Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “nuclear waste remediation”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Excavation Volume Growth Factors at Environmental Remediation Sites - 20318

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) manages numerous environmental remediation projects in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, otherwise known as CERCLA. These include projects for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). Utilizing the CERCLA framework to address these projects requires detailed cost estimates and a significant portion of costs are associated with the volume of material to be excavated and that material's final disposition. Accordingly, understanding the expected volumes and uncertainty associated with those volumes is vital to project cost estimating. These estimates are completed at various stages of the CERCLA process, thus the project team has varying degrees of information available from which to develop these estimates depending on how far along the project is. Understanding the factors contributing to volume growth (increase in volume of material from that originally estimated) is a crucial element to determining volume and cost uncertainty. This paper presents a case study of a FUSRAP site which involves excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soils from complex commercial, industrial, and residential properties. Original volume estimates were compared to post excavation volumes on a property by property basis. Reasons for differences are determined along with magnitude of impacts to cost estimating. For both residential and commercial property types, volume estimating factors, uncertainty considerations, and methods to account for each are discussed with emphasis on volume growth considerations. Cost estimating model input considerations are discussed with specific emphasis on accounting for volume uncertainty at the Feasibility Study (FS) phase of CERCLA. Underestimating or overestimating costs at the FS phase has repercussions under CERCLA that may impact project close out or completion schedule. Discussions presented will be helpful to both reviewers and preparers of cost estimates involving excavations. Additionally, project planners may be able to use the information to plan for volume growth contingencies. (authors)

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

Port Hope Area Initiative - Port Granby Project: Managing Highly Heterogeneous Low-Level Radioactive Waste - 20327

The Port Granby Project is a large remediation project currently approximately 95% complete. Initial waste characterization was provided through a borehole sampling program. As the waste was excavated, it was found to be highly heterogeneous, ranging from essentially 'clean' material to hundreds of Bq/g. This heterogeneity resulted in constantly changing site conditions. Methods to adapt to these conditions are described. (authors)

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

Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act Title II DOE Due Diligence and Lessons Learned from a Previous Site Transfer - 20352

Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) established that a government agency will provide perpetual care for closed uranium and thorium ore-processing sites that were operating under an NRC source material license in 1978 or were licensed thereafter. Commercial owners (licensees) operating under an NRC or agreement state specific license when UMTRCA was passed are responsible for conducting reclamation of any byproduct material remaining from uranium-ore processing operations in accordance with an NRC or agreement state approved reclamation plan. Reclamation includes both surface and groundwater remedies. Upon completion of reclamation and approval by NRC, the site is required to be transferred to either the host state or the DOE for long-term surveillance and maintenance. Since UMTRCA's enactment, six Title II sites have been transferred to DOE; an additional 24 Title II sites are anticipated to be transferred before 2050. DoE's role mandated under UMTRCA Title II as the long-term care custodian is to perform 'monitoring, maintenance, and emergency measures necessary to protect the public health and safety.' UMTRCA requires that the licensee pay a long-term surveillance charge 'sufficient to cover the annual costs of site surveillance.' However, at some sites such as the Bluewater, New Mexico, Disposal Site, this mandate has required additional effort and expense by DOE, beyond the originally anticipated and intended scope within UMTRCA, but within the authority of DOE under UMTRCA. In 1997, the Bluewater site became the second UMTRCA Title II site to be transferred to DOE. The site was the location of a uranium mill operated from 1953 until 1982. The specific licensee began site reclamation in 1991, and by 1995 all tailings and contaminated materials were encapsulated in two tailings disposal cells and other disposal areas. In addition to surface contamination, milling activities impacted groundwater in the two upper aquifers. In 1989, the specific licensee attempted active groundwater remediation; however, no significant reduction in contaminant concentrations was observed. As a result, the specific licensee applied to NRC for alternate concentration limits (ACLs) in 1990, which were approved in 1996 as being protective, after additional corrective actions were performed. Since transfer of the Bluewater site to DOE, unforeseen challenges have occurred, requiring additional actions. The first challenge is the occurrence of surface depressions located on the northern section of the main tailings disposal cell. The depressions were first observed during DoE's initial inspection in 1998; however, evidence of these can be observed on satellite images taken prior to transfer. Since being first observed, the depressions have continued to grow both in depth and areal extent. Due to the design of the main tailings disposal cell, the depressions impede storm water from being effectively shed off the 101- hectare (250-acre) top slope of the main tailings disposal cell. Instead, storm water accumulates in the depressions, forming a large ephemeral pond that has stored up to 16.3 x 10{sup 6} liters (4.3 million gallons) of stormwater. The ponding poses a potential risk to the integrity of the main tailings disposal cell in the case of a large storm event, with the potential to cause the pond to overtop and erode the cover material and underlying waste. DOE has taken a number of short-term actions to monitor, measure, and reduce the ponding and is currently working with the US Army Corps of Engineers to design and construct a repair. Additional challenges are associated with groundwater at the Bluewater site. Nine wells were present on the 1335-hectare (3300-acre) site upon transfer. Groundwater compliance was called into question after the State of New Mexico reduced its uranium groundwater standard from 5.0 to 0.03 milligrams per liter in 2004, and when an ACL for uranium was exceeded in a site monitoring well in 2010. Acquiring historical groundwater data and subsequent evaluations as well as additional DOE groundwater monitoring led to installing 10 new monitoring wells and performing additional site hydrogeology recharacterization. DOE continues to evaluate groundwater conditions at the site and works with the NRC to determine regulatory requirements and a path forward. As a result of lessons learned at the Bluewater site and other Title II sites, improved processes have been implemented at a programmatic level to increase due diligence before site transfer and prevent similar issues from occurring at other UMTRCA Title II sites under long-term management. DoE's due diligence process is documented in the Process for Transition of UMTRCA Title II Disposal Sites to DOE for Long-Term Surveillance and Maintenance and is designed to ensure that DOE has no technical or compliance concerns with regulatory decisions that might compromise protectiveness following site transfer to DOE. Implementation of the due diligence process has increased DoE's role prior to site transfer and has been effective in identifying potential issues. Actions by NRC and specific licensees, in response to enhanced due diligence efforts by DOE, are expected to minimize, if not totally prevent, the need for unanticipated actions by DOE pertaining to the surface and groundwater remedies after site transfer. (authors)

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

Session 097C - Panel: Reuse of Federal Land on the Oak Ridge Reservation, TN (3/4) (R.16c)

This panel was to focus on what is being done to enable federal reuse across the DOE's Oak Ridge Reservation, including how the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET) plays a critical role, how the community is benefiting, and the experience of the private sector companies now occupying the site. The Panelists were to discuss how resources from the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) are being transitioned to support cleanup efforts that enable critical NNSA and Office of Science missions. This session integrated with panel sessions 97A, 97B, and 97D. Panelists with presentations: Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee (CROET) (Ryan Overton); Community Perspective (Ron Woody); ETTP Tenant Point of View (Bradley Spears); Enabling NNSA and Office of Science Missions (Stephen Phillips); Enabling Federal Land Reuse (David Adler)

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

Sustaining On-going Risk Communication at the Riverton, Wyoming, Processing Site - 20310

An environmental risk assessment report has been completed to provide an updated assessment regarding current site conditions for the Riverton, Wyoming, Processing site. Argonne National Laboratory conducted the assessment in collaboration with the U.S Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) and the Northern Arapaho Natural Resources Office (NANRO). The data quality objectives process conducted confirmed that data from plants growing on the Riverton site would be useful and would address an outstanding concern. Data available from site soil, groundwater, and surface water were also used in the assessment in conjunction with the new plant data. A plant survey was then conducted in 2018 to identify the plants at the Riverton site with known traditional Native American cultural uses for sampling and analysis. Laboratory analysis was conducted on the plant samples for the contaminants of concern. Samples were collected from plants growing on the groundwater plume area of the site, and the same was done for eight other areas not affected by the groundwater plume but still within the institutional control boundary. These eight areas served as reference areas for this study. This human health and ecological assessment update provide the quantitative risk information that was qualitatively addressed in a 1995 Risk Assessment Report on plants, livestock, and surface water exposures at the Riverton site [1]. The conditions at the Riverton site are protective of human health and the environment given the results of the update, in combination with past completed remedial action and ongoing monitoring activities and IC implementation. (authors)

