Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DOE Order 435.1”

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 19 records

INL Environmental Monitoring Plan (DOE/ID-11088 Rev. 5)

This plan provides a high-level summary of environmental monitoring performed by various organizations within and around the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site as required by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, Guide DOE/EH-0173T, Environmental Regulatory Guide for Radiological Effluent Monitoring and Environmental Surveillance, and in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The purpose of these orders is to 1) implement sound stewardship practices that protect the air, water, land, and other natural and cultural resources that may be impacted by DOE operations, and 2) to establish standards and requirements for the operations of DOE and DOE contractors with respect to protection of the environment and members of the public against undue risk from radiation. This plan describes the organizations responsible for conducting environmental monitoring across the INL Site, the rationale for monitoring, the types of media being monitored, where the monitoring is conducted, and where monitoring results can be obtained. Detailed monitoring procedures, program plans, or other governing documents used by contractors or agencies to implement requirements are referenced in this plan. This plan covers all planned monitoring and environmental surveillance. Non-routine activities such as special research studies and characterization of individual sites for environmental restoration are outside the scope of this plan.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

FY 2020 Radionuclide Migration Project Status

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

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Annual Summary Report for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility—FY 2025

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requires the performance assessment (PA) (Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office [DOE-ID] 2018a), composite analysis (CA) (DOE-ID 2012), and CA addendum (DOE-ID 2018b) for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (RHLLW) Disposal Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site shall be maintained to evaluate changes that could affect the performance, design, and operating basis for the facility (DOE Manual 435.1-1 Change 3, “Radioactive Waste Management Manual,” Section IV.P. [4]). The RHLLW Disposal Facility became operational in September 2018 after the completion of operational readiness activities required by DOE Order 425.1D, “Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear Facilities,” and the issuance of the startup authorization by the Startup Approval Authority (Boston 2018). The first waste disposals at the RHLLW Disposal Facility began in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, no significant operational changes or other activities occurred that would cause deviation from the assumptions in the PA and CA pertaining to disposal geometry, verification of waste characteristics, tracking disposal inventories against total limits, facility closure design, or institutional controls. This FY 2025 annual summary report (ASR) documents the continued adequacy of the PA, CA, operating disposal authorization statement (ODAS) (ODAS 2018), ODAS technical-basis documents, and the radioactive waste management basis (RWMB) (INL 2024a) to meet DOE Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management,” performance objectives for the RHLLW Disposal Facility. Annual review of the adequacy of the PA and CA at the RHLLW Disposal Facility ensures that conclusions of the analyses remain valid in accordance with requirements of DOE Order 435.1.

12 - MGMT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTE↗

Development of a Conditioned System-Level Groundwater Model to Evaluate Long-Term Groundwater Impacts within a Performance Assessment - 20115

