Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Waste management”

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

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

At least 847 records · Page 47
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

Hazards Associated with Legacy Nitrate Salt Waste Drums Managed under the Container Isolation Plan

At present, there are 29 drums of nitrate waste salts (oxidizers with potentially acidic liquid bearing RCRA characteristics D001 and D002) that are awaiting processing, specifically to eliminate these characteristics and to allow for ultimate disposition at WIPP. As a result of the Feb. 14th, 2014 drum breach at WIPP, and the subsequent identification of the breached drum as a product ofLANL TRU waste disposition on May 15th, 2014, these 29 containers were moved into the Perrnacon in Dome 231 at TA-54 Area G, as part of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) approved container isolation plan. The plan is designed to mitigate hazards associated with the nitrate salt bearing waste stream. The purpose of this document is to articulate the hazards associated with un-remediated nitrate salts while in storage at LANL. These hazards are distinctly different from the Swheat-remediated nitrate salt bearing drums, and this document is intended to support the request to remove the un-remediated drums from management under the container isolation plan. Plans to remediate and/or treat both of these waste types are being developed separately, and are beyond the scope of this document.

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

Chooz A, First Pressurized Water Reactor to be Dismantled in France - 13445

Nine commercial nuclear power plants have been permanently shut down in France to date, of which the Chooz A plant underwent an extensive decommissioning and dismantling program. Chooz Nuclear Power Station is located in the municipality of Chooz, Ardennes region, in the northeast part of France. Chooz B1 and B2 are 1,500 megawatt electric (MWe) pressurized water reactors (PWRs) currently in operation. Chooz A, a 305 MWe PWR implanted in two caves within a hill, began operations in 1967 and closed in 1991, and will now become the first PWR in France to be fully dismantled. EDF CIDEN (Engineering Center for Dismantling and Environment) has awarded Westinghouse a contract for the dismantling of its Chooz A reactor vessel (RV). The project began in January 2010. Westinghouse is leading the project in a consortium with Nuvia France. The project scope includes overall project management, conditioning of the reactor vessel (RV) head, RV and RV internals segmentation, reactor nozzle cutting for lifting the RV out of the pit and seal it afterwards, dismantling of the RV thermal insulation, ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) forecast to ensure acceptable doses for the personnel, complementary vacuum cleaner to catch the chips during the segmentation work, needs and facilities, waste characterization and packaging, civil work modifications, licensing documentation. The RV and RV internals will be segmented based on the mechanical cutting technology that Westinghouse applied successfully for more than 13 years. The segmentation activities cover the cutting and packaging plan, tooling design and qualification, personnel training and site implementation. Since Chooz A is located inside two caves, the project will involve waste transportation from the reactor cave through long galleries to the waste buffer area. The project will end after the entire dismantling work is completed, and the waste storage is outside the caves and ready to be shipped either to the ANDRA (French National Radioactive Waste Management Agency) waste disposal facilities - (for low-level waste [LLW] and very low-level waste [VLLW], which are considered short lived) - or to the EDF Interim Storage Facility planned to be built on another site - (for low- and intermediate-level waste [LILW], which is considered long lived). The project has started with a detailed conceptual study that determines the step-by-step approach for dismantling the reactor and eventually supplying the packed containers ready for final disposal. All technical reports must be verified and approved by EDF and the French Nuclear Safety Authority before receiving the authorization to start the site work. The detailed conceptual study has been completed to date and equipment design and manufacturing is ongoing. This paper will present the conceptual design of the reactor internals segmentation and packaging process that will be implemented at Chooz A, including the planning, methodology, equipment, waste management, and packaging strategy. (authors)

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

Management of waste electrical and electronic equipment in two EU countries: A comparison

