Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Waste Transfer”

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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

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↗
DOE OSTI2015

RCRA Part B Permit Application Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) for Waste Management Activities at the NNSS Hazardous Waste Storage Unit (HWSU)

This volume of the permit application by the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) focuses on the Area 5 Hazardous Waste Storage Unit (HWSU). The HWSU was established to support testing, research, and remediation activities at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS), a large-quantity generator of hazardous waste. The HWSU, located adjacent to the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC), is a prefabricated, rigid steel-framed, roofed shelter used to store hazardous nonradioactive waste generated on the NNSS. No offsite-generated wastes are managed at the HWSU. Waste managed at the HWSU includes the following: Flammables/Combustibles, Acid Corrosives, Alkali Corrosives, Oxidizers/Reactives, Toxics/Poisons, and Other Regulated Materials (ORMs). A list of regulated waste codes accepted for storage at the HWSU is provided in this volume. Hazardous wastes are stored at the HWSU in containers that are compliant with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations and compatible with the stored waste. Waste packages (e.g., drums) without inner closed containers of waste remain closed except during inspection or sampling. Transfer of uncontainerized waste between waste packages at the HWSU is prohibited. Closed inner containers may be transferred or consolidated into larger waste packages, and small closed containers may be placed into larger containers. Containers are stored on secondary containment pallets, and the unit is inspected monthly. For safety and security reasons, some of the contents of the full application are not available for public viewing. This public version of the application contains most, but not all, of the contents as submitted to the regulatory agencies.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

New Tank Mapping Method Improves Waste Removal Process

Waste Tank Mapping Overview • Camera inspections are performed within available tank top risers and used to create waste tank maps – Several camera inspections are performed during waste removal transfers to verify the elevation of the visible salt/sludge mounds against the known elevation of the liquid surface • Tank mappings are used to evaluate the volume and distribution of saltcake or sludge that is present within the waste tank – Allows for refined operating strategies and process safety controls • New tank mapping process creates a standardized approach for accurately defining waste distribution within a waste tank while minimizing the required camera inspection footage – First utilized during the 2023 Tank 22 Sludge Removal Campaign

Mini, Melany [Savannah River Mission Completion (S↗
DOE OSTI2015

WTP Pretreatment Facility Potential Design Deficiencies--Sliding Bed and Sliding Bed Erosion Assessment

This assessment is based on readily available literature and discusses both Newtonian and non-Newtonian slurries with respect to sliding beds and erosion due to sliding beds. This report does not quantify the size of the sliding beds or erosion rates due to sliding beds, but only assesses if they could be present. This assessment addresses process pipelines in the Pretreatment (PT) facility and the high level waste (HLW) transfer lines leaving the PT facility to the HLW vitrification facility concentrate receipt vessel.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

An optimization model for collection, haul, transfer, treatment and disposal of infectious medical waste: Application to a Greek region

