Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “DECONTAMINATION”

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.

1,164 records · Page 65
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2018

National Plan for the Disposal of Existing and Future TRU Wastes - 18616

Now that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) has re-opened, after being down for three years due to an accident the DOE National TRU Program has re-developed a plan for the disposal of existing and future TRU wastes. The National TRU Waste Management Plan (NTWMP) is an integrated plan to address the needs of DOE sites across the DOE Weapons Complex that create and store TRU waste, and is centered on the capability of WIPP to receive and dispose of TRU waste. The WIPP capability is planned as a weekly shipping rate and is defined by emplacement and receipt rate capabilities since WIPP is not permitted for long-term storage. And, shipping rates may be constrained by new WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) and future plans for repository configurations and disposal package capabilities over the next 30 years. Since WIPP is the only disposal system available to the DOE for TRU waste disposal, DOE has a newly projected life-cycle need for WIPP to remain open and available up to 2050. It is projected that the need for WIPP will continue up to the year 2050 for the disposition of the remaining legacy TRU inventories and for the disposal of TRU waste continuing to be generated at DOE's National Laboratories. In addition, there are several other potential new waste streams in which WIPP is being considered an alternative solution for their disposition. The NTWMP has been updated to reflect the short-term and long-term plans for TRU waste disposal at WIPP. The short-term plan is used by DOE for budget projection and integration purposes to facilitate and inform budget planning, both in DOE's Environmental Management (EM) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) organizations. Most legacy TRU waste (generated in the past and stored at DOE sites today) is owned and managed by EM. And, EM submits integrated budget requests for DOE sites, including the integration of resources for TRU waste management. NNSA and DOE's Office of Science (OS) funds TRU waste management as part of their mission funding and NNSA should eventually be the primary user of the WIPP resources as EM's legacy TRU waste is cleaned-up. Prior to the unexpected shutdown of WIPP in 2014, there was a small back-log of waste certified for WIPP disposal and shipments of TRU waste to WIPP were 'just-in-time' as waste was certified. After three years of WIPP being down, DOE sites have built significant back-logs of TRU waste to be certified for WIPP. That back-log built up to over 25,000 containers of TRU waste during that three-year period (Table 1). The backlog included both Contact-Handled (CH) TRU waste and Remote-Handled (RH) TRU waste, and even though WIPP re-opened in April of 2017, it is only open for TRU waste containers that can be stacked on disposal room floors. Plans for changing RH waste disposal packages and methods are in-the-works, but are not yet mature enough for significant planning. In addition, the WIPP underground facilities are now partially contaminated with radioactive particulate, which significantly reduces the WIPP operational efficiencies as compared to 2014. With a large back-log of waste ready for WIPP disposal and limited throughput for WIPP disposal rates, the focus of the NTWMP is to prioritize the selection of TRU wastes from the various sites based on WIPP waste emplacement rates and shipping rates to WIPP. Some TRU waste sites have a significant need to be top priority for shipments to WIPP, and that must be balanced with the need for all TRU waste sites to have some shipments to deplete their back-log of TRU wastes. Storage and management of TRU waste is very costly for DOE and many of those resources could be used to optimize the overall disposition of TRU waste and save DOE significant funding. In addition, the plan will show the possible transition of TRU Waste Management from primarily being an EM function to being an NNSA function in the coming years. As legacy TRU waste inventories are removed, and as NNSA mission-related TRU waste inventories are produced, DOE will be faced with deciding where the primary responsibility for TRU waste management should reside. (author)

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

Energy Efficiency and Infrastructure Upgrades on Nuclear Clean-up Sites: The Hanford Experience - 18641

