlenecks caused by shortage of logistic space. In order to mitigate these risks, activities such as strengthening categorization, quantification and adopting different routes based on the material properties should be implemented. By categorization of the of waste and materials considered/classified as contaminated or potentially contaminated it is obvious that the management of the metals is a key parameter in nuclear decommissioning. Analyses performed by the EDF companies shows that a majority of the materials, classified as contaminated, from a BWR/PWR plant are metals. Experience gives that a high percentage of these metals from decommissioning can be subject to recycling either directly upon completion of the clearance process or after certain treatment. Non-technical key parameters like the regulatory requirements on applying the waste hierarchy, the impact on repository programs as well as, not at least, the regulatory and public acceptance of recycling of materials from the nuclear industry are, together with costs essential factors when forming the routing of metals and other waste materials from a decommissioning project. Today the EDF group companies are positioned to provide a wide range of services for management of the contaminated metals from decommissioning projects, spanning from industrial management of metals which directly will be subject general clearance after verification measurements up to decontamination and melting of selected reactor internals for recycling to public domain or within the nuclear industry. In this paper the typical waste material composition for BWR and PWR plants, the different ways to treat/manage the radioactive and potentially radioactive metals including a comparison of the different approach commonly used in a technical, logistical and economical perspectives. A few success stories will be resented as well as lessons learned. (authors)

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

Systems Engineering and Analysis in Support of a US Federal Staging Facility for UNF

The US Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) Office of Spent Fuel and High-Level Waste Disposition is examining a set of system options and conducting supporting analyses to inform the development of an integrated waste management system, which may include one or more federal staging facilities (FSFs) for used nuclear fuel (UNF ) sited using a collaborative siting process. This paper focuses on the ongoing activities in two systems engineering and analysis work areas: (1) data and tools development, validation, and maintenance and (2) systems engineering execution. Within the first work area, the STANDARDS 5.0 UNF data and analysis tool, formerly known as UNF-ST&DARDS, is being developed as a foundational resource to assist in the management of UNF data. It has the key capability to model UNF throughout the entire back end of the fuel cycle. STANDARDS also includes several compatible analysis tools for the time-dependent characterization of UNF and related systems by interfacing with the SCALE code system for nuclear analysis and COBRA-SFS for thermal analysis. Also, within the data and tools area is the Next Generation System Analysis Model (NGSAM), which is an agent-based simulation software tool expressly designed to be capable of modeling the waste management system, including the transportation of UNF to and from a FSF. NGSAM has been developed to enable informed decision-making by providing the capability to analyze various potential system options for the management of UNF and high-level radioactive waste. Finally, in the systems engineering execution area, the team has begun to apply a disciplined systems engineering approach at the system level along with supporting analysis to guide the development of the FSF project requirements (including associated transportation infrastructure). Systems engineering principles and practices and their adaptation/application to design and development activities will ensure that the waste management system is effectively implemented as work proceeds. Other activities include investigating the implications of changes in various assumptions and parameters related to waste management systems, such as UNF acceptance rates, receipt logic, facility capacities and capabilities, use of standardized canisters, and different assumed facility operation start dates. Keywords: federal staging facility (FSF), used nuclear fuel (UNF), integrated waste management (IWM) system, Next Generation System Analysis Model (NGSAM), STANDARDS, systems engineering

Joseph, Robert↗
DOE OSTI2015

Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report 2014--Summary

This Nevada National Security Site Environmental Report (NNSSER) was prepared to satisfy DOE Order DOE O 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health reporting.” Its purpose is to (1) report compliance status with environmental standards and requirements, (2) present results of environmental monitoring of radiological and nonradiological effluents, (3) report estimated radiological doses to the public from releases of radioactive material, (4) summarize environmental incidents of noncompliance and actions taken in response to them, (5) describe the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office Environmental (NSA/NFO) Management System and characterize its performance, and (6) highlight significant environmental programs and efforts. The three major NNSS missions include National Security/Defense, Environmental Management, and Nondefense. The major programs that support these missions are Stockpile Stewardship and Management, Nonproliferation and Counterterrorism, Nuclear Emergency Response, Strategic Partnership Project, Environmental Restoration, Waste Management, Conservation and Renewable Energy, Other Research and Development, and Infrastructure. The major facilities that support the programs include the U1a Facility, Big Explosives Experimental Facility (BEEF), Device Assembly Facility, Dense Plasma Focus Facility, Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research Facility, Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex, Nonproliferation Test and Evaluation Complex (NPTEC), Radiological/Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction Incident Exercise Site, Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC), and the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2011

SAVANNAH RIVER SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR 2010

This report was prepared in accordance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 231.1A, 'Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,' to present summary environmental data for the purpose of: (a) characterizing site's environmental management performance; (b) summarizing environmental occurrences and responses reported during the calendar year; (c) describing compliance status with respect to environmental standards and requirements; and (d) highlighting significant site programs and efforts. This report is the principal document that demonstrates compliance with the requirements of DOE Order 5400.5, 'Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment,' and is a key component of DOE's effort to keep the public informed of environmental conditions at Savannah River Site (SRS). SRS has four primary missions: (1) Environmental Management - Cleaning up the legacy of the Cold War efforts and preparing decommissioned facilities and areas for long-term stewardship; (2) Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Support - Meeting the needs of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile through the tritium programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA); (3) Nuclear Nonproliferation Support - Meeting the needs of the NNSA's nuclear nonproliferation programs by safely storing and dispositioning excess special nuclear materials; and (4) Research and Development - Supporting the application of science by the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) to meet the needs of SRS, the DOE complex, and other federal agencies During 2010, SRS worked to fulfill these missions and position the site for future operations. SRS continued to work with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to find and implement solutions and schedules for waste management and disposition. As part of its mission to clean up the Cold War legacy, SRS will continue to address the highest-risk waste management issues by safely storing and preparing liquid waste and nuclear materials for disposition, and by safely stabilizing any tank waste residues that remain on site.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