Highlights: • We developed an optimization model to minimize cost of infectious waste management. •Two different software were used for model solution. • Model optimizes locations and capacities of treatment plants and transfer stations. • The higher percentage of total cost was due to construction of the treatment plant. • Sensitivity analysis with respect to fuel cost and waste production was conducted. - Abstract: The objective of this work was to develop an optimization model to minimize the cost of a collection, haul, transfer, treatment and disposal system for infectious medical waste (IMW). The model calculates the optimum locations of the treatment facilities and transfer stations, their design capacities (t/d), the number and capacities of all waste collection, transport and transfer vehicles and their optimum transport path and the minimum IMW management system cost. Waste production nodes (hospitals, healthcare centers, peripheral health offices, private clinics and physicians in private practice) and their IMW production rates were specified and used as model inputs. The candidate locations of the treatment facilities, transfer stations and sanitary landfills were designated, using a GIS-based methodology. Specifically, Mapinfo software with exclusion criteria for non-appropriate areas was used for siting candidate locations for the construction of the treatment plant and calculating the distance and travel time of all possible vehicle routes. The objective function was a non-linear equation, which minimized the total collection, transport, treatment and disposal cost. Total cost comprised capital and operation costs for: (1) treatment plant, (2) waste transfer stations, (3) waste transport and transfer vehicles and (4) waste collection bins and hospital boxes. Binary variables were used to decide whether a treatment plant and/or a transfer station should be constructed and whether a collection route between two or more nodes should be followed. Microsoft excel software was used as installation platform of the optimization model. For the execution of the optimization routine, two completely different software were used and the results were compared, thus, resulting in higher reliability and validity of the results. The first software was Evolver, which is based on the use of genetic algorithms. The second one was Crystal Ball, which is based on Monte Carlo simulation. The model was applied to the Region of East Macedonia – Thrace in Greece. The optimum solution resulted in one treatment plant located in the sanitary landfill area of Chrysoupolis, required no transfer stations and had a total management cost of 38,800 €/month or 809 €/t. If a treatment plant is sited in the most eastern part of the Region, i.e., the industrial area of Alexandroupolis, the optimum solution would result in a transfer station of 23 m{sup 3}, located near Kavala General Hospital, and a total cost of 39,800 €/month or 831 €/t. A sensitivity analysis was conducted and two alternative scenarios were optimized. In the first scenario, a 15% rise in fuel cost and in the second scenario a 25% rise in IMW production were considered. At the end, a cost calculation in €/t/km for every type of vehicle used for haul and transfer was conducted. Also, the cost of the whole system was itemized and calculated in €/t/km and €/t. The results showed that the higher percentage of the total cost was due to the construction of the treatment plant.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2016

One System Overview - 16579

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of River Protection (ORP) is responsible for managing and completing the River Protection Project mission, which is to 'safeguard the nuclear waste stored in Hanford's 177 underground tanks, and to manage the waste safely and responsibly until it can be treated in the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant for final disposition'. The Office of River Protection's work scope is currently performed through two primary contracts: - The Tank Operations Contract, held by Washington River Protection Solutions LLC, (WRPS) includes the construction, operation, and maintenance activities necessary to safely store, retrieve, and transfer tank wastes; provide supplemental tank waste treatment; provide storage and/or disposal of primary and secondary waste streams; design, construction and commissioning of the Low-Activity Waste Pretreatment System; and support ORP to integrate Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) completion and startup with Tank Farms operations. - The WTP Contract, held by Bechtel National, Inc. (BNI), includes the design, construction, and commissioning of a Pretreatment Facility, two vitrification facilities (one for high-level waste and one for low-activity waste), a dedicated analytical laboratory, and supporting facilities to treat radioactive tank wastes by immobilizing them into a stable glass waste form. One System was established as a means to improve the integration between the tank farms and the WTP project to support its safe and successful startup. One System's scope and purpose focus on mission integration consistent with DOE's plans to treat tank waste in phases, starting with direct feed of the low-activity waste stream to the WTP's Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Vitrification Facility (referred to as DFLAW). The One System organization now has four major focus areas: - Flowsheet Integration? Integrated River Protection Project (RPP) flowsheet development and management; developing a gaps, risks, and opportunities management plan and technical roadmap; and waste feed qualification. - Mission Analysis and Planning? Strategic planning, system planning, and modeling integration. - WTP Startup, Commissioning, and Operations Integration? Interface Control Document (ICD) management, coordinating facilities startup-to-commissioning-to-operations, contract directives and standards identification, and DFLAW program integration. - Project Integration and Controls? Integrated schedule, metrics/dashboards monitoring, and One System risk register. ORP established the DFLAW Program Office in February 2015 as one of its key performance goals. ORP staff, along with contractor managers, have identified roles and responsibilities for the each of the four major focus areas. One System has established an Executive Council and Governance Board to drive program progress and make decisions on DFLAW. This approach allows appropriate government and contractor senior management involvement in the DFLAW Program. Monthly critical path analysis on the integrated DFLAW schedule is being performed. Interface control documents specific to DFLAW have been developed, and system planning and modeling tools are being used to help define the DFLAW flowsheet. (authors)

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

Addendum 2 to the Closure Report for CAU 577 Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells, NNSS, Nevada

Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 577, “Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells,” includes five low-level waste cells at the Nevada National Security Site Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site where buried waste received from Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., was subsequently determined to contain chromium that exceeded the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure regulatory limit, which would require the waste to carry hazardous waste code D007. CAU 577 was created to satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement (SA) executed between the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) on April 25, 2019 (NDEP 2019). The SA required that the chromium-containing waste received from NFS would be addressed following the closure process laid out in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO). The FFACO process ensures proper closure of the chromium-containing waste and documentation of that closure through FFACO-type documents. The following three Corrective Action Sites (CASs) were closed, and their closure was documented in the Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 577: Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, DOE/EMNV--0030, dated September 2021 (U.S. Department of Energy [DOE] Environmental Management [EM] Nevada Program 2021a): • CAS 05-21-02, Waste Disposal Cell 12 • CAS 05-21-03, Waste Disposal Cell 15 • CAS 05-21-04, Waste Disposal Cell 17 Closure of the following CAS was previously documented in the Addendum to the Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 577: Area 5 Chromium Containing Waste Disposal Cells, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, DOE/EMNV--0030-ADD, dated September 2022 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2022): • CAS 05-21-05, Waste Disposal Cell 20 This second addendum to the Closure Report documents the closure activities that have occurred for CAS 05-21-06, Waste Disposal Cell 21. This is the last CAS in CAU 577. The final waste shipment was placed in the waste disposal cell on November 21, 2022. Following this, closure activities began on November 28, 2022, and were conducted according to the Corrective Action Decision Document/Corrective Action Plan (CADD/CAP) for CAU 577 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2021b). The following closure activities were performed: • Constructing an engineered evapotranspiration cover • Installing two subsidence monuments and vadose zone monitoring equipment • Seeding the cover with a mixture of native plant species • Installing four concrete monuments on the corners of the cover and placing two use restriction (UR) warning signs on each monument These activities fulfill applicable federal and state regulations for closure of CAS 05-21-06 and minimize potential future exposure pathways to buried waste. Completed closure activities are also consistent with closure of the nine historical Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) units included in Section 10.2.2 of the RCRA Permit that governs hazardous waste management activities at the Nevada National Security Site (Permit NEV HW0101) (NDEP 2023). UR documentation for this CAS is included in Appendix B of this report. The post-closure plan is presented in detail in the CADD/CAP for CAU 577 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2021b), and the requirements are summarized in Section 5.2 of this document. In accordance with paragraph 5D of the SA, a request to incorporate the requirements for post-closure monitoring of CAU 577 was included with the permit application for RCRA Permit NEV HW0101 that was submitted in January 2022 (NNSA/NFO 2022). The request included the post-closure requirements for the three CASs that had been closed at the time of submittal of the application as well as requirements that would be implemented upon future approval of closure of the remaining two CASs. All CAU 577 post-closure monitoring requirements have been captured in the April 4, 2023, Revision 7 of the RCRA Permit (NDEP 2023). As the RCRA Permit NEV HW0101 has been revised since the submittal of the original CAU 577 Closure Report (DOE EM Nevada Program 2021a) and Addendum 1 (DOE EM Nevada Program 2022), the post-closure requirements in this Addendum 2 report do not align with the previous documents. Specific changes resulting from the issuance of Revision 7 of the RCRA Permit are discussed in Section 5.2 of this report. The requirements in this report are consistent with the current permit (NDEP 2023) and supersede all requirements listed in the CAU 577 Closure Report and Addendum 1. All CAU 577 post-closure requirements should be conducted in accordance with the version of the RCRA Permit that is current at the time of the activities being performed. The DOE EM Nevada Program is requesting a Notice of Completion from NDEP for closure of CAU 577. Although CAU 577 is not a legacy site, the FFACO process is being followed to ensure proper closure of the chromium-containing waste. Therefore, transfer of CAU 577 from Appendix III of the FFACO to Appendix IV, Closed Corrective Action Units, is requested, as all closure activities have been completed.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

Demonstrating Hybrid Heat Transport and Energy Conversion System Performance Characterization Using Intelligent Control Systems

