Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “RADIOACTIVE WASTE FACILITIES”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Test for Reconditioning RA Waste with Simulated Bitumen and Concrete in a 1,2 MW Plasma Test Facility - 20092

The operation and maintenance of nuclear power plants, the non nuclear fuel cycle, etc generate low-level radioactive waste which, along with the historical radioactive waste from past nuclear activities, needs to be treated and stored, awaiting final disposal. Plasma technology offers a very effective way of treating this waste with a high volume reduction factor (VRF), free from organics, liquids and moisture, and meets without a doubt the acceptance criteria for safe storage and disposal. By means of a plasma beam of approximately 5000 deg. C, the inorganic materials are melted into a glassy slag, containing most of the radioactive isotopes while the organic material is gasified, oxidized and purified in an off-gas cleaning system. First the paper describes the new full-scale Plasma Melting Facility (PMF) at the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant in Bulgaria which was taken in nuclear operation In May 2018. The plant has a capacity of 250 tons per year and the maximum contact dose rates of the incoming waste is 2 mSv/h. Different mixtures of radioactive waste packed in 200 l drums were successfully treated resulting in a glassy slag free from liquids and organic material with an important volume reduction factor (VRF). The Project was co-financed through a grant by Kozloduy International Decommissioning fund (KIDSF) administrated by the EBRD through Bulgarian national funding. Plasma is a suitable technology for treatment of problematic waste or even reconditioning waste so Belgoprocess was contracted to do plasma tests with simulated conditioned waste types. One can do tests on a laboratory scale on smaller samples and torch capacities of e.g. 50 kW but Belgoprocess wanted to do more realistic and reliable tests. So Belgoprocess contracted Phoenix Solutions Co who has a full-scope test facility equipped with a 1200 kW plasma torch for full-scope treatment of simulated conditioned waste. For a first confidential contract simulated 200 l (55 gallon) bitumen drums were treated. The drums contained different pucks of compacted waste such as rags, used filters, granulates, etc. The pucks were stacked in the 200 l drums and subsequently embedded with bitumen. A total of 6 drums were treated in the plasma facility. For a second contract simulated homogeneous 200 l (55 gallon) concrete drums with on the one hand concentrates and on the other hand spent resins were selected. A total of 6 drums with concrete and spent resins were treated and melted in the plasma testing facility. The paper describe the test facility, volume reduction factor (VRF) of different waste streams and most important parameters. (authors)

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

Mixed Waste Landfill Annual Long-Term Monitoring & Maintenance Report (Apr 2015-Mar 2016)

Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) is a multi-purpose engineering and science laboratory owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration. SNL is managed and operated by Sandia Corporation (Sandia), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico (SNL/NM) is located within the boundaries of Kirtland Air Force Base (KAFB), southeast of the City of Albuquerque in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. The Mixed Waste Landfill (MWL) is located 4 miles south of SNL/NM central facilities and 5 miles southeast of Albuquerque International Sunport, in the north-central portion of Technical Area (TA)-III. The MWL disposal area comprises 2.6 acres. During operations, the MWL accepted containerized and other low-level radioactive waste and minor amounts of mixed waste from SNL/NM research facilities and off-site DOE and U.S. Department of Defense generators from March 1959 to December 1988. More specific information regarding the MWL inventory and past disposal practices is presented in the MWL Phase 2 RCRA Facility Investigation Report (Peace et al. September 2002) and the extensive MWL Administrative Record.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2026

Spent Nuclear Fuel and Reprocessing Waste Inventory

This report provides information on the inventory of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in the United States located at Nuclear Power Reactor (NPR) and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) sites, as well as SNF and reprocessing waste located at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites and other research and development (R&D) centers as of the end of calendar year 2024. Actual quantitative values for current inventories are provided along with inventory forecasts derived from examining different future nuclear power generation scenarios, based on information available and assumptions made at the time the scenarios were developed. The report also includes select information on the characteristics associated with the wastes examined (e.g., type, packaging, heat generation rate, decay curves).