Highlights: Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Review on data regarding WEEE management in Italy and in Romania. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Problems that countries that will enter in the EU will have to solve facing with the WEEE management. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Pilot experiences useful for the awareness campaign of the population. - Abstract: The paper presents some data regarding waste electrical and electronic (WEEE) management in one of the founding countries of the EU, Italy, and in a recent entry into the EU, Romania. The aim of this research was to analyze some problems that countries entering the EU will have to solve with respect to WEEE management. The experiences of Italy and Romania could provide an interesting reference point. The strengths and weaknesses that the two EU countries have encountered can be used in order to give a more rational plan for other countries. In Italy the increase of WEEE collection was achieved in parallel with the increase of the efficiency of selective Municipal Solid Waste collection. In Romania, pilot experiences were useful to increase the awareness of the population. The different interests of the two populations towards recyclable waste led to a different scenario: in Romania all types of WEEE have been collected since its entrance into the EU; in Italy the 'interest' in recycling is typically related to large household appliances, with a secondary role of lighting equipment.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Analysis of material recovery facilities for use in life-cycle assessment

Highlights: • Life-cycle assessment of solid waste management relies on accurate process models. • Material recovery facility (MRF) processes were modeled with new primary data. • Single stream, dual stream, pre-sorted, and mixed waste MRFs were considered. • MRF electricity consumption ranges from 4.7 to 7.8 kW h per Mg input. • Total cost ranges from $19.8 to $24.9 per Mg input. - Abstract: Insights derived from life-cycle assessment of solid waste management strategies depend critically on assumptions, data, and modeling at the unit process level. Based on new primary data, a process model was developed to estimate the cost and energy use associated with material recovery facilities (MRFs), which are responsible for sorting recyclables into saleable streams and as such represent a key piece of recycling infrastructure. The model includes four modules, each with a different process flow, for separation of single-stream, dual-stream, pre-sorted recyclables, and mixed-waste. Each MRF type has a distinct combination of equipment and default input waste composition. Model results for total amortized costs from each MRF type ranged from $19.8 to $24.9 per Mg (1 Mg = 1 metric ton) of waste input. Electricity use ranged from 4.7 to 7.8 kW h per Mg of waste input. In a single-stream MRF, equipment required for glass separation consumes 28% of total facility electricity consumption, while all other pieces of material recovery equipment consume less than 10% of total electricity. The dual-stream and mixed-waste MRFs have similar electricity consumption to a single-stream MRF. Glass separation contributes a much larger fraction of electricity consumption in a pre-sorted MRF, due to lower overall facility electricity consumption. Parametric analysis revealed that reducing separation efficiency for each piece of equipment by 25% altered total facility electricity consumption by less than 4% in each case. When model results were compared with actual data for an existing single-stream MRF, the model estimated the facility’s electricity consumption within 2%. The results from this study can be integrated into LCAs of solid waste management with system boundaries that extend from the curb through final disposal.

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

Addendum 2 to the Closure Report for CAU 577 Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells, NNSS, Nevada

Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 577, “Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells,” includes five low-level waste cells at the Nevada National Security Site Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site where buried waste received from Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., was subsequently determined to contain chromium that exceeded the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure regulatory limit, which would require the waste to carry hazardous waste code D007. CAU 577 was created to satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement (SA) executed between the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) on April 25, 2019 (NDEP 2019). The SA required that the chromium-containing waste received from NFS would be addressed following the closure process laid out in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO). The FFACO process ensures proper closure of the chromium-containing waste and documentation of that closure through FFACO-type documents. The following three Corrective Action Sites (CASs) were closed, and their closure was documented in the Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 577: Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, DOE/EMNV--0030, dated September 2021 (U.S. Department of Energy [DOE] Environmental Management [EM] Nevada Program 2021a): • CAS 05-21-02, Waste Disposal Cell 12 • CAS 05-21-03, Waste Disposal Cell 15 • CAS 05-21-04, Waste Disposal Cell 17 Closure of the following CAS was previously documented in the Addendum to the Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 577: Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, DOE/EMNV--0030-ADD, dated September 2022 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2022): • CAS 05-21-05, Waste Disposal Cell 20 This second addendum to the Closure Report documents the closure activities that have occurred for CAS 05-21-06, Waste Disposal Cell 21. This is the last CAS in CAU 577. The final waste shipment was placed in the waste disposal cell on November 21, 2022. Following this, closure activities began on November 28, 2022, and were conducted according to the Corrective Action Decision Document/Corrective Action Plan (CADD/CAP) for CAU 577 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2021b). The following closure activities were performed: • Constructing an engineered evapotranspiration cover • Installing two subsidence monuments and vadose zone monitoring equipment • Seeding the cover with a mixture of native plant species • Installing four concrete monuments on the corners of the cover and placing two use restriction (UR) warning signs on each monument These activities fulfill applicable federal and state regulations for closure of CAS 05-21-06 and minimize potential future exposure pathways to buried waste. Completed closure activities are also consistent with closure of the nine historical Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) units included in Section 10.2.2 of the RCRA Permit that governs hazardous waste management activities at the Nevada National Security Site (Permit NEV HW0101) (NDEP 2023). UR documentation for this CAS is included in Appendix B of this report. The post-closure plan is presented in detail in the CADD/CAP for CAU 577 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2021b), and the requirements are summarized in Section 5.2 of this document. In accordance with paragraph 5D of the SA, a request to incorporate the requirements for post-closure monitoring of CAU 577 was included with the permit application for RCRA Permit NEV HW0101 that was submitted in January 2022 (NNSA/NFO 2022). The request included the post-closure requirements for the three CASs that had been closed at the time of submittal of the application as well as requirements that would be implemented upon future approval of closure of the remaining two CASs. All CAU 577 post-closure monitoring requirements have been captured in the April 4, 2023, Revision 7 of the RCRA Permit (NDEP 2023). As the RCRA Permit NEV HW0101 has been revised since the submittal of the original CAU 577 Closure Report (DOE EM Nevada Program 2021a) and Addendum 1 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2022), the post-closure requirements in this Addendum 2 report do not align with the previous documents. Specific changes resulting from the issuance of Revision 7 of the RCRA Permit are discussed in Section 5.2 of this report. The requirements in this report are consistent with the current permit (NDEP 2023) and supersede all requirements listed in the CAU 577 Closure Report and Addendum 1. All CAU 577 post-closure requirements should be conducted in accordance with the version of the RCRA Permit that is current at the time of the activities being performed. The DOE EM Nevada Program is requesting a Notice of Completion from NDEP for closure of CAU 577. Although CAU 577 is not a legacy site, the FFACO process is being followed to ensure proper closure of the chromium-containing waste. Therefore, transfer of CAU 577 from Appendix III of the FFACO to Appendix IV, Closed Corrective Action Units, is requested, as all closure activities have been completed.

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

Annual Status Report (FY2016) Performance Assessment for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and DOE M 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, require that a determination of continued adequacy of the performance assessment (PA), composite analysis (CA), and disposal authorization statement (DAS) be made on an annual basis, and it must consider the results of data collection and analysis from research, field studies, and monitoring. Annual summaries of low-level waste (LLW) disposal operations must be prepared with respect to the conclusions and recommendations of the PA and CA, and a determination of the need to revise the PA or CA must be made. The annual summary requirement provides a structured approach for demonstrating the continued adequacy of the PA and CA in demonstrating a reasonable expectation that the performance objectives will be met. This annual summary addresses only the status of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) PA (CP-60089, Performance Assessment for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Hanford Site, Washington, formerly WCH-520 Rev. 1)1. The CA for ERDF is supported by DOE/RL-2016-62, Annual Status Report (FY 2016): Composite Analysis of Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau at the Hanford Site. The ERDF PA portion of the CA document is found in Section 3.1.4, and the ERDF operations portion is found in Section 3.3.3.2 of that document.

