Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “TRU”

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

Los Alamos National Laboratory Input for the National TRU Program 5 Year Plan for National Nuclear Security Administration TRU Waste

On July 16, 2018, Los Alamos National Security (LANS) received a Corporate Board Data Call for Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) site input to the National TRU Program 5 Year Plan from the Office of the National TRU Program. This report summarizes LANL input for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) TRU waste and captures the shipping needs to support the LANL mission. Information is included for the current waste inventory and projected generation rates. The site’s location, characteristics, role and mission are described. Additional information for consideration and pictures for inclusion are provided. A separate submittal will be prepared by N3B for LANL legacy TRU waste managed by N3B under contract to EM-LA.

, LANL↗

National Plan for the Disposal of Existing and Future TRU Wastes - 18616

Now that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) has re-opened, after being down for three years due to an accident the DOE National TRU Program has re-developed a plan for the disposal of existing and future TRU wastes. The National TRU Waste Management Plan (NTWMP) is an integrated plan to address the needs of DOE sites across the DOE Weapons Complex that create and store TRU waste, and is centered on the capability of WIPP to receive and dispose of TRU waste. The WIPP capability is planned as a weekly shipping rate and is defined by emplacement and receipt rate capabilities since WIPP is not permitted for long-term storage. And, shipping rates may be constrained by new WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) and future plans for repository configurations and disposal package capabilities over the next 30 years. Since WIPP is the only disposal system available to the DOE for TRU waste disposal, DOE has a newly projected life-cycle need for WIPP to remain open and available up to 2050. It is projected that the need for WIPP will continue up to the year 2050 for the disposition of the remaining legacy TRU inventories and for the disposal of TRU waste continuing to be generated at DOE's National Laboratories. In addition, there are several other potential new waste streams in which WIPP is being considered an alternative solution for their disposition. The NTWMP has been updated to reflect the short-term and long-term plans for TRU waste disposal at WIPP. The short-term plan is used by DOE for budget projection and integration purposes to facilitate and inform budget planning, both in DOE's Environmental Management (EM) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) organizations. Most legacy TRU waste (generated in the past and stored at DOE sites today) is owned and managed by EM. And, EM submits integrated budget requests for DOE sites, including the integration of resources for TRU waste management. NNSA and DOE's Office of Science (OS) funds TRU waste management as part of their mission funding and NNSA should eventually be the primary user of the WIPP resources as EM's legacy TRU waste is cleaned-up. Prior to the unexpected shutdown of WIPP in 2014, there was a small back-log of waste certified for WIPP disposal and shipments of TRU waste to WIPP were 'just-in-time' as waste was certified. After three years of WIPP being down, DOE sites have built significant back-logs of TRU waste to be certified for WIPP. That back-log built up to over 25,000 containers of TRU waste during that three-year period (Table 1). The backlog included both Contact-Handled (CH) TRU waste and Remote-Handled (RH) TRU waste, and even though WIPP re-opened in April of 2017, it is only open for TRU waste containers that can be stacked on disposal room floors. Plans for changing RH waste disposal packages and methods are in-the-works, but are not yet mature enough for significant planning. In addition, the WIPP underground facilities are now partially contaminated with radioactive particulate, which significantly reduces the WIPP operational efficiencies as compared to 2014. With a large back-log of waste ready for WIPP disposal and limited throughput for WIPP disposal rates, the focus of the NTWMP is to prioritize the selection of TRU wastes from the various sites based on WIPP waste emplacement rates and shipping rates to WIPP. Some TRU waste sites have a significant need to be top priority for shipments to WIPP, and that must be balanced with the need for all TRU waste sites to have some shipments to deplete their back-log of TRU wastes. Storage and management of TRU waste is very costly for DOE and many of those resources could be used to optimize the overall disposition of TRU waste and save DOE significant funding. In addition, the plan will show the possible transition of TRU Waste Management from primarily being an EM function to being an NNSA function in the coming years. As legacy TRU waste inventories are removed, and as NNSA mission-related TRU waste inventories are produced, DOE will be faced with deciding where the primary responsibility for TRU waste management should reside. (author)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Characterization techniques for TRU waste from the Analytical Laboratory Hot Cells at Idaho National Laboratory