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

Improving Long-term Monitoring of Contaminated Groundwater at Sites where Attenuation-based Remedies are Deployed

This study presents an effective approach to tackle the challenge of long-term monitoring of contaminated groundwater sites where remediation leaves residual contamination in the subsurface. Traditional long-term monitoring of contaminated groundwater sites focuses on measuring contaminant concentrations and is applicable to sites where contaminant mass is removed or degraded to a level below the regulatory standard. The traditional approach is less effective at sites where risk from metals or radionuclides continues to exist in the subsurface after remedial goals are achieved. We propose a long-term monitoring strategy for this type of waste site that focuses on measuring the hydrological and geochemical parameters that control attenuation or remobilization of contaminants while de-emphasizing contaminant-concentration measurements. Furthermore, we demonstrate how this approach would be more effective than traditional long-term monitoring, using a site in South Carolina, USA, where groundwater is contaminated by several radionuclides. A comprehensive enhanced attenuation remedy has been implemented at the site to minimize discharge of contamination to surface water. The immobilization of contaminants occurs in three locations by manipulation of hydrological and geochemical parameters, as well as by natural attenuation processes. Deployment of our proposed long-term monitoring strategy will combine subsurface and surface measurements using spectroscopic tools, geophysical tools, and sensors to monitor the parameters controlling contaminant attenuation. The advantage of this approach is that it will detect the potential for contaminant remobilization from engineered and natural attenuation zones, allowing potential adverse changes to be mitigated before contaminant attenuation is reversed.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Role of uncertainties in protecting ecological resources during remediation and restoration

Cleanup of contaminated waste sites is a National priority to protect human health and the environment, while restoring land to productive uses. While there are uncertainties with under standing risk to individuals from exposure, the aim of this study was to focus on uncertainties and complexities for ecological systems, complicated by hundreds of species occupying any remediation site which participate in multiple-interacting food webs. The ability to better predict the effectiveness of remediation in fostering future ecosystems might facilitate remedy selection and improve strategic environmental management. This investigation examined (1) uncertainties in ecosystem processes, (2) uncertainties in exposure from contamination before remediation, and (3) uncertainties during remediation. Two Department of Energy sites Hanford Site and Savannah River Site were used as case studies to illustrate how the uncertainties affect eco-receptors. Several types of ecological, physical, and human dimension uncertainties are defined. Ecological uncertainties include temporal, spatial, individual, developmental, and exogenous types. Physical uncertainties are weather-related, watershed variations, slope/aspect, soil/sediment structure and form, unforeseen events, and temporal patterns. Human dimension uncertainties include current land use, future land use, extractive and non-extractive recreation. The effects of remedial strategies varied between the two sites because Hanford is a primarily arid shrub-steppe ecotype, while Savannah River is a wet forest ecotype. Defining the associated ecological sensitivities and uncertainties and providing examples might help policy-makers, managers, planners, and contractors to be aware of issues to consider throughout planning, remediation, and restoration. Adding ecological uncertainty analysis to risk evaluations and remediation planning is analogous to using safety factors in human health risk assessment.

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

Session 059 - Panel: Small Business Procurement and Contracting Opportunities within the US DOE Complex and USACE FUSRAP Sites (R1.7)