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

Technetium Management Program Plan - 17376

Technetium management is a high-priority activity for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) complex. Waste management and remediation issues involving technetium represent environmental risks and challenges that are unique to DOE. This plan lays out the technology development activities that are underway as well as future technology needs to address technetium issues across DOE EM sites and across programmatic areas of tank waste, groundwater and soils, and facility decommissioning and deactivation in order to be comprehensive and to allow integration of similar activities. The program was developed in close coordination with site representatives and program offices. Activities and needs that were identified share common themes and were grouped into areas of characterization, treatment, and disposition. Characterization includes understanding the inventory at particular locations, the chemical species, and chemical and physical behavior, whether in a treatment process flowsheet or a geological setting that displays periodic contaminant releases. The tools for characterization in these different environments might use the same sensors or protocols. Treatment options include methods to capture technetium such as ion-exchange or manipulation of oxidation states, which also may be applied across program areas. Disposition includes end-points of the processes and environmental risk, including waste form behavior, mobility of technetium once it is treated or remediated, and long-term monitoring. Disposition represents integration of all cleanup actions at a site. (authors)

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

GHG emission factors developed for the recycling and composting of municipal waste in South African municipalities

Highlights: • GHG emission factors for local recycling of municipal waste are presented. • GHG emission factors for two composting technologies for garden waste are included. • Local GHG emission factors were compared to international ones and discussed. • Uncertainties and limitations are presented and areas for new research highlighted. - Abstract: GHG (greenhouse gas) emission factors for waste management are increasingly used, but such factors are very scarce for developing countries. This paper shows how such factors have been developed for the recycling of glass, metals (Al and Fe), plastics and paper from municipal solid waste, as well as for the composting of garden refuse in South Africa. The emission factors developed for the different recyclables in the country show savings varying from −290 kg CO{sub 2} e (glass) to −19 111 kg CO{sub 2} e (metals – Al) per tonne of recyclable. They also show that there is variability, with energy intensive materials like metals having higher GHG savings in South Africa as compared to other countries. This underlines the interrelation of the waste management system of a country/region with other systems, in particular with energy generation, which in South Africa, is heavily reliant on coal. This study also shows that composting of garden waste is a net GHG emitter, releasing 172 and 186 kg CO{sub 2} e per tonne of wet garden waste for aerated dome composting and turned windrow composting, respectively. The paper concludes that these emission factors are facilitating GHG emissions modelling for waste management in South Africa and enabling local municipalities to identify best practice in this regard.

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

Los Alamos National Laboratory Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Community Relations Plan

The requirements of the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit are fulfilled through execution of LANL's fourth strategic goal: “Enabling mission delivery through next-generation facility, infrastructure, and operational excellence.” With input from our stakeholders, we will continue to fulfill those requirements and to improve our waste operations. In 2015, the Laboratory purpose statement focused waste management efforts by directing delivery of mission success through operational effectiveness and scientific excellence. This Plan advances that purpose through community involvement. In the process of achieving our national security mission, Los Alamos National Laboratory generates some hazardous and mixed waste. Hazardous waste is solid waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to human health or the environment. Hazardous wastes can be liquids, solids, gases, or sludges. They can be discarded as commercial products, such as cleaning fluids or pesticides, or as the byproducts of operations. Specific substances are listed in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 261: 40 CFR Part 261. Hazardous waste management activities are regulated by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) pursuant to New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act (HWA; Chapter 74, Article 4 NMSA 1978) and regulations under the Act. In 1989, NMED issued the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (EPA ID Number NM0890010515-1) that established standards for the Laboratory to manage, store, and treat hazardous wastes on-site and to undertake the closure, post closure care, and cleanup as necessary, of permitted waste management units. On November 30, 2010, NMED renewed the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (the Permit). In June 2020 the Permittees submitted a permit renewal application to the NMED for their review and approval. The Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Community Relations Plan (CRP) describes the scope of public involvement in the activities of the Permit. The CRP is specifically designed to facilitate the community outreach, engagement, and relations activities concerning the Laboratory’s Hazardous Waste Facility Permit and coordinates with but does not include public involvement for other Laboratory programs, initiatives, or environmental activities.