The debate continues on the magnitude and validity of climate change caused by human activities. However, there is no debate about the need to make buildings, modes of transportation, factories, and homes as energy efficient as possible. Given that climate change could occur with the wasteful use of fossil fuel and the fact that fossil energy costs could and will swing wildly, it is imperative that every effort be made to utilize energy sources to their fullest. Hybrid energy systems (HES) are two or more separate energy producers used together to produce energy commodities. The HES this report focuses on is the use of nuclear reactor waste heat as a source of further energy utilization. Nuclear reactors use a fluid to cool the core and produce the steam needed for the production of electricity. Traditionally this steam, or coolant, is used to convert the energy then cooled elsewhere. The heat is released into the environment without being used further. By adding technologies to nuclear reactors to use the wasted heat, a system can be developed to make more than just electricity and allow for loading following capabilities.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2018

Decommissioning of Research Building B at VNIINM: Main Results

Research building B at the Bochvar High-Technology Research Institute for Inorganic Materials (VNIINM) located within the city limits of a dense residential development was decommissioned in 2013–2015. Radioactively contaminated equipment and utility services were disassembled and removed, building structures were decontaminated, the framework was dismantled, the grounds of the development site were restored, and radioactive waste was transferred to specialized organizations. The framework was liquidated in strict accord with the norms and regulations governing the use of atomic energy.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2019

Cameco Corporation's Vision in Motion Project - 19128

Cameco Corporation is a world leader in uranium production. Cameco is also a major supplier of uranium processing services required to produce fuel for the generation of clean energy. These operations are based in Blind River, Cobourg and Port Hope, Ontario and are collectively referred to as the Fuel Services Division. The Fuel Services Division produces uranium trioxide from uranium ore concentrate at the Blind River Refinery. Cameco produces uranium hexafluoride and uranium dioxide at the Port Hope Conversion Facility. Cameco operates a fuel manufacturing facility in Port Hope, Ontario and a metal fabrication facility located in Cobourg, Ontario. The company manufactures fuel bundles utilized in the Candu reactors. Cameco is undertaking a major site cleanup and renewal of its Port Hope Conversion Facility (PHCF) which is located in the Municipality of Port Hope (MPH). This undertaking is known as the Vision in Motion (VIM) project. This project is unique and timely opportunity that has been made possible because of the Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI). The PHAI Port Hope project is being undertaken by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and includes the construction of a long-term waste management facility (LTWMF) in the MPH. VIM entails an extensive remediation and redevelopment of much of the PHCF and includes: - the cleanup and demolition of a number of old or underutilized buildings; - the removal of contaminated soils, building materials and stored wastes; and - modifications to existing buildings at the PHCF with associated landscaping and infrastructure. Overall, the VIM project will allow for environmental remediation, improved site operations, enhancement of site safety and security through site design and improved aesthetics. This paper will discuss the status of this project underway at the Port Hope Conversion Facility. After years of community consultation, planning, and a successful environmental assessment and licensing of the project, the VIM project at the PHCF is now underway. Physical transfer of waste materials began in June 2018. Cameco is committed to seeing the project through to completion and is working with CNL to ensure this happens within the operating time frame of the LTWMF. Cameco keeps the CNSC and MPH well informed of all project related activities. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Evaluation of Hanford Supernatant Waste Evaporation

Storage space within Hanford’s double shell tanks is running low, with only an approximate 4.1 Mgal of space remaining. Construction of additional storage space is not a pursuable option, but treatment of the waste via vacuum evaporation may be used to reduce the waste volume and increase the available amount of free space. However, without proper care and consideration, concentrating the waste may lead to harmful effects such as excessive solids generation, growth in liquid density and ionic concentration, and development of aggressive properties in the solution. OLI Studio was used to simulate a subset of DSTs using BBI ionic concentrations to generate recipes of every tank’s supernatant layer. Vacuum evaporation was performed by taking each simulated solution and bringing it to 50°C under a pressure of 60 Torr, after which the vapor phase was removed from the simulation, and the solution was brought back to ambient temperature and pressure. Several million gallons of space were created, and only about 100-200 kgal of solids were precipitated during evaporation. Minimal changes to the solution’s pitting factor occurred, and no solution is expected to develop aggressive characteristics due to evaporation. Although a theoretical result is provided, it is unique to the specific temperature and pressure value chosen for the simulation, and future transfers of waste are expected to cause changes in waste properties, which would cause the OLI recipes to lose accuracy. Though the results are not anticipated to be used as a target value or a guide, as an exercise, they show that the extent of volume gains could be equivalent to the construction of new DSTs.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2013

