Waste Management
|
||
| U.S. DOE Waste Management | Published Documents | Other Documents |
| International & Other U.S. Waste Management | Published Documents | Other Documents |
Please note: Since 9/11, many U.S. Government and contractor web pages have been temporarily removed pending security review. Links to these pages have been included to provide information to assist users in the future in locating these pages when they are reposted.
Within each section of this bulletin, the document citations are sorted by publication date, most recent first.
To search for any text on this page, depress the CTRL and F keys simultaneously. To find the next occurrence of the text, depress the CTRL and G keys simultaneously.
 |
|
R038792 |
|
|
CIF Permit Modification Requested |
|
|
Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC |
|
|
Environmental Bulletin from the Savannah River Site 13(1):1 |
|
|
January 15, 2002 |
|
| The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)-Savannah River Operations Office has requested from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) modifications to Savannah River Site's (SRS) 1995 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Part B Permit. The request is for SCDHEC to change the Consolidated Incineration Facility (CIF) permit language that addresses when CIF must initiate closure. Additionally, SRS is submitting a response to a Notice of Deficiency from SCDHEC regarding Volume I, General, of the Site's 2000 Part B permit application. This notice begins a 60-day comment period. More information, including the actual permit and application, is available for review and copying at the US DOE Public Reading Room located in the University of South Carolina Aiken library, or by contacting personnel listed below. The permittees compliance history during the life of the permits being modified is available from the Agency contact person. A public meeting will be held January 30 at 3:00 p.m. at the Aiken County Public Library. Representatives from SRS will be available to answer questions. Written comments may be sent to SCDHEC. All comments will be considered in the final decision. | |
|
|
|
|
Idaho Operations Office Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposal Plans, Audit Report |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General, Washington, DC |
|
|
DOE/IG-0527; 15 pp. |
|
|
September 2001 |
|
| During the 1970s and 1980s, about 65,000 cubic meters of waste was sent to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) for temporary storage. At the time, this waste was classified as transuranic waste. In 1982, the definition of transuranic waste changed resulting in 25,400 of the 65,000 cubic meters of waste being reclassified as mixed low-level waste. Since there was no disposal path for mixed low-level waste, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Idaho Operations Office (Idaho) decided in 1995 to "blend-up" the mixed low-level waste with transuranic waste so that all 65,000 cubic meters of waste would be categorized as transuranic waste. The entire 65,000 cubic meters could then be disposed of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). Idaho's mixed low-level waste constitutes about 11 percent of the waste volume identified for disposal at the WIPP in its National Transuranic Waste Management Plan (December 2000). Subsequently, the Hanford and Nevada Test Sites were designated as disposal sites for DOE's mixed low-level waste. The objective of our audit was to determine whether Idaho should continue with plans to dispose of its mixed low-level waste at WIPP. | |
|
|
|
|
BNL Low Level Waste Certification Program Plan, Revision 3 |
|
|
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY |
|
|
Report; 39 pp. |
|
|
September 2001 |
|
| The Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) Low-Level Waste Certification Program Plan (LLWCPP) provides BNL with requirements to meet waste stream characterization and waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for waste form, packaging, certification, and transfer of low-level waste (LLW) and low-level mixed waste (LLMW). The purpose of the Waste Certification Plan is to describe how LLW and LLMW from BNL are certified for shipment to the Department of Energy's (DOE) Hanford Site, Envirocare of Utah, Inc., and any other treatment, storage, and disposal facility deemed acceptable by the Waste Management Division (WMD) Radioactive Waste Program Manager (RWPM). | |
|
|
|
|
Evaluation of the Radiation Stability of SuperLig 639 |
|
|
Oji, L.N. |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, SC |
|
|
SRTC-BNFL-013 (Rev. 0) |
|
|
July 26, 2001 |
|
| A method for treatment and disposal of the Hanford High Level Waste has been proposed for BNFL, Inc. In this process, a portion of the Hanford High Level Waste will be pretreated to concentrate radionuclides prior to vitrification. This task examines the stability of one of the ion exchange resins, SuperLig (TM) 639, toward irradiation. These tests were conducted using simulated Hanford High Level Waste containing pertechnetate ion as a stand-in for pertechnetate. | |
|
|
|
|
Scrap Cans Assayed in 55-Gallon Drums by Adapted Q2 Technique |
|
|
Salaymeh, S.R. |
|
|
Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC |
|
|
WSRC-TR-2001-00085 |
|
|
July 24, 2001 |
|
| This report describes an alternate assay technique developed to perform batch nondestructive assay (NDA) of ten scrap cans at a time. This report also discusses and compares the results of the one batch of ten scrap cans by assaying them individually at the 324-M assay station with the alternate assay technique developed to perform batch NDA of ten scrap cans at a time using the Q2. | |
|
|
|
|