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

The changing character of household waste in the Czech Republic between 1999 and 2009 as a function of home heating methods

Highlights: • The character of household waste in the three different types of households were assesed. • The quantity, density and composition of household waste were determined. • The physicochemical characteristics were determined. • The changing character of household waste during past 10 years was described. • The potential of energy recovery of household waste in Czech republic was assesed. - Abstract: The authors of this paper report on the changing character of household waste, in the Czech Republic between 1999 and 2009 in households differentiated by their heating methods. The data presented are the result of two projects, financed by the Czech Ministry of Environment, which were undertaken during this time period with the aim of focusing on the waste characterisation and complete analysis of the physicochemical properties of the household waste. In the Czech Republic, the composition of household waste varies significantly between different types of households based on the methods of home heating employed. For the purposes of these studies, the types of homes were divided into three categories – urban, mixed and rural. Some of the biggest differences were found in the quantities of certain subsample categories, especially fine residue (matter smaller than 20 mm), between urban households with central heating and rural households that primarily employ solid fuel such coal or wood. The use of these solid fuels increases the fraction of the finer categories because of the higher presence of ash. Heating values of the residual household waste from the three categories varied very significantly, ranging from 6.8 MJ/kg to 14.2 MJ/kg in 1999 and from 6.8 MJ/kg to 10.5 MJ/kg in 2009 depending on the type of household and season. The same factors affect moisture of residual household waste which varied from 23.2% to 33.3%. The chemical parameters also varied significantly, especially in the quantities of Tl, As, Cr, Zn, Fe and Mn, which were higher in rural households. Because knowledge about the properties of household waste, as well as its physicochemical characteristics, is very important not only for future waste management, but also for the prediction of the behaviour and influence of the waste on the environment as the country continues to streamline its legislation to the European Union’s solid waste mandates, the results of these studies were employed by the Czech Ministry of Environment to optimise the national waste management strategy.

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

Decision and Modeling Strategy for a Radiological Risk Assessment at Area G, Los Alamos, New Mexico - 17258

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) owns 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, and is now approaching the end of its service life. 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 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 town of Los Alamos. 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 ('spent') 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 also 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 FEPS 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 outlines the development of a defensible, transparent, and reasonably realistic model, which is based on the state of knowledge of the wastes, the site, and the FEPS that govern contaminant transport and human exposures. Probabilistic model input distributions represent uncertainties inherent in the real and modeled systems. The results of the Area G RRA Model will inform decision analysis regarding the disposition of the RH TRU in the 33 Shafts. (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 OSTI2018

Meeting the Challenges, Exceeding Expectations in Radioactive Liquid Waste Work - 18657

The Savannah River Site (SRS) is an 803-square kilometer (310-square mile) U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) site located near Aiken, South Carolina, encompassing parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale counties. SRS is a key industrial complex responsible for environmental stewardship, environmental cleanup, waste management, and disposition of nuclear materials. The Site was constructed in the early 1950's in support of the United States' Cold War efforts. In July 2009, the DOE began a new era by awarding a stand-alone contract to execute the Liquid Waste Mission at SRS. The Liquid Waste Contractor is responsible for all liquid waste operations, including waste management, disposition, and management of all liquid waste facilities at SRS, as well as operationally closing high-level waste tanks. Currently, there are 43 operational underground storage tanks containing approximately 132.5 million liters (35 million gallons) of radioactive waste. Before tanks can be closed, work involves removing, stabilizing, and disposing of high- and low-level radioactive waste from the tanks. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Toward a lean analysis for waste to support the decommissioning operation - 15321