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Organic Iodine Capture from Vessel Off-gas

The Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Supply Chain Program Material Recovery and Waste Form Development (MRWFD) Campaign Off-gas Sigma Team has performed research and development on iodine control and iodine waste forms for the past several years. This research and development has included iodine adsorption tests using a laboratory-scale test system containing multiple-segmented fixed beds of iodine adsorbents. Iodine capture performance has been tested using non-radioactive synthetic gas mixtures blended from air, nitrogen, NO, NO2, water, and the target iodine compounds diatomic iodine (I2), representing likely inorganic iodides, and methyl iodide (iodomethane, CH3I) and 1-iodobutane (butyl iodide) a surrogates for potential organic iodides, that could exist in dissolver off-gas (DOG) and vessel off-gas (VOG) streams from used nuclear fuel aqueous reprocessing.

12 - MGMT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTE↗
DOE OSTI2020

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

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

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

Panel Session 88: Waste Management from Remediation of Legacy Sites or Unplanned Releases

This panel focused on the progression of cleanup on the Hanford Site, Washington, USA, from establishing the regulatory framework necessary for cleanup, to understanding the risks and addressing near-term hazards, to moving to 24/7 operations as cleanup focuses on tank waste treatment and co-located risk reduction efforts as the active cleanup footprint shrinks. Panelists with presentations: Hanford: Past, Present, Future (Brian Vance); Protecting the River (L. Ty Blackford); Hanford Tank Farms (John Eschenberg Jr.); The Hanford Site (Robert Wilkinson); The Hanford Site (Valerie McCain)

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

Panel Session 67: US Savannah River Operation Office: Nuclear Materials Management

The Savannah River Site (SRS) has a proud 70-year history of nuclear materials management and processing. This panel provided an overview of the history, current status, and a look at potential future missions related to spent nuclear fuel (SNF), nuclear materials, and facilities at SRS. Panelists with presentations: SRS Nuclear Materials Management (Maxcine Maxted, Janice Lawson, Michael Mikolanis)

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

Dose estimates and their uncertainties for use in epidemiological studies of radiation-exposed populations in the Russian Southern Urals

Many residents of the Russian Southern Urals were exposed to radioactive environmental pollution created by the operations of the Mayak Production Association in the mid- 20 th century. There were two major releases: the discharge of about 1x10 17 Bq of liquid waste into the Techa River between 1949 and 1959; and the atmospheric release of 7.4 * 10 16 Bq as a result an explosion in the radioactive waste-storage facility in 1957. The releases into the Techa River resulted in the exposure of more than 30,000 people who lived in riverside villages between 1950 and 1961. The 1957 accident contaminated a larger area with the highest exposure levels in an area that is called the East Urals Radioactive Trace (EURT). Current epidemiologic studies of the exposed populations are based on dose estimates obtained using a Monte-Carlo dosimetry system (TRDS-2016MC) that provides multiple realizations of the annual doses for each cohort member. These dose realizations provide a central estimate of the individual dose and information on the uncertainty of these dose estimates. In addition, the correlation of individual annual doses over realizations provides important information on shared uncertainties that can be used to assess the impact of shared dose uncertainties on risk estimate uncertainty.This paper considers dose uncertainties in the TRDS-2016MC. Individual doses from external and internal radiation sources were reconstructed for 48,036 people based on environmental contamination patterns, residential histories, individual 90 Sr body-burden measurements and dietary intakes. Dietary intake of 90 Sr resulted in doses accumulated in active bone marrow (or simply, marrow) that were an order of magnitude greater than those in soft tissues. About 84% of the marrow dose and 50% of the stomach dose was associated with internal exposures. The lognormal distribution is well-fitted to the individual dose realizations, which, therefore, could be expressed and easily operated in terms of geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviation (GSD). Cohort average GM for marrow and stomach cumulative doses are 0.21 and 0.03 Gy, respectively. Cohort average dose uncertainties in terms of GSD are as follows: for marrow it is 2.93 (90%CI: 2.02–4.34); for stomach and the other non-calcified tissues it is 2.32 (90% CI: 1.78–2.9).