This panel session focused on small business procurement and contracting opportunities within the DOE Complex and USACE FUSRAP Sites. The federal government encourages prime contractors to obtain goods and services from small and disadvantaged businesses (Tier 2) and often tie these goals to contract award fee. Goods and services being considered for these procurements include decontamination and decommissioning, remediation, transportation and disposal of radioactive waste, health physics, emergency response planning and training, lab services, R and D products, waste treatment, maintenance, A/E and professional consulting. Panelists with presentations: Small Business Procurement and Contracting Opportunities within the US DOE Complex and USACE FUSRAP Program (Aaron Deckard; Subcontracting Opportunities with the DOE Primes (William Badger); Bechtel National, Inc. Small Business Opportunities (Lisa Tribuce-Leoung Tat); Small Business Procurement and Contracting Opportunities (Gina Joiner); Small Business Procurement and Contracting Opportunities - Flour (Katy Burnau); Environmental WORK, Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) (John Busse)

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

GIS-Based Modeling of Contaminated Soil Volumes at Multiple Sites in the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program - 20149

The remediation of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW) sites produces cost-related risks associated with the estimation of contaminated soil or debris volumes. Historical risk-management techniques include cost contingencies to cover volume uncertainties that affect project budgeting and decision-making. The Buffalo District teamed with project partners to lessen volume uncertainty and reduce project risks at multiple HTRW sites managed under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). Historical remedial investigations under FUSRAP commonly identified the presence of radiological material in site media, the associated human health risk, and then areas of remediation. To manage remedial execution and reduce risk, pre-design or remediation-phase sampling essentially 'chased' contamination, which was not conducive to efficient predictive budgeting derived from Feasibility Study (FS) cost analyses. The Buffalo District first optimized their approach to better understand volume uncertainty by utilizing the Argonne National Laboratory's Bayesian Approaches for Adaptive Spatial Sampling (BAASS) software [1]. BAASS processed soft data (e.g., gamma walk-over data) and spatial sampling data to estimate the lateral extent of contaminated soil irrespective of depth (i.e., gross contamination extent) and define areas of contaminant uncertainty. The software performed a binary transformation of contaminant concentrations at all sampling points based upon remedial action goals or a sum of ratios approach (i.e., clean, impacted, or range of impacts in soil). The model produced two-dimensional (horizontal) contaminant probability contours and statistical uncertainty in the sampling coverage and resulting contaminant extents. This method was translated vertically by partitioning the sampling data into depth brackets that produced a stacked representation of contaminant extents and uncertainty in the subsurface (i.e., similar to construction lifts). The results commonly led to a better understanding of project uncertainty and the need for sampling strategies that produce high-confidence soil volumes, which control costs. The BAASS-based delineations were eventually replaced by Empirical Bayesian Kriging (EBK) methods available in ArcGIS Spatial or 3D Analysts [2]. The EBK method calculates contaminant probability zones derived from user-controlled semivariograms of the spatial datasets. The resulting probability zones (e.g., 50% or 80% of contaminant probability) represent the two-dimensional surface delineation of the overall horizontal remedial area, similarly to BAASS. However, unlike BAASS, the vertical sampling data within these probability zones became vertical control points to contour a subterranean surface that connects subsurface points to the land-surface delineations of contamination. The resulting representation of horizontal and vertical impacts within an enclosed envelop (volume) of soil included uncertainty distributions that are used to plan uncertainty-reduction sampling. These data-driven and math-based models of three-dimensional sampling results produced well-bounded remedial volumes for project planning and better uncertainty predictions during project budgeting. The EBK method was applied to several FUSRAP sites managed by the Buffalo District and compared to less rigorously modeled sites previously remediated by the District. The comparison of modeled to actual remediated volumes provide a basis for validating the volume-estimation method. This comparison is important to ensure modeled volumes match physical boundaries of site remediation. FUSRAP sites with denser investigative sampling and lesser volume uncertainty proved useful in remedial planning and contracting. The Buffalo District noted that historical sites with sparser sampling arrays had greater disparity between estimated volumes and final remedial volumes. The benefit achieved over the cost of detailed soil sampling appears positive for FUSRAP projects, especially where impacts vary widely and appear unbounded by investigation-phase sampling. The subsequent Empirical Bayesian Kriging of contamination coupled with vertical contouring for soil estimations reduces uncertainty in soil volumes or indicates where sampling is required to reduce uncertainty, which together optimize remedial planning and budgeting. (authors)