The Hanford site, located in southeastern Washington, produced much of our nation's weapons-grade plutonium for the Defense nuclear weapons program. This production lasted the better part of four decades with production ending in 1987. Since 1987, the focus of the Hanford site has turned to clean-up activities. Mission Support Alliance (MSA) is the integrator of the multi-contractor effort to clean up the Hanford site. MSA collaborates with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and all Hanford site contractors in finding and implementing new, cost-saving, safe and practical solutions to cleanup challenges with a continual focus on innovative processes and technologies that reduce costs, energy use and bring safety improvements to the site. Support Services include environmental integration and land management; fleet and road maintenance; water/electric and utilities; cyber security and information management as well as the preservation of the site's cultural artifacts. This paper describes the process, challenges, and focus on infrastructure upgrade and energy efficiency projects in the context of a multi-contractor nuclear clean-up site. Project development and new technology deployment at Hanford has long been plagued with economic challenges. For example, despite extensive auditing, analysis, and project development, most of the energy-related projects on the Hanford site have gone unfunded due to the low cost of electricity, the relatively high cost of labor, and costs associated with detailed safety and cultural reviews. - The Hanford site is a direct-service customer of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and has a marginal electricity rate of $0.033/kWh. - Labor costs on the Hanford site track high because of the requirements associated with the safety and security necessary to operate a legacy nuclear weapons complex. - In partnership with three federally recognized and other affected Native American tribes (Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and Wanapum People), most activities on the Hanford site are afforded in-depth cultural reviews. To work within these constraints, the MSA Energy Management team has embarked on a three-pronged approach to energy project development: Program Visibility: The MSA Energy Management team has promoted both project opportunities and requirements across the Hanford site. This information comes in the form of site-wide newsletters, group meetings, e-mails, success stories, and recognition of staff. Single-point Analysis: To by-pass the inevitable duplications of effort, learning curve issues, and to improve project consistency/delivery, the MSA Energy Management team serves as the single resource to the site for energy project analysis. This resource includes initial assessment, engineering analysis, efficiency calculation and project recommendations. Contractor/utility Interface: In addition to the infrastructure under its own purview, MSA provides all support services for the contractor/utility interface. These activities include formulation and submission of incentive-based efficiency projects, project tracking, and incentive awards. All incentive awards are forwarded to the relevant contractor and then highlighted in the visibility campaign. Successful energy efficiency projects at Hanford have included high efficiency heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) systems, interior and exterior lighting/lighting control systems, pump and motor systems, and the right-sizing of transformers and area-wide electrical distribution systems. Prior to the initiation of this program and structure (roughly 3 years ago) the average annual energy efficiency incentive applied for and received was under $10,000, with an annual energy savings of approximately 36,000 kilowatt hours (kWh). In fiscal year 2017, the annual incentive received was over $419,000, with identified energy savings of over 1.3 million kWh. Details and case studies of the major project accomplishments are included. The success of this program can be traced to an understanding of the constraints, the development of a program to address these constraints, and good communication/coordination across DOE and the multiple contractors serving the Hanford site. (authors)

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

Tracking Restoration And Closure (TRAC): Status Update on Story Maps for Communicating Site Cleanup and Closure Status - 19033

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) initiated the development of a customized, web-based mapping tool for communicating technical information on groundwater plumes at sites within the EM complex. Although the online tool was initially conceived to be a simple conversion of a paper report on contaminant plume sizes, remedial approaches, and regulatory status, it has advanced to providing specific information on cleanup status and site closure. The story maps provide robust geospatial visualization of plumes at DOE sites, as well as explanatory text, photographs, and video for an entire site, or for a management unit within the site. This collection of story maps is called TRAC (Tracking Restoration And Closure), and not only communicates information for each individual site, but also summarizes pertinent metrics on cleanup and remaining contaminants across all EM sites. TRAC is focused on communicating cleanup status, technical challenges, and needs for site closure, with a key challenge of transforming data into relevant, easily understood information. Although DOE managers are the target audience, the story maps can also be used to contribute to public understanding of groundwater cleanup progress at EM sites. Unlike the data access tools maintained at some EM sites (e.g., Hanford, Portsmouth, and Paducah), TRAC is neither a portal for data downloads, nor a tool for performing data analytics. Rather, the goal of TRAC is to provide relevant information on cleanup progress and closure that is consistent across all sites, allowing the user to view summary information across all sites, or examine information relevant to a particular site. This information sharing is needed to maintain open communications with interested parties and communicate efforts that ensure long-term protection of human health and the environment. (authors)

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

Legacy Waste Removal from Standpipes and Bunkers at Whiteshell Laboratories, Canada - 19040

In 1963 Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) founded the Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment (now Whiteshell Laboratories, WL) in Pinawa, Manitoba to conduct nuclear research. In 1997 AECL made a business decision to discontinue research programs and operations at WL. One of the major decommissioning tasks at WL is to remove radioactive waste from 171 in-ground standpipes and 7 Intermediate Level Waste bunkers located in the Waste Management Area (WMA). Veolia Nuclear Solutions, through its subsidiary Kurion (Canada) Inc., has been selected to design, fabricate, and commission a remote waste access and conditioning system to remediate the waste from the standpipes and ILW bunkers at WL. The agreement builds on Veolia Nuclear Solutions' successfully deploying similar technologies at other projects. This paper describes the bunkers and standpipes structures, the types of wastes stored, the potential hazards (flammable gas and pyrophoric materials), and the equipment proposed by Kurion for safely extracting, sorting, segregating and packaging this waste. (authors)

