Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Nuclear Waste Management”

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

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

At least 379 records · Page 21
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Verification and Validation of the Stakeholder Tool for Assessing Radioactive Transportation (START) – 22323

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Integrated Waste Management is planning for the eventual transportation, storage, and disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW) from nuclear power plant and DOE sites. The Stakeholder Tool for Assessing Radioactive Transportation (START) is a web-based, geospatial decision-support tool developed for evaluating routing options and other aspects of transporting SNF and HLW, covering rail, truck, barge, and intermodal infrastructure and operations in the continental United States. The verification and validation (V&V) process is intended to independently assess START to provide confidence in the ability of START to accurately provide intended results. The V&V process checks the START tool using a variety of methods, ranging from independent hand calculations to comparison of START performance and results to those of other codes. The V&V activity was conducted independently from the START development team with opportunities to provide feedback and collaborate throughout the process. The V&V analyzed attributes of transportation routes produced by START, including route distance and both population and population density captured within buffer zones around routes. Population in the buffer zone, population density in the buffer zone, and route distance were all identified as crucial outputs of the START code and were subject to V&V tasks. Some of the improvements identified through the V&V process were standardizing the underlying population data in START, changing the projection of the population raster data, and changes to the methodology used for population density to improve its applicability for expected users. This collaboration also led to suggested improvements to some of the underlying shape file segments within START. A formal series of test routes went through the V&V process from START version 3.2.1 following the implementation of the recommended improvements to START. The V&V of the buffer zone population and distance reported in START were achieved by utilizing a custom workflow developed in QGIS. This platform was chosen because it is fully independent of START. The buffer zone population and route distances in START showed excellent agreement to independent V&V test results. Over 200 route test cases were run; in all cases, the percent difference in the population within the buffer zone was less than +/- 5%, and the majority of cases were below +/- 1%. These cases were also duplicated in ArcMap, which is Environmental Systems Research Institute’s (ESRI) GIS desktop application. The ArcMap results also show good agreement; however, they cannot be considered independent of START because START also uses ESRI software. The V&V tasks are currently addressing population density and estimated radiation dose in START as well as implementing further automation of the V&V process to allow larger suites of test routes to be run more easily and quickly by less experienced GIS users. These improvements to the V&V process will make it a valuable tool for the development team and the stakeholders so that each new iteration of START can easily be checked for quality and consistency. This paper and presentation will describe the V&V process, findings and implications, and ongoing V&V activities.

START, DOE, Transporation, dose, GIS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Considerations for Maritime Nuclear Technologies, Economic Viability and Public Acceptance

The Maritime Nuclear Application Group (MNAG) is a working group convened by the National Reactor Innovation Center at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), the American Bureau of Shipping, and Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius LLP. This report documents an MNAG examination of considerations relevant to implementing nuclear technology in commercial maritime applications. In general, two types of use case are examined: maritime nuclear power plants and nuclear reactors used on board shipping vessels for propulsion and other ship needs. The report finds that there may be economic benefits related to maritime nuclear technologies, including the flexible deployment of maritime nuclear reactors, which would allow them to complement land-based nuclear projects, and operational differences for nuclear cargo ships that may lead to an overall increase in revenue. High-level analyses in this report show that, based on general small modular reactor and microreactor cost estimates developed by INL, maritime nuclear reactors may be economically competitive for electricity production in remote regions and for use in the propulsion of large cargo ships. Besides economic viability, public acceptance will be key to implementing maritime nuclear technologies. The report discusses the public’s current perception of nuclear technologies. Engaging with the public will be important to improving this perception. The report discusses some key benefits and risks associated with maritime nuclear technologies. Benefits include the creation of jobs, the production of reliable energy, and the potential to improve air quality. Risks that concern the public are the potential for radioactive releases during operation and decommissioning, as well as those related to waste management. Communicating the benefits and the risks of maritime nuclear technologies will be essential to improving public perception.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Nanohybrid of Silver‐MXene: A Promising Sorbent for Iodine Gas Capture from Nuclear Waste