A preliminary performance assessment (PA) of single-shell tank Waste Management Area (WMA) A-AX located at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)'s Hanford Site in southeastern Washington is being conducted to satisfy the requirements of DOE Order 435.1 [1] as it relates to closure of the single-shell radioactive waste tanks in the WMA A-AX tank farms. A PA assesses the fate, transport, and impacts of radionuclides within a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility in its assumed closure configuration and the subsequent potential doses to humans over a 1,000-year compliance period and a 10,000-year performance evaluation period. The WMA A-AX preliminary PA evaluation is structured around the complementary use of process-level and system-level models to calculate the facility performance against established DOE Order 435.1 [1] performance objectives. Process-level models are those that represent a detailed phenomenological representation of processes of concern in the PA. Process models typically only represent one or a few of the components of the PA, such as groundwater flow and transport, and must be integrated with other modeling elements to perform PA calculations. System-level models are those that are abstracted from the process models, retaining the essential features of the process model, while allowing integration of all aspects of the PA in a single modeling framework. System-level models are often characterized by coarser numerical discretization, lower dimensionality, or other similar simplifications compared to the process-level model. Traditionally, a three-dimensional (3-D) process-level model is utilized primarily to evaluate the long-term impact on groundwater and the potential doses to individuals who consume contaminated groundwater. System-level models are also utilized to evaluate the groundwater pathway in PAs. These models typically have reduced dimensionality (1-D) and are conditioned utilizing flow fields (Darcy fluxes) and moisture content distributions that are abstracted from the process level models. The abstraction approach assures that the flow field in both models is consistent for a specific set of input parameters for flow, differing only in the discretization and dimensionality of the two models. The preliminary WMA A-AX PA incorporates a detailed representation of the geological system and hydraulic properties within the 3-D model STOMP{sup C} numerical code so that the effects of relevant features and processes on water flow and radionuclide transport in the subsurface can be evaluated. The complementary system-level model is developed utilizing the GoldSim{sup C} code to implement a simplified, 1-D equivalent model to represent the groundwater pathway. Contaminant transport through the vadose zone and unconfined aquifer for Tc-99 and I-129 were evaluated in each of the models. Adjustments to the saturated portion of the GoldSim{sup C} 1-D model were required to mimic the dispersion effect captured with the 3-D STOMP{sup C} model. Once this conditioning was conducted, highly similar results for the transport of Tc-99 and I-129 were achieved at the point of calculation, located 100 m downgradient from the WMA A-AX fenceline. These radionuclides represent elements that are regarded as primary dose drivers in the PA groundwater pathway analysis. The high degree of conformance between the two models suggests that the use of the equivalent 1-D system model is suitable for evaluating the full suite of radionuclides that will be released from the tank sources within WMA A-AX over the 1,000-year compliance period and over the 10,000-year evaluation period. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Stakeholder-Engaged Structured Decision Making for the Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Mission - 20501

The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) environmental legacy cleanup program requires decisions to be made for environmental remediation, decommissioning and disposal or management of radioactive waste. This legacy cleanup program was established to address groundwater contamination, material disposal areas (MDAs) that have been used to dispose of radioactive and other waste material, and 'aggregate areas' that might produce radioactive or other chemical waste as a result of remediation activities. The LANL site is regulated for environmental concerns under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). However, some parts of LANL, such as material disposal area G (MDA G), have disposed of radioactive waste under DOE Order 435.1, and are subject to other regulations. For example, decommissioning the remote-handled TRU material stored in 33 shafts at MDA G falls under EPA's 40 CFR 191. Collectively, the regulations are all aimed in the same direction of finding the best solution, either through constructs such as 'as low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA), considering balancing factors as opposed to only cost and human health risk, and, under EPA regulations such as RCRA and NEPA, evaluating impact from all chemicals and both human health and ecological endpoints. Despite the basic goals and objectives of the regulations or their guidance, the main challenge is in their implementation. Arguably perhaps, but really in principle, all of these (and similar) regulations are asking for a decision analysis to be performed. Implementation challenges encountered have included lack of understanding of decision analysis in the industry, lack of effective stakeholder engagement in the decision analysis process, and lack of appreciation of the need to separate value judgments from science, the latter leading to developing conservative, or protective, science-based models. Conservative models lead to poor solutions, lack of effective stakeholder engagement leads to long drawn out protracted approaches to finding a solution (which also might never be found with this approach), and lack of understanding of decision analysis and Bayesian statistics causes poor models to be built, which creates unfortunate situations of 'garbage in, garbage out' becoming the basis for decision making. Stakeholder-engaged structured decision making (SDM) is an approach to solving problems that relies on the theory of decision science to involve stakeholders in the decision-making process. This approach incorporates stakeholder values using a scientifically rigorous methodology that separates value judgments from science in a way that helps avoid the pitfalls of biased, protective, or conservative modeling. This approach has its foundation in Keeney's 1992 treatise on value-focused thinking [1]. Keeney advocated a paradigm shift in decision making based on the idea that the standard way of thinking about decisions is backwards. The standard approach of focusing first on identifying alternatives rather than on articulating values results in a reactive approach with the emphasis on mechanics and fixed choices instead of the core values that have meaning to stakeholders. This paradigm shift effectively engages all stakeholders in the decision-making process while using a values focused thinking approach that can lead to the identification of decision opportunities and the creation of better alternatives. The intent is to be proactive and generate solutions that are related directly to values and objectives as identified by stakeholders. There are, perhaps, two overarching reasons why SDM can be used to benefit LANL's environmental legacy cleanup. Some of LANL's remaining waste management and environmental management problems are challenging and complex (for example, the Cr and RDX plumes, and MDAs) and while the traditional approach has, arguably, worked well for relatively simple risk-based problems, it cannot, or should not, be applied to more complex problems if the most effective and efficient solutions are desired. The second reason is cost. This has perhaps become more critical since publication of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that DoE's environmental liability is considered a high-risk concern for the nation [2]. The focus of SDM is on structuring solutions to decision risk problems by first addressing stakeholder and decision maker values and subsequently developing decision objectives and ways to measure those objectives, preference weighting across objectives, identifying decision alternatives that best achieve those values, and characterizing uncertainty in predictions of the measures. Because a complete decision model is created using SDM, it can be evaluated to find the main elements of the model that drive, or predict, the best solution. This approach creates complete decision models that are transparent, traceable, reproducible and technically defensible. The science behind SDM, or decision analysis, is well founded, yet it is not unusual to see ad hoc approaches to decision making implemented under various environmental regulations that are pertinent to the LANL site, including NEPA, RCRA and DOE Order 435.1. Such ad hoc approaches are often not transparent or traceable, and lack reproducibility and technical defensibility. The LANL legacy cleanup program has embarked on using SDM to address the complex problems that remain. Stakeholder meetings have been held, and a prototype version of the stakeholder value system has been developed. Further meetings are expected in the future to address specific project needs. This is a long-term endeavor considering the complex environmental problems faced by DOE EM in Los Alamos (EM-LA), and careful planning, consideration of stakeholder value systems, and engagement with stakeholders throughout the SDM process is expected to lead to a successful endpoint. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