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 55: US DOE Savannah River Operations Office: Liquid Waste Progress

This panel provided an overview of the SRS HLW Liquid Waste Program (history, challenges, opportunities, and future) including discussions of the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF), Tank Closures, Actinide Removal Process/Modular Caustic Side Solvent Extraction Unit, Tank Closure Cesium Removal, and the Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF). Panelists with presentations: SRS Liquid Waste Program (James Folk); SRS Liquid Waste Progress (Mark Schmitz); Salt Waste Processing Facility (Frank Sheppard)

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

Monitoring Plan for the Idaho National Laboratory Remote Handled Low Level Waste Disposal Facility

This monitoring plan for Idaho National Laboratory’s Remote-Handled Low Level Waste Disposal Facility was developed to meet the requirements for monitoring low-level waste disposal facilities according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management,” and the guidance provided in the associated technical standard “Disposal Authorization Statement and Tank Closure Documentation” (DOE-STD-5002-2017). The purpose of this monitoring plan is to document a monitoring strategy that includes (1) compliance monitoring activities to demonstrate compliance with regulatory standards/limits and (2) performance monitoring to build confidence the facility is performing as demonstrated in the facility performance assessment (PA) (DOE-ID 2018a), composite analysis (CA) (DOE ID 2012), and CA addendum (DOE-ID 2018b). The de minimus impact to the aquifer predicted by the PA suggests that aquifer compliance monitoring should be augmented with performance monitoring of the drainage course materials and sedimentary interbeds in the vadose zone beneath the facility to provide a more effective means of identifying performance deviations. The monitoring approach delineated in this document was informed by the systems evaluation of natural and engineered facility features presented in the PA, an assessment of aquifer baseline conditions (INL 2017d), the dose analysis conducted in support of the PA and CA, and monitoring data collected during the first four years of facility operations (baseline monitoring phase) (INL 2023b). This plan provides monitoring locations, sampling frequencies, and sampling methods; recommendations for data evaluation; and a description of the monitoring plan implementation. Collected data will be used to demonstrate facility compliance and to identify conditions that are not consistent with the key assumptions made by the PA and CA.

12 - MGMT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Use of Unmanned Aerial Systems for Post-closure Waste Site Maintenance and Surveillance - 20143

The P- and R-Area Reactor buildings, located at SRS near Aiken, SC, were in-situ decommissioned by grouting below-grade portions of the buildings and demolishing some above-grade structures to grade level. Other reactor building structures were left above-grade and sealed to prevent human or animal access. Because the above grade-structures are expected to continue in their present state for hundreds of years, the condition of the building roofs is critical to mitigate rainwater intrusion. For this reason, building roof areas were strengthened with high strength concrete to ensure the long-term integrity of the roof structure. Periodic inspections of the roof structures are required to ensure that the roofs are functioning properly and to identify damage areas. The traditional method of inspecting closed reactor buildings requires the use of a helicopter and photographer to generate photographs and videos for review. This method proved sufficient but lacked the resolution and clarity that is required for a thorough inspection of the building structure. Fortunately, the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) has established a Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) program using commercially available and custom-built remote-controlled aircraft. EC and ACP contacted the SRNL program to evaluate whether the sUAS technology could be employed for periodic reactor building inspections. The sUAS can fly within a few meters of the reactor buildings and hover, allowing for a more thorough aerial inspection. The initial sUAS inspection of the P-Area Reactor building was completed in February 2018 and at the R-Area Reactor building in August 2018 and were successful in providing higher resolution photos and videos. The sUAS inspections also revealed that vegetation had begun to grow on the roofs that could potentially damage the structure integrity. SRNL partnered with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University to build a custom heavy lift sUAS that could be equipped with herbicides to remotely treat the vegetative growth. Herbicides were successfully applied to the R-Area Reactor building roof using the custom sUAS in September 2018. The use of unmanned aircraft systems at SRS to perform aerial inspections and herbicide treatment in otherwise inaccessible areas has proven to be an efficient and cost-effective technology that provides high value, increases knowledge of facility conditions, and provides for early detection of damage. Periodic inspections of the reactor building roofs using sUAS technology are performed safely, efficiently, and at a significant cost and schedule savings while reducing emissions, noise, and fossil fuel use. The use of sUAS equipment for building inspections and herbicide application at SRS is unique within the DOE complex. The goal of SRS is to apply this remote technology to other waste unit operations and maintenance activities in the future. (authors)