Supplement Analysis for Transportation of Transuranic Waste From the Mound Plant to Savannah River Site for Storage, Characterization, and Repackaging |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC |
|
|
DOE/EIS-0200-SA02 |
|
|
July 13, 2001 |
|
| As a result of its past and present activities and future plans, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Mound Plant in Miamisburg, Ohio, currently has in inventory or expects to generate about 300 cubic meters of contact-handled (CH) transuranic (TRU) waste. Under the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act (Public Law No. 102-579), transport of TRU waste for disposal in WIPP, near Carlsbad, New Mexico, must be in the Type B containers certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, e.g., the Transuranic Package Transporter-II (TRUPACT-II). Most of the Mound Plant TRU waste (such as pipes and waste boxes), however, is too large to ship in TRUPACT-II containers, and the Mound Plant does not possess the necessary facilities or equipment to reduce the size of its TRU waste. Because DOE is closing the Mound Plant and the site is being converted into a commercial/industrial park, siting, construction, and operation of a new capability at the Mound Plant to repackage its TRU waste for shipment is not practical or cost-effective. DOE needs to ship its TRU waste from the Mound Plant to another site for repackaging into TRUPACT-II containers. | |
|
|
|
|
Characterization of RH-TRU and Lead-Lined Drums Using X-ray Imaging Techniques |
|
|
Roney, T.J.; White, T.A. |
|
|
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID |
|
|
INEEL/EXT-2001-00625; 26 pp. |
|
|
July 2001 |
|
| Remote-handled and lead-lined transuranic (TRU) waste drums can be difficult to characterize with x-ray inspection systems in operation at Department of Energy sites. Improving the inspection systems or using additional state-of-the-art x-ray inspection technologies may increase the number of remote-handled (RH) and lead-lined TRU drums that can be characterized and then classified as acceptable for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). This report provides an analysis of currently used systems and suggests methods to improve image quality that may lead to increased numbers of RH and lead-lined drums being accepted at WIPP. | |
|
|
|
|
Dealing with Spent Fuel in Idaho |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, ID |
|
|
Nuclear Engineering International 46(564):14-15,17 |
|
|
July 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
Action Plan for Emerging Technological Alternatives to Incineration |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC |
|
|
Report; 34 pp. |
|
|
June 2001 |
|
| In January 2001, the Secretary of Energy accepted the recommendations of the Panel on Emerging Technological Alternatives to Incineration (the Panel), a task force of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (the Board). To address the Panel's recommendations, the Secretary directed the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM) to develop this Action Plan. The Panel was created in response to public concern and following litigation regarding the proposed incineration of radioactive mixed waste at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The Board asked the Panel to "evaluate and recommend emerging non-incineration technologies for treatment and disposal of mixed waste," including "waste that the DOE had planned to incinerate in the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Facility at INEEL." In its final report, issued December 2000 1 , the Panel summarized its findings in 17 statements. Protection of the environment and assuring public and worker safety and health underlie each of the Panel's points and also drive DOE's response to these findings. | |
|
|
|
|
Disposition of Suspect Transuranic Waste in the 212-N Building |
|
|
Nazarali, A.M.; Kerr, N.R. |
|
|
Bechtel Hanford, Inc., Richland, WA |
|
|
BHI-01553; 92 pp. |
|
|
September 2001 |
|
| The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the contents of 15 large plywood boxes that are stored in the 212-N Building in the 200 North Area of the Hanford Site. The boxes are suspected of containing transuranic (TRU) waste, and prior to disposal the concentration of radionuclides and chemicals in the waste must be evaluated. The secondary objective is to ship the boxes to a disposal facility based on the waste characteristics within each box. The boxes, based on their content concentration, will be disposed in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), the Central Waste Complex, or the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF). | |
|
R039746 |
|
|
Nuclear Materials Focus Area: Meeting End-User Needs through Technology Development and Deployment |
|
|
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
January 2, 2002 |
|
| The Nuclear Materials Focus Area conducts a research and development program to develop technologies to support the safe management and expeditious stabilization of nuclear materials, including spent nuclear fuel, managed by the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM). The NMFA identifies and provides technical solutions to the broad range of challenges associated with the management of nuclear materials. Specifically, the NMFA conducts a research and development program with following objectives: Develop and deploy new technologies for nuclear materials stabilization and disposition; Enable progress towards meeting EM's site closure objectives; Develop integrated solutions to obtain both multi-site and multi-program benefits; and Provide research and development support for the DOE's responses to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's recommendations. | