Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “GROUND DISPOSAL”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records

Development of an atmospheric monitoring plan for space station

An environmental health monitoring plan for Space Station will ensure crew health during prolonged habitation. The Space Station, Freedom, will operate for extended periods, 90+ days, without resupply. A regenerative, closed loop life support system will be utilized in order to minimize resupply logistics and costs. Overboard disposal of wastes and venting of gases to space will be minimal. All waste material will be treated and recycled. The concentrated wastes will be stabilized and stored for ground disposal. The expected useful life of the station (decades) and the diversity of materials brought aboard for experimental or manufacturing purposes, increases the likelihood of cabin contamination. Processes by which cabin contamination can occur include: biological waste production, material off-gassing, process leakage, accidental containment breach, and accumulation due to poor removal efficiencies of the purification units. An industrial hygiene approach was taken to rationalize monitoring needs and to identify the substances likely to be present, the amount, and their hazard.

Casserly, Dennis M.↗

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

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

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Issue Resolution During the Development of the Performance Assessment for the Savannah River Site Saltstone Disposal Facility - 20125

In 2019, Savannah River Remediation developed a revision to the performance assessment (PA) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Savannah River Operations Office (SR) for the near-surface disposal of low-level waste at the Savannah River Site (SRS) Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). Soluble waste from SRS Tank Farms undergoes salt processing to remove cesium and other high-activity constituents. The low-activity decontaminated salt solution (DSS) is then immobilized by mixing it into a cementitious waste form known as saltstone. After mixing, the saltstone is poured into leak-tight concrete vaults, known as saltstone disposal units (SDUs), where the waste form cures. By the time of facility closure, the SDF is expected to consist of 15 SDUs with a combined capacity of 1.06 E+09 L (280 Mgal) of cured saltstone. The facility operates under a Disposal Authorization Statement from DOE and a permit from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Since the start of operations in 1990, the SDF has received almost 6.7 E+07 L (18 Mgal) of DSS, resulting in the safe disposal of 2.7 E+16 Bq (7.3 E+05 Ci) of activity. Due to the radioactive decay of short-lived contaminants, the total remaining activity in the disposed waste is estimated to be approximately 1.4 E+16 Bq (3.9 E+05 Ci), as of September 2018. The Disposal Authorization Statement requires a demonstration that the system of engineered and natural features of the disposal facility will limit releases from the facility and be protective of human health and the environment for at least the next 1,000 years. The long-term performance of the facility was evaluated under the requirements of the DoE's Radioactive Waste Management Manual (US DOE Manual 435.1-1). Simulations were performed to demonstrate that the disposal facility would meet performance objectives specified in the manual. The evaluation was based on numerical models that simulate the releases of contaminants from the saltstone waste form. Contaminants were transported through groundwater and air pathways to points of assessment to evaluate compliance (i.e., 100 m from the SDUs). In addition, the potential consequences of an inadvertent human intrusion (IHI) were also evaluated. A number of issues were overcome during the development of these simulations. These issues were identified as part of internal technical reviews. Simulations are developed by people and people make mistakes, so the internal technical review process is a vital step in PA development. Specific examples of resolved issues include a unit-conversion error, an inappropriate definition for a model boundary condition, a model time-stepping issue, and an error in the calculation for the buildup of contaminants in soil. Actions taken to address these issues resulted in an improved product with a better supported technical basis and more defensible results. The identification and correction of these issues are discussed. By understanding these issues, model developers and technical reviewers working on PAs in the future may avoid repeating these types of mistakes. Transparency with respect to these mistakes builds trust between waste management sites, regulators, and stakeholders. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Antenna with Dielectric Having Geometric Patterns

An antenna includes a ground plane, a dielectric disposed on the ground plane, and an electrically-conductive radiator disposed on the dielectric. The dielectric includes at least one layer of a first dielectric material and a second dielectric material that collectively define a dielectric geometric pattern, which may comprise a fractal geometry. The radiator defines a radiator geometric pattern, and the dielectric geometric pattern is geometrically identical, or substantially geometrically identical, to the radiator geometric pattern.