Characterization techniques for TRU waste from the Analytical Laboratory Hot Cells at Idaho National Laboratory Since the first reactor went hot in 1942, there has been a never ending desire to improve the nuclear reactor and the fuel that it burns. The Idaho National Laboratory has been a key player in reactor and fuel development. As more research projects begin, the spectrum of waste parameters grows. Over the years, the Analytical Laboratory (AL) at the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has supported a large range of various research projects. Each project brings its own challenge and analytical technique that, in turn, yields its own unique waste parameters. The AL Hot Cells at INL consist of 6 small cells that can support around 12 different fuel research projects at a time along with infrastructure and environmental samples. Each different project yields different levels of transuranic (TRU) material, RCRA constituents, dose, and contamination levels. The waste parameters from each project dictate a path forward for the waste Low-Level Waste (LLW), Contact Handled TRU (CH-TRU), Mixed Contact Handled TRU (M-CH-TRU), Remote Handled TRU (RH-TRU), or Mixed Remote Handled TRU (M-RH-TRU). With visual examination techniques and process knowledge as an aid, there have been waste handling methods developed that allow debris and sample material to be segregated. Unique characterization mechanisms have been applied for each debris and sample material that are generally more accurate than smear and surface contamination data. For debris found in the Hot Cells, analytical data is gathered and conservatively summarized for each fuel type and research method. This consists of data from Quadrupole Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (Q-ICP-MS), Gamma Spectroscopy, and some data verification through Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry (TIMS) and Multi-Collector Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS). This data gives a range of TRU isotope concentrations. Fuel age is taken into account to determine the dominant TRU activity isotopes. Cesium concentrations are also gathered. Each parameter/fuel type then ties a measured Cesium number to TRU content based on historical analytical data. Debris in the hot cells is segregated by project and packaged in individual 2 gallon metal paint cans. Each can is counted by gamma spectroscopy in a calculated and measured geometry. Using process knowledge to determine the fuel or project type, newly counted cesium numbers can be applied to the historic analytical data and TRU content can be estimated. The TRU content allows waste debris to be segregated between CH-TRU and RH-TRU. Packaging techniques can allow for the minimization if RH-TRU waste. Sample material received into the AL must be dissolved into a liquid matrix in order to be analyzed in most cases. When analysis is complete, these liquids go through a consolidation, complexation, neutralization, and solidification process where real time analytical data can be used to calculate TRU content and RCRA constitutes. These calculations allow for no further analytical data to be gathered. The waste matrix is considered stable and acceptable by all AK [define AK] documents. The unique techniques used in characterizing and handling the Analytical Laboratories Hot Cell waste can be applied to various situations and various laboratories. They allow for more accurate data for waste constituents and also for the minimization of RH-TRU waste.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗

Characterization Techniques for TRU Waste from the Analytical Laboratory Hot Cells at Idaho National Laboratory - 19610

Since the first reactor went hot in 1942, there has been a never ending desire to improve the nuclear reactor and the fuel that it burns. The Idaho National Laboratory has been a key player in reactor and fuel development. As more research projects begin, the spectrum of waste parameters grows. Over the years, the Analytical laboratory (AL) at the INL Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) has supported a large range of various research projects. Each project brings its own challenge and analytical technique that, in turn, yields its own unique waste parameters. The AL Hot Cells at INL consist of 6 small cells that can support around 12 different fuel research projects at a time along with infrastructure and environmental samples. Each different project yields different levels of transuranic (TRU) material, RCRA constituents, dose, and contamination levels. The waste parameters from each project dictate a path forward for the waste as Low-Level Waste (LLW), Contact Handled TRU (CH-TRU), Mixed Contact Handled TRU (M-CH-TRU), Remote Handled TRU (RH-TRU), or Mixed Remote Handled TRU (M-RHTRU). With visual examination techniques and process knowledge as an aid, there have been waste handling methods developed that allow debris and sample material to be segregated. Unique characterization mechanisms have been applied for each debris and sample material that are generally more accurate than smear and surface contamination data. For debris found in the Hot Cells, analytical data is gathered and conservatively summarized for each fuel type and research method. This consists of data from Quadrupole Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (Q-ICP-MS), Gamma Spectroscopy, and some data verification through Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry (TIMS) and Multi-Collector Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (MC-ICP-MS). This data gives a range of TRU isotope concentrations. Fuel age is taken into account to determine the dominant TRU activity isotopes. Cesium concentrations are also gathered. Each parameter/fuel type then ties a measured Cesium number to TRU content based on historical analytical data. Debris in the hot cells is segregated by project and packaged in individual 2 gallon metal paint cans. Each can is counted by gamma spectroscopy in a calculated and measured geometry. Using process knowledge to determine the fuel or project type, newly counted cesium numbers can be applied to the historic analytical data and TRU content can be estimated. The TRU content allows waste debris to be segregated between CH-TRU and RH-TRU. Packaging techniques can allow for the minimization of RHTRU waste. Sample material received into the AL must be dissolved into a liquid matrix in order to be analyzed in most cases. When analysis is complete, these liquids go through a consolidation, complexation, neutralization, and solidification process where real time analytical data can be used to calculate TRU content and RCRA constitutes. These calculations allow for no further analytical data to be gathered. The waste matrix is considered stable and acceptable by all Acceptable Knowledge (AK) documents. The unique techniques used in characterizing and handling the Analytical Laboratories Hot Cell waste can be applied to various situations and various laboratories. They allow for more accurate data for waste constituents and also for the minimization of RH-TRU waste. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

