Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “GROUND DISPOSAL”

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 73 records · Page 4

Scoping Thermal Response Calculations of RNS Waste During Transport to and Disposal at the WIPP

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) was contracted by the United States Department of Energy Environmental Management (DOE-EM), Los Alamos Field Office to perform mechanical and thermal scoping calculations as part of a study seeking to understand the ignitability risk of the Remediated Nitrate Salts (RNS) waste drums during transportation from the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) facility to Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and permanent disposal of the waste at WIPP. The scoping thermal simulations described in this report pertain to thermal calculations performed with a packaging system consisting of one Standard Waste Box (SWB) loaded with drums placed inside a Standard Large Box 2 (SLB2). During transportation, the SLB2 is inside Transuranic Package Transporter Model III (TRUPACT-III), which provides the third layer of the packaging. Once at the WIPP, it is assumed the SLB2 is extracted from the TRUPACT-III and maintained above ground, and then subsequently placed underground for permanent disposal. In these proposed configurations, the space between the SLB2 and the SWB is always filled by a layer of insulation consisting of air-filled glass microbubbles except for the bottom which rests directly on the SLB2. The thermal scoping calculations described in this report specifically address whether the introduction of external heat inputs, combined with the contributions from the internally generated radiolytic decay heat and chemical reactions, lead to an unstable thermal state during the time of its movement and placement in the permanent disposal location. The external heat inputs are of two forms: 1) ambient thermal irradiation (e.g., solar and ambient storage/disposal temperatures) and 2) accident-induced fire. Three scoping calculation scenarios were derived as representative, conservative scenarios: 1A) TRUPACT-III transient transportation, 1B) SLB2 48-hour outdoor storage with solar radiation, and 2) fully-engulfing fire during SLB2 handling or emplacement following a steady-state analysis in a 38 °C environment. All the simulated scenarios are conservative relative to the operational conditions expected for handling the waste package during transportation and placement in the WIPP underground disposal unit. The predictions obtained from simulating the three exposure scenarios revealed that adding the SLB2 and the air-filled glass microbubbles to the transport and storage/disposal configurations provides additional thermal protection of the drums beyond what the SWB provides alone, both during long-term above ground insolation and underground during a fire accident. Under the current transportation/storage/disposal concepts, the degree of protection provided by the packaging concept is sufficient to prevent the waste from being ignitable. The simulation results demonstrate that there is adequate margin to safely transport and place the RNS waste from WCS to the WIPP under the current operational concept.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Session 077 - Panel: Wednesday US DOE Featured Site: Lexington, KY Office (Portsmouth and Paducah Sites) (R1.14)

This panel featured the DoE's Portsmouth Paducah Project Office (PPPO), which is responsible for the management and cleanup of at the Portsmouth, Ohio and Paducah, Kentucky former Gaseous Diffusion Plant sites. Portsmouth is primed for the first major skyline change at the site the upcoming demolition of the X-326 process building and initial operations of the Onsite Waste Disposal Facility. The Paducah site is working on the C-400 city block initiative allowing DOE to tackle the main source of groundwater contamination at the site, in conjunction with deactivation and demolition of the C-400 Cleaning Building. PPPO's DUF6 conversion plants have 7 lines in continuous operation at both sites providing the opportunity to ramp up cylinder processing. Panelists with presentations: DOE PPO Update (Robert Edwards, Joel Bradburne); Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office (PPPO) (Joel Bradburne, Robert Edwards); PADUCAH (Jennifer Woodard, Myrna Espinosa Redfield); Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Project (Reinhard Knerr, Zack Smith); Paducah Deactivation and Remediation Project (Myrna Espinosa Redfield); Mid-America Conversion Services - Seven Lines One Project (Zack Smith)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Vadose and Saturated Zone Flow and Transport Model Package Report for the Active Trenches of the Low-Level Burial Grounds, Hanford Site, Washington