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

Hybrid Sorbents for 129 I Capture from Contaminated Groundwater

Radioiodine ( 129 I) poses a risk to the environment due to its long half-life, toxicity, and mobility. It is found at the U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site due to legacy releases of nuclear wastes to the subsurface where 129 I is predominantly present as iodate (IO 3 – ). To date, a cost-effective and scalable cleanup technology for 129 I has not been identified, with hydraulic containment implemented as the remedial approach. Here, novel high-performing sorbents for 129 I remediation with the capacity to reduce 129 I concentrations to or below the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water standard and procedures to deploy them in an ex-situ pump and treat (P&T) system are introduced. Furthermore, this includes implementation of hybridized polyacrylonitrile (PAN) beads for ex-situ remediation of IO 3 – -contaminated groundwater for the first time. Iron (Fe) oxyhydroxide and bismuth (Bi) oxyhydroxide sorbents were deployed on silica substrates or encapsulated in porous PAN beads. In addition, Fe–, cerium (Ce)–, and Bi–oxyhydroxides were encapsulated with anion-exchange resins. The PAN–bismuth oxyhydroxide and PAN–ferrihydrite composites along with Fe- and Ce-based hybrid anion-exchange resins performed well in batch sorption experiments with distribution coefficients for IO 3 – of >1000 mL/g and rapid removal kinetics. Of the tested materials, the Ce-based hybrid anion-exchange resin was the most efficient for removal of IO 3 – from Hanford groundwater in a column system, with 50% breakthrough occurring at 324 pore volumes. The functional amine groups on the parent resin and amount of active sorbent in the resin can be customized to improve the iodine loading capacity. These results highlight the potential for IO 3 – remediation by hybrid sorbents and represent a benchmark for the implementation of commercially available materials to meet EPA standards for cleanup of 129 I in a large-scale P&T system.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2020

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↗
DOE OSTI2020

Update to the Performance Assessment for the Savannah River Site Saltstone Disposal Facility - 20124

In 2019, Savannah River Remediation developed a revision to the performance assessment (PA) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River Operations Office (SR) for the near-surface disposal of low-level waste at the Savannah River Site (SRS) Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Soluble waste from SRS Tank Farms undergoes salt processing to remove cesium and other high activity constituents. The low-activity decontaminated salt solution (DSS) is then immobilized by mixing it into a cementitious waste form known as saltstone. After mixing, the saltstone is poured into leak-tight concrete vaults, known as saltstone disposal units (SDUs), where the waste form cures. By the time of facility closure, the SDF is expected to consist of 15 SDUs with a combined capacity of 1.06 E+09 L (280 Mgal) of cured saltstone. The facility operates under a Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) from DOE and a permit from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Since the start of operations in 1990, the SDF has received almost 6.7 E+07 L (18 Mgal) of DSS, resulting in the safe disposal of 2.7 E+16 Bq (7.3 E+05 Ci) of activity. Due to the radioactive decay of short-lived contaminants, the total remaining activity in the disposed waste is estimated to be approximately 1.4 E+16 Bq (3.9 E+05 Ci), as of September 2018. The Disposal Authorization Statement requires a demonstration that the system of engineered and natural features of the disposal facility will limit releases from the facility and be protective of human health and the environment for at least the next 1,000 years. The long-term performance of the facility was evaluated under the requirements of the DoE's Radioactive Waste Management Manual (US DOE Manual 435.1-1). Simulations were performed to demonstrate that the disposal facility would meet performance objectives specified in the manual. The evaluation was based on numerical models that simulate the releases of contaminants from the saltstone waste form. Contaminants were transported through groundwater and air pathways to points of assessment to evaluate compliance. In addition, the potential consequences of an inadvertent human intrusion (IHI) were also evaluated. In accordance with the guidance and recommendations in US DoE's technical standard for DAS, deterministic and probabilistic analyses were performed to demonstrate the SDF system, which includes the engineered cover system, the SDUs, the waste form, and the natural features of the site, provides a reasonable expectation that saltstone disposal will meet performance objectives. Post-closure doses to future members of the public (MOP) were evaluated; dose estimates from the air pathway were well below the 1.0 E-04 Sv/yr (10 mrem/yr) performance objective within 1,000 years, and the calculated doses to the MOP from all exposure pathways, including the groundwater and air pathways, were well below the 2.5 E-04 Sv/yr (25 mrem/yr) performance objective within 1,000 years. Doses following an assumed intrusion event within the facility boundaries were well below the IHI performance objectives, where the acute IHI dose was below the acute IHI dose performance objective of 5.0 E-03 Sv (500 mrem) and the chronic IHI dose was below the chronic IHI dose performance objective of 1.0 E-03 Sv/yr (100 mrem/yr) within 1,000 years. (author)