WIPP Space Faces TRU Waste Disposal Limits; The Volume Reducing Solution - 18365

Transuranic (TRU) waste packaging for removal from a glovebox has for many years involved the use of bags as the primary containment. In many cases, many hydrogenous layers of bags, yards of tape, and multiple filters are added to the waste stream in order to get the TRU waste into the final 55 gallon drum package to be shipped and buried at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The WIPP is currently limited to a total finite disposed volume of Contact Handled (CH) and Remote Handled (RH) TRU waste. As of early 2014 over half of the allotted WIPP volume had been filled with mainly CH-TRU waste. Based on current bag operation packaging methods used, the Department of Energy's (DOE) remaining CH and RH waste will not fit in the remaining limited WIPP space. Bag operations, can be performed safely by good operators following tedious repetitive processes and many Administrative Safety Controls. Since the bag is the only confinement layer between the contamination and the operator, contamination incidents can occur. Bag-out operations require close proximity to the waste to perform the process. With some waste streams, this close to waste proximity increases operator radiation dose. Central Research Laboratories (CRL), based in Red Wing Minnesota, who for many decades has developed proven engineered material transfer solutions based around their Rapid Transfer Port (RTP) technology, has worked with DOE sites to develop a TRU Waste Management Solution. The solution is a single filtered large Polyethylene (PE) or Stainless Steel (SST) Rapid Transfer Port container in a standard Department of Transportation (DOT) 7A, Type A drum, which allows for loading of TRU waste directly from the operational glovebox without the use of bags, sleeves or tapes to provide leak tight containment. All operator interventions to connect and disconnect a drum to and from the glovebox are achieved in an upright ergonomic position by one (1) operator in less than three (3) minutes. Minimal As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) levels are achieved during connect and disconnect of the drum, due to the engineered safety controls of the RTP. The CRL RTP solution allows glovebox or re-packaged TRU waste to be safely transferred to the final 55 Gallon drum container without additional bags or tape. The high diffusion coefficient filter on the CRL RTP 55G container and elimination of added hydrogenous packaging, improves the Decay Heat Limit (DHL) per drum for most TRU waste types compared with bagged drums, and in most cases allows more TRU waste to be loaded per drum. Inorganic TRU waste materials can be packaged directly into the CRL RTP SST drum container to the maximum DHL and Fissile Gram Equivalent (FGE) allowable for a drum. This paper will show how highly efficient TRAMPAC approved TRU waste packaging of CH and RH TRU waste can be accomplished in a safer, cost effective manner without adding any additional packaging materials to the waste stream, thus increasing the chance of placing all DOE's legacy and to be generated TRU waste in the remaining WIPP space. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Fundamental Properties for Evaluation of Uranium-free TRU-Zr Metal Fuel Performance

