Results for “HLW” | Engineering Papers

DOE OSTI2020

Codisposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW PPT

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties, resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and conditions of SNF, a robust DOE Standard Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard Canister had four variations: 3.05-meter (10-foot) or 4.57-meter (15-foot) length, and 45.7-cm (18-inch) or 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository, these canisters were to be grouped with 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter high level waste (HLW) canisters in a 2.13-meter (84-inch) diameter co-disposal waste package. The smaller 45.7-cm (18-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The larger 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister would take the place of one of the five HLW canisters on the outer ring in the co-disposal waste package. No DOE Standard Canisters have been loaded. A preliminary evaluation has estimated the number of elements of a fuel type that can fit into the different sizes of the DOE Standard Canister, but no definitive loading configuration has been selected. Changing the loading configuration could impact the number of loadable DOE Standard Canisters and the number of co-disposal waste packages needed for eventual disposition. This paper conveys the ranges of DOE Standard Canisters and HLW canisters that may be produced under certain conditions. It also examines the differences in the estimated number of co-disposal waste packages produced for eventual disposal when using different loading strategies in the DOE Standard Canister for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), Peach Bottom, and High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) SNF. Changing the loading configurations of ATR, Peach Bottom, and HFIR SNF slightly impacted the number of co-disposal waste packages that may be needed for ultimate disposal. The change in loading configuration was more impactful when a different canister was used, as opposed to varying the number of elements that could fit inside the same size canister. In one case, a reduction of co-disposal waste packages could be achieved by allowing mixing of short HLW canisters with long DOE Standard Canisters. The main conclusion from this analysis is that the ratio between HLW canisters and DOE Standard Canisters will drive the total number of co-disposal waste packages. If too many HLW canisters (i.e., more than five times the number of 18-inch DOE standard canisters) or DOE Standard Canisters are produced, some co-disposal waste packages may not have all positions filled. A co-disposal waste package may be filled with all HLW with no DOE Standard Canister, or a co-disposal waste package could be filled with a single DOE Standard Canister. A ratio that does not closely align to optimum could allow for the design of waste packages that hold just HLW canisters or just DOE SNF canisters.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Co-Disposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW - 20331

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties, resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and conditions of SNF, a robust DOE Standard Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard Canister had four variations: 3.05-meter (10-foot) or 4.57-meter (15-foot) length, and 45.7-cm (18-inch) or 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository, these canisters were to be grouped with 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter high level waste (HLW) canisters in a 2.13-meter (84-inch) diameter co-disposal waste package. The smaller 45.7-cm (18-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The larger 61.0-cm (24-inch) diameter DOE Standard Canister would take the place of one of the five HLW canisters on the outer ring in the co-disposal waste package. No DOE Standard Canisters have been loaded. A preliminary evaluation has estimated the number of elements of a fuel type that can fit into the different sizes of the DOE Standard Canister, but no definitive loading configuration has been selected. Changing the loading configuration could impact the number of loadable DOE Standard Canisters and the number of co-disposal waste packages needed for eventual disposition. This paper conveys the ranges of DOE Standard Canisters and HLW canisters that may be produced under certain conditions. It also examines the differences in the estimated number of co-disposal waste packages produced for eventual disposal when using different loading strategies in the DOE Standard Canister for Advanced Test Reactor (ATR), Peach Bottom, and High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) SNF. Changing the loading configurations of ATR, Peach Bottom, and HFIR SNF slightly impacted the number of co-disposal waste packages that may be needed for ultimate disposal. The change in loading configuration was more impactful when a different canister was used, as opposed to varying the number of elements that could fit inside the same size canister. In one case, a reduction of co-disposal waste packages could be achieved by allowing mixing of short HLW canisters with long DOE Standard Canisters. The main conclusion from this analysis is that the ratio between HLW canisters and DOE Standard Canisters will drive the total number of co-disposal waste packages. If too many HLW canisters (i.e., more than five times the number of 18-inch DOE standard canisters) or DOE Standard Canisters are produced, some co-disposal waste packages may not have all positions filled. A co-disposal waste package may be filled with all HLW with no DOE Standard Canister, or a co-disposal waste package could be filled with a single DOE Standard Canister. A ratio that does not closely align to optimum could allow for the design of waste packages that hold just HLW canisters or just DOE SNF canisters. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Codisposal Waste Package Loading Options for DOE SNF and HLW