This model package report (MPR) documents the development of the integrated vadose and saturated zone flow and transport model developed for the performance assessment of Trenches 31 and 34 in the low-level burial grounds (LLBGs). This modeling capability is intended for use in addressing the analysis requirements outlined in DOE O 435.1, Chg 1, Radioactive Waste Management1. The overall objective of the modeling effort is to provide a basis for making informed disposal decisions pertinent to Trenches 31 and 34. The purpose of the MPR is to document the development of the three-dimensional numerical vadose zone and saturated flow and transport model test case and evaluate its adequacy to support the LLBG performance assessment. The purpose is not to present results for DOE 435.1 decision making. The use of the model to perform base case and sensitivity analysis for the LLBG performance assessment, including inputs and results, is documented separately in subsequent environmental calculation files. This report discusses the development and translation of the conceptual model for flow and contaminant transport into the LLBG performance assessment three-dimensional numerical flow and transport model evaluated using the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP©) simulator. The development of representative geologic framework is described along with the implementation of waste release models used to represent contaminant release from waste disposed in the trenches. The report also provides the technical basis for specific model parameters and boundary conditions, along with description of modeling assumptions. This MPR includes certain calculations that are necessary to demonstrate the soundness of the model. Results provided by the model include vadose zone and saturated zone flow fields, and estimates of the possible future concentration in groundwater of technetium-99 and iodine-129 as example test cases. As an evaluation of the test cases, the model estimates of current vadose conditions are compared to available and analogous field and laboratory data, and compared to the results from the original performance assessment model (WHC-EP-0645, Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 West Area Burial Grounds 2 ). The features, events, and processes applicable to vadose zone and saturated zone flow and transport model are identified, and representative initial estimates for various parameters are documented. Note that the parameter estimates presented in this MPR are for illustration purposes, and may or may not reflect values selected for eventual performance assessment. Several key topical discussions (i.e., basis for recharge estimates, basis for vadose zone modeling, basis for saturated zone model development, and calibration) are included, which serve as the groundwork for confidence building for the groundwater pathway modeling and results. Numerical simulation results based on an example test case are included to illustrate the use of the combined saturated-unsaturated model in performance assessment calculations. Sensitivity and uncertainty results are not included in this MPR. Those results will be included in future environmental calculation files. The inclusion of the trapezoidal trench geometry and construction details in the finite difference grid introduces some gross simplifications regarding the trench and liner systems. The model test case presented in this MPR includes the assumption that the trench liner system does not affect flow through or around the trenches after the liner system is assumed to fail. This MPR also includes results of other test cases that involve alternate assumptions about how to incorporate the hydraulic effects of the trenches into the vadose zone of the model. These alternate cases do not attempt to account for the presence of the liner system after its assumed failure either. None of these cases is considered to be the base case at this time. Analysis and alternate cases that attempt to account for the presence of the liner system in greater detail, and its effect on flow through and around it, are to be documented in subsequent environmental calculation files. Depending on the results of those analyses and alternate cases, the eventual base case may involve more detailed inclusion of the effects of the liner system hydraulics.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Performance Assessment of the Active Trenches in 200 East and 200 West Low-Level Burial Grounds at the Hanford Site

The purpose of this document is to provide the assessment of the long-term human health and environmental risk associated with the continued disposal of radioactive wastes in the active trenches of the 200 East and 200 West Area Low-Level Burial Grounds (LLBGs) at the Hanford Site (Figure ES-1), as required by DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management1. Since July 1, 2004, the only active trenches in the 200 West Area LLBGs are the lined Trenches 31 and 34 used for the disposal of containerized low-level waste and mixed low-level waste (Figure ES-2). The only active trench in the 200 East Area LLBGs is the unlined Trench 94 that was used for the disposal of naval reactor compartments (Figure ES-3). Trenches 31 and 34 are intended to be used until they reach their disposal capacity while Trench 94 will be used and expanded as necessary to meet the needs of the U.S. Navy.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

NNSA-IAEC Science and Technology Working Group Area V - Waste Management and Subsurface Science, (Q1 FY2021)

The objective of Topic Area V is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of an intermediate-depth borehole for disposal of 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Area V: Waste Management and Subsurface Science (FY23 Q2)

The objective of Topic Area V is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of an intermediate-depth borehole for disposal of 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.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Area V: Waste Management and Subsurface Science Q3 Report

The objective of Topic Area V is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of an intermediate-depth borehole for disposal of 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.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗

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↗

Performance Assessment Closure Plan for the Active Low-Level Burial Ground Trenches 31, 34, and 94 at the Hanford Site

