SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “facility management”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2024

A Framework to Assess Advanced Reactor Spent Fuel Management Facility Deployment

Advanced nuclear reactors offer various operational advantages over existing light water reactors but could produce types of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) with a wide variety of forms and characteristics depending on how many different concepts are deployed. Each advanced reactor SNF type potentially poses unique management challenges. New planning efforts will be necessary to anticipate how the management requirements of advanced reactor SNF will affect the deployment of an integrated waste management system. This paper applies a framework of high-level facility deployment milestones to a generic SNF management system, reviewing them together with the advanced reactor SNF characteristics and management requirements. This allows for the investigation of factors that influence facility and system deployment, and ultimately, the identification of challenges facing the deployment of different kinds of SNF management facilities. Here, the back end of the once-through fuel cycle is examined for four advanced reactor system technology types: sodium-cooled fast reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, liquid-fuel molten salt reactors, and lead-cooled fast reactors. It is observed that milestones earlier in the facility deployment process (e.g., siting and facility design) are more impacted by the uniqueness of advanced reactor SNF characteristics than others (e.g., construction and testing). Ultimately, none of the differences are seen as fundamentally disqualifying in a technical sense; however, they should be considered early, potentially as part of reactor design, to avoid issues in the future.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Management Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Effluent Management facility (EMF) stack monitor location was qualified using the LV-S1 scale model stack as a baseline, augmented by the LB-S1 and LV-S2 scale model stacks to address the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Effluent Management Facility Vessel Vent Process (DVP) injection into the main Active Confinement Ventilation (ACV) system duct. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale models and its sampling locations were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the EMF stack was performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on the LV-S1 scale model test DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for the EMF stack are as listed in Table S1. Table S1. Effluent Management Facility Stack Qualified Flow Range. Stack Parameter EM-1 Minimum Qualified Stack Flow (scfm) 781 Maximum Qualified Stack Flow (scfm) 53,432 The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack test at the EMF. Flow angle results were less than 5°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 2.2% COV and 4.3% COV, which were all within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests on the LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV S2 scale models. Based on these stack verification test results, the EMF filtered exhaust stack sampling location meets the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes each combination of ACV fan with the DVP exhausters. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the qualified flow rates described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Management Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Effluent Management Facility (EMF) stack monitor location was qualified using a combination of scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that the sampling location does not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. The LV-S1 scale model stack was used as a baseline, augmented by the LB-S1 and LV-S2 scale model stacks to address the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Effluent Management Facility Vessel Vent Process (DVP) injection into the main Active Confinement Ventilation (ACV) system duct. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling locations were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. The LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV-S2 scale model stack tests have met the criteria of the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard to demonstrate the stack sampling locations are well mixed. Verification tests of the EMF stack were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value and the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determine the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated while remaining in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rate along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rate based on the LV-S1 scale model DV values. The operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack test at the EMF. Flow angle results were <5°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 2.2% COV and 4.3% COV, all of which were within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests on the LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV S2 scale models. Based on these stack verification test results, the EMF filtered exhaust stack sampling location meets the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all planned fan operating configurations. This includes each combination of ACV fans with DVP exhausters. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the qualified flow rates described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2022

A Framework to Assess Advanced Reactor Spent Fuel Management Facility Deployment

Previous planning and prioritization for LWR SNF management investigated the risks and uncertainties of deploying facilities such as consolidated interim storage [1, 2, 3, 4]. As part of that work, activities and milestones were collected into success precedence diagrams that charted a path to achieving facility deployment [1]. In that framework, activities are any research, development, design, or decision required to achieve an intermediate goal; milestones are activity endpoints and mark the completion of deliverables. Milestones can be thought of as achievements required to reach the final goal of facility deployment; activities are the means by which milestones are accomplished. In planning, activities and milestones are compiled into comprehensive flow charts that visualize the steps necessary for deployment. This framework has been used to quantify risks, timelines, and costs of deploying SNF management facilities.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2024