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

International Government Collaboration in ISD (In Situ Decommissioning/In Situ Disposal) - 19261

In situ decommissioning (ISD) is considered by IAEA as the permanent entombment of a legacy facility in 'a structurally long lived material' (e.g. concrete) and is considered a solution only under 'exceptional circumstances' (e.g. following a severe accident). However, this definition of ISD as 'only' entombment is not universally accepted; the approach has been implemented as a decommissioning approach by the US Dept of Energy in the past decade at the Savannah River Site (P and R reactors)2,3, the Hanford site (U Canyon) and at the Idaho site (CP601, CP640 and CP633). The application of ISD outside of the United States has been much less common for large facilities although its use for underground substructures (e.g. discarded pipelines) is commonplace. Proponents of ISD consider it beneficial since it eliminates the need to remove, package and transport contaminated equipment from a nuclear legacy site to a disposal facility and it maximizes the use of an existing nuclear site footprint by consolidating equipment in one place. ISD is considered to offer major safety benefits to both workers and the public, as well as major cost and schedule benefits to Government. Opponents of the approach cite the fact that, following ISD, the decommissioned facility has effectively become a long-term waste disposal site and that regulations pertaining to long term waste disposal have been circumvented. Given the increasing pressure on environmental cleanup budgets and schedules around the world, countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan are considering ISD in its various forms as a potential path forward for decommissioning certain facilities in lieu of the more traditional approaches of either deferred decommissioning or immediate decontamination/demolition. To address this emerging area of decommissioning, a Governmental Technical Information Exchange meeting was held in December 2017 at the DOE Savannah River Site in Aiken, SC, to bring together responsible parties from the US Dept of Energy (DOE), Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL), the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and the Japanese Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) and those countries' respective regulatory agencies to share information about respective 'best practices' and challenges with ISD. Representatives from organizations such as IAEA and US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC) also participated to discuss their organizations' perspectives and position on ISD. Following the meeting, a series of Working Groups were established which have continued the dialogue in three key areas 5; - ISD-Defined: Identify and share case-specific ISD solutions which allows for the full spectrum of needs and which demonstrate that 'entombment' is not the only definition of 'ISD'. - Regulatory - Share and discuss regulatory concerns and challenges with ISD; - Benchmarking - Share information to support informed and transparent decision-making in ISD. This paper discusses the plans for ISD in some of the countries involved in the December meeting and provides an update on the topics being discussed, and progress being made, by the Working Groups that were formed at the meeting. (authors)

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

Panel Session 19: Developments in the Clean-up Mission of Sellafield

This panel focused on the progress towards closure of the legacy ponds and silos on the Sellafield Site. The discussion included progressive learning, technical challenges, safety, and regulatory flexibility required to achieve cleanup. The panel included NDA, regulators and Sellafield Ltd. Presentations proposed include: 1 - Developments in the Cleanup of Sellafield: An Owners Perspective (Adrian Simper, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority UK (United Kingdom)); 2 - Sellafield Ltd (Lee Peck, Sellafield Ltd. (United Kingdom)); 3 - Developments in the Clean-up Mission at Sellafield (Ian Dallas, Office for Nuclear Regulation (United Kingdom)); 4 - Developments in the Clean-up Mission of Sellafield, UK (Steven Thomson, National Nuclear Laboratory (United Kingdom))

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

Panel Session 91: Benefits of Commercial Tools and Practices to DOE Cleanup Nuclear Sites

This panel focused on the benefits of applying commercial tools and best practices to DOE cleanup sites. The panelist presented tools and applications that have been demonstrated on commercial and other government sites that are readily available to address similar challenges found on many DOE cleanup sites. Attendees gained an understanding of a few of the commercial applications that have resulted in innovation and cost savings. Presentations proposed include: 1 - Internet of Things and Humans - IoTH (Javid Kelley, Perma-Fix Environmental Services (USA)); 2 - Commercial Tools and Practices to Cleanup DOE Nuclear Sites (Mark Lesinski, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (Canada)); 3 - Stakeholder-Engaged Structured Decision Making and GISDT - Guided Interactive Statistical Decision Tools (Paul Black, Neptune and Company, Inc. (USA)); 4 - Benefits of Commercial Tools and Practices to DOE Cleanup of Nuclear Sites - Panel 091 (Kevin Smith, PAE (USA)); 5 - MAECTITE Treatment Process Overview (Daniel Caputo, Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc. (USA))