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

Panel Session 70: Nuclear Power Plant Waste Management, LLRW Processing Issues

This panel focused on senior utility managers discussing issues with commercial LLW processors. LLW processors had an opportunity to update utilities/NPPs on new or different services or technologies being offered to assist in their radioactive waste management goals, changes to their facility license, revisions to their acceptance guidelines, and emerging compliance issues. Panelists with presentations: UniTech - 'Expanding to Reduce Costs' LLW Processor Update (Gregg Johnstone); Veolia Nuclear Solutions Federal Services - Alaron Nuclear Services (Dave Garber); EnergySolutions Tennessee Processing Facilities (Fred Schulz); Complex Waste Management Issues Services and Treatment Facilities (George M. Taylor)

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

(Project 18-15502) Reducing Uncertainty in Radionuclide Transport Prediction Using Multiple Environmental Tracers (Final Report)

In order to successfully site and design a nuclear waste disposal facility, DOE scientists are required to show safe containment of the radioactive waste for up to 1 million years. A significant hurdle to accurately and convincingly demonstrating disposal safety is predicting the fate of radioactive elements once they enter the groundwater system surrounding the repository. These predictions are often made with computer models, which contain accurate physics of groundwater movement and chemical reactions that occur during groundwater flow. As computer power increases, the physics and chemistry of these computer simulators can become more and more realistic and the physically based error decreases. However, the ability of these computer models to provide accurate predictions in a specific place, over long time periods, requires the scientists and engineers to know the subsurface properties of the Earth that control groundwater movement. In particular, groundwater scientists and engineers need to know the groundwater fluid velocity, which can change over time and strongly vary with location within the groundwater system. Because the Earth’s subsurface cannot be directly seen, and can only be sampled at drilling locations, the properties of the groundwater system are never known completely, and computer models of groundwater transport will always have some amount of uncertainty. This project’s principal goal was to use chemicals and isotope “tracers”, which have been introduced to the groundwater system by natural processes over long time periods, to help inform computer models of the groundwater velocity and subsurface properties. The goal was to calculate how much better predictions of groundwater transport were when these “tracers” were used to inform the computer models.

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 OSTI2021

WSF PISA example for SAFER pilot

On October 15, 2021, the Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Management Facility Manager declared a Potential Inadequacy in the Safety Analysis (PISA) due to a new information relating to an error discovered in calculation AB-WSF-20-002. Calculation AB-WSF-20-002 is used to determine source terms and heat release rates for vehicle and aircraft impacts with fuel fires involving TRU waste containers. The source term for an aircraft’s impact has different source terms factors (i.e., DR, ARF, RF, LPF) that are applied to multiple categories of drums impacted in the accident scenario based on the physical stresses of the aircraft impact and involvement in the subsequent fuel pool fire. The source terms of the multiple categories of affected drums are summed to determine the final source term for the accident scenario. Certain categories of affected drums are modeled to lose their lid, causing material to eject and burn unconfined on the ground. For these specific categories, a lower ARF value was incorrectly applied in AB-WSF-20-002 (i.e., an ARF value of 1E-3 was used instead of the DOE-STD-5506-2007 directed ARF value of 1E-2). For these categories, the ARF is applied to a relatively small number of low-activity drums (i.e., 17 drums at 2.9 PE-Ci each) compared to the total number of drums affected (i.e., 166 drums totaling 621.8 PE-Ci). Therefore, this error is not expected to significantly increase final dose for the accident scenario. No immediate actions or compensatory measures are required to maintain the facility in a safe condition.

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

Scenario development for safety assessment in deep geologic disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel: A review