LANL Organization and Facility Management [Slides]

The Laboratory is a DOE Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) administered by the NNSA. Therefore, Laboratory facilities and equipment are subject to NNSA oversight. Work at the Laboratory is also subject to many federal laws that apply to the Laboratory’s federal land and property.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

DOE OSTI2023

A Multi-Dimensional Benefit Assessment of Automated Mobility Platforms (AMP) for Large Facilities: Mobility, Energy, Equity, and Facility Management & Design

The goal of the automated mobility platforms (AMPs) initiative is to raise the bar of service regarding equity and sustainability for public mobility systems that are crucial to large facilities, and doing so using electrified, energy efficient technology. Using airports as an example, the rapid growth in air travel demand has led to facility expansions and congested terminals, which directly impacts equity (e.g., increased challenges for Passengers with Reduced Mobility [PRMs]) and sustainability - both of which are important metrics often overlooked during the engineering design process. Therefore, to evaluate systems and inform critical near- and long-term decisions more effectively, a holistic evaluation framework is proposed focused on four key areas: (1) mobility, with emphasis on travel time and accessibility within an airport, (2) environment, focused on energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with intra-airport mobility, (3) equity, specifically to the PRM community, but with an eye to the whole of society, and (4) built environment, or the fundamental changes in building design enabled by different mobility systems for larger and more flexible, functional, and energy-efficient structures. Below, AMPs are defined, and each metric is discussed further, all with a focus on airport mobility.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Water Microgrids: A Primer for Facility Managers

A water microgrid is similar in concept to an energy microgrid, which the U.S. Department of Energy defines as “a local energy grid with control capability, which means it can disconnect from the traditional grid and operate autonomously.” Similarly, a water microgrid is a local water system that supplies, treats, and distributes water, with the primary objective to meet mission critical water demands during a disruption of the primary supply. A water microgrid has the capability to operate independently of an existing primary water system and includes a layer of sensing capability that provides the necessary monitoring and controls to operate the water microgrid. A water microgrid may offer a viable solution for a site to address resilience gaps identified through the resilience planning process. For example, a site may not have adequate and redundant water supply to meet mission critical demands with vulnerabilities in the operating systems. A water microgrid provides the ability to island the water system from the primary water supply to satisfy water demand requirements throughout an outage or disruption.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2021

WSF PISA example for SAFER pilot

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

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

A Systematic Evidence Based Performance Approach to Regulation of Nuclear Sites in England and Wales - 20058

The Environment Agency for England has developed a systematic evidence-based approach to pursue our strategic environmental objectives for the regulation of nuclear sites. We use an annual evidence review process to ensure effective and efficient targeting of limited resources to achieve those objectives. Over the last 8 years, we have been developing and refining this approach to ensure risk-based and value driven regulation. The approach comprises nuclear site and nuclear sector review processes known as Site Environment Review (SER) and Nuclear Environment Review (NER). This approach complements our regulation of nuclear site permit holders under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR). We deliver our regulation of nuclear sites in England and Wales alongside the Office for Nuclear Regulation. The SER process involves the lead regulator for each nuclear site assessing the permit holder's environmental performance across 14 themes, set within the context of the site's main activities and associated waste disposals. Our themes include environmental leadership, resources and climate change, radioactive waste management, facility management and decommissioning, groundwater, and environmental radiological protection. We use evidence from site inspections and working within our subject matter groups to grade current and predicted future environmental performance. We are particularly interested in sustainability and the application of Best Available Techniques (BAT) to prevent the creation, and minimise the disposal, of radioactive wastes. We use risk analysis (strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities) to examine performance against our strategic environmental objectives, which are set out, in our 5-year Nuclear Delivery Plan (NDP). The output supports the targeting of our resources at each nuclear site. We consult the relevant permit holders on the SER priorities and use their feedback to refine our plans. We expect all permit holders to take account of our priorities when considering their own programmes of work, objectives and plans. The NER process brings together what we learn and achieve through regulation across the sector. It provides input to planning priorities, supported by qualitative and semi-quantitative evidence. It covers the 28 nuclear sites in England and Wales and spans the same 14 environmental themes. During the process we collate, compile and summarise evidence from the SERs and other sources such as inspection reports and evidence from our other nuclear work programmes. The output is the NER annual report. This provides a snapshot of the status of the nuclear sector and gives insights to enable us to regulate more efficiently and effectively. It also takes account of cross-cutting issues and risks such as changes in international standards, domestic policy, regulatory framework, domestic standards and guidance, learning from experience such as incidents, events and good practice, and innovation, research and development. It provides graphics that illustrate the grading of environmental performance for the nuclear sector across the fourteen environmental themes. This analysis allows benchmarking of nuclear site's environmental performance and the visualisation provides a convenient comparison of performance across themes, sites, and over time. We use this intelligence to inform our investment in training and development of our staff, and our cross-cutting engagement on strategic issues with government, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and other corporate organisations. Adopting this approach can provide benefits with organisational reputation, stakeholder participation and ensuring value from the public investment. This paper describes the history of the SER/NER process, a selection of outputs from the process and ideas for improvement. The paper will be of interest to other regulators and organisations across the world that are interested in supporting continuous improvement. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2024