This report documents the closure plan for the active trenches within the Low-Level Burial Grounds of the Hanford Site, namely Trenches 31 and 34 in the 200 West Area and Trench 94 in 200 East Area. This closure plan is developed to meet the requirements of DOE O 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. It is one of the several technical basis documents, along with the performance assessment (DOE/RL-2021-26, Performance Assessment of Active Trenches in 200 East and West Low-Level Burial Grounds at the Hanford Site), which is required for maintaining the Operating Disposal Authorization Statement as described in DOE-STD-5002-2017, Disposal Authorization Statement and Tank Closure Documentation.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Idaho National Laboratory’s FY 2021 Greenhouse Gas Report

A greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory is a systematic approach to account for the production and release of certain gases generated by an institution from various emission sources. The gases of interest are those that climate science has identified as related to anthropogenic global climate change. This document presents an inventory of GHGs generated during Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 by Idaho National Laboratory (INL)—a Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored entity located in southeastern Idaho. In recent years, concern has grown about the environmental impact of GHGs. This, together with a desire to decrease harmful environmental impacts, would be enough to encourage the calculation of an inventory of the total GHGs generated at INL. Additionally, INL has a desire to see how its emissions compare with similar institutions, including other DOE national laboratories. Executive Order 13834 requires that federal agencies and institutions track and report GHG emissions where required. INL’s GHG inventory was calculated according to methodologies identified in federal GHG guidance documents using operational control boundaries. It measures emissions generated in three scopes: (1) INL emissions produced directly by stationary or mobile combustion and by fugitive emissions, (2) the share of emissions generated by entities from which INL purchased electrical power, and (3) indirect or shared emissions generated by outsourced activities that benefit INL (occurring outside INL’s organizational boundaries but are a consequence of INL’s activities). This inventory found that INL generated 81,185.05 metric tons (MT) of CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions during FY 2021. The following conclusions were made from looking at the results of the individual contributors to INL’s FY 2021 GHG inventory: Electricity (including the associated transmission and distribution losses) is the largest contributor to INL’s GHG inventory, with over 50% of the CO 2 e emissions; Other sources with high emissions were mobile combustion (fleet fuels), employee commuting, stationary combustion (facility fuels), and waste disposal (fugitive emissions from the onsite landfill); Sources with low emissions were waste disposal (contracted disposal), fugitive emissions from refrigerants, wastewater treatment (onsite and contracted), and business ground travel (in personal and rental vehicles). This report details the methods behind quantifying INL’s GHG inventory and discusses lessons learned on better practices by which information important to tracking GHGs can be tracked and recorded. It is important to note that because this report differentiates between those portions of INL that are managed and operated by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA) and those managed by other contractors, it includes only INL’s activities overseen by BEA. It is assumed that other contractors will provide similar reporting for those activities they manage, where appropriate.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Idaho National Laboratory’s FY 22 Greenhouse Gas Report

A greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory is a systematic approach to account for the production and release of certain gases generated by an institution from various emission sources. The gases of interest are those that climate science has identified as related to anthropogenic global climate change. This document presents an inventory of GHGs generated during fiscal year (FY) 2022 by Idaho National Laboratory (INL)—a Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored entity located in southeastern Idaho. In recent years, concern has grown about the environmental impact of GHGs. This, together with a desire to decrease harmful environmental impacts, would be enough to encourage the calculation of an inventory of the total GHGs generated at INL. Additionally, INL has a desire to see how its emissions compare with similar institutions, including other DOE national laboratories. Executive Order 14057 requires that federal agencies and institutions track and report GHG emissions where required. INL’s GHG inventory was calculated according to methodologies identified in federal GHG guidance documents using operational control boundaries. It measures emissions generated in three scopes: (1) INL emissions produced directly by stationary or mobile combustion and by fugitive emissions, (2) the share of emissions generated by entities from which INL purchased electrical power, and (3) indirect or shared emissions generated by outsourced activities that benefit INL (occurring outside INL’s organizational boundaries, but are a consequence of INL’s activities). This inventory found that INL generated 75,572.42 metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions during FY 2022. The following conclusions were made from looking at the results of the individual contributors to INL’s FY 2022 GHG inventory: • Electricity (including the associated transmission and distribution losses) is the largest contributor to INL’s GHG inventory, with over 50% of the CO2e emissions. • Other sources with high emissions were mobile combustion (fleet fuels), employee commuting, stationary combustion (facility fuels), and waste disposal (fugitive emissions from the onsite landfill). • Sources with low emissions were waste disposal (contracted disposal), fugitive emissions from refrigerants, wastewater treatment (onsite and contracted), and business ground travel (in personal and rental vehicles). This report details the methods behind quantifying INL’s GHG inventory and discusses lessons learned on better practices by which information important to tracking GHGs can be tracked and recorded. It is important to note that because this report differentiates between those portions of INL that are managed and operated by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA) and those managed by other contractors, it includes only INL’s activities overseen by BEA. It is assumed that other contractors will provide similar reporting for those activities they manage, where appropriate.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Idaho National Laboratory’s FY 2020 Greenhouse Gas Report

A greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory is a systematic approach to account for the production and release of certain gases generated by an institution from various emission sources. The gases of interest are those that climate science has identified as related to anthropogenic global climate change. This document presents an inventory of GHGs generated during fiscal year (FY) 2020 by Idaho National Laboratory (INL)—a Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored entity located in southeastern Idaho. In recent years, concern has grown about the environmental impact of GHGs. This, together with a desire to decrease harmful environmental impacts, would be enough to encourage the calculation of an inventory of the total GHGs generated at INL. Additionally, INL has a desire to see how its emissions compare with similar institutions, including other DOE national laboratories. Executive Order 13834 requires that federal agencies and institutions track and report GHG emissions where required. INL’s GHG inventory was calculated according to methodologies identified in federal GHG Guidance documents using operational control boundaries. It measures emissions generated in three scopes: (1) INL emissions produced directly by stationary or mobile combustion and by fugitive emissions, (2) the share of emissions generated by entities from which INL purchased electrical power, and (3) indirect or shared emissions generated by outsourced activities that benefit INL (occurring outside INL’s organizational boundaries, but are a consequence of INL’s activities). This inventory found that INL generated 76,494.12 metric tons (MT) of CO2 equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions during FY 2020. The following conclusions were made from looking at the results of the individual contributors to INL’s FY 2020 GHG inventory: (1) Electricity (including the associated transmission and distribution losses) is the largest contributor to INL’s GHG inventory, with over 50% of the CO 2 e emissions; (2) Other sources with high emissions were employee commuting, mobile combustion (fleet fuels), stationary combustion (facility fuels), and waste disposal (fugitive emissions from the onsite landfill); and (3) Sources with low emissions were waste disposal (contracted disposal), fugitive emissions from refrigerants, wastewater treatment (onsite and contracted), and business ground travel (in personal and rental vehicles). This report details the methods behind quantifying INL’s GHG inventory and discusses lessons learned on better practices by which information important to tracking GHGs can be tracked and recorded. It is important to note that because this report differentiates between those portions of INL that are managed and operated by Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA) and those managed by other contractors, it includes only INL’s activities overseen by BEA. It is assumed that other contractors will provide similar reporting for those activities they manage, where appropriate.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Advanced Fuel Cycle Cost Basis Report: Supporting Document 7 Presentation: Du and RU Disposal Costs [Slides]

Worldwide DU and RU in various chemical forms are some of the largest legacy products of the nuclear industry (defense & power) in both mass and volume. Chemical forms include U metal or alloy, UF6, UO2, UO3, U3O8, and UF4. Most of this material is now in above ground storage. Due to chemical stability and low water solubility oxides are the preferred form for safe storage and ultimate disposal. Long term U disposal in large amounts presents more of a potential radioactivity problem than its conversion and temporary storage. Now a near term problem with freshly-mined uranium ore, radon emanation will eventually be a long-term problem for both DU and RU dispositioned in large quantities at a specific location.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Declaration of the Chemical Composition of Waste-products for the German Repository Konrad Using Substance Vectors - 20500