Radiation and radioactive substances result in the production of radioactive wastes which require safe management and disposal to avoid risks to human health and the environment. To ensure permanent safe disposal, the performance of a deep geological repository for radioactive waste is assessed against internationally agreed risk-based standards. Assessing postclosure safety of the future system's evolution includes screening of features, events, and processes (FEPs) relevant to the situation, their subsequent development into scenarios, and finally the development and execution of safety assessment (SA) models. Global FEP catalogs describe important natural and man-made repository system features and identify events and processes that may affect these features into the future. By combining FEPs, many of which are uncertain, different possible future system evolution scenarios are derived. Repository licensing should consider both the reference or “base” evolution as well as alternative futures that may lead to radiation release, pollution, or exposures. Scenarios are used to derive and consider both base and alternative evolutions, often through production of scenario-specific SA models and the recombination of their results into an assessment of the risk of harm. Furthermore, while the FEP-based scenario development process outlined here has evolved somewhat since its development in the 1980s, the fundamental ideas remain unchanged. A spectrum of common approaches is given here (e.g., bottom–up vs. top–down scenario development, probabilistic vs. bounding handling of uncertainty), related to how individual numerical models for possible futures are converted into a determination as to whether the system is safe (i.e., how aleatoric uncertainty and scenarios are integrated through bounding or Monte Carlo approaches).

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

Double-Shell Tank Primary Bottom Visual Inspection Results - 20025

A pressing need for the Double-Shell Tank Integrity Program at Hanford is of the ability to inspect the bottom of the tanks. Though the DSTs' annulus spaces (the space between the internal and external tank walls) have been inspected visually since 1992 and with Ultrasonic Testing (UT) since 1996, inspections of the tank bottoms have been able to be conducted due to limitations of available technology, omitting about 40 percent of the tank surface below the maximum fill level from routine inspection. Visual inspections of the tank annulus have been conducted up to five times in some DSTs and portions of the annulus space for all of the DSTs has been inspected twice with UT. This region includes the walls of the primary tank and secondary liner along with accessible portions of the secondary liner bottom. Due to this lack of technology, the degradation of the primary tank bottom in Tank AY-102 was undetected until the tank leaked into its annulus space, confirmed in 2012. Since that time, WRPS has been working with the nondestructive examination community and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, to evaluate potential technologies to conduct these challenging remote inspections. Recent work has included the development, testing, and deployment of several remote visual inspection technologies to observe the condition of the primary tank bottom of the DSTs by leveraging air distribution slots in the refractory pad on which it rests. Robotic solutions to conduct this inspection were developed with a detailed understanding of the physical configuration and operational logistics. Understanding and subsequent communication of these details to vendors within the robotics and nondestructive examination community was a critical component to the successful production of these new tools. Throughout the FY16-FY18 years, vendors from nondestructive examination community were solicited for ideas to meet the tank bottom inspection challenge. Two tank bottom visual inspection solutions were then pursued to meet that challenge. Both tools were successfully deployed at Tank AP-107, and provided valuable visuals, never before obtained from the under tank environment of a double-shell tank. While there are minor opportunities for improvement identified with each system, general outcomes were overwhelmingly positive. Both systems were successfully able to navigate the refractory air slot pattern from the outer edge to the tank center and record video footage. The micro-crawler provided high quality and very stable footage through the air slot pattern, but took longer to deploy into the slots and traverse through them than the alternative system. The push-pull tethered camera was able to navigate all seven of its target air slots in a matter of a few hours, which included deployment, movement between slot entrances, and complete removal of the system from the annulus environment. Through these air slots, new information was gained about the tank bottom and refractory pad condition of tank AP-107, AP-106, AP-108, and AN-102. While some debris was noted in the air slots, including sand, chipped refractory, and construction materials, the refractory was found to be structurally stable and adequately supporting the primary tank bottom through the full diameter of the tank. Primary tank bottom steel exterior was found to be in good condition, free of ongoing or aggressive corrosion conditions. Looking toward the future, robotic access to and visual inspection of refractory air slots and the primary tank bottom steel has now proven viable. Incorporating periodic air slot inspections as a regular practice within the Double-Shell Tank Integrity Program is the next step, allowing trending of any changes in condition. As ultrasonic testing infrastructure was leveraged to complete the initial system deployments described in this report, it makes sense to adopt that same strategy for ongoing periodic examinations and deploy these primary tank bottom inspection tools alongside ultrasonic testing operations. Development of visual inspection tools to evaluate the primary tank bottom region of the double-shell tanks was planned as the first stage of inspection. Continued development of volumetric sensors and incorporation of these inspection tools into Hanford's ongoing Double-Shell Tank Integrity Program are the next steps, seeking to continuously expand understanding of asset integrity and remaining useful life. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