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) that is currently in, or will in the future come into, its possession. DOE must continue to safely store that SNF, transport it to an interim storage site or a repository, and dispose of it. These fuels come from a wide range of reactor types, such as light- and heavy-water-moderated reactors, graphite-moderated reactors, and breeder reactors, with various cladding materials and enrichments. Many of these reactors, now decommissioned, had unique design features, such as core configuration, fuel element and assembly geometry, moderator and coolant materials, operational characteristics, and neutron spatial and spectral properties resulting in a large diversity of reactor and fuel designs. Because of the wide variety and condition of SNF, a robust canister termed the DOE Standardized SNF Canister was proposed that would confine radionuclides and preclude moderator. The DOE Standard SNF Canister had four variations consisting of a 10- or 15-foot length and an 18- or 24-inch diameter. For ultimate disposal in the Yucca Mountain Repository these canisters were to be grouped with 24-inch diameter HLW canisters in a codisposal waste package. The 18-inch DOE Standardized SNF Canister could be placed in the middle of five HLW canisters. The 24-inch DOE Standardized SNF Canister would take the place of one the five HLW canister on the outer ring in the codisposal waste package. No DOE Standardized SNF Canisters have been loaded, and many fuel types can be loaded in multiple canisters. Depending on the selected diameter of the DOE Standardized SNF Canister for a particular fuel, the number of potential codisposal waste packages could vary. In addition, different types of DOE SNF may be able to be combined in a single canister. This could significantly change the number of DOE SNF canisters that are loaded and result in a decrease of the number of total potential codisposal waste packages. Ultimately, if too many HLW canisters need disposition, then a reduction in the number of DOE Standardized SNF Canisters will change the final total of codisposal waste packages very little. Likewise, if the ratio of DOE Standardized SNF Canisters to HLW canister produced is too high, then DOE Standardized SNF Canisters will not have enough HLW canisters to surround them in the codisposal waste package. This paper examines the results of differing loading strategies for a few DOE SNFs. It also compares the ranges of DOE Standardized SNF Canisters that may be produced to the ranges of HLW canisters that may be produced in order to determine potential scenarios.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Direct vitrification of HLW: evaluation of candidate source tanks

The initial objective of the present work was to review Hanford HLW compositions to identify HLW streams that are good candidates for the HLW direct feed vitrification option. Another objective was to develop and identify HLW glass compositions and glass forming additive blends for vitrification of two HLW streams identified from the review that could be treated with little or no washing or other pretreatment and would be, therefore, good direct feed candidates. The HLW glass compositions and additive blends were developed to maintain high waste loadings, high processing rates, and acceptable product glass properties. This was accomplished through a combination of crucible-scale and DM100 melter system tests.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2025

Vitrification Testing of HLW with High Phosphate

Projections of the number of high level waste (HLW) canisters to be produced in the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) (e.g., [1]) are based upon the inventory of the tank wastes, the anticipated performance of the sludge treatment processes, and current understanding of the capability of the borosilicate glass waste form. The WTP HLW melter design, unlike earlier Department of Energy (DOE) melter designs, incorporates a glass bubbler system. The bubblers create active glass pool mixing and thereby improve heat and mass transfer and glass melting rate. The WTP HLW melters each have a glass surface area of 3.75 m 2 and depth of ~1.1 m. The two melters in the HLW facility together are designed to produce up to 7.5 MT of glass per day at 100% availability. Further increases in HLW waste processing rates can potentially be achieved by optimization of the feed and glass formulations, increasing the melter operating temperature above 1150⁰C, and by increasing the waste loading in the glass product. Increasing the waste loading also has the added benefit of decreasing the number of canisters for storage.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Novel Foaming Solutions for High Level Waste (HLW) Processing - 20195

Foaming occurs during treatment of high level waste (HLW) at Savannah River Site's Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) in the Chemical Process Cell (CPC) due to high gas generation from process steam and chemical offgas products [1]. The presence of amphiphilic particles in the waste slurry stabilizes the foam [2], [3]. Efficient processing of HLW requires foam control, as foam-overs lead to lower productivity and potential radioactive contamination of condensate streams. DWPF currently employs Siovation Antifoam 747, a surfactant produced by Momentive Performance Materials, as an antifoaming agent during waste treatment. Despite its ability to control foam generation, processing issues have arisen from its use [4]. During DWPF chemical processing, a chemical antifoam agent must be effective at temperatures up to 103 deg. C between pH 3-13. Antifoam 747 is effective at pH 7 but degrades as pH deviates [5]. Antifoam 747 is 90% by weight Momentive{sup TM} L77 and 10% by weight Momentive{sup TM} Y-17580. These ingredients are trisiloxane products, which are especially vulnerable to attack in acidic and caustic environments. Since Antifoam 747 readily degrades, periodic addition is required. Several processing concerns related to Antifoam 747 have affected DWPF operation. Its overuse warranted concern of potential flammable melter offgas under upset conditions due to the generation of carbon dioxide and hydrogen. As a result, a Potential Inadequacy in the Safety Analysis (PISA) was declared [6]. Antifoam contribution has been included in the melter offgas flammability strategy and the quantity of antifoam is monitored to ensure limits are not exceeded. Testing at Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) determined that propanal, tri-methylsilanol, and hexamethyldisiloxane are generated as Antifoam 747 degrades, leading to a second PISA [7]. The formation of these byproducts poses additional flammability risks. Furthermore, the methyl and ethyl groups of these compounds may be responsible for the formation of the methyl and ethyl mercury discovered in DWPF [8], [9]. The formation of organomercury has specifically been called out by DOE as a need for increased research. The effectiveness of non-chemical methods for foam control and the efficiency of alternative antifoam agents were evaluated as part of an effort to improve HLW treatment operations at DWPF and to reduce, or eliminate, the flammability hazards associated with Antifoam 747 currently in use. Foaming of high-level waste (HLW) slurries is an issue at the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) Chemical Process Cell (CPC) which is currently mitigated with a chemical antifoam agent. The effectiveness of non-chemical methods for foam control and the efficiency of alternative antifoams were examined to improve HLW treatment at DWPF and to eliminate the flammability hazards associated with Siovation Antifoam 747 currently in use. Non-chemical foam control methods were deemed unviable for chemical processing at DWPF, as the spray/mist technique requires too much water and space limitations make installation and implementation of headspace agitators unfeasible. The use of ultrasonic energy thickened and further stabilized the foam. Two suitable alternative defoaming agents, Momentive{sup TM} Y- 17112 and Evonik Surfynol{sup R} MD-20, were identified. Both defoamers control foam over a pH range of 4- 13 at boiling, with no flammable degradation products, and only minimal quantities (100-200 mg/kg) are required under glycolic acid conditions. In order to validate the effectiveness of these defoaming agents, SRNL recommends irradiation testing and laboratory scale SRAT/SME experiments with actual radioactive waste. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2022

Sludge Processing Options for early HLW Treatment at Hanford

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Hanford Site has 177 underground storage tanks that contain wastes from past nuclear fuel reprocessing and waste-management operations. Over 20% of this waste is in the form of an insoluble sludge that will require solids concentration and washing prior to vitrification for long-term disposal. An assessment of potential flowsheet operations to support feed preparation activities prior to high level waste (HLW) vitrification has been conducted to better evaluate pretreatment processing options. Settling studies assessing the baseline approach of a settle-decant method were explored as well as a crossflow filtration system to be used alternatively for concentrating and washing HLW sludge. Significant variations in behavior of settling rates and sludge characteristics give reason to evaluate alternative pretreatment options for the HLW. Non-radioactive sludge containing iron oxide, boehmite, and gibbsite were evaluated via gravity settling and crossflow filtration to determine the behavior of these compounds in various tank waste matrices. Understanding the predictive capabilities of HLW solids settling as well as sludge concentration via crossflow filtration can help provide technical guidance during flowsheet planning.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Enhanced HLW Glass Property-Composition Models – Phase 2

As a continuation of the Phase 1 HLW model development work as part of a phased approach to enhance and expand HLW glass property-composition models, additional data were collected for the HLW glass dataset and used to revise the models developed during Phase 1. These data are for glasses that are collectively referred to as ORP-2014 glasses. The sources of additional data for the Phase 2 work included: (i) actively designed glasses formulated to support various glass studies at VSL since the completion of Phase 1; and (ii) glasses from two statistically designed matrices to supplement the existing HLW compositional space. The Phase 2 matrix design was intended to augment and improve the coverage in the high aluminum region.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2026

Enhancement of HLW glass property-composition models

Since the WTP compositional space of HLW glasses is extremely large, development of HLW property-composition models is a multi-year task consisting of multiple phases. The primary focus of this work was to enhance the WTP HLW models of interest including PCT releases, spinel crystallization (T1%), viscosity, electrical conductivity, and TCLP-Cd response. Model development to predict nepheline formation upon CCC is the subject of a separate task. In particular, the earlier work has produced property-composition models for glass melt viscosity and glass melt electrical conductivity that showed good performance, while models for PCT releases and spinel crystallization (T1%) required improvement. Therefore, more efforts were directed in the present work to collect data and improve model performance for HLW glass PCT releases and spinel crystallization than for other properties. The present work is a continuation of earlier development phases and is responsive to the applicable Test Plan.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Progress in demonstrating the performance of Engineered Barriers for the disposal of HLW and SNF: lab studies and demonstration experiments - 20293

Disposal of high-level radioactive waste (HLW) and spent nuclear fuels (SNF) in a geological disposal facility requires a fundamental understanding of the degradation processes of materials used in its engineered barrier system (EBS) over very long timescales. Beyond the wasteform itself (i.e. the borosilicate glass for HLW or the fuel matrix and cladding for SNF), materials often employed in a disposal concept include metallic containers (typically copper and/or carbon steel) and clay-based buffer materials (typically bentonite). In this paper we explore key developments on the long-term evolution of materials employed for the immobilisation, isolation and containment of HLW and SNF in a geological disposal facility, including nuclear glasses, candidate container materials and clay buffers. Our discussion is based on the latest findings from both experimental studies and in-situ demonstration experiments. We present relevant findings from the long-term evolution of HLW glasses (UK composition), metallic materials for the containment system (envisaged in Switzerland, Sweden, Canada and other countries), and bentonite clays (envisaged in many national disposal programmes). (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Effects of He Ion Irradiation in Simple Borosilicate Glasses for HLW Immobilisation - 20324

High-level radioactive waste (HLW) consists of fission products and minor actinides. Borosilicate glass is the host material of choice in most countries to safely immobilize HLW, followed by eventual geological disposal. HLW glasses will experience both self-heating and self-irradiation effects due to the decay of fission products and minor actinides present therein. During the first 500 years of geological disposal, beta-gamma decay will be the main source of radiation due to short half-lives of fission products, as compared to very long-lived actinides which will be responsible for irradiation over much longer timescales. High-energy alpha particles and alpha recoil nuclei can potentially have significant impact (stored energy, volume change, accumulated dose, chemical durability) on the performance of the wasteform over longer timescales. Thus, to ensure safe and economic disposal over geological periods (10{sup 4} - 10{sup 6} years), the assessment of performance and properties in terms of radiation effects becomes indispensable. This work aims to simulate the effects of alpha decay in radioactive waste glasses. Two international glasses, namely UK 'MW' lithium-sodium borosilicate and Indian sodium-barium borosilicate, which are being used as HLW immobilization matrices by the UK and India respectively, were prepared by a melt-quench method and annealed below their glass transition temperatures. Both glasses were irradiated with 650 KeV He{sup 2+} ions with doses ranging from 10{sup 15} to 10{sup 17} ions/cm{sup 2}. Structural analysis was carried out using electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) and Raman spectroscopies. First derivative continuous wave EPR spectra were recorded for all pristine and irradiated glass monoliths at room temperature using an X-band (frequency 9.6 GHz) EPR Bruker spectrometer. Results from EPR analyses showed the formation of irradiation induced paramagnetic centers at g ∼ 2.00 in all irradiated glasses. Raman spectra of pristine and irradiated samples were acquired, and showed notable changes in glass structure post-irradiation, with the emergence of a broad Raman band at 1560 cm{sup -1} upon irradiation with high fluences. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2022

The Effects of Mixing Multi-Component HLW Glasses on Spinel Crystal Size

The Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant will vitrify radioactive waste into borosilicate glass. The high-level waste (HLW) glass formulations are constrained by processing and property requirements, including restrictions aimed at avoiding detrimental impacts of spinel crystallization in the melter. To understand the impact of glass chemistry on crystallization, two HLW glasses precipitating small (?5 µm) spinel crystals were individually mixed with a glass that precipitated large (?45 µm) spinel crystals in ratios of 25, 50, and 75 wt%. The size of spinel crystals in the mixed glasses varied from 5 to 20 µm. Small crystal size was attributed to: (1) high concentrations of nuclei due to the presence of ruthenium oxide and (2) chromium oxide aiding high rates of nucleation. Results indicate that the spinel crystal size can be controlled using chromium oxide and/or noble metal concentrations in the melt, even in complex mixtures like HLW glasses. Small crystals tend to settle slowly, so they are acceptable in the melter without a risk of failure. Allowing higher concentrations of spinel-forming waste components in the waste glass enables glass compositions with higher waste loading, thus increasing plant operational flexibility. An additional benefit to the presence of chromium oxide in the glass composition is the potential for the oxide to protect melter walls against corrosion.

Lonergan, Charmayne E.↗

DOE OSTI2024

Noble Metals Testing on the DM1200 Pilot Melter System with AZ-101 HLW Simulants, VSL-03R3740-2, Rev. 0

This report documents the results obtained with respect to the behavior of noble metals in tests on the DM1200 HLW Pilot Melter during processing of simulated HLW AZ-101 feed. The principal objective of these tests was to collect data to determine the extent of retention of noble metals in the melter since that is an important uncertainty in determining the expected life of the WTP HLW melter. The present results constitute one part of an integrated testing strategy that has been developed to address this risk.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2024

Integrated DM1200 Melter Testing of HLW AZ-102 Composition Using Bubblers (Final Report)

This report documents melter and off-gas performance results obtained on the DM1200 HLW Pilot Melter during processing of simulated HLW AZ-102 feed. The principal objectives of the DM1200 melter testing were to determine the achievable glass production rates for simulated HLW AZ-102 feed; determine the effect of bubbling rate on production rate; characterize melter off-gas emissions; characterize the performance of the prototypical off-gas system components as well as their integrated performance; characterize the feed, glass product, and off-gas effluents; and to perform pre- and post test inspections of system components.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2024

DM1200 Tests with C-104/AY-101 HLW Simulants (Final Report)

This report documents melter and off-gas performance results obtained on the DM1200 HLW Pilot Melter during processing of simulated HLW C-104/AY-101 feed. The principal objectives of the DM1200 melter testing were to determine the achievable glass production rates for simulated HLW C-104/AY-101 feed; determine the effect of bubbling rate on production rate; characterize melter off-gas emissions; characterize the performance of the prototypical off-gas system components as well as their integrated performance; characterize the feed, glass product, and off-gas effluents; and to perform pre- and post test inspections of system components.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2026

High waste loading glass formulation development for High-Mn HLW

One of the primary objectives of the work described herein was to develop and identify HLW glass compositions and glass forming additive blends that achieve high waste loadings and processing rates for high manganese HLW streams while maintaining acceptable glass properties. Another objective was to determine the effect of the form of manganese (MnO, MnO2, MnCO3) on feed processing properties, glass production rates, and product quality while vitrifying a high manganese HLW stream. This was accomplished through a combination of crucible-scale tests, vertical gradient furnace tests, and confirmation tests on a DM100 melter system.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2026

Glass Formulation Development for Al, Fe, and Na Phosphate HLW

The primary objective of the work described herein was to develop and identify HLW glass compositions and glass forming additive blends that achieve high waste loadings and processing rates for high phosphorus HLW streams while maintaining acceptable glass properties. Another objective was to determine the effect of phosphate form (aluminum, iron, sodium) on feed processing properties, glass production rates, and product quality while vitrifying a high phosphorus HLW stream. This was accomplished through a combination of crucible-scale tests, vertical gradient furnace tests, and confirmation tests on a DM100 melter system.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 110B: US DOE High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) Interpretation

This panel focused on the US DOE High-Level radioactive Waste (HLW) definition interpretation. Discussion integrated topics such as the issuance of the HLW interpretation Federal Registration Notice, the status of the draft Environmental Assessment that analyzes the treatment and commercial disposal of up to 10,000-gallons of SRS Defense Waste Processing Facility recycle wastewater in South Carolina, and the path forward. Panelists with presentations: Status on the Environmental Assessment for the Commercial Disposal of Defense Waste Processing Facility Recycle Wastewater from SRS (Theresa Kliczewski); Enhancing Stakeholder Engagement on the HLW interpretation (Kara Colton, Rick McLeod); Technical Aspects of Potential Disposal of SRS DWPF Recycle Wastewater (Kent Rosenberger)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