WCATS Container Profile W855698 CON-LLW
Abstract not provided.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “LLW”
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.
Flanged Tritium Waste Containers: Background and Current Path to Disposal
The MLLW Flanged Tritium Waste Container (FTWC) Project has been operational since 2007 when, during an audit of the FTWC waste stream, it was determined that four FTWC containers contained lead in amounts greater than LDR treatment standards. From June to August of 2007, four FTWC containers were shipped to TA-54 for disposal as LLW from WETF. The contents of the FTWCs were characterized as high activity LLW and were thought to be in compliance with LANL's Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC). During the packaging of these FTWC's, 36 intact squib valves (aka actuators), containing detonated squibs were included with the waste stream After being transported to TA-54 Area G, it was determined that the explosive used in some of the squibs was Normal Lead Styphnate (NLS). A recharacterization of the entire contents in the FTWC's was performed with the conclusion that the squib valves exhibited the RCRA toxic characteristic for Lead (D008), thus resulting in the contents of the FTWCs being reclassified as a Mixed LLW.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
EPC-ES WIPP WAC Appendix A Equivalence Support Measurements 2019-2020
Characterization of low-level waste (LLW) at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is primarily performed by the Environmental Protection and Compliance - Environmental Stewardship (EPC-ES) Characterization Services team and/or the Nuclear Process Infrastructure (NPI--9) Nuclear Material Support Services team (hereafter referred to as the gamma spectroscopy teams). The gamma spectroscopy teams use portable high-purity germanium (HPGe) detector systems for the nondestructive assay (NDA) characterization of LLW. Controlled-approved procedures and processes for the use of such systems to assay LLW items are currently in place. Additionally, a number of performance studies have been conducted by the gamma spectroscopy teams to support the efficacy and quality of assay results generated by the established NDA process.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
UNREVIEWED DISPOSAL QUESTION EVALUATION: Disposal of the Idaho National Laboratory Classified Mockup Low-Level Waste at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada
This Unreviewed Disposal Question Evaluation (UDQE) assesses whether the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Classified Mockup Low-Level Waste (LLW) (INEL208599QR0, Revision 0 [INL 2020]) is suitable for shallow land burial (SLB) at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). Disposal of the INL Classified Mockup LLW meets all performance objectives of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Manual DOE M 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, Chapter IV, Section P (DOE 1999). The INL Classified Mockup LLW stream is recommended for acceptance without conditions.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
UNREVIEWED DISPOSAL QUESTION EVALUATION: Disposal of the Idaho National Laboratory Classified Mockup Low-Level Waste, Revision 1, at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada
This Unreviewed Disposal Question Evaluation (UDQE) assesses whether the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Classified Mockup Low-Level Waste (LLW) (INEL208599QR0, Revision 1 [INL 2021]) is suitable for shallow land burial (SLB) at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). Disposal of the INL Classified Mockup LLW meets all performance objectives of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Manual DOE M 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, Chapter IV, Section P (DOE 1999). The INL Classified Mockup LLW stream is recommended for acceptance without conditions.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
UNREVIEWED DISPOSAL QUESTION EVALUATION: Disposal of the Transuranic Waste Processing Center Low-Level Waste at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada
This Unreviewed Disposal Question Evaluation (UDQE) assesses whether the Transuranic Waste Processing Center (TWPC) Low-Level Waste (LLW), FWORCHLLW0102, Revision 12 (TWPC 2021), is suitable for shallow land burial (SLB) at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). Disposal of the TWPC LLW meets all performance objectives of DOE Manual DOE M 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, Chapter IV, Section P (DOE 1999). The TWPC LLW waste stream is recommended for acceptance without conditions.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Adsorptive Capture of Iodide by Metal-Organic Framework from Off-Gas Condensate Simulate
Millions of gallons of liquid nuclear wastes generated due to nuclear weapon development during the Cold War are in tank storage at several Department of Energy (DOE) sites across the country. DOE is responsible for disposal of the tank nuclear waste and clean-up of the contaminated sites. These efforts are complex and challenging technically and are costly financially, with the predicted overall cost reaching $377 billion over the next few decades [1]. The current practice of nuclear waste treatment and tank closure is to separate high-level waste (HLW) and low-level waste (LLW) [2]. The HLW is then vitrified into a borosilicate-based glass waste form [3], while the LLW is immobilized into cementitious grout or vitrified into glass [4]. However, these treatment processes have met unsolved technical problems