All over the world, several nuclear facilities have been shut down few years ago and are now under dismantling or will be dismantled in the future. - Dismantling project takes place according to three major phases: - Study and definition of the dismantling scenario - Dismantling site operations - Decommissioning and final state characterization. Each step is lead in agreement with safety, security and waste management. This requires analytical tools appropriate to the radiological environment and aims. In the field of security, fissile products, explosives... will be researched and quantified while occupational safety requires quantification of radiological, carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic elements such as As, Se, Cr(IV)... or even asbestos in order to follow more and more strengthened rules. For waste management, radiological and chemical quantification are necessary but must be completed by determining physical and chemical properties such as reactivity, stability or dissolution of the waste... Required level of knowledge, analytical deadline, uncertainties, limits of detection and matrix varieties depend on the decommissioning phase. Setting up a dismantling scenario requires the most possible accurate knowledge of the initial source term present in the facility, in order to establish waste management flow-sheets, define dismantling intervention modes, and prepare the associated safety demonstrations. As history is often not sufficient, in-situ investigations and off-site laboratories are necessary to assign an initial waste and radiological inventory and propose some strategy operations. When a first scenario is chosen, more detailed samplings and analyses are required to fully prepare estimates of waste volumes and categories, and define and validate the waste recovery system that would be used during the dismantling operation. As the definition of the dismantling plan takes shape, data must be more and more accurate and reliable in order to define the waste outlet. The scaling factors for the waste must be defined in order to assure the refunding of the waste. This includes complete characterizations of various matrixes, with high precision, low detection limit in a limited time of few months, as sketchy data could lead to fix inappropriate plan Once site operations begin, it is necessary to control the safety operational conditions and waste production. Measurements requirement is under the safety threshold. Matrixes are often limited to filter. The most important factor is deadline, because operations delay is costly. Finally at the end of dismantling operations, analyses must be performed to demonstrate the successful clean-up of the work site. Analytical methods with low detection limit are required. Thus, characterization appears as a graded and iterative process and is a key issue for decommissioning and dismantling operations in term of efficiency and cost. In order to face this huge analytical demand, a strategy for sampling and characterization must be developed regarding the real needs. On site measurements are usually performed with existing hand-held instruments. A basic first level of knowledge is obtained without delay, feeding the dismantling scenario. On these bases, a sampling strategy permits to select some representative specimens to be more precise, and accurate analysis is performed on off-site laboratories introducing an additional difficulty: the sampling on the site and sub-sampling in the laboratory itself. Whatever the level of sampling, aliquots are small considering the dimension of the dismantling area. This step is crucial. Sampling strategy must be optimized according to objectives (scaling factors measurement, waste level). But in the particular case of high radioactive level waste, due to security manipulation constraints, the number and mass of samples collected are limited. At the opposite for low level waste, large number of samples is collected meaning that large analytical method capacity is necessary. Optimization of the analytical plan is critical. The analytical strategy (including control of sub-sampling, analysis sequence according to analytical capability and performances, especially for pure beta emitters) developed for real case will be detailed. (authors)

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

Nuclear waste Educator's workshop: What and how do we teach about nuclear waste?

A workshop was held at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on July 25th and 26th, 2022. The objective was to develop a blueprint for educating next-generation engineers and scientists about nuclear waste management and disposal, which requires knowledge from diverse disciplines, including nuclear, chemical, civil, environmental, and geological science and engineering. The 49 participants included university professors, researchers, industry experts, and government officials from different areas. First, we have developed a list of key fundamental knowledge on waste management and disposal across the nuclear fuel cycle. In addition, we discussed strategies on how to teach students with diverse backgrounds through innovative teaching strategies as well as how to attract students into this area. Through the workshop, we identified the critical needs to (1) develop community resources for nuclear waste education; (2) synthesize historical perspectives, including past contamination and the management of general hazardous waste; (3) emphasize a complete life-cycle perspective, including proper waste management as the key component for energy sustainability; (4) teach students how to communicate about the key facts and risks to technical and non-technical audiences; and (5) accelerate the use of the state-of-art-technologies to attract and retain a young workforce. Furthermore, we aim to build a diverse, inclusive community that supports students in developing their own narratives about nuclear waste, particularly in recognizing that antagonistic views have been important to improving safety and protecting public health and the environment.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Household-level dynamics of food waste production and related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours in Guelph, Ontario