FY2020 Savannah River Site Composite Analysis Annual Summary Review

This document provides the Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 and its manual, Radioactive Waste Management (DOE 2021a, 2021b) required Annual Review for the Savannah River Site (SRS) Composite Analysis (CA). Progress made to-date toward addressing the secondary issue from the LFRG review of the 2010 SRS CA has focused primarily upon inventory estimate improvements. Inventory impacts dose in a linear fashion and reduces the uncertainty with the CA conclusions. Maintenance items are addressed, as funding allows, based on the relative risk associated with meeting the performance objectives. Currently, there is minimal risk in exceeding the DOE 100 mrem/yr CA primary dose limit or the DOE 30 mrem/yr dose constraint (administrative limit). Proposed activities, discoveries, new information and changes potentially affecting the 2010 SRS CA are documented in this and earlier Annual Summary reports, and a consolidated list of changes since the 2010 CA is documented in this report. The impact to the CA of changes arising from updated performance assessment (PA) baselines [i.e., Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF), E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (ELLWF), and F & H Tank Farm (FTF & HTF) closures] is expected to be minor for the following reasons: The primary contributors to the SRS CA dose impact at the Upper Three Runs (UTR) point of assessment (POA) are the H-Canyon and Mixed Waste Management Facility (MWMF), contributing 68% and 9%, respectively, to the dose impact at that POA. The combined contribution to the UTR dose impact from all PA’s (SDF, ELLWF, FTF and HTF) is ~2% of this total. The 2010 SRS CA model validation performed indicates that the CA projected dose, while generally conservative, provides a reasonable representation of the maximum annual doses. Doses evaluated are well below the SRS established 15 mrem/yr administrative limit (Crapse et al. 2011). Based on the assessment presented within this annual review and collective engineering judgement, the conclusions of the 2010 SRS CA remain valid and there is reasonable assurance that SRS will meet the performance objectives delineated in DOE Manual 435.1-1. The 2010 SRS CA should be updated to incorporate PA changes, proposed changes to inventories and sources and model improvements accumulated since the 2010 CA. The timing will be dependent on the completion of the ongoing E-Area PA revision.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