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

Reducing Cost of Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compound Remediation by Transitioning from Active to Passive Soil Vapor Extraction - 20157

Areas of high chlorinated volatile organic compound (cVOC) contamination at the Savannah River Site (SRS) have been undergoing remediation via soil vapor extraction, sometimes coupled with thermal treatments to enhance extraction rates. These active systems are effective in removing large amounts of contaminant mass from the subsurface and mitigating the impacts to groundwater. However, as extraction rates decline, costs must be evaluated with respect to the benefit of continued active operation. A decision framework for identifying conditions when a transition to a more passive remediation is appropriate has been developed with state and federal regulatory agencies. Two remediation areas have recently been transitioned from active soil vapor extraction (ASVE) to passive soil vapor extraction (PSVE) at the SRS. Performance evaluation goals including plume stabilization, overall mass removal trends, environmental sustainability and costs were considered in transitioning from active remediation to passive technologies at both sites. At the Dynamic Underground Stripping (DUS) project at the M-Area Settling Basin, ASVE was combined with steam injection to extract cVOCs during active operations. Steam injection occurred from September 2005 to September 2009. DUS utilized 63 steam injection wells, 34 active vapor extraction wells, and 3 active soil vapor extraction units (SVEUs). Two active SVEUs had 60 horsepower blowers; the third had a 25-horsepower blower. Mass removal was closely tracked during DUS operations; over 181,437 kilograms (400,000 pounds) of cVOCs were removed while active steam injection occurred. After steaming was stopped, ASVE continued. The 34 active wells were evaluated in 2012. The ASVE wells were grouped into categories of high, medium, and low extraction rates. High producing wells remained connected to a single active SVEU. Low producing wells were abandoned, and the medium producing wells were transitioned to PSVE (Microblowers{sup TM}). Microblowers{sup TM} utilize a dedicated blower per well and are solar powered. This passive technology provides energy, maintenance, and operation costs savings while still providing an efficient reduction in cVOC migration to groundwater. In 2018, the remaining ASVE wells were evaluated again. The purpose of this testing was to identify which wells removed the most mass. An optimal well configuration was determined. The criteria to discontinue ASVE was removal of less than 18 kilograms (40 pounds) per week of cVOCs. After 3 months of shutdown (rebound conditions), 2.7 kilograms (5.9 pounds) of cVOCs per week were being removed. Data from the rebound test justified ending ASVE and transitioning wells with higher extraction rates to PSVE. Wells that had depleted the cVOC mass within their zone of influence were abandoned. Performance data from existing PSVE wells justified ending PSVE at wells with depleted extraction rates. Currently the system has 16 PSVE wells operating. Another ASVE system was being used to treat cVOC contaminated soil at the A-Area Miscellaneous Rubble Pile (AMRP) at SRS. System operation began in 2004, with 7 ASVE wells connected to a 60- horsepower blower. Mass removal rates and contaminant concentrations remained consistently low over the ASVE lifespan at AMRP. This indicated that mass removal was diffusion limited. With this data, the 7 ASVE wells were transitioned to PSVE in 2017. Twelve pressure monitoring points were also transitioned to PSVE wells. AMRP currently has 19 PSVE wells operating. Both transitions from active to passive remediation had concurrence from the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. These transitions ensure that only the necessary amount of energy is being exerted to remediate the environment. (authors)