Dudley, Kenneth L.↗

Planar Via-Less Crossover Having Coplanar Waveguide Configurations and Stub Layers

A via-less crossover for use in broadband microwave/mm-wave circuitry, including: a dielectric substrate; a top layer disposed on one side of the substrate and including a microstrip line with an input and an output, two tapered sections placed around the microstrip line along a co-planar waveguide (CPW) central line, one microstrip portion having an input and which connects to one top layer, rectangular stub disposed adjacent to one of the tapered sections, and another microstrip portion having an output and which connects to another top layer, rectangular stub disposed adjacent to the other of the tapered sections; and a ground layer disposed on an opposite side of the substrate and including a bottom layer CPW central line situated in a central cutout and which connects between a bottom layer, rectangular stub on one side and a bottom layer, rectangular stub on the other side situated in ground cutouts, respectively.

U-Yen, Kongpop↗

Key Technical Issues for Greater-Than-Class-C (GTCC) Waste Disposal - 20164

Greater-than-Class C (GTCC) waste is low-level waste (LLW) that exceeds the Class C concentrations tabulated in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 61. Disposal of GTCC waste in the near surface (i.e. upper 30 m of the earth's surface) is prohibited in the United States. Though GTCC waste disposal is generally prohibited, the Commission can approve disposal according to 10 CFR 61.55(a)(2)(iv) on a case-by-case basis. The waste classification tables, developed in the early 1980's, were based on model projections of dose to an inadvertent intruder in agricultural, construction, and discovery exposure scenarios. The assumptions and parameters used were documented in a series of public reports. Though different disposal facility designs and site conditions were considered, the waste classification tables were based on a disposal facility design located in a specific environment. The tables were based on shallow (i.e., top few meters) trench facility designs and did not consider deeper facilities. To determine the suitability of GTCC waste disposal in the near-surface, site-specific analyses must account for differences between GTCC waste and Class A, B, and C LLW (hereafter, traditional LLW). GTCC waste can have concentrations of radionuclides that are much higher than traditional LLW. Because of these higher concentrations, processes that are typically not significant for traditional LLW may be significant with respect to disposal of GTCC waste. These processes include, but are not limited to, heat generation, criticality, and radiolysis. The form of the waste as well as the barriers to release of the waste (e.g. waste package) could be substantially different than they are for traditional LLW. These barriers need to be considered when assessing the impacts of accidents during receipt and placement and in evaluating long-term performance. Some GTCC radioactivity is either embedded in stainless steel or contained in stainless steel barriers. Stainless steel can have very low corrosion rates under a variety of environmental conditions. Finally, and possibly most importantly, GTCC waste would likely need to be disposed deeper than traditional LLW to reduce the probability of disturbance. The waste classification table values of traditional LLW are based on an inadvertent intruder excavating into the waste and bringing some of the material to the land surface. If waste is deeper than approximately 5 m, the excavation scenario becomes very unlikely. Therefore, other intruder scenarios, such as drilling exposure scenarios, need to be evaluated. This paper summarizes key technical issues for the disposal of GTCC waste. Our previous study shows that certain GTCC waste may be suitable for near surface disposal whereas others may not. This study may support ongoing technical analyses assessing potential disposal of GTCC in a near surface disposal facility. (authors)

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↗

Biohydrogen Generation from Un-Pretreated Spent Coffee Grounds with Clostridium Thermocellum

Coffee is among the world's most widely consumed beverages, generating 18 million wet tonnes of waste spent coffee grounds annually. Disposal of SCGs is complicated by their high moisture content, their recalcitrant chemical composition, and the presence of caffeine and other bioactive compounds. Dark fermentation is a promising technology for conversion of waste cellulosic biomass into renewable hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and volatile fatty acids. Typical SCGs have high moisture content, are pre-milled to fine particle sizes, and contain 8%-19% cellulose and up to 40% hemicellulose, making them an attractive feedstock for dark fermentation. In this study, we investigate biohydrogen production from unpretreated SCGs using Clostridium thermocellum strain KJC19-9, a cellulolytic bacterium engineered to co-utilize xylose, specifically examining the inhibitory effects of residual caffeine and high solids loadings on microbial growth and hydrogen production efficiency. While SCGs were initially resistant to both cell growth and biohydrogen production, a strategy to co-ferment with low concentrations of cellobiose dramatically enhanced process performance, reducing lag phase duration and enabling cellulosome production for efficient cellulose hydrolysis. This co-substrate approach generated up to 944 mL hydrogen per L reaction from 50 g/L of spent coffee grounds over 120 h (1.34 mol H2/mol carbohydrate), validating SCGs as a promising dark fermentation feedstock and underscoring the value of mixed substrate approaches in consolidated bioprocessing.

08 HYDROGEN↗

Panel Session 116: Waste Management from Remediation of Legacy Sites or Unplanned Releases

Past experiences have shown that there is often a disconnect between Indigenous societies and Western society. This disconnect can be attributed to different value systems between these two group and is not limited to the USA and Canada but also extends into Australia, New Zealand, and the Central Asia Republics (the 'five Stans'). The intent of this Panel Session to give voice to representatives from Indigenous communities, the challenges presented in remediation processes, and potential solutions. Standard risk assessment assumptions developed for Western societies often do not adequately address the cultural and spiritual values that may be unique to indigenous societies. This panel focused on the perspectives of Indigenous societies (e.g., Indian Tribes (US), First Nations (Canada)) related to risk assessment of environmental remediation challenges, including deep geological disposal of HLW and ILW, near-surface disposal of LLW and in-situ entombment of nuclear reactor components, and environmental remediation of abandoned uranium mines and historic wastes. Standard risk assessment assumptions often do not adequately address the cultural and spiritual values that may be unique to indigenous societies. Factoring those into a risk assessment that still meets regulatory requirements and policies such as reasonably anticipated land use at US EPA CERCLA sites can be challenging but has the potential to lead to a site or facility approach that is more accepted. Panelists with presentations: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Process - A Path for Indigenous Knowledge? (Francis Cameron); Local Community Perceptions and Remediation Projects (Michelle Roberts); Indigenous Perspectives on Risk Assessment (Bob Watts); Navajo Superfund Program: Fundamental Law and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (Dariel Yazzie); Risk Assessment: Two Indigenous Approaches (Whitney Fraser)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

A computer software system for integration and analysis of grid-based remote sensing data with other natural resource data. Remote Sensing Project

A computer-based information system is described designed to assist in the integration of commonly available spatial data for regional planning and resource analysis. The Resource Analysis Program (RAP) provides a variety of analytical and mapping phases for single factor or multi-factor analyses. The unique analytical and graphic capabilities of RAP are demonstrated with a study conducted in Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan. Soil, land cover/use, topographic and geological maps were used as a data base to develope an eleven map portfolio. The major themes of the portfolio are land cover/use, non-point water pollution, waste disposal, and ground water recharge.

Tilmann, S. E.↗

A computer software system for integration and analysis of grid-based remote sensing data with other natural resource data

This report describes a computer-based information system designed to assist in the integration of commonly available spatial data for regional planning and resource analysis. The Resource Analysis Program (RAP) provides a variety of analytical and mapping phases for single factor or multi-factor analyses. The unique analytical and graphic capabilities of RAP are demonstrated with a study conducted in Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan. For this study, soil, land cover/use, topographic and geological maps were used as a data base to develop an eleven map portfolio. The major themes of the portfolio are land cover/use, nonpoint water pollution, waste disposal, and ground water recharge.

Tilmann, S. E.↗

Annual Status Report (FY 2020): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low Level Waste in the 200 East Area Burial Grounds