The increasing reliance on nuclear energy as a significant low-carbon power source necessitates effective solutions for managing radioactive emissions. This study introduces a novel application of MXene nanohybrids, specifically silver-MXene (Ag-Ti 3 C 2 T x ), as an effective sorbent for radioiodine off-gas capture at an operating temperature of 150 °C. Through comprehensive material characterization, including X-ray diffraction, scanning and transmission electron microscopies, energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, thermogravimetric analysis, inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy, and gas sorption analyses, the successful loading of Ag nanoparticles onto Ti 3 C 2 T x is confirmed and the subsequent formation of AgI upon iodine capture. The results demonstrate that Ag-Ti 3 C 2 T x exhibits superior iodine uptake compared to traditional silver-based sorbents such as silver mordenite zeolite (AgZ) and silver-functionalized silica aerogel (AgAero). The Ag-Ti 3 C 2 T x achieves an iodine loading of 946 mg g −1 , significantly outperforming AgZ (131 mg g −1 ). These findings highlight the potential of Ag-Ti 3 C 2 T x as a highly efficient, thermally stable sorbent for radioiodine capture, and potentially addressing key limitations of existing materials.

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

Area V: Waste Management and Subsurface Science (FY21-23 Final Report)

The objective of the Waste Management and Subsurface Science Topic Area V project is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of an intermediate-depth borehole for disposal of Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) nuclear waste. The IAEC nuclear waste is currently stored in above ground and/or in near-surface facilities that provide short-term radiological worker safety but do not provide long-term, full security and safeguards protection for the nuclear material. Disposal of the IAEC nuclear waste several hundred meters below the surface in a sealed borehole would provide long-term security and safeguards due to its depth underground, as well as long-term radiological safety, due to its isolation in a stable geological formation. This project supports the nuclear security and safeguards initiatives of the Science and Technology Working Group of the NNSA/IAEC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and addresses the Topic Area V objective and associated goals. The goals for Topic Area V are: (1) Assess the suitability of the vadose zone in the Yamin Plain of the northern Negev Desert, Israel as a host location for intermediate-depth borehole disposal of radioactive waste, (2) Define and refine the necessary characterization needs to better understand the regional climate, structure, and stratigraphy, geomechanics, geochemistry, hydrogeology, and seismicity of the stratigraphic sequence from the surface to the water table in the vicinity of the proposed host location for the disposal borehole(s), and (3) Develop a preliminary plan and schedule, including necessary resources and costs, for a borehole disposal concept and robust and transparent pre-closure and post-closure safety assessments. The safety assessments will require iteration with process level models at both site and regional scales. Upon completion, the information collected by this effort will allow the IAEC to make decisions regarding the viability and applicability of an intermediate depth (<500m) borehole for disposal in the vadose zone of the Yamin Plain. This FY21-23 final report is provided in lieu of a workshop report that was originally planned for delivery in January, 2024. Due to the conflict in Israel and associated delays, the workshop has been delayed to April 2024. The workshop will be held at LLNL but offsite and will switch to hybrid if travel restrictions remain in place. The associated workshop report will be provided as part of a new FY24-26 LCP.

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

Annual Summary Report for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility—FY 2022

This Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 annual summary report (ASR) documents the continued adequacy of the performance assessment (PA), the composite analysis (CA) and associated operating disposal-authorization statement (ODAS) technical-basis documents for the Remote-Handled (RH) Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Facility at Idaho National Laboratory. Annual review of the adequacy of the PA and CA for the RHLLW Disposal Facility ensures that conclusions of the analyses remain valid in accordance with requirements of Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management.” In FY 2022, no significant operational changes or other activities occurred that would cause deviation from the assumptions in the PA and CA pertaining to disposal geometry, verification of waste characteristics, tracking disposal inventories against total limits, facility-closure design, or institutional controls. Fifteen waste canister shipments were received at the RHLLW Disposal Facility, and 15 waste canisters were emplaced in disposal vaults.

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

Annual Summary Report for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility—FY 2023

This Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 annual summary report (ASR) documents the continued adequacy of the performance assessment (PA), the composite analysis (CA) and associated operating disposal-authorization statement (ODAS) technical-basis documents for the Remote-Handled (RH) Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Facility at Idaho National Laboratory. Annual review of the adequacy of the PA and CA for the RHLLW Disposal Facility ensures that conclusions of the analyses remain valid in accordance with requirements of Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management.” In FY 2023, no significant operational changes or other activities occurred that would cause deviation from the assumptions in the PA and CA pertaining to disposal geometry, verification of waste characteristics, tracking disposal inventories against total limits, facility-closure design, or institutional controls. Eleven waste canister shipments were received at the RHLLW Disposal Facility, and ten waste canisters were emplaced in disposal vaults.