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

Waste Management Project Success - Regulatory Assurance Systems - 20118

Waste management (WM) and remediation projects are essential within a restorative environmental culture. Despite years of experience, challenges and obstacles associated with efficient and effective WM project execution remain. Although some obstacles are project specific, a common challenge is navigating the regulatory landscape from planning through execution, particularly with first of a kind (FOAK) and first in a while (FIAW) projects. The absence of a comprehensive regulatory assurance strategy places significant hurdles in the path of project success. To clear a path for the successful execution of increasingly complex WM projects, this paper focuses on development of a comprehensive regulatory assurance strategy and implementation plan that effectively engages stakeholders, agencies, and performers to produce project plans that fully and cost effectively integrate applicable regulatory requirements. The most reliable way to align regulatory processes and decisions needed for mission success is through a regulatory assurance system. This system establishes a healthy interface with regulatory decision makers, to work in a collaborative manner, to create a common vision for regulatory decisions on an agreed upon schedule. A regulatory assurance system consists of several elements. Although the mission may vary from cleanup to site closure to nuclear component production, the elements of a regulatory assurance system remain essentially constant and must include: 1) identifying a common vision or end state, 2) developing a long-term, integrated strategy and schedule, 3) establishing a regulatory partnering team consisting of key decision-makers, 4) regular and frequent communication with decision-makers, 5) ensuring consistent surveillance for early identification of issues and changes that may impact the project, 6) quick resolution of emerging issues to prevent schedule impact, 7) identifying core compliance functions, 8) periodically assessing progress of the project as it relates to regulatory assurance and, 9) providing constructive feedback to improve the process. A regulatory assurance system provides a living, multi-faceted approach to planning, visioning, communicating and tracking to avoid surprises and ensure smooth and timely progress to the project. The overall success measures will be whether the system produces common sense regulatory decisions supporting the vision on time without appeal. Effective regulatory frameworks rarely happen on their own. Balanced, common-sense regulatory decisions stem from teams that are trained to work together to achieve shared goals. In this paper, particular attention is placed on the importance of starting with a shared vision for a regulatory assurance and execution strategy that leverages experience to establish optimal approaches. (authors)

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

Life-Cycle Baseline Customization for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program - 20304

One of the responsibilities of the federal government is to estimate sound and defensible life-cycle baseline costs for use in federal budget estimates and to meet federal financial reporting requirements. To accomplish this, the US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Legacy Management (LM) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have partnered together to ensure that the liabilities documented in each Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site's life-cycle baseline are specifically tailored. FUSRAP was created in the mid-1970's to clean up radiological contamination resulting from the early development of nuclear weapons. DOE was responsible for FUSRAP until October 1997, when Congress transferred the administration and execution of FUSRAP site cleanups to USACE. By 1997, DOE had completed the cleanup of 25 of the 46 sites that were active within the program and had begun cleanup at 13 additional sites. USACE was assigned responsibility for the cleanup of the 21 remaining FUSRAP sites, and at 8 additional sites that had since been referred for cleanup. The LM mission for the FUSRAP sites is to perform long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTS and M). Currently, LM provides long-term stewardship for 34 completed FUSRAP sites. Another 20 sites are under active remediation by USACE. Within the last 5 years, USACE has completed the cleanup at five FUSRAP sites and the LTS and M responsibility has been transferred to LM. By 2029, USACE will compete remediation at eight additional sites and LTS and M for those sites will transfer to LM. Because responsibilities for the FUSRAP sites transfer between USACE and LM upon completion of remedial actions, both agencies maintain life-cycle baselines for different stages of the project and both must have a strong understanding of the needs and requirements for each site. This understanding ensures that the life-cycle baselines form a complete and accurate picture of what is required for the site and for the FUSRAP program. LM focuses on several things when customizing the life-cycle baseline estimates for the FUSRAP sites, including (1) Understanding the unique requirements for each site. By reviewing site-specific documents prepared by USACE, such as Feasibility Studies and Records of Decision, and partnering with USACE to gain additional insight about site conditions and requirements for stewardship, as well as potential risks, LM can better develop the life-cycle baselines. (2) Developing site-specific labor breakdowns. This ensures the required labor mix is baselined for specific activities by comparing the labor mix required to perform activities at (a) other LM-managed FUSRAP sites and (b) non-FUSRAP LM sites and (c) by USACE at active FUSRAP sites. (3) Taking a tiered approach to life-cycle baseline planning. Estimates for sites transferring to LM in the near term (5 years) are more definitive than for sites transferring in the out-year period. Remedial actions at the near-term sites are at or near completion, providing LM a strong understanding of the LTS and M requirements and remaining liabilities. This in turn allows for site-specific customization of the baseline. (4) Using a robust risk management approach to ensure that liabilities specific to each site are identified, evaluated by probability and severity, and documented in relation to the impact to cost or schedule. To ensure the most accuracy within all the baselines, the FUSRAP life-cycle baselines are updated as needed to support program, project, and contract management needs. (authors)