EV Champion Training Webinar 1: ZEV and EV Charging Fundamentals [Slides]

The Electric Vehicle (EV) Champion Training Series, hosted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), is tailored for fleet managers, facility managers, and other stakeholders involved in the deployment of EVs and charging stations. This series equips participants with the skills and knowledge necessary to become subject matter experts in EV implementation. This is the first training in a four-part series and serves as an introductory training. This training covers fundamental topics such as EV and charging technology, utility basics, and financial considerations for EVs. Additionally, this session introduces the Federal Fleet ZEV Ready Center framework, a one-stop location for federal fleet electrification resources. Participants will gain a solid foundation to support the effective deployment and management of EVs and their infrastructure. Visit the Federal Fleet ZEV Ready Center website to learn more about the ZEV Ready Center process. EV Champion Training Webinar 1: ZEV and EV Charging Fundamentals will enable attendees to: Identify EV and EV charging technology fundamentals; Recognize EV market and GSA Schedule options; Identify utility basics, incentives, and rates as they relate to EV charging; and Identify methods to calculate life cycle costs for EVs and gasoline vehicles.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗

DOE OSTI2025

EV Champion Training Webinar 2: ZEV and EV Charging Planning [Slides]

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2025

EVI-LOCATE User Manual

One of the longest stages in the deployment of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) is the initial planning of the infrastructure itself. Engineers and fleet experts from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have supported dozens of charging infrastructure site plans over the past couple decades, including the generation of site schematics, determinations of electric capacity, and estimates for likely costs. As the market for electric vehicles (EVs) has matured, this approach should no longer require a time and personnel intensive process. In order to shorten the time taken to develop site plans and cost estimates, NREL developed a tool that fleet managers, facility managers, electricians, EVSE installers, and members of the public can use to develop initial schematics and ballpark pricing for charging station installations. The Electric Vehicle Infrastructure - Locally Optimized Charger Assessment Tool and Estimator (EVI-LOCATE) provides a structured and consistent way for users to enter information about their planned EVSE project in a relatively simple web-based format. EVI-LOCATE then calculates electrical equipment capacity, wiring runs, and project costs. It produces a site diagram optimized around surface characteristics with differential trenching costs for softscape such as grass compared to hardscape such as asphalt that can be adjusted by users in the tool. It also stores the resulting site plans and costs in a dashboard for access at a later date, including plan revisions if necessary. This document guides users through the EVI-LOCATE screens and associated questions. It contains tip text boxes throughout on how best to interface with the tool and find additional information or context. The appendices contain the assumptions and calculations underpinning the tool. Much of the information for EVI-LOCATE was gathered through industry engagements with EVSE installers, invoices from completed EVSE installations, Gordian's RS Means construction data, and the General Services Administration blanket purchase agreement for EVSE. For a visual tutorial of the tool, users can watch EVI-LOCATE Step-by-Step Video. The tool itself is available at https://evi-locate.nrel.gov.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2021

129 I and 99 Tc Distribution Coefficients of Subsurface Sediments Collected from the Proposed Site of the Environmental Manage Disposal Facility

Performance Assessment calculations are presently underway to evaluate the Environmental Management Disposal Facility (EMDF), a proposed new low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Among the large number of input parameters needed for such calculations, are distribution coefficients (K d values; radionuclide concentration solid:liquid ratio) that provide a measure of the tendency of radionuclides to bind to sediments. The objective of this study was to measure K d values of two radionuclides that may pose a disproportionately large amount of risk, 129 I and 99 Tc. The average I K d value for the 10 geological materials recovered from the proposed EMDF site was 52.3 mL/g and ranged from 2.7 to 140.9 mL/g. These values were consistent, but somewhat larger than previous measurements made with ORR sediments and were about an order of magnitude greater than those used in previous EMDF PA calculations. The median Tc K d value was 807.2 mL/g, much greater than previously reported using ORR geological materials. Five of the ten tested geological materials sorbed large quantities of Tc, suggesting that the weakly sorbing Tc(VII) species had been reduced to the very strongly binding and sparingly soluble Tc(IV) species. The five strongly sorbing sediment had apparent solubility values of approximately <10 -8 mol/L. Based on sediment properties and general ORR geological considerations, it was proposed that much of the I and Tc sorption could be attributed to the low pH (average pH = 4.94), low redox status, and/or the elevated levels of iron oxides, manganese oxides, and natural organic matter. An implication of this study is that the areas of the EMDF subsurface environment may have natural properties for attenuating I and Tc movement, thereby potentially reducing risk posed by burial of LLW at this site.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2023

129 I, 99 Tc, And U Distribution Coefficients of Subsurface Sediments Collected from the Proposed Site of the Environmental Management Disposal Facility

Performance Assessment calculations were completed in 2020 to evaluate the Environmental Management Disposal Facility (EMDF), a proposed new low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Among the large number of input parameters needed for such calculations, are distribution coefficients (K d values; radionuclide concentration solid:liquid ratio) that provide a measure of the tendency of radionuclides to bind to sediments. The objective of this study was to measure K d values of three radionuclides that may pose a disproportionately large amount of risk, U, 129 I and 99 Tc. The average I K d value for the 14 geological materials recovered from the proposed EMDF site was 37.8 mL/g and ranged from -1.8 to 140.9 mL/g. These values were consistent, but somewhat larger than previous measurements made with ORR sediments and were about an order of magnitude greater than those used in previous EMDF PA calculations. The median Tc K d value was 365.7 mL/g, much greater than previously reported using ORR geological materials. Five of the 14 tested geological materials sorbed large quantities of Tc, suggesting that the weakly sorbing Tc(VII) species had been reduced to the sparingly soluble Tc(IV) species. The five strongly sorbing sediments had apparent Tc solubility values of approximately <10 -8 mol/L. The median U K d value was 5,726 mL/g. All of the tested geological materials had large K d values, ranging from 625 to >10,208 mL/g. Among the sediment samples that exhibited strong U binding, the apparent solubility value was approximately <10 -9 mol/L. Based on sediment properties and general ORR geological considerations, it was proposed that much of the I and Tc retention could be attributed to the site materials exhibiting low pH (average pH = 4.94), low redox status, and/or the elevated levels of iron oxides, manganese oxides, and natural organic matter. Similarly, the extremely high U binding measured in these sediments may also be attributed to the low conditions of carbonates, which can complex and therefore solubilize uranyl in these tests due to the low pH, and also the relatively high concentrations of iron and organic coatings on these samples. An implication of this study is that the areas of the EMDF subsurface environment may have natural properties for attenuating I, Tc, and U movement, and potentially other radionuclides, thereby possibly reducing risk posed by burial of LLW at this site. This document is a revision of SRNL-STI-2021-00404, Revision 0 that includes new data describing U K d values and new I and Tc K d values for four Nolichucky sediments. These new results were integrated into the data presented in the original document.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2025