The waste acceptance criteria of the German repository Konrad require beside a radiological declaration a compositional declaration to be able to avoid negative impact on the groundwater by a presumed leakage into the groundwater after complete corrosion of the containers in the future. The declaration of the composition has to specify compounds and substances not element analyses, because the chemical behavior and toxicity especially of organic compounds varies strongly The relevant compounds have to be described and quantified using defined substance codes provided by the operator. For simple waste types like pure concrete or steel components, the definition of the composition is rather simple. The composition of more complex waste streams is generally declared using producer specific material vectors, which can be derived for defined waste types (e.g. grouted fluids, ash from combustion, super-compacted mixed waste etc.). Additional substance vectors exist for containers, drums and grout, which together with the waste composition yield the total composition of the waste packages. The substance vectors for homogeneous waste streams like cementitious demolition waste, solidified fluids and ash are mostly based on analyses provided by the waste owner. In some cases, analyses from non-radioactive analogues or data sheets can also be used to demonstrate the composition. For each qualified treatment of radioactive waste streams the material composition is described and balanced on the basis of specific material vectors, which are composed of material codes from the material and cask list provided by the Federal company for radioactive waste disposal. For mixed waste streams like super-compacted or grouted mixed waste or materials simply packed in containers an analyses cannot be used. In these cases, the compositional information from the bookkeeping can be used for the entire waste stream to calculate a mean composition including a compositional range (min / max composition). Only waste packages with an approved material description can be delivered to Konrad. Therefore, the material declaration of all waste streams and the resulting waste products is crucial for all waste owners in Germany to be able to have enough waste packages ready, when the repository is going to open in 2027. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

FY 2020 Radionuclide Migration Project Status

The Waste Management Project provides safe, compliant, and cost-effective waste management services for the Hanford Site and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex. Part of these services includes safe disposal of low-level waste and mixed low-level waste at the Hanford Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds in accordance with the requirements of DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. To partially satisfy these requirements, performance assessment analyses were completed and approved. DOE Order 435.1 also requires continuing data collection to increase confidence in the critical assumptions used in these analyses to characterize the operational features of the disposal facility that are relied on to satisfy the performance objectives identified in the order.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

A Dose Assessment Model for Radioactive Waste Exposed by Gully Erosion at West Valley - 20513

The Western New York Nuclear Service Center (WNYNSC), located approximately 48 km south of Buffalo, New York, is the site of a former nuclear fuel reprocessing and radioactive waste disposal facility. Spent nuclear fuel was processed there from 1966 to 1972, leaving behind radioactive and chemical wastes in two disposal areas and a waste tank farm. Site operations also resulted in releases of radioactivity to site soils, groundwater, and to surface waters draining the site. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) are collaborating in a process of decision making for decommissioning those facilities remaining at the WNYNSC following the completion of Phase 1 decommissioning. Neptune and Company, Inc. (Neptune) was contracted to develop a probabilistic performance assessment (PPA) computer model to assist the agencies in this process. The PPA Model includes a contaminant transport component focusing on the movement of contaminants within and among environmental media including groundwater and surface water transport, contaminant translocation by plants and animals, diffusion, and erosion. The model also includes evaluation of potential exposure and health effects for a Resident Farmer exposure scenario, where the Resident Farmer represents a critical group, described as that group of individuals reasonably expected to receive the greatest exposure to residual radioactivity for any applicable set of circumstances. The West Valley Site is located in the glaciated Allegheny Plateau region of western New York State. The waste reprocessing and disposal areas were constructed on a relatively fat area of plateau dissected by drainages of Buttermilk Creek, including Erdman Brook, Franks Creek, and Quarry Creek. An important aspect of the contaminant transport component of the PPA model is consideration of erosive processes such as slumping of the stream slopes and the advance of gullies from these streams. These erosion processes remove material from the plateau, growing the size of the creek valleys and making them wider and deeper. Of particular interest for the impact of erosion is radioactive waste contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-Licensed Disposal Area (NDA), the New York State-Licensed Disposal Area (SDA), and residual radiological inventory in the underground storage tanks at the Waste Tank Farm (WTF). The PPA Model is organized around geographically-defined facilities which were constructed upon the plateau, including the NDA, SDA, and WTF. Ongoing stream erosion processes will potentially transfer radioactive waste and residual inventory from these facilities to the ground surface on adjacent hillslope areas where erosion has breached the facility. Hence, it is important to evaluate the consequences of potential exposures to a Resident Farmer on the hillslopes below a breached facility. Two interrelated aspects of the dose assessment model related to hillslope exposure are discussed: 1) representation of the physical processes related to transport of radionuclides from facilities onto the hillslopes, and from the hillslopes into adjoining creeks where contaminated material migrates downstream with surface water and sediment, and; 2) adaptation of the activities associated with the Resident Farmer scenario to assess potential exposures to contamination in the hillslope areas. This discussion will cover the conceptual basis of the hillslope exposure and transport models, and also implementation in the PPA computer model. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Oil and Natural Gas Development near and beneath Uranium Tailings Cells and Other Remediated Sites - 20358