This annual review provides the projected dose estimates of radionuclide inventories disposed in the 200 East Area Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds (LLBGs) since September 26, 1988. These estimates are calculated using the original dose methodology developed in the performance assessment (PA) analysis (WHC-SD-WM-TI-730). The estimates are compared with requirements of DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 and performance objectives defined in companion documents DOE M 435.1-1 Chg 1and DOE-STD-5002-2017). All performance objectives are currently satisfied, and operational waste acceptance criteria (HNF-EP-0063) and waste acceptance practices continue to be sufficient to maintain compliance with performance objectives. Inventory estimates and associated dose estimates from future waste disposal actions are unchanged from previous years’ evaluations that indicate potential impacts well below performance objectives; therefore, future compliance with DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 is expected. A new PA study was initiated in fiscal year (FY) 2019 for evaluation of active disposal sites within the 200 East and 200 West Areas (Trench 94 in 200 East; Trenches 31 and 34 in 200 West) due to extended time elapsing between the current annual status report and the original PA for the active disposal sites. The new PA for the active disposal sites is expected to be completed in FY 2021. Within the active burial grounds in the 200 East Area, low-level waste and mixed low-level waste will continue to be disposed of in the dedicated U.S. Navy reactor compartment trench at the 218-E-12B Burial Ground (Trench 94). During this reporting period (FY 2020, from October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020), two reactor compartments were disposed in Trench 94. Results from sorption experiments are summarized for this reporting period to quantify the efficacy of concrete waste forms in retaining key radionuclides (e.g., technetium-99 and iodine-129). The test durations ranged from 1 to 3 months. Continued groundwater monitoring of the 200 East Area LLBGs indicates no groundwater contamination due to LLBG waste. Current assumptions about future land use at the Hanford Site are consistent with PA analysis1 assumptions of a post-closure facility that will not be degraded by human activity. The LLBGs are located in an area identified for waste management and containment of residual contamination. This area will remain after final environmental remediation and the proposed shrinkage of Hanford Site boundaries to small sections within the 200 East and 200 West Areas in the Central Plateau (DOE/EIS-0391). The current closure plan for the LLBGs (DOE/RL-2000-707) estimates that the 200 East LLBGs will be closed in the 2050 timeframe. The Disposal Authorization Statement, other technical basis documents, and the radioactive waste management basis are of continued adequacy to meet the performance objectives of DOE O 435.1 Chg 1. Overall, there are no substantive changes to primary PA assumptions nor the PA analysis conclusion; therefore, compliance with DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 and the Disposal Authorization Statement is maintained.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Annual Summary Report (FY 2025) Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste in the 200 East Area Burial Grounds

This annual review provides the projected dose estimates of radionuclide inventories disposed in the 200 East Area Low Level Burial Grounds (LLBGs) since September 26, 1988. All trenches in these burial grounds except one have remained inactive since July 2004. Trench 94 located in 218-E-12B Burial Ground is the only active trench, which is dedicated for disposal of U.S. Navy reactor compartments. During this reporting period (fiscal year 2025, from October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2025), two reactor compartments were disposed in Trench 94.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Microwave switching power divider

A pair of parallel, spaced-apart circular ground planes define a microwave cavity with multi-port microwave power distributing switching circuitry formed on opposite sides of a thin circular dielectric substrate disposed between the ground planes. The power distributing circuitry includes a conductive disk located at the center of the substrate and connected to a source of microwave energy. A high speed, low insertion loss switching diode and a dc blocking capacitor are connected in series between the outer end of a transmission line and an output port. A high impedance, microwave blocking dc bias choke is connected between each switching diode and a source of switching current. The switching source forward biases the diodes to couple microwave energy from the conductive disk to selected output ports and, to associated antenna elements connected to the output ports to form a synthesized antenna pattern.