129 I, 99 Tc, and U Distribution Coefficients of Subsurface Sediments Collected from the Proposed Site of the Environmental Management Disposal Facility

Performance Assessment calculations were completed in 2020 to evaluate the Environmental Management Disposal Facility (EMDF), a proposed new low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). Among the large number of input parameters needed for such calculations, are distribution coefficients (K d values; radionuclide concentration solid: liquid ratio) that provide a measure of the tendency of radionuclides to bind to sediments. The objective of this study was to measure K d values of three radionuclides that may pose a disproportionately large amount of risk, U, iodine-129 ( 129 I) and technetium-99 ( 99 Tc). The average 129 I K d value for the 14 geological materials recovered from the proposed EMDF site was 37.8 mL/g and ranged from 0.45 to 140.9 mL/g. These values were consistent, but somewhat larger than previous measurements made with ORR sediments and were about an order of magnitude greater than those used in previous EMDF PA calculations. The median 99 Tc K d value was 365.7 mL/g, much greater than previously reported using ORR geological materials. Five of the 14 tested geological materials sorbed large quantities of 99 Tc, suggesting that the weakly sorbing 99 Tc(VII) species had been reduced to the sparingly soluble 99 Tc(IV) species. The five strongly sorbing sediments had apparent 99 Tc solubility values of approximately <10 -8 mol/L. The median U K d value was 5,726 mL/g. All of the tested geological materials had large K d values, ranging from 625 to >10,208 mL/g. Among the sediment samples that exhibited strong U binding, the apparent solubility value was approximately <10 -9 mol/L. Based on sediment properties and general ORR geological considerations, it was proposed that much of the 129 I and 99 Tc retention could be attributed to the site materials exhibiting low pH (average pH = 4.94), and/or the elevated levels of iron oxides, manganese oxides, and natural organic matter. Similarly, the extremely high U binding measured in these sediments may also be attributed to the low conditions of carbonates, which can complex and therefore solubilize uranyl in these tests due to the low pH, and also the relatively high concentrations of iron and organic coatings on these samples. An implication of this study is that the areas of the EMDF subsurface environment may have natural properties for attenuating 129 I, 99 Tc, and U movement, and potentially other radionuclides, thereby possibly reducing risk posed by burial of LLW at this site.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

The Port Hope Areas Initiative's Port Granby Project: The Decontamination of Site Equipment from a Low Level Waste Facility - 20330

The Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI) is the Government of Canada's response to the community recommended solutions for the remediation and safe, long-term management of historic low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) that was the result of uranium and radium processing operations in the Municipality of Port Hope, Ontario from the 1930's to the 1980's. The Eldorado refinery, on the shores of Lake Ontario, began refining radium-226 from pitchblende ore, later transitioning to the refining of uranium ore. Process residues were deposited at the Welcome Waste Management Facility in Port Hope until the mid-1950's switching to the Port Granby Waste Management Facility (PGWMF), which continued to accept waste until the late 1980's. The Port Granby Project involves the construction of a new, secure long-term waste management facility (LTWMF) and supporting infrastructure, and the excavation and relocation of approximately 1,200,000 m{sup 3} of historic low-level radioactive waste and marginally contaminated soil from the PGWMF to the newly constructed LTWMF. Since the project's inception in 2016, the bulk of the material has since been moved to the final long term storage cell. This has taken over 500,000 person-hours and a large amount of one site heavy equipment to accomplish including excavators, bulldozers, rock trucks, baker tanks and vacuum trucks. While many of the pieces of heavy equipment and water management equipment has further work to do on site, several of the sites larger items have already undergone the decontamination process prior to release from the site. This process has posed a serious challenge as the waste has a caustic nature to it and over the last few years it has had time to work its way into the metallic structures and framework of the equipment. Coupled with the tight work spaces and in some cases confined work areas there have been many issues that needed to be addressed to successfully reach a state where items can be free released to the unrestricted limits of the sites license. This ongoing process has led to a more refined decontamination program at the Port Granby Facility and has had a rather high success rate considering the length of time the equipment has been exposed to the waste materials on site. This paper discusses the varied challenges of decontamination faced at a low-level radioactive waste facility with a focus on the following aspects: - Challenges faced regarding different equipment types and the solutions implemented by Wood to address these challenges; - An examination of various decontamination methods employed throughout the project; and - Lessons learned over three years of remediation work and how they impact the decontamination process. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 34: US DOE Featured Site: Savannah River Operations Office: 70 Years of Service