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

Compressing the Recovery Timeline for an Urban Contamination Event - 19539

This study identified equipment that has the potential to support mitigation activities associated with a radiological or nuclear release in the urban environment. Equipment capabilities, availability, and usefulness was assessed for potential deployment following the initial emergency phase of a response. The study was devised to connect emergency management and homeland security offices at the city, state, and federal agencies and discuss the availability and potential response capabilities of equipment reserves. This project focused on connecting with relevant emergency management and homeland security offices at the city, state, and regional level, including major cities across the United States, and with federal agencies. Within these offices, we consulted with subject matter experts (SMEs) in discussions via workshops, phone conversations, and small meetings. The result was a compilation and assessment of approaches to address realistic contamination scenarios and the types of equipment assets that would or could assist in the response and recovery activities. Recommendations on how current equipment reserves can be best used or modified to improve the resilience of a community during a radiological or nuclear contamination event were documented. (authors)

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

Panel Session 35: Strategies and Successes in Increasing Efficiency and Reducing Cost to Accelerate Work While Maintaining Operational Excellence (R1.5)

This panel focused on results-based project execution and ways to improve the effectiveness of large radioactive clean-up site operations while increasing efficiency and reducing cost. Panelists discussed best practices and lessons learned from their sites and projects as they work within budgetary, resource and technological constraints. Panelist with presentations: CNS Journey (Morgan Smith)

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

On the Road to Achieving Safety Excellence at the Idaho Cleanup Project: The Initial Challenges, Solutions, and Positive Results of Striving to be the Best and Safest in the DOE Complex - 20518

When Fluor Idaho, LLC (Fluor Idaho) assumed the Idaho Cleanup Project Core contract (ICP Core) in mid-2016, it inherited the successful multi-faceted, employee-owned safety programs of two prior contractors supporting cleanup operations at the Idaho National Laboratory Site. Fluor Idaho incorporated the best of both safety programs along with Fluor Corporate's 106-year legacy of safety initiatives and successes. Fluor Idaho integrated the separate programs and cultures under a One Fluor approach - one project, one mission, One Fluor. Job changes, management changes, and procedures, processes, and system changes presented multiple challenges. Those challenges combined with the severe Winter of 2016/2017 resulted in numerous slips, trips, and falls first aids and reportable injuries. The road to safety excellence started off bumpy and stayed that way for some time. Since then, Fluor Idaho has successfully implemented several key initiatives including employee engagement; management engagement and time in the field; communications improvements; safety culture sustainment; injury/illness prevention; organizational learning; and DOE Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) readiness and preparation. Management became more engaged by making more workplace visits and increasing their supervision of 'life critical work' or complex activities. Additional training became mandatory for first-line supervisors and front-line workers. Most recently, Fluor Idaho increased its injury and illness prevention initiatives extensively. In the last year, things have turned around in a dramatic way. This shift is directly attributable to the significant number of initiatives launched in late 2017 and 2018. These initiatives addressed safety performance in the five key areas of the DOE VPP and promoted sustainability of the company's safety culture. The five key areas are: management leadership, employee involvement, work-site analysis, hazard prevention and control, and safety and health training. Employees and managers alike recommitted to making safety the highest value. The result of this laser-like focus on safety and accident and injury prevention is that injuries and first aids are a fraction of what they were. During FY 2019, employees worked more than 4.2 million hours without a serious injury or lost work-day and 1 million hours without a recordable injury. Fluor Idaho is proud of its safety trend. The company invested significant resources in improving its safety record, and that investment is paying off. Other contractors in the DOE Complex can learn and benefit from this discussion of the challenges Fluor Idaho faced, as well as its innovative safety initiatives that are producing results that are being recognized by our U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) customer. (authors)

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

Mechanical and biochemical recovery of landfill waste in an underserved community

Historically in the United States, waste collected for recycling has been sold and shipped to processors in China. In 2013 and 2018, China introduced the Green Fence and National Sword policies which restricts the import of contaminated materials and banned the import of many recyclables. The cost of recycling in the United States has increased following these policy changes, which has led to many communities reducing their recycling programs or halting them altogether. Rural and underserved communities that don’t have resources to afford sophisticated recycling programs have been heavily impacted. Previous work at INL demonstrated that MSW is a potentially viable feedstock for both biochemical and thermochemical conversion. The goal of this project is to assess preprocessing tools that can produce consistent feedstocks that meet conversion specifications, remove problematic contaminants, and reduce the amount of waste that is landfilled. Municipal solid waste was collected from an underserved community in southeast Idaho, contaminants were characterized, and mechanically separated into two discrete fractions. The unit operations identified during mechanical separation trials will be mobilized to on-site with a goal of 50% recovery of paper and plastic waste.

09 - BIOMASS FUELS↗