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

Panel Session 100: An Integrated Systems-Based Monitoring Approach

This panel focused on recent advancements in monitoring and remaining challenges associated with the implementing cost-effective monitoring approaches for complex DOE sites. Monitoring presents one of the largest, long-term costs for environmental remediation and site stewardship within the DOE because contamination at complex sites will likely be present for tens to hundreds of years into the future. Integration of monitoring with predictive modeling is an approach that can reduce long-term monitoring costs as well as support the effective monitoring design and data interpretation for managing a site toward closure and long-term stewardship. Panelists with presentations: Autonomous Electrical Geophysical Monitoring of Contaminated Sites (Tim Johnson); Systems Based Long-Term Monitoring for DOE Legacy Management (David Shafer); Long-Term Systems Based Monitoring (Anderson Ward)

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

Potential Advantages to Employing an Onsite Laboratory at FUSRAP Sites Contaminated with Radionuclides and Metals - 20353

Various factors that support an evaluation of the relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of utilizing an onsite laboratory or an offsite laboratory for remediation of Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) sites contaminated with radionuclides and metals are presented. In terms of how much more quickly an onsite laboratory provides results versus an offsite laboratory, the results of this study provide tools for calculating the amount of cost savings per day for excavation of contaminated soils for various scenarios including: - State, municipal or local property remediation where the remediation schedule becomes time-critical due to the extra cost and inconvenience to the town or municipality caused by the need for increased security and safety personnel, possible road closures and detours, and the inconvenience to the public due to modified or decreased services of State or municipal facilities; - Residential property where the remediation schedule becomes time-critical due to the inconvenience to the homeowner as well as the importance of maintaining good community relations; - Commercial property where the remediation schedule becomes time-critical due to the hardship and potential loss of revenue endured by the property owner; - Open area where treatment of excavation water is required, and - Open area where treatment of excavation water is not required. For every scenario, the number of matrices, radionuclide and metal contaminants of concern and the project duration are important factors. The costs for the onsite laboratory included the capital costs associated with setting up the lab such as trailer(s) or building(s), power and water hookup, analytical testing equipment, balances, computers, desks and bookcases; support equipment such as hot plates, filtration assemblies, safety equipment, ovens, etc.; and supplies such as glassware, pipettes, filters, etc. and ongoing costs such as labor, chemicals and reagents, standards, cost of the laboratory obtaining certification and maintenance. Offsite laboratory sample testing costs are generally very competitive and typically substantially lower than onsite laboratory costs if only the sample testing costs are considered. The great disadvantage of using an offsite laboratory is that they often cannot guarantee rapid turnaround times for results which creates project delays associated with the remediation process including delays determining the completeness of the characterization and remediation processes, delays in backfilling a property and additional costs for treating wastewater (excavation water, stormwater or both). These costs will vary greatly depending upon the area of the country in which the project is located due to the wide range of labor costs for the onsite laboratory and field workers, as well as the contaminants of interest, matrices and most importantly the size of the impacted area and the number of properties located in that area. This paper provides guidelines for calculating the cost savings that may be realized if an onsite laboratory can generate results more quickly than an offsite laboratory by estimating the costs associated with the remediation process for the various scenarios noted above such as work crew labor costs, excavator and dump truck equipment rentals, wastewater treatment costs (if applicable) and the additional costs incurred by homeowners, commercial property owners and towns/municipalities that are reimbursed by the potentially responsible parties. Key assumptions involve the typical quickest turnaround time provided by the onsite and offsite laboratories. Costs for the operation of a wastewater treatment system and the remediation of a site area or property were provided by personnel who have been involved in the operation of a large FUSRAP site in New Jersey for many years. This study provides valuable information for determining the most cost-effective approach for analysis of project samples and therefore may be used on upcoming FUSRAP projects. (authors)

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

The Incorporation of Pump-and-Treat Data in the New Tracking Restoration and Closure (TRAC)Web-Based Mapping Tool - 20339