FR (Fast Reactor) is widely recognized to effectively burn plutonium and MA (Minor Actinides) (i.e., TRU: Transuranic) due to its higher fission-to-neutron-capture ratio compared to LWR. When TRU in LWR (Light Water Reactor) spent fuel is recycled into FR cycle, the radiotoxicity of the residual nuclear wastes from LWR spent fuel is reduced to natural uranium level after several hundred years instead of more than hundreds of thousand years for no recycling case. It could significantly improve public perception to nuclear waste disposal and might reduce the burden of the disposal. However, U-TRU-fueled fast reactors also produce TRU while burning TRU because they use uranium together with TRU. For example, FR, even with low conversion ratio of 0.75, burns only 0.18 t TRU/GWe/y, while LWRs produces about 0.22 t TRU/GWe/y. It is not a realistic scenario which needs almost the same capacity of fast reactors as that of LWRs to continuously burn TRU at LWR-dominant era in the near term at least. Therefore, a FR system to burn TRU from LWR with the minimum reactor units is desirable. The most effective way is to use uranium-free TRU fuel since it does not produce any new TRU. It can reduce the capacity of the TRU burner units and the associated fuel cycle facilities to about 1/5 and 1/8 respectively. Metal fuel FR cycle is considered to be one of the most promising ways because uranium-free TRU metal fuel could be recycled by pyro-process for U-Pu-Zr metal fuel without large modifications. This paper shows the recent research progress on fundamental properties of uranium-free TRU metal fuel. (authors)

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Characteristics of TRU Fueled SFR Core during the Transition with Partially Loaded LEU Assemblies

The fast reactor (FR) fuels typically require higher fissile content than the thermal reactor fuels because the cross sections of the fissile isotopes are smaller relative to the fertile isotopes and higher neutron leakage from the reactor core. The medium-sized high-burnup sodium-cooled fast reactors (SFRs) in the framework of uranium-plutonium/transuranic (U/Pu or U/TRU) fuel-cycle can be optimized to operate with less than 17 % of Pu/TRU content in the driver fuel while having higher TRU conversion ratios (CR~1.0) [1]. However, possible shortage or inaccessibility to TRU based fuel could be accommodated by the use of uranium-based fuels on demand such as low enriched uranium (LEU) having significantly higher 235U content than used in the commercial light water reactors (LWRs), which is defined as high-assay LEU. The reactor systems having low TRU conversion ratio are commonly categorized as burner reactors, which include LWRs and even can be achieved by FRs with designed to utilize higher TRU fractions (e.g., increased neutron leakage and lower fuel volume fractions). Such reactor systems need to be initially loaded with high excess reactivity, which decreases toward the end of cycle, in order to achieve target burnup conditions. Therefore, in order to offset the excess reactivity, neutron absorbing materials need to be inserted into the core to compensate (e.g., control rods). By reducing the neutron leakage (e.g., increasing the fuel volume fraction or thicker blankets), the TRU conversion ratio in the FR can be increased. If the TRU conversion ratio becomes 1.0 (technically slightly greater than 1.0 to account for process losses during recycle), the reactor is in the condition known as “breakeven”, in which fuel contains the same amount of fissile material after recycling that was used to fuel the reactor. In such a condition, combined with the fact that fission products do not have strong poisoning effects in FRs, the reactivity swing becomes smaller than that of burner type reactors. For breeders, the reactivity can increase toward the end of the cycle because more fissile material is produced than consumed. In this regard, the breakeven FR core is implicitly optimized in a sense by eliminating the large insertion of control elements to offset the reactivity during the normal operation. However, the breakeven condition here is assumed to be achieved only by the TRU based fuel. Possible lack of TRU based fuel needs to be compensated by available LEU resources containing equivalent amount of fissile (i.e., 235U). The use of LEU will have some impact on important safety parameters that need to be evaluated. U-235 has a higher effective delayed neutron fraction than Pu-239. Also, the number of neutrons produced by fissions per neutron absorption (i.e. ?) of 235U in the fast energy range (>1e4 eV) is lower than that of 239Pu, which may lead to the poor fissile conversion when LEU is used as a high-conversion FR fuel. The full-paper presents the study of the impact of partially loaded LEU fuels within TRU fueled breakeven SFR on the transition of nuclide evolutions and core characteristics particularly focusing on the burnup reactivity swing. The full paper analyzes how the large reactivity swing occurs during the LEU loading and addresses possible options to reduce it to the level equivalent to that of the TRU fueled SFR core.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Helical-Tip Needle for Transthoracic Percutaneous Image-Guided Biopsy of Lung Tumors: Results of a Pilot Prospective Comparative Study with a Standard Tru-Cut Needle

PurposeTo prospectively evaluate feasibility and diagnostic performance of the 14-gauge helical-tip (Spirotome™, Cook{sup ®} Medical, Bloomington, USA) needle in transthoracic needle biopsy (TTNB) of lung lesions, compared to a conventional 18-gauge Tru-Cut needle.Materials and MethodsStudy was institutional review board approved, with informed consent obtained. Data from synchronous Spirotome and Tru-Cut image-guided TTNB of 20 consecutive patients with malignant peripheral lung tumors larger than 3 cm were enrolled for pathologic characterization and mutational analysis. Samples obtained with Spirotome and Tru-Cut needle were compared for fragmentation, length, weight, morphologic and immunohistochemistry typifying, tumor cellularity (TC) and DNA concentration.ResultsThe technical success rate for TTNB with Spirotome was 100%, and no major complications occurred. Less fragmentation (mean 2 vs. 3 fragments, P = .418), greater weight (mean 13 vs. 8.5 mg, P = .027) and lower length (mean 10.2 vs. 12.6 mm, P = .174) were observed with Spirotome compared to Tru-Cut needle. Accuracy of Spirotome and Tru-Cut needle in defining cancer histotype was similar (90%). Absolute and relative TC (mean 42 vs. 38, 124 vs. 108/10HPF), and DNA concentration (mean 49.6 vs. 39.0 ng/μl) were higher with Spirotome compared to Tru-Cut needle, with no statistical significance (P = .787 and P = .140, respectively).Conclusions Percutaneous 14-gauge Spirotome TTNB of selected lesions is feasible and accurate. It provides adequate samples for diagnosis, comparable to 18-gauge Tru-Cut needle, with a higher amount of tumor tissue (weight, TC, DNA concentration) even in shorter samples.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

Thermochemical Reactivity Hazards of TRU Waste Constituents - 16075

The thermochemical stability of transuranic (TRU) wastes can be problematic and can lead to uncontrolled chemical reactions that can pose a risk to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. In 2003, decontamination cloth waste laden with sodium or potassium nitrate and cerium nitrate caught fire in a glovebox at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) in Colorado. In 2005, as a result of the RFETS fire, management responsible for decommissioning Hanford's Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) engaged Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) to investigate the thermochemical stabilities of potential TRU wastes arising from decontamination of PFP plutonium gloveboxes. Based on PNNL's studies, PFP management used decontamination approaches that would produce TRU wastes that would be stable during PFP waste management operations, during transport, and eventually during disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. In 2014, TRU waste containing nitrate-laden organic kitty litter reacted uncontrollably, breached its TRU drum, released TRU, contaminated 21 individuals and the WIPP, and resulted in TRU release outside the facility. In support of the Technical Advisory Team assembled by DOE to investigate the causes of the WIPP event, PNNL investigated the thermochemical stabilities of characteristic wastes in the breached drum and identified a waste that could have caused the breach. This paper describes the RFETS fire, provides results from PNNL's screening studies of potential PFP decontamination wastes and, provides results from PNNL's probative studies investigating the thermochemical stabilities of representative waste constituents in the breached WIPP drum. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Transporting Non-Compliant TRU Wastes in the OPTIMUS{sup TM} Packages - 20493

The OPTIMUS{sup TM} product line of packages was developed with the purpose of providing a versatile and modular packaging option for shipping problematic wastes and fissile material contents. The product line includes a high-activity design in the OPTIMUS-H and a low activity design in the OPTIMUS-L. The two variants utilize a singular containment vessel design, that is enclosed in different protective components that offer different levels of shielding along with thermal and impact protection. The thick shielding provided by the OPTIMUS-H packaging allows for higher activity contents than the OPTIMUS-L to be transported. But the lightweight design of the OPTIMUS-L packaging allows for more packages to be transported in a single shipment. The containment vessel design shared between the two packages provides leak-tight containment of all radioactive contents along with the capabilities to easily leak test and the option to inert and backfill the contents, as necessary, prior to each shipment of the package. Together the OPTIMUS package designs offer significant flexibility and are capable of handling a wide variety of waste materials and other radioactive contents. One of the primary contents covered in the initial design effort for these packages is TRU waste contents beyond the standard waste materials that are compliant with the WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria. More specifically, the initial content of interest is TRU Waste drums containing sealed containers with potentially flammable gases. While there are multiple other packaging options available for transporting standard WIPP compliant TRU wastes, the goal of the OPTIMUS packages is to offer a superior option for transporting both standard TRU wastes as well as the more problematic non-compliant wastes, among other contents. The non-compliant TRU waste contents explicitly included for the OPTIMUS packages are standard aerosol cans and DOT 3E lecture bottles. However, the methods applied for the package containment can be easily adjusted to cover other sealed container types with potentially flammable gases. The primary challenges with including these items are both the obvious issue of potential for flammable gases (e.g. aerosol propellants) in the package, but also the uncertainty in the exact state of the contents. Because these desired contents are waste materials, the characterization of the materials present in the waste may include some uncertainties. For example, though it may be known that there are one or more aerosol cans in a TRU waste drum, it may not be known if this can is full, spent, or anywhere in between. Also there may be equal uncertainty in the contents of the aerosol can, specifically in the potentially flammable propellant remaining in the can. To include these types of non-compliant items as acceptable contents for the package, the methods utilized in the safety analyses of the OPTIMUS packages must consider all of the uncertainties in the characterization of the waste. The methods utilized cover a range of concerns with transporting contents of this nature including pressure buildup, gas generation, and gaseous combustion for demonstrating the containment of the package. The ability to transport these problematic contents in the OPTIMUS packages gives TRU waste generating sites the option to relocate these drums to an offsite location where the non-compliant items can be properly managed through removal or destruction. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

What's in WIPP? Packaging TRU Waste to Enhance WIPP's Capacity - 16515

Beginning in 1999, and continuing for 15 years, the US DOE Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) repository successfully disposed of defense Transuranic (TRU) waste. Six of the originally planned ten disposal panels were filled before two unrelated accidents temporarily halted disposal operations in February 2014. Based on counting the gross volume of all containers emplaced in WIPP to date, a little more than half of the legislated volume capacity has been subscribed (91,000 cubic meters). This paper describes the many different packaging configurations that have been used to ship TRU waste to WIPP, and makes observations that may enhance the repository capacity when shipments resume. The contents of shipments to WIPP are limited by many requirements of the repository waste acceptance criteria. These criteria derive from three primary sources; 1) the Certificate of Compliance (CoC), issued by the NRC for Type B shipping packaging used by WIPP; 2) The Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, issued by the New Mexico Environment Department; and 3) the WIPP facility's own Documented Safety Analysis (DSA), developed under DOE's regulation 10CFR830. To meet these criteria, various TRU waste forms have been packaged in different ways, with varying packaging efficiency. Of course, there is an overall upper limit on WIPP's volume capacity that was legislated as part of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act. The volume counted against this limit has been calculated by simply summing the volumes of individual payload containers shipped to and emplaced at WIPP. This method counts significant non-waste volumes inside the containers due to over-packing inner containers and partially filled containers. Without some change to how disposal volumes are calculated, or how waste is packaged, the amount of TRU waste yet to be shipped to WIPP could exceed the legislated capacity. Concepts to enhance the packaging efficiency of future waste shipments to WIPP are presented. Approximate estimates of the waste versus non-waste volumes that have been emplaced to date are discussed. This paper only considers contact handled TRU waste (i.e., contact dose rates < 2 mSv/hr). (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Basis of Knowledge for Oxidizing Chemicals in TRU Waste - 18654

A new Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) document for implementing new requirements in the WIPP Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) titled Basis of Knowledge for Evaluating Oxidizing Chemicals in the TRU waste was issued in July, 2017 and has now been implemented on several waste streams. The February 14, 2014, airborne radiation release in Room 7 of the WIPP underground disposal unit 7 was caused by an exothermic chemical reaction of nitrate oxidizing chemicals and organic materials in a single 55-gallon container. That event exposed hazards not previously evaluated in the WIPP safety basis. A new WIPP Documented Safety Analysis (DSA), Revision 5b, was developed that addressed potential hazards related to the airborne radiation release and evaluated and addressed new fire hazard scenarios. The revised hazards analysis within the DSA specifically included potential chemical exothermic reactions in waste containers and propagating fires. Compliance with WAC was credited as initial conditions to the hazards analysis, and Chapter 18 was added making the WIPP WAC compliance program a safety management program within the DSA. The WIPP DSA, Revision 5b, Chapter 18, and the WIPP WAC require the use of this document when performing the enhanced acceptable knowledge (AK) process on transuranic (TRU) waste determined to contain oxidizing chemicals. The WIPP WAC was revised to address the conditions and requirements of DSA Revision 5b. The use of this Basis of Knowledge (BoK) by WIPP Certified Programs is specified in the WIPP WAC, Appendix H, Enhanced Acceptable Knowledge. This document establishes criteria that must be used by the WIPP Certified Programs to evaluate TRU waste containing one or more oxidizing chemicals to determine acceptability at the WIPP as-is and to identify when additional evaluation or treatment is required. This BoK also includes options and requirements to be used by TRU waste sites when further evaluation, testing, and/or treatment are required. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) will review requests, plans, and technical justifications and provide written decisions prior to implementation by the TRU waste sites. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Panel Session 13: TRU Waste Generator Sites - Implementation of the New US DOE WIPP WAC