FY2021 Savannah River Site Composite Analysis Annual Summary Review

This document provides the Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 and its manual, Radioactive Waste Management (DOE 2021a, 2021b) required Annual Review for the Savannah River Site (SRS) Composite Analysis (CA). Progress made to-date toward addressing the secondary issue from the LFRG review of the 2010 SRS CA has focused primarily upon inventory estimate improvements. Inventory impacts dose in a linear fashion and reduces the uncertainty with the CA conclusions. Maintenance items are addressed, as funding allows, based on the relative risk associated with meeting the performance objectives. Currently, there is minimal risk in exceeding the DOE 100 mrem/yr CA primary dose limit or the DOE 30 mrem/yr dose constraint (administrative limit).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Special Analyses for the Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment - 20102

In 2014, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of River Protection and its contractors began to develop a performance assessment for the near-surface disposal of low-level and mixed low-level waste at the Hanford Site's Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). The IDF is a doubly-lined landfill that was constructed between 2004 and 2006 to be the disposal facility for the vitrified low-activity waste that will be produced at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). IDF is also expected to receive solid secondary waste produced at the WTP and other solid wastes from site activities. The IDF has been in a preoperational state awaiting authorization from DOE and a RCRA permit modification from the State of Washington Department of Ecology to receive waste. Both the Disposal Authorization Statement and permit modification require a performance assessment demonstrating that the system of engineered and natural features will limit releases of radionuclides and hazardous chemicals from the IDF and be protective of human health and the environment. The simulated duration is 10,000 years. Based on the analyses presented in the 2017 Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment, DOE issued a conditional Operating Disposal Authorization Statement for the IDF in June 2018. The long-term performance of the IDF to be protective of human health and the environment was evaluated under the requirements of DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. Computer simulations were performed to evaluate whether or not the IDF would comply with DOE requirements. In the time that has passed since the performance assessment was approved by DOE, new information has been discovered that had not been considered in the performance assessment. Since this new information has not been evaluated, the potential impact of the changes have not been taken into consideration in DoE's disposal authorization. DOE and its contractors follow a change control process to screen and, when necessary, evaluate new information that could potentially impact the conclusions of the completed performance assessment. This paper will describe the change control process and provide two examples of evaluations performed following the change control process. The first example evaluates a new waste form for liquid secondary waste that was not evaluated in the performance assessment. In the performance assessment, liquid secondary waste was assumed to be solidified with grout. A new recommendation to dispose of the liquid secondary waste after drying it to a powder was evaluated. The second example evaluates inventory implications from changes to the flow sheet that estimates the feed composition to the low-activity waste vitrification facility. The changes result in higher strontium concentrations in the vitrified waste stream. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

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↗

Air Pathway Dose Modeling for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 performance assessment (PA) process (USDOE 1999) prescribes a performance objective (10 mrem y -1 ) for evaluating atmospheric releases of radionuclides from DOE low-level waste (LLW) disposal facilities. The potential dose to an individual from exposure to radionuclides released into the atmosphere from LLW disposals can be estimated by application of radionuclide -specific dose-release factors (DRFs) (mrem Ci -1 ) to estimated flux rates (Ci y -1 ) at a particular time and location. In Revision 0 of this report, Lee (2006) calculated DRFs for potential atmospheric releases of 15 volatile radionuclides from seven ELLWF disposal units in support of the 2008 ELLWF PA (WSRC 2008). The mainframe version of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) dose model CAP88 was used in the Revision 0 assessment. In Revision 1 of this report (Dixon and Minter 2017), the site-specific Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) atmospheric dose models MAXDOSE-SR version 2013 (Stone and Jannik 2013a) and MAXINE version 2017 (Bell 2017) were used to calculate DRFs for ten radionuclides. This work (Revision 2) supersedes Revision 0 (Lee 2006) and Revision 1 (Dixon and Minter 2017) of this report. The Revision 2 method for estimating new DRFs for the ELLWF disposal units is described in this report.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Air Pathway Dose Modeling for the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 performance assessment (PA) process (USDOE 1999) prescribes a performance objective (10 mrem y -1 ) for evaluating atmospheric releases of radionuclides from DOE low-level waste (LLW) disposal facilities. The potential dose to an individual from exposure to radionuclides released into the atmosphere from LLW disposals can be estimated by application of radionuclide-specific dose-release factors (DRFs) (mrem Ci -1 ) to estimated flux rates (Ci y -1 ) at a particular time and location. In Revision 0 of this report, Lee (2006) calculated DRFs for potential atmospheric releases of 15 volatile radionuclides from seven ELLWF disposal units in support of the 2008 ELLWF PA (WSRC 2008). The mainframe version of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) dose model CAP88 was used in the Revision 0 assessment. In Revision 1 of this report (Dixon and Minter 2017), the site-specific Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) atmospheric dose models MAXDOSE-SR version 2013 (Stone and Jannik 2013a) and MAXINE version 2017 (Bell 2017) were used to calculate DRFs for ten radionuclides. Revision 2 provided updated DRFs using the current version of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) dose model CAP88-PC Version 4.1. After Revision 2 was finalized, DRFs were requested for Ar-37, Ar-39, Kr-83m, and Hg-206. Revision 3 provides the additional DRFs calculated using the same methods as used in Revision 2 of this document. The method for estimating new DRFs for the ELLWF disposal units is described in this report.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Radioactive Waste Management Basis