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

Simulation of DWPF Chemical Process Cell Using a Reaction Calorimeter

The Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) converts liquid radioactive waste into glass using a Sludge Receipt Adjustment Tank (SRAT) and Slurry Mix Evaporator (SME) in addition to other processes. The SRAT and SME processes can be simulated on a small-scale using the Mettler-Toledo Reaction Calorimeter (RC1). This equipment is able to automate the execution and monitoring of experiments involving nonradioactive chemical simulants. During the chemical processing of sludge in the SRAT process, foam begins to form and can foam over the reaction vessel. The current antifoam used at DWPF creates a risk of increased flammability and has a limited pH range. Usually, mercury is circulated back into the reaction vessel during the SRAT process, making it difficult to remove. To combat foam over, novel antifoams will be tested during the boil-up process using the RC1. To improve mercury extraction, 3D-printed coalescer columns will be tested within the Mercury Water Wash Tank (MWWT) of the RC1. Testing of Simulant Sludge Batch 6 (SB6) was performed to ensure: the sludge would form a stable foam at boiling during full SRAT/SME runs; the antifoam would reduce the amount of foam within the vessel The sludge and a Precipitate Reactor Feed Tank (PRFT) simulant with monosodium titanate (MST) were mixed separately, combined, and then heated to boiling. As shown below, the antifoam used was able to eliminate the foam within the vessel, as expected. The FormLabs Form2 3D Printer can be used to create roughly 3-inch tall and 1-inch diameter columns from clear and ceramic resins. The columns will utilize chemical and physical forces to draw the mercury out of a condensed offgas stream leaving the RC1 reaction vessel. These columns will be tested during full SRAT/SME runs on the basis of how well they are able to collect elemental mercury. In preparation for full-scale runs, the RC1 equipment was assembled onto a custom table and tested with water runs. The software used to control automation, iControl, has a user-friendly interface that allows the experiment to be altered as needed. An example of the data recorded during an experimental run is represented in Figure 1 below. Water runs were utilized as a way to prove if the RC1 system was functioning in the following areas: Boil-up rates, Chemical additions using pumps, Temperature readings, Balance readings, Probe readings, Offgas system, Agitation. Future Plans: Five novel antifoams will be tested during full SRAT/SME runs. The most effective antifoam will be utilized in DWPF's Chemical Process Cell. The design of the Mercury Extraction Coalescer can be further manipulated to increase the extraction of not only elemental mercury, but other heavy metals in environmental remediation processes as well.

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

US EPA Superfund Remediation Program Update: Revisions to Risk and Dose Assessment Models - 20368

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund remedial program is finishing up a significant number of revisions to its guidance for the risk assessment process at radioactively contaminated Superfund sites. The six Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) and Dose Compliance Concentration (DCC) internet-based calculators for radiation risk and dose assessment at Superfund sites are being reformatted to match the chemical calculators and improve the user experience, revised to add a new peak risk and dose output option, and to add some adjustment options for external exposure. A new Radon Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (RVISL) calculator is expected to be finished in 2020, will be similar to the Vapor Intrusion Screening Level (VISL) for chemical calculator that was finished in 2018. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