Groundwater pump-and-treat (P and T) systems are a common remediation strategy for sites with contaminated groundwater within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM). Currently, there are six DOE-EM sites with active P and T systems, but integrated information on individual systems is only primarily available in separate annual reports. To provide a broad view of both current and historical P and T operations, data has been collected on all of the P and T systems. This summary information not only includes capital and average annual costs, but also identifies contaminants treated and forecasted P and T closure dates. Principal contaminants of concern treated with P and T systems include trichloroethylene, chromium (VI), strontium-90, technetium-99, and uranium. DOE-EM is continuing to create a web-based mapping tool that compiles information on groundwater contaminants, remediation strategies and, current data related to plumes and cleanup progress within all DOE-EM sites. The information collected on P and T systems will be added to the TRAC (Tracking Restoration and Closure) tool using interactive maps to quickly access and share information. This information sharing supports the transition from active to passive remediation methods and long-term monitoring approaches. TRAC can ensure that managers, stakeholders, regulators, and contractors remain up to date on cleanup progress for all sites within the complex. The information on P and T systems expands the use of TRAC and can assist in project monitoring and budget planning and support potential shifts in management plans based on plume data. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI1992

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 33, No. 1, January-March 1992]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 Technical Note: A New Approach to Fission Reactor Safety, Yu. V. Petrov; 5 Erratum; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 6 Analysis and Modeling of Fission Product Release from Various Uranium-Aluminum Plate-Type Reactor Fuels, R. P. Taleyarkhan; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 23 Applications of a Surveillance and Diagnostics Methodology Using Neutron Noise From a Pressurized-Water Reactor, R. T. Wood, L. F. Miller, and R. B. Perez; DESIGN FEATURES: 36 Westinghouse Advanced Passive 600 Plant, B. A. McIntyre and R. K. Beck; 47 System 80+™ PWR Safety Design, C. W. Bagnal, R. A. Matzie, and R. S. Turk; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 58 The MATS Experiments—Mesoscale Atmospheric Transport Studies at the Savannah River Site, A. H. Weber, S. Berman, R. J. Kurzeja, and R. P. Addis; 75 Book Review: Environmental Radioactivity in the European Community 1984-1985-1986, C. A. Little; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 76 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 87 Aging Assessment of BWR Control Rod Drive Systems, R. H. Greene; 100 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 103 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 110 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 129 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 139 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 143 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30 1991; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 128 Harvard School of Public Health Announces Short Courses; 128 16th Biennial ANS Topical Meeting on Reactor Operating Experience: Present and Future Technologies—Applying Lessons Learned (Call for Papers); 147 The Authors; 150 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 32; 154 Errata.

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 OSTI1992

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 33, No. 1, January-March 1992]

Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 Technical Note: A New Approach to Fission Reactor Safety, Yu. V. Petrov; 5 Erratum; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 6 Analysis and Modeling of Fission Product Release from Various Uranium-Aluminum Plate-Type Reactor Fuels, R. P. Taleyarkhan; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 23 Applications of a Surveillance and Diagnostics Methodology Using Neutron Noise From a Pressurized-Water Reactor, R. T. Wood, L. F. Miller, and R. B. Perez; DESIGN FEATURES: 36 Westinghouse Advanced Passive 600 Plant, B. A. McIntyre and R. K. Beck; 47 System 80+™ PWR Safety Design, C. W. Bagnal, R. A. Matzie, and R. S. Turk; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 58 The MATS Experiments—Mesoscale Atmospheric Transport Studies at the Savannah River Site, A. H. Weber, S. Berman, R. J. Kurzeja, and R. P. Addis; 75 Book Review: Environmental Radioactivity in the European Community 1984-1985-1986, C. A. Little; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 76 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 87 Aging Assessment of BWR Control Rod Drive Systems, R. H. Greene; 100 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 103 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 110 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 129 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 139 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 143 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30 1991; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 128 Harvard School of Public Health Announces Short Courses; 128 16th Biennial ANS Topical Meeting on Reactor Operating Experience: Present and Future Technologies—Applying Lessons Learned (Call for Papers); 147 The Authors; 150 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 32; 154 Errata.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