This Radioactive Waste Management Basis (RWMB) documents radioactive waste management practices adopted at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) pursuant to Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Annual Summary Report for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility—FY2021

This Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 annual summary report (ASR) documents the continued adequacy of the performance assessment (PA), the composite analysis (CA) and associated operating disposal-authorization statement (ODAS) technical basis documents for the Remote Handled (RH) Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Facility at Idaho National Laboratory. Annual review of the adequacy of the PA and CA for the RHLLW Disposal Facility ensures that conclusions of the analyses remain valid in accordance with requirements of Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management.” In FY 2021, no significant operational changes or other activities occurred that would cause deviation from the assumptions in the PA and CA pertaining to disposal geometry, verification of waste characteristics, tracking disposal inventories against total limits, facility closure design, or institutional controls. Sixteen total waste-canister shipments were received at the RHLLW Disposal Facility, and 16 total waste canisters were emplaced.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

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

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

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

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

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

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Radionuclide Inventory Threshold for Trench 31 and 34 Located Within the 200 West Area Low-Level Burial Grounds

Trenches 31 and 34 located in the 200 West Area Low-Level Burial Ground (LLBG) are authorized for disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste under DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. A revised Disposal Authorization Statement was issued in October 2023 following approval of the performance assessment (PA) and supporting technical basis documents. To be consistent with approved PA calculations, the waste acceptance criteria (WAC) needs to be updated to include concentration limits for Category 1 (CAT1) and Category 3 (CAT3) waste along with the inventory limits. This environmental calculation file (ECF) provides the inventory limits for Category 1 and Category 3 waste disposal of radionuclides at Trench 31 and 34 based on the PA calculations. The concentration limits are not calculated as they are provided in the PA itself. The inventory thresholds (or limits) are calculated for only those radionuclides that are identified in the PA as the primary dose contributors. The primary dose contributors for the groundwater pathway are technetium-99, iodine-129, niobium-94, chlorine-36, molybdenum-93, and niobium-93m while those for the air pathway are tritium and carbon-14.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Annual Summary Report for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility—FY 2024

This Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 annual summary report (ASR) documents the continued adequacy of the performance assessment (PA), the composite analysis (CA), and associated operating disposal- authorization statement (ODAS) technical-basis documents for the Remote-Handled (RH) Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Facility at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). Annual review of the adequacy of the PA and CA for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (RHLLW) Disposal Facility ensures that conclusions of the analyses remain valid in accordance with requirements of Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management.” In FY 2024, no significant operational changes or other activities occurred that would cause deviation from the assumptions in the PA and CA pertaining to disposal geometry, verification of waste characteristics, tracking disposal inventories against total limits, facility-closure design, or institutional controls. Nineteen waste canister shipments were received at the RHLLW Disposal Facility, and all nineteen waste canisters were emplaced in disposal vaults.

12 - MGMT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTE↗