This panel focused on the next phase of the US National Transuranic (TRU) Program (NTP) to support shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP: located in Carlsbad, New Mexico, USA). Topics include program changes to increase waste stream approval efficiency, Documented Safety Analysis (DSA)/Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC), TRUPACT-III and Remote Handled (RH) shipments, lessons learned from NTP waste certification and transportation, and NTP transportation stakeholder engagement and support programs. Presentations proposed include: 1 - National TRU Program Update (Kenneth Princen, US DOE (USA)); 2 - WIPP WAC (Rev 9) Implementation (Mark Pearcy, Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC (USA)); 3 - Remote-Handled (RH) TRU Waste Update (J.R. Stroble, US DOE (USA)); 4 - National TRU Program Transportation Stakeholder Engagement and Support (James Mason, US DOE (USA))

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Understanding Nitrate Chemistry - The Key to Safer and More Efficient TRU Waste Acceptance - 19618

Investigations into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) radiological release from a transuranic (TRU) waste drum concluded that the event was initiated by a thermal runaway, principally involving interactions between the polysaccharide-based kitty litter and nitric acid, which released radiological material along with hot gases and combustible materials from the drum. In this paper, the hazards of polysaccharides present as either starch based kitty litter or cellulose rags in a TRU waste drum exposed to nitric acid (and by extension metal nitrate salts) have been evaluated, based on considerations of how complex nitrogen redox cycles carry out the aqueous phase oxidation of alcohols and related organic functional groups. These exothermic reactions, coupled with a positive feedback loop inherent to nitrogen redox chemistry, can initiate an autocatalytic thermal runaway and explosive gas generation, which poses the most significant risk under ambient conditions where acidic solution may be present (in small quantities as free liquid or sorbed within a solid matrix). Nitric acid is an extremely potent oxidant but is itself remarkably inert, rarely interacting directly with oxidizable substrates and instead exerting its vast potential energy through lower oxidation state reactants such as nitrogen dioxide and nitrous acid that are generated from its slow self-decomposition. Nitrous acid is the reactant that carries out substrate oxidation, and systems that are not pre-loaded with nitrous acid will experience an induction period before significant reactivity commences. Under oxidizing fuel-lean conditions, nitrogen dioxide may induce autocatalytic nitrous acid formation, which may supplement additional side-reactions, potentially leading to thermal runaway. Therefore, the system is most vulnerable at the end of an induction period. Metal nitrate salts promote this ambient temperature solution chemistry (cf. traditional oxidizer properties of metal nitrate salts, which operate in the solid state at elevated temperatures) by releasing nitric acid into the system via hydrolysis. Unlike simple alcohols with a single hydroxyl functional group, the chemistry of polymeric carbohydrates (polysaccharides) such as starches and cellulose is more diverse. Therefore, the oxidation of the simple monomeric carbohydrate glucose is first examined to provide insight into the analogous reactivity with polysaccharides. Although less reactive than alcohols by virtue of extensive hydrogen bonding, carbohydrates are oxidized by nitric acid through the same fundamental mechanisms, complicated by a variety of competing side reactions including acid-catalyzed hydrolytic depolymerization to more reactive (ultimately monomeric) units, as well as other degradation reactions promoted by radical mechanisms. For this reason, polysaccharides such as starches that are more susceptible to hydrolysis are more reactive than cellulose, with the attendant microbial population in starch based kitty litter adding a special aspect of reactivity. From this safety evaluation, a bounding latency period has been developed beyond which a stored TRU waste drum that contains polysaccharides (starch based kitty litter excluded) commingled with nitric acid and/or metal nitrate salts may no longer present a hazard under ambient conditions, based on a compilation of induction periods and reaction times involving nitric acid with various oxidizable substrates under a variety of conditions from synthetic procedures, tests, and adverse incident scenarios. By obviating the need for costly treatment options or characterization, a better understanding of nitrate redox chemistry and the hazards it presents with polysaccharide oxidation thus provides a more efficient means to safely dispose of TRU waste generated within the Department of Energy (DOE) complex. (author)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

UNREVIEWED DISPOSAL QUESTION EVALUATION: Disposal of the TRU Waste Processing Center Mixed Low Level Waste at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

This Unreviewed Disposal Question Evaluation (UDQE) assesses whether the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Transuranic (TRU) Waste Processing Center Mixed Low Level Waste (MLLW), FWORCHMLLW103, Revision 13 [TWPC 2021]), is suitable for shallow land burial (SLB) at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). Disposal of the TRU Waste Processing Center MLLW meets all performance objectives of DOE Manual DOE M 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual, Chapter IV, Section P (DOE 1999). The TRU Waste Processing Center MLLW waste stream is recommended for acceptance without conditions.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Retrieval and Management of TRU Sludge at Hanford K-Basin - 19641

At the US Department of Energy Hanford site, the K-East and K-West reactor fuel storage basins (KE or KW Basin) were used in the 1970's and 1980's to store more than 100,000 uranium fuel rods and rod fragments that had been irradiated in the Hanford N Reactor. Approximately 2,100 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel that had been stored in the KW Basin were removed in 2004. Over time a mixture of small fuel corrosion particles, fuel rod metal fragments, and other debris accumulated in the KW Basin from the degradation of the spent nuclear fuel during storage. This is the source of the TRU sludge stored in the KW Basin. The corrosion products mixed with windblown sand, concrete dust, and other debris in the basin to form what is known as sludge. In 2006/2007 KE Basin sludge of similar origin as the KW Basin was transferred to KW Basin. Approximately 27 m{sup 3} of highly radioactive sludge was collected and consolidated underwater in six specially designed engineered containers. The mission of the Hanford Sludge Treatment Project (STP) is to develop and deploy technologies to safely retrieve, transport, and interim store the approximately 27 m{sup 3} of remote-handled transuranic (RH-TRU) sludge that is stored in the KW Basin. After extensive technology development, testing (with a bounding range of simulants), design, and procurement a sludge removal and storage system called the Engineered Container Retrieval and Transfer System (ECRTS) completed acceptance testing in 2018. The ECRTS system is designed to remotely retrieve and transport high density, highly erosive, uranium metal pieces as well as small low-density particles. The ECRTS system includes a retrieval tool based on the XAGO{sup tm} design from the United Kingdom, a heavily modified positive displacement pump, a hose-in-hose transfer system, a Sludge Transport and Storage Container (STSC), a settling and decant system, and a shielded transport system. The first sludge transfer was successfully completed on June 12, 2018 proving that the ECRTS process equipment worked as intended on the actual sludge. Three batches (i.e. transfer and decant) were required to obtain a ∼ 100% fill of the first STSC. The STSC was then transported to the on-site storage facility. Over 20 STSCs will be filled with RH-TRU sludge over approximately 16 months. This paper will discuss the issues and successes associated with this project including the operational aspects of this new system. Experience gained from this successful project should assist anyone with the need to retrieve and manage remote handled sludge from fuel storage basins. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Behavior of selenium and arsenic in $\mathrm{HCl}$ and $\mathrm{HNO}$ 3 on $\mathrm{TRU, TEVA, DGA,}$ and $\mathrm{Pb}$ extraction chromatography resins

The uptake behavior of 73 As and 75 Se was studied in HCl and HNO 3 -H 2 O 2 solutions on commercial extraction chromatography resins (TEVA, TRU, DGA, and Pb resin). There was no uptake of 73 As or 75 Se from HNO 3 media. From HCl, there was 75 Se uptake at high concentrations on all the resins and no uptake of 73 As. Separations of 75 Se and 73 As on these resins have high yields and high radiopurity for 73 As, but limited recovery of 75 Se. TRU and TEVA resin may have potential for use in isotope generators as 75 Se can be retained for at least 26 days with repeated elutions.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗

2004 and 2009 TRU Files Combined

Washingon TRU Solutions (WTS) Central Characterization Project (CCP), hereafter referred to as the Supplier, will develop and provide a stand-alone program to characterize and certify Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) TRU Waste.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