Scaling Relationships Based on Scaled Tank Mixing and Transfer Test Results

This report documents the statistical analyses performed (by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Washington River Protection Solutions) on data from 26 tests conducted using two scaled tanks (43 and 120 inches) in the Small Scale Mixing Demonstration platform. The 26 tests varied several test parameters, including mixer-jet nozzle velocity, base simulant, supernatant viscosity, and capture velocity. For each test, samples were taken pre-transfer and during five batch transfers. The samples were analyzed for the concentrations (lbs/gal slurry) of four primary components in the base simulants (gibbsite, stainless steel, sand, and ZrO 2 ). The statistical analyses including modeling the component concentrations as functions of test parameters using stepwise regression with two different model forms. The resulting models were used in an equivalent performance approach to calculate values of scaling exponents (for a simple geometric scaling relationship) as functions of the parameters in the component concentration models. The resulting models and scaling exponents are displayed in tables and graphically. The sensitivities of component concentrations and scaling exponents to the test parameters are presented graphically. These results will serve as inputs to subsequent work by other researchers to develop scaling relationships that are applicable to full-scale tanks.

Equivalent Performance↗
DOE OSTI2014

Scaling Relationships Based on Scaled Tank Mixing and Transfer Test Results

This report documents the statistical analyses performed (by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Washington River Protection Solutions) on data from 26 tests conducted using two scaled tanks (43 and 120 inches) in the Small Scale Mixing Demonstration platform. The 26 tests varied several test parameters, including mixer-jet nozzle velocity, base simulant, supernatant viscosity, and capture velocity. For each test, samples were taken pre-transfer and during five batch transfers. The samples were analyzed for the concentrations (lbs/gal slurry) of four primary components in the base simulants (gibbsite, stainless steel, sand, and ZrO2). The statistical analyses including modeling the component concentrations as functions of test parameters using stepwise regression with two different model forms. The resulting models were used in an equivalent performance approach to calculate values of scaling exponents (for a simple geometric scaling relationship) as functions of the parameters in the component concentration models. The resulting models and scaling exponents are displayed in tables and graphically. The sensitivities of component concentrations and scaling exponents to the test parameters are presented graphically. These results will serve as inputs to subsequent work by other researchers to develop scaling relationships that are applicable to full-scale tanks.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Power Cable Mass Estimation for Electric Aircraft Propulsion

Electric aircraft propulsion relies on power transmission cables to carry energy through the vehicle's electrical power train. The mass of these cables is an important consideration in overall aircraft weight, and hence cable design methods that can offer lower weight cables offer a significant opportunity.This paper compares three strategies for cable design: selection of cables from off-the-shelf options, design based on steady-state thermal limits, and design based on transient thermal limits. The thermal models consider both conductor diameter and insulation thickness, as well as a comparison between multiple conductor materials. The thermal analysis evaluates the transfer of waste heat from the conductor to the insulation and from the insulation to the air via convection. Optimizations to minimize cable mass by changing conductor radius and material properties were performed using all three modeling approaches and the results show that both custom sized cables using both steady-state and transient based model offer potential mass savings.