Stockton, R. J.↗

Vadose Zone Model for B-3A/B Pond for Composite Analysis

The objectives of the vadose modeling for the updated Hanford Site composite analysis (CA) are to simulate the flow and transport of water and radionuclide releases from the surface to the water table and to provide radionuclide transfer rates for the plateau to river (P2R) model, version 8.3 (CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Model, Version 8.3). Water additions include natural recharge and water discharged to the ground as a result of industrial processes associated with Hanford Site operations. Contaminant sources include radionuclides in water discharged to the ground during operations and radionuclides disposed “dry” in solid waste burial grounds or other means. The following 16 radionuclides were selected for this modeling effort; carbon-14 (C-14), chlorine-36 (Cl-36), tritium (H-3), iodine-129 (I-129), neptunium-237 (Np-237), rhenium-187 (Re-187), strontium-90 (Sr-90), technetium-99 (Tc-99), uranium-232 (U-232), uranium-233 (U-233), uranium-234 (U-234), uranium-235 (U-235), uranium-236 (U-236), uranium-238 (U-238), radium-226 (Ra-226), and thorium-230 (Th-230). The simulation time starts in 1943 and ends at 12070, which is 10,000 years after assumed Hanford Site closure in 2070. The parallel version of the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP) simulator officially named the exascale Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (eSTOMP), is used to simulate flow and transport for the vadose models. The documentation for the STOMP code is comprehensive. The theoretical and numerical approaches applied in the STOMP code are documented in a published theory guide (PNNL-12030, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 2.0 Theory Guide). The code has undergone a rigorous verification procedure against analytical solutions, laboratory-scale experiments, and field-scale demonstrations. The application guide (PNNL-11216, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Application Guide) provides instructive examples in the application of the code to classical groundwater problems. The user’s guide (PNNL-15782, STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 4.0: User’s Guide) describes the general use, input file formatting, compilation, and execution of the code. The primary output of the vadose zone modeling is radionuclide transfer rates to the groundwater for input into the P2R model. The rates will be summed over the 100 by 100 m P2R grid cells that fall within the vadose zone model source domain. The Hanford Site Central Plateau was subdivided into 26 individual vadose zone models, with 13 in the 200 East Area and 13 in the 200 West Area. Waste sites that have a completed performance assessment (PA) or past-leak analysis were not included as sources of radionuclides. Instead the vadose zone to groundwater transfer rates of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Integrated Disposal Facility, US Ecology, and Waste Management Area C (WMA C) PAs and the past-leak analysis for WMA C were used as direct input to the P2R model. Each of the vadose zone models is documented in separate environmental calculation files (ECFs). This ECF describes the B-3A/B Ponds model. The scope of this ECF is to document the development and results of the B-3 A/B Ponds vadose zone model. CP-63515, Model Package Report: Central Plateau Vadose Zone Models, describes the approach, assumptions, process of determining the number of models required and domain of each model, input data, and processing common to all the models.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Vadose Zone Model for SALDS for Composite Analysis

The objectives of the vadose modeling for the updated Hanford Site composite analysis (CA) are to simulate the flow and transport of water and radionuclide releases from the surface to the water table and to provide radionuclide transfer rates for the plateau to river (P2R) model, version 8.3 (CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Model, Version 8.3). Water additions include natural recharge and water discharged to the ground as a result of industrial processes associated with Hanford Site operations. Contaminant sources include radionuclides in water discharged to the ground during operations and radionuclides disposed “dry” in solid waste burial grounds or other means. The following 16 radionuclides were selected for this modeling effort: carbon-14 (C-14), chlorine-36 (Cl-36), tritium (H-3), iodine-129 (I-129), neptunium-237 (Np-237), rhenium-187 (Re-187), strontium-90 (Sr-90), technetium-99 (Tc-99), uranium-232 (U-232), uranium-233 (U-233), uranium-234 (U-234), uranium-235 (U-235), uranium-236 (U-236), uranium-238 (U-238), radium-226 (Ra-226), and thorium-230 (Th-230). The simulation time starts in 1943 and ends at 12070, which is 10,000 years after assumed Hanford Site closure in 2070. The parallel version of the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP1) simulator, officially named the exascale Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (eSTOMP) is used to simulate flow and transport for the vadose models. The documentation for the STOMP code is comprehensive. The theoretical and numerical approaches applied in the STOMP code are documented in a published theory guide (PNNL-12030, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 2.0 Theory Guide). The code has undergone a rigorous verification procedure against analytical solutions, laboratory-scale experiments, and field-scale demonstrations. The application guide (PNNL-11216, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Application Guide) provides instructive examples in the application of the code to classical groundwater problems. The user’s guide (PNNL-15782, STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 4.0: User’s Guide) describes the general use, input file formatting, compilation, and execution of the code. The primary output of the vadose zone modeling is radionuclide transfer rates to the groundwater for input into the P2R model. The rates will be summed over the 100 by 100 m P2R grid cells that fall within the vadose zone model source domain. The Hanford Site Central Plateau was subdivided into 26 individual vadose zone models, with 13 in the 200 East Area and 13 in the 200 West Area. Waste sites that have a completed performance assessment (PA) or past-leak analysis were not included as sources of radionuclides. Instead the vadose zone to groundwater transfer rates of the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, Integrated Disposal Facility, US Ecology, and Waste Management Area C (WMA C) PAs and the past-leak analysis for WMA C were used as direct input to the P2R model. Each of the vadose zone models is documented in separate environmental calculation files (ECFs). This ECF describes the State-Approved Land Disposal Site (SALDS) model. The scope of this ECF is to document the development and results of the SALDS vadose zone model. CP-63515, Model Package Report: Central Plateau Vadose Zone Models, describes the approach, assumptions, process of determining the number of models required and domain of each model, input data, and processing common to all the models.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Vadose Zone Model for B-63 Area for Composite Analysis

The objectives of the vadose modeling for the updated Hanford Site composite analysis (CA) are to simulate the flow and transport of water and radionuclide releases from the surface to the water table and to provide radionuclide transfer rates for the plateau to river (P2R) model, version 8.3 (CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Model, Version 8.3). Water additions include natural recharge and water discharged to the ground as a result of industrial processes associated with Hanford Site operations. Contaminant sources include radionuclides in water discharged to the ground during operations and radionuclides disposed “dry” in solid waste burial grounds or other means. The following 16 radionuclides were selected for this modeling effort; carbon-14 (C-14), chlorine-36 (Cl-36), tritium (H-3), iodine-129 (I-129), neptunium-237 (Np-237), rhenium-187 (Re-187), strontium-90 (Sr-90), technetium-99 (Tc-99), uranium-232 (U-232), uranium-233 (U-233), uranium-234 (U-234), uranium-235 (U-235), uranium-236 (U-236), uranium-238 (U-238), radium-226 (Ra-226), and thorium-230 (Th-230). The simulation time starts in 1943 and ends at 12070, which is 10,000 years after assumed Hanford Site closure in 2070. The parallel version of the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP1) simulator, officially named the exascale Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (eSTOMP), is used to simulate flow and transport for the vadose models. The documentation for the STOMP code is comprehensive. The theoretical and numerical approaches applied in the STOMP code are documented in a published theory guide (PNNL-12030, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 2.0 Theory Guide). The code has undergone a rigorous verification procedure against analytical solutions, laboratory-scale experiments, and field-scale demonstrations. The application guide (PNNL-11216, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Application Guide) provides instructive examples in the application of the code to classical groundwater problems. The user’s guide (PNNL-15782, STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 4.0: User’s Guide) describes the general use, input file formatting, compilation, and execution of the code. The primary output of the vadose zone modeling is radionuclide transfer rates to the groundwater for input into the P2R model. The rates will be summed over the 100 by 100 m P2R grid cells that fall within the vadose zone model source domain.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Vadose Zone Model for REDOX Area for Composite Analysis

The objectives of the vadose modeling for the updated Hanford Site composite analysis (CA) are to simulate the flow and transport of water and radionuclide releases from the surface to the water table and to provide radionuclide transfer rates for the plateau to river (P2R) model, version 8.3 (CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Model, Version 8.3). Water additions include natural recharge and water discharged to the ground as a result of industrial processes associated with Hanford Site operations. Contaminant sources include radionuclides in water discharged to the ground during operations and radionuclides disposed “dry” in solid waste burial grounds or other means. The following 16 radionuclides were selected for this modeling effort: carbon-14 (C-14), chlorine-36 (Cl-36), tritium (H-3), iodine-129 (I-129), neptunium-237 (Np-237), rhenium-187 (Re-187), strontium-90 (Sr-90), technetium-99 (Tc-99), uranium-232 (U-232), uranium-233 (U-233), uranium-234 (U-234), uranium-235 (U-235), uranium-236 (U-236), uranium-238 (U-238), radium-226 (Ra-226), and thorium-230 (Th-230). The simulation time starts in 1943 and ends at 12070, which is 10,000 years after assumed Hanford Site closure in 2070. The parallel version of the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP1) simulator, officially named the exascale Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (eSTOMP), is used to simulate flow and transport for the vadose models. The documentation for the STOMP code is comprehensive. The theoretical and numerical approaches applied in the STOMP code are documented in a published theory guide (PNNL-12030, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 2.0 Theory Guide). The code has undergone a rigorous verification procedure against analytical solutions, laboratory-scale experiments, and field-scale demonstrations. The application guide (PNNL-11216, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Application Guide) provides instructive examples in the application of the code to classical groundwater problems. The user’s guide (PNNL-15782, STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 4.0: User’s Guide) describes the general use, input file formatting, compilation, and execution of the code. The primary output of the vadose zone modeling is radionuclide transfer rates to the groundwater for input into the P2R model. The rates will be summed over the 100 by 100 m P2R grid cells that fall within the vadose zone model source domain.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