DOE LM is responsible for maintaining remedies at more than 50 remediated sites that require active long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTS and M). Institutional controls (ICs) were established to limit human and environmental exposures to residual contamination by controlling land use, restricting access to potential hazards, and making the public aware of potential dangers from the residual contamination. ICs for each site were developed based on current and foreseeable conditions; however, these controls should evolve to mitigate potential human health and other environmental risks from unanticipated changes in activities or site conditions. Activities conducted beyond the DOE long-term care boundaries by non-DOE parties may impact the effectiveness of ICs or even the long-term stability of disposal cells and groundwater remedies. Several sites that LM manages or that will transfer to LM for LTS and M are in active oil and gas production basins. The sites are associated with uranium ore milling or nuclear test sites and have been remediated or are in the process of remediation and have no ongoing DOE mission. Particularly since 2005, hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') combined with directional drilling has dramatically increased oil and natural gas (oil/gas) production in the United States, now making it the number one hydrocarbon-producing country. Fracking has allowed production from shale and other rocks of low natural permeability that were historically not considered viable oil/gas resources. Also, because wellbores can now be drilled as many as 5 kilometers or more horizontally, hydrocarbons can be recovered from zones without having access to the surface above them. Drilling activity near Rulison, Colorado, the location of an underground nuclear detonation managed by LM, has raised public concerns that remnant radioactivity in the detonation zone could migrate to producing wells and enter the natural gas distribution system. At sites like the Falls City, Texas, Disposal site, transitioned to LM with a split estate, increased production in the region has resulted in wellbores beneath the long-term care boundary of the site. While the DOE license for Falls City was approved by the NRC in 1997 without the acquisition of the subsurface rights, NRC has raised concerns on whether this activity impacts the integrity of the cell and/or groundwater remedies. In Wyoming, LM is anticipating receiving the license for the Bear Creek site and manages the Spook site, both locations of uranium mill tailings disposal cells. These Wyoming sites are in an active region of major oil and gas development. This change in surrounding land use will require LM to work collaboratively with NRC to address these concerns. At several DOE sites radioactive waste, and often intermixed nonradioactive constituents, is permanently isolated in engineered disposal cells. At other sites, residual contamination can be present in groundwater, blast cavities, and infinite amounts within soil. Areas targeted for oil and gas development at the Texas and Wyoming sites range from depths of 2440 to 3350 meters (8000-11000 feet) below ground surface. When most site remedies were designed, oil and gas development was not considered to be an issue within the site boundary. With the more recent uses of directional drilling, fracking, and associated wastewater injections, the evaluative criteria for incoming sites and ICs for managing long-term protectiveness and regulatory compliance are changing. Although DOE surface ownership was previously thought to be a robust IC to prevent surface and subsurface development, particularly at disposal sites, that may no longer be the case. Whereas the subsurface development at Texas and Wyoming sites is currently occurring at thousands of meters beneath the surface, shallower and direct onsite development would be more of a concern for LM. The energy introduced when a well is hydraulically fractured causes microseismic events (magnitude -2 to 1.0) as the fractures propagate but does not directly cause seismic events (earthquakes) of sufficient magnitude to damage surface structures. Additionally, the extent of the hydraulic fractures is limited to the targeted depths, which are far below the surface. However, earthquakes of sufficient magnitude to damage surface structures have been attributed to the injection of wastewater into disposal wells. States that have experienced these effects have enacted regulations that limit the rate and pressures that wastewater can be injected into disposal wells. Items LM may consider are the need for monitoring the volume of water injected into nearby disposal wells and possibly installing seismic stations at sites most susceptible to damage. While the need to demonstrate that no impact from oil and gas extraction activities on a site groundwater remedy or disposal cells will vary from site to site, LM is assessing risk criteria for this activity. Though LM has not experienced an issue yet at a uranium tailings disposal site, it cannot assume that there will be none, and must address NRC concerns. LM is building on past experiences at other sites and beginning to form new processes with the hope that these concepts can be applied for other future sites. (authors)

04 OIL SHALES AND TAR SANDS↗

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↗