Electrical↗
DOE OSTI2016

Global Solutions Through Simulation For Better Decommissioning - 16457

Each nuclear facility is different due to their history and there is no rule for choosing a decommissioning strategy. There are three major decommissioning strategies. First, 'immediate dismantling', which means the decommissioning begins immediately after the transfer of waste and nuclear material. Second, 'deferred dismantling strategy', meaning the facility is maintained into a containment zone from thirty to one hundred years before being decommissioned. Finally, 'entombment', referring to the placement of the facility into a reinforced containment until the radionuclides decay and reach a level allowing the site release. When a strategy is decided many factors have to be taken into account. Into a major project such as a reactor decommissioning, there are many smaller projects and the decommissioning strategy can be different among these smaller projects. Very often, some entry data are not perfectly known, for example, the dosimetric activity has not been updated through time or after specific events. Because of uncertainties and/or hypothesis existing around projects and their high level of interdependency, global solutions are a good way to choose the best decommissioning strategy. Especially since each entry data has consequences on output results whether it is on costs, cumulated dose, waste or delays. Also the dose, delays or waste management, all have impact on costs. To obtain an optimal scenario into a special environment, it is necessary to deal with all these items together. This global solution can be implemented thanks to simulation in dedicated software which helps define the global strategy, optimize the scenario, and prevent contingencies. For a specific environment, when many scenarios have been developed and simulated, sensitivity studies are really important to choose the optimal decommissioning strategy. Sensitivity studies can be done with simulation tools by comparing results of scenarios directly into the software. This comparison helps to choose the optimal scenario according to which output data is considered as key determinant. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2012

Chernobyl NPP: Completion of LRW Treatment Plant and LRW Management on Site - 12568

Since a beginning of ChNPP operation, and after a tragedy in 1986, a few thousands m3 of LRW have been collected in a storage tanks. In 2004 ChNPP started the new project on creation of LRW treatment plant (LRWTP) financed from EBRD fund. But it was stopped in 2008 because of financial and contract problems. In 2010 SIA RADON jointly with Ukrainian partners has won a tender on completion of LRWTP, in particular I and C system. The purpose of LRTP is to process liquid rad-wastes from SSE 'Chernobyl NPP' site and those liquids stored in the LRWS and SLRWS tanks as well as the would-be wastes after ChNPP Power Units 1, 2 and 3 decommissioning. The LRTP design lifetime - 20 years. Currently, the LRTP is getting ready to perform the following activities: 1. retrieval of waste from tanks stored at ChNPP LWS using waste retrieval system with existing equipment involved; 2. transfer of retrieved waste into LRTP reception tanks with partial use of existing transfer pipelines; 3. laboratory chemical and radiochemical analysis of reception tanks contest to define the full spectrum of characteristics before processing, to acknowledge the necessity of preliminary processing and to select end product recipe; 4. preliminary processing of the waste to meet the requirements for further stages of the process; 5. shrinkage (concentrating) of preliminary processed waste; 6. solidification of preliminary processed waste with concrete to make a solid-state (end product) and load of concrete compound into 200-l drums; 7. curing of end product drums in LRTP curing hall; 8. radiologic monitoring of end product drums and their loading into special overpacks; 9. overpack radiological monitoring; 10. send for disposal (ICSRM Lot 3); The current technical decisions allow to control and return to ChNPP of process media and supporting systems outputs until they satisfy the following quality norms: salt content: < 100 g/l; pH: 1 - 11; anionic surface-active agent: < 25 mg/l; oil dissipated in the liquid: < 2 mg/l; overall gamma-activity: < 3,7 x10{sup 5} Bq/l. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2019

Panel Session 32: Panel: Bringing First-of-a-Kind Treatment Facilities On-Line: Idaho IWTU Commissioning Approach (2/5)

This panel discussed the activities of bringing a first-of-a-kind treatment facility online: The Integrated Waste Treatment Unit (IWTU). The design was designed to treat 900,000 gallons of sodium-bearing liquid waste. Construction of this first-of-a-kind treatment facility was completed in 2012. A new approach was adopted in 2016 after multiple challenges were encountered during facility commissioning. This session focused on the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit (IWTU), which was constructed to convert the remaining 900,000 gallons of liquid sodium-bearing waste at the Idaho National Laboratory Site, Idaho, USA, to a granular solid. The liquid waste was generated during historic spent nuclear fuel reprocessing campaigns at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center and was transferred to three underground storage tanks. The waste was not first-cycle waste but was rather the liquid rinse waste from flushing waste transfer lines between reprocessing runs. IWTU will employ a steam-reforming process to treat the liquid waste. The resulting granular solid will be transferred to stainless steel canisters and then to concrete vaults, which will be stored on site until an off-site national geologic repository is available to accept the waste. Presentation proposed: Bringing First-of-a-Kind Treatment Facilities On-Line: Idaho IWTU Commissioning Approach (Joel Case, US DOE (USA), Leo Thompson, Sterling Engineering and Consulting Group, LLC (USA), Joseph Giebel, Fluor Idaho, LLC (USA), Richard Boardman, Idaho National Laboratory (USA), Kevin O'Neill, US DOE (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Tank Waste LDR Organics Data Summary for Sample-and-Send (Rev.1A)