The Savannah River Site celebrates its 70. anniversary on November 28, 2020. On this date in 1950, President Harry S. Truman requested the Dupont Company to design, build and operate what was then known as the Savannah River Plant in response to the Soviet Union's detonation of its first atomic weapon, which set the Cold War into motion. During the 1950's, six South Carolina towns were relocated for the construction of SRS and by 1953, the 310 square mile site was complete. Nearly 40,000 workers were employed t build five nuclear reactors and support facilities, two chemical separations plants, heavy water extraction plant, nuclear fuel and target fabrication facility tritium extraction facility and waste management facilities. SRS played a key role in winning the Cold War and for seven decades, SRS has been a leader within the DOE complex. Today, the site supports environmental stewardship and maintains the nation's nuclear deterrent while ensuring the safekeeping and disposal of domestic and international nuclear materials. The site continues to support the nation's nuclear defense as it explores new potential NNSA missions. SRS has a proud 70- year history and looks forward to a future of service as a national asset and strong community partner. The session was kicked off with a video message from Secretary of Energy, Dan Brouillette, who thanked employees past and current for their efforts. The video also provided an overview of the history and future of the Site. This panel provided an overview of the Savannah River Site's 70 years of service (history, challenges, opportunities, and future) presented by the SRS's Senior leadership and the local Aiken, South Carolina Mayor. Panelists with presentations: US DOE Secretary Dan Brouillette's Overview of DOE and SRS - A Legacy of 70 Years of Service (Amy Boyette); 70 Years of Service (Michael Budney); 70 Years of Service (Stuart MacVean); SRS Liquid Waste (Thomas Foster); National Nuclear Security Administration (Nicole Nelson-Jean)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2020

Savannah River Site Composite Analysis (FY2019 Annual Review)

The Savannah River Site (SRS) is a Department of Energy (DOE) site encompassing approximately 310 square miles in South Carolina. It is bounded on the southwest by the Savannah River (SR) and is situated approximately 12 miles south of Aiken, South Carolina, and 15 miles southeast of Augusta, Georgia. Construction of and subsequent operations at the SRS began in 1951 under the direction of the Atomic Energy Commission. The primary mission of the SRS was to produce tritium and plutonium for the national nuclear weapons complex. Between 1953 and 1955, SRS brought five reactors and various support facilities into operation in support of its primary mission. Support facilities included two chemical separations plants, a heavy water extraction plant, a nuclear fuel and target fabrication facility, a tritium extraction facility and waste management facilities. With the declining need for a large nuclear weapons stockpile since the end of the Cold War, many SRS facilities no longer produce or process nuclear materials. All reactors were shut down by 1993. However, the SRS Tritium Extraction Facility continues to supply DOE with tritium. Additionally, operations at the K-Area Complex currently provide interim safe storage for much of DOE’s excess plutonium (Pu) and high enriched uranium, in a building which formerly housed K Reactor. As the SRS mission has changed, many surplus facilities are being dispositioned safely and economically. SRS has completed extensive decommissioning activities in D-Area, M-Area, P-Area, R-Area, and T-Area, with groundwater (GW) remediation ongoing. High-level waste tanks continue to be emptied and closed.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