Jiang, Junhua [Savannah River National Laboratory ↗
Air Pathway Dose Modeling for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility
The US Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 performance assessment (PA) process (USDOE 1999) prescribes a performance objective (10 mrem y -1 ) for evaluating atmospheric releases of radionuclides from DOE low-level waste (LLW) disposal facilities. The potential dose to an individual from exposure to radionuclides released into the atmosphere from LLW disposals can be estimated by application of radionuclide -specific dose-release factors (DRFs) (mrem Ci -1 ) to estimated flux rates (Ci y -1 ) at a particular time and location. In Revision 0 of this report, Lee (2006) calculated DRFs for potential atmospheric releases of 15 volatile radionuclides from seven ELLWF disposal units in support of the 2008 ELLWF PA (WSRC 2008). The mainframe version of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) dose model CAP88 was used in the Revision 0 assessment. In Revision 1 of this report (Dixon and Minter 2017), the site-specific Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) atmospheric dose models MAXDOSE-SR version 2013 (Stone and Jannik 2013a) and MAXINE version 2017 (Bell 2017) were used to calculate DRFs for ten radionuclides. This work (Revision 2) supersedes Revision 0 (Lee 2006) and Revision 1 (Dixon and Minter 2017) of this report. The Revision 2 method for estimating new DRFs for the ELLWF disposal units is described in this report.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
System Model Calculations for the Active Trenches of the Low-Level Burial Grounds, Hanford Site, Washington
Two lined trenches (Trench 31 and 34) located within the 200 West Low-Level Burial Ground (LLBG) area of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Hanford Site are designated for permanent disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed low-level radioactive waste (MLLW). In accordance with DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, radioactive waste shall be managed and disposed in a manner that is protective of worker, public health and safety, and the environment. DOE O 435.1 requires a site-specific radiological performance assessment (PA) that includes calculations of potential releases and subsequent doses to members of the public for a period of 1,000 years after closure of a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility. The purpose of this environmental calculation file (ECF) is to document the various dose calculations performed to support DOE’s LLBG PA. The dose assessments are performed to evaluate the potential exposure of an all-pathway representative person to radionuclide contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) that may be released from the LLBG Trenches 31 and 34 to the point of calculation (POC) located at the outer edge of a 100 m buffer zone surrounding the trench boundary. This ECF uses inputs from other ECFs and their associated model package reports (MPRs) supporting the LLBG PA. The five major objectives of this ECF are to present the results of the following: (1) Deterministic dose assessments for both groundwater and atmospheric exposure scenarios; (2) Radon-222 (Rn-222) flux emanating at the surface from the disposed wastes; (3) Uncertainty analyses of the groundwater pathway annual dose due to uncertainty in input parameters; (4) Sensitivity analyses of the input parameters that could potentially impact the fate and transport of the contaminants and doses; (5) Doses arising from inadvertent intruder exposure scenarios.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Air Pathway Dose Modeling for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility
The US Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 performance assessment (PA) process (USDOE 1999) prescribes a performance objective (10 mrem y -1 ) for evaluating atmospheric releases of radionuclides from DOE low-level waste (LLW) disposal facilities. The potential dose to an individual from exposure to radionuclides released into the atmosphere from LLW disposals can be estimated by application of radionuclide-specific dose-release factors (DRFs) (mrem Ci -1 ) to estimated flux rates (Ci y -1 ) at a particular time and location. In Revision 0 of this report, Lee (2006) calculated DRFs for potential atmospheric releases of 15 volatile radionuclides from seven ELLWF disposal units in support of the 2008 ELLWF PA (WSRC 2008). The mainframe version of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) dose model CAP88 was used in the Revision 0 assessment. In Revision 1 of this report (Dixon and Minter 2017), the site-specific Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) atmospheric dose models MAXDOSE-SR version 2013 (Stone and Jannik 2013a) and MAXINE version 2017 (Bell 2017) were used to calculate DRFs for ten radionuclides. Revision 2 provided updated DRFs using the current version of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) dose model CAP88-PC Version 4.1. After Revision 2 was finalized, DRFs were requested for Ar-37, Ar-39, Kr-83m, and Hg-206. Revision 3 provides the additional DRFs calculated using the same methods as used in Revision 2 of this document. The method for estimating new DRFs for the ELLWF disposal units is described in this report.
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
129 I and 99 Tc Distribution Coefficients of Subsurface Sediments Collected from the Proposed Site of the Environmental Manage Disposal Facility
Performance Assessment calculations are presently underway to evaluate the Environmental Management Disposal Facility (EMDF), a proposed new low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Among the large number of input parameters needed for such calculations, are distribution coefficients (K d values; radionuclide concentration solid:liquid ratio) that provide a measure of the tendency of radionuclides to bind to sediments. The objective of this study was to measure K d values of two radionuclides that may pose a disproportionately large amount of risk, 129 I and 99 Tc. The average I K d value for the 10 geological materials recovered from the proposed EMDF site was 52.3 mL/g and ranged from 2.7 to 140.9 mL/g. These values were consistent, but somewhat larger than previous measurements made with ORR sediments and were about an order of magnitude greater than those used in previous EMDF PA calculations. The median Tc K d value was 807.2 mL/g, much greater than previously reported using ORR geological materials. Five of the ten tested geological materials sorbed large quantities of Tc, suggesting that the weakly sorbing Tc(VII) species had been reduced to the very strongly binding and sparingly soluble Tc(IV) species. The five strongly sorbing sediment had apparent solubility values of approximately <10 -8 mol/L. Based on sediment properties and general ORR geological considerations, it was proposed that much of the I and Tc sorption could be attributed to the low pH (average pH = 4.94), low redox status, and/or the elevated levels of iron oxides, manganese oxides, and natural organic matter. An implication of this study is that the areas of the EMDF subsurface environment may have natural properties for attenuating I and Tc movement, thereby potentially reducing risk posed by burial of LLW at this site.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
129 I, 99 Tc, And U Distribution Coefficients of Subsurface Sediments Collected from the Proposed Site of the Environmental Management Disposal Facility
Performance Assessment calculations were completed in 2020 to evaluate the Environmental Management Disposal Facility (EMDF), a proposed new low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Among the large number of input parameters needed for such calculations, are distribution coefficients (K d values; radionuclide concentration solid:liquid ratio) that provide a measure of the tendency of radionuclides to bind to sediments. The objective of this study was to measure K d values of three radionuclides that may pose a disproportionately large amount of risk, U, 129 I and 99 Tc. The average I K d value for the 14 geological materials recovered from the proposed EMDF site was 37.8 mL/g and ranged from -1.8 to 140.9 mL/g. These values were consistent, but somewhat larger than previous measurements made with ORR sediments and were about an order of magnitude greater than those used in previous EMDF PA calculations. The median Tc K d value was 365.7 mL/g, much greater than previously reported using ORR geological materials. Five of the 14 tested geological materials sorbed large quantities of Tc, suggesting that the weakly sorbing Tc(VII) species had been reduced to the sparingly soluble Tc(IV) species. The five strongly sorbing sediments had apparent Tc solubility values of approximately <10 -8 mol/L. The median U K d value was 5,726 mL/g. All of the tested geological materials had large K d values, ranging from 625 to >10,208 mL/g. Among the sediment samples that exhibited strong U binding, the apparent solubility value was approximately <10 -9 mol/L. Based on sediment properties and general ORR geological considerations, it was proposed that much of the I and Tc retention could be attributed to the site materials exhibiting low pH (average pH = 4.94), low redox status, and/or the elevated levels of iron oxides, manganese oxides, and natural organic matter. Similarly, the extremely high U binding measured in these sediments may also be attributed to the low conditions of carbonates, which can complex and therefore solubilize uranyl in these tests due to the low pH, and also the relatively high concentrations of iron and organic coatings on these samples. An implication of this study is that the areas of the EMDF subsurface environment may have natural properties for attenuating I, Tc, and U movement, and potentially other radionuclides, thereby possibly reducing risk posed by burial of LLW at this site. This document is a revision of SRNL-STI-2021-00404, Revision 0 that includes new data describing U K d values and new I and Tc K d values for four Nolichucky sediments. These new results were integrated into the data presented in the original document.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
129 I, 99 Tc, and U Distribution Coefficients of Subsurface Sediments Collected from the Proposed Site of the Environmental Management Disposal Facility
Performance Assessment calculations were completed in 2020 to evaluate the Environmental Management Disposal Facility (EMDF), a proposed new low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Among the large number of input parameters needed for such calculations, are distribution coefficients (K d values; radionuclide concentration solid: liquid ratio) that provide a measure of the tendency of radionuclides to bind to sediments. The objective of this study was to measure K d values of three radionuclides that may pose a disproportionately large amount of risk, U, iodine-129 ( 129 I) and technetium-99 ( 99 Tc). The average 129 I K d value for the 14 geological materials recovered from the proposed EMDF site was 37.8 mL/g and ranged from 0.45 to 140.9 mL/g. These values were consistent, but somewhat larger than previous measurements made with ORR sediments and were about an order of magnitude greater than those used in previous EMDF PA calculations. The median 99 Tc K d value was 365.7 mL/g, much greater than previously reported using ORR geological materials. Five of the 14 tested geological materials sorbed large quantities of 99 Tc, suggesting that the weakly sorbing 99 Tc(VII) species had been reduced to the sparingly soluble 99 Tc(IV) species. The five strongly sorbing sediments had apparent 99 Tc solubility values of approximately <10 -8 mol/L. The median U K d value was 5,726 mL/g. All of the tested geological materials had large K d values, ranging from 625 to >10,208 mL/g. Among the sediment samples that exhibited strong U binding, the apparent solubility value was approximately <10 -9 mol/L. Based on sediment properties and general ORR geological considerations, it was proposed that much of the 129 I and 99 Tc retention could be attributed to the site materials exhibiting low pH (average pH = 4.94), and/or the elevated levels of iron oxides, manganese oxides, and natural organic matter. Similarly, the extremely high U binding measured in these sediments may also be attributed to the low conditions of carbonates, which can complex and therefore solubilize uranyl in these tests due to the low pH, and also the relatively high concentrations of iron and organic coatings on these samples. An implication of this study is that the areas of the EMDF subsurface environment may have natural properties for attenuating 129 I, 99 Tc, and U movement, and potentially other radionuclides, thereby possibly reducing risk posed by burial of LLW at this site.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
UNREVIEWED DISPOSAL QUESTION EVALUATION: Disposal of the Idaho National Laboratory Routinely Generated Remote Handled Low-Level Waste at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada
This Unreviewed Disposal Question Evaluation assesses whether the Idaho National Laboratory Routinely Generated Remote Handled Low-Level Waste (NEID09MFCRLLW, Revision 7) is suitable for shallow land burial at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site on the Nevada National Security Site. Disposal of the INL Routinely Generated Remote Handled LLW meets all performance objectives of DOE Manual DOE M 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, Chapter IV, Section P. The INL Routinely Generated Remote Handled LLW is recommended for acceptance without conditions.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Assessing the Potential for Inadvertent Human Intrusion at the Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites on the Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada
This paper recommends an approach to inadvertent human intrusion (IHI) at the Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites (RWMSs) on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). IHI analysis uses the consequences of an individual inadvertently contacting buried waste to set waste concentration limits for near-surface disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW). Regulatory agencies are increasingly applying risk-informed decision-making to LLW waste management (NRC 2006). Risk-informed decision-making combines scientific risk assessment with stakeholder values and perceptions to determine a level of acceptable risk. Risk considers not only the consequences of an event, but also its probability of occurring.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Fiscal Year 2021 First Quarter Volume Report
Fiscal Year 2021, First Quarter, Area 5 RWMC, LLW, Volume
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Second Quarter Transportation Report - Fiscal Year 2021 - Waste Shipments to and from the Nevada National Security Site, Radioactive Waste Management Complex
This report satisfies the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) commitment to prepare a quarterly summary of waste shipments to the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) in Area 5. This report summarizes the second quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2021 and serves as a quarterly report for the following types of shipments: Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) Mixed Low-Level Radioactive Waste (MLLW) Classified Non-Radioactive (CNR) Waste Classified Non-Radioactive Hazardous (CNRH) Waste
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Nuclear waste attributes of near-term deployable small modular reactors
The nuclear waste attributes of near-term deployable SMRs were assessed using established nuclear waste metrics, which are the DU mass, SNF mass, volume, activity, decay heat, radiotoxicity, and decommissioning LLW volumes. Metrics normalized per unit electricity generation were compared to a reference large PWR. Three SMRs, VOYGR, Natrium, and Xe-100, were selected because they represent a range of reactor and fuel technologies and are active designs deployable by the decade’s end. The SMR nuclear waste attributes show both some similarities to the PWR and some significant differences caused by reactor-specific design features. The DU mass is equivalent to or slightly higher than the PWR. Back-end waste attributes for SNF disposition vary, but the differences have a limited impact on long-term repository isolation. SMR designs can vary significantly in SNF volume (and thus heat generation density). However, these differences are amenable to design optimization for handling, storage, transportation, and disposal technologies. Nuclear waste attributes from decommissioning vary depending on design and decommissioning technology choices. Given the analysis results in this study and assuming appropriate waste management system and operational optimization, there appear to be no major challenges to managing SMR nuclear wastes compared to the reference PWR.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