The presence of organic chemicals regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) adds complexity to treating and disposing of the low activity fraction of Hanford tank waste if a low temperature treatment method such as grouting is used (SRNL-STI-2020-00228). The complexity arises from the fact that the baseline vitrification method is considered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) as providing adequate thermal treatment for organics; a status not automatically extended to a lowtemperature process, such as solidifying the waste in a cementitious waste form. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) LDR program is intended to ensure that wastes are properly treated prior to disposal. Proper treatment makes hazardous waste less harmful to groundwater by reducing the mobility and/or toxicity of the hazardous constituents in the waste. EPA guidance indicates that stabilization/solidification of waste for organics could be considered impermissible dilution under the LDR dilution prohibition. In addition, waste storage activities at Hanford have required transferring and blending waste within the tank system and these activities have potentially altered the concentrations of the hazardous constituents. The LDR dilution prohibition found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 268.3 states that “… no generator, transporter, handler, or owner or operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility shall in any way dilute a restricted waste or the residual from treatment of a restricted waste as a substitute for adequate treatment …”. Hence, if LAW is to be treated using low temperature stabilization (such as cementation), then it is important to demonstrate both how past storage activities have contributed to the removal (by vacuum evaporation), or destruction (by in situ decomposition) of the LDR organics and how future retrieval and waste feed preparation will contribute to their removal (by filtration and ion exchange). Demonstrating these processes helps validate that cementation without additional organic treatment does not necessarily represent impermissible dilution. To aid in implementing cementitious solidification of Low Activity Waste (LAW), WRPS has been developing a regulatory and processing LDR treatment variance strategy termed “Sampleand-Send” that relies, in part, on demonstrating that in situ decomposition reactions along with historic evaporation of tank waste has destroyed or removed most of the LDR organics possibly associated with Hanford Tank Waste (SRNL-STI-2020-00582, SRNL-STI-2021-00453, SRNL-STI-2022-00391). Under the Sample-and-Send concept, Hanford tank waste would be retrieved, processed through a Tank-Side Cesium Removal-like system, and staged as a candidate feed that would then be sampled to confirm the waste acceptance criteria is met for solidification in an LAW cementitious treatment facility. If it can be shown that LDR organics are at concentrations below the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for cementitious stabilization and have been sufficiently removed (by historic evaporation or by filtration and ion exchange during Cs removal), destroyed (by historic in situ decomposition), or are not soluble in LAW above the WAC then additional organic treatment is not needed prior to creating a cementitious final waste form and the concept of Sample-and-Send would be proposed to establish a non-rulemaking site-specific treatment variance using the specified method of treatment “STABL” to remove sampling requirements of the waste form after treatment. Waste not meeting the WAC could either be routed to the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant for LAW vitrification, or further processed by evaporation or chemical oxidation before solidifying in a cementitious waste form. A key component in implementing the Sample-and-Send strategy is identifying which of the 207 LDR organic compounds associated with the RCRA Part A permit application waste codes for the Double Shell Tanks (DSTs) and Single Shell Tanks (SSTs) and any applicable Underlying Hazardous Constituents (UHCs) from 40 CFR 268.48 should be considered as potentially present and thus subject to regulation. In addition, it is also necessary to understand the solubility volatility, and reactivity of these compounds in LAW to identify which of the potentially present LDR organic compounds are not soluble above regulatory levels or are likely to have been removed by historic evaporation or destroyed by in situ decomposition reactions. If there are potentially present LDR organic compounds that have not been removed or destroyed and are soluble above regulatorily significant concentrations then a treatability variance may be needed for these species to eliminate any concerns pertaining to impermissible dilution. The spreadsheet accompanying this calculation report contains the data and logic computations needed to screen the list of 207 LDR organics associated with Hanford tank waste to identify those potentially present and to indicate which compounds may need to be included in a treatability variance.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