Highlights: • We combined household waste stream weights with survey data. • We examine relationships between waste and food-related practices and beliefs. • Families and large households produced more total waste, but less waste per capita. • Food awareness and waste awareness were related to reduced food waste. • Convenience lifestyles were differentially associated with food waste. - Abstract: It has been estimated that Canadians waste $27 billion of food annually, and that half of that waste occurs at the household level (Gooch et al., 2010). There are social, environmental, and economic implications for this scale of food waste, and source separation of organic waste is an increasingly common municipal intervention. There is relatively little research that assesses the dynamics of household food waste (particularly in Canada). The purpose of this study is to combine observations of organic, recyclable, and garbage waste production rates to survey results of food waste-related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours at the household level in the mid-sized municipality of Guelph, Ontario. Waste weights and surveys were obtained from 68 households in the summer of 2013. The results of this study indicate multiple relationships between food waste production and household shopping practices, food preparation behaviours, household waste management practices, and food-related attitudes, beliefs, and lifestyles. Notably, we observed that food awareness, waste awareness, family lifestyles, and convenience lifestyles were related to food waste production. We conclude that it is important to understand the diversity of factors that can influence food wasting behaviours at the household level in order to design waste management systems and policies to reduce food waste.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Life cycle assessment and residue leaching: The importance of parameter, scenario and leaching data selection

Highlights: • Relevance of metal leaching in waste management system LCAs was assessed. • Toxic impacts from leaching could not be disregarded. • Uncertainty of toxicity, due to background activities, determines LCA outcomes. • Parameters such as pH and L/S affect LCA results. • Data modelling consistency and coverage within an LCA are crucial. - Abstract: Residues from industrial processes and waste management systems (WMSs) have been increasingly reutilised, leading to landfilling rate reductions and the optimisation of mineral resource utilisation in society. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a holistic methodology allowing for the analysis of systems and products and can be applied to waste management systems to identify environmental benefits and critical aspects thereof. From an LCA perspective, residue utilisation provides benefits such as avoiding the production and depletion of primary materials, but it can lead to environmental burdens, due to the potential leaching of toxic substances. In waste LCA studies where residue utilisation is included, leaching has generally been neglected. In this study, municipal solid waste incineration bottom ash (MSWI BA) was used as a case study into three LCA scenarios having different system boundaries. The importance of data quality and parameter selection in the overall LCA results was evaluated, and an innovative method to assess metal transport into the environment was applied, in order to determine emissions to the soil and water compartments for use in an LCA. It was found that toxic impacts as a result of leaching were dominant in systems including only MSWI BA utilisation, while leaching appeared negligible in larger scenarios including the entire waste system. However, leaching could not be disregarded a priori, due to large uncertainties characterising other activities in the scenario (e.g. electricity production). Based on the analysis of relevant parameters relative to leaching, and on general results of the study, recommendations are provided regarding the use of leaching data in LCA studies.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

A Collaborative Regulatory Effort for Sealed Source Disposal - 15735

The State of Utah, Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control (DRC), EnergySolutions, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD), and the Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) collaborated on a truly innovative effort to expand opportunities for cost-effective sealed source disposal. These entities developed a first-of-its-kind initiative to dispose of certain sealed sources at the EnergySolutions disposal facility near Clive, Utah, which normally cannot accept sealed sources of any type. This creative and collaborative effort to improve radiation health, safety, and security was recognized by the Richard S. Hodes, M.D. Honor Lecture Award. This award is presented annually by the Southeast Compact Commission at the Waste Management Symposia to encourage environmental professionals and political leaders to develop innovative approaches to waste management in the United States. The participants in the collaborative initiative are honored to receive special recognition for this effort. They also recognize that the hard work remains to be done in order to ensure the continued safe management and disposal of sealed sources. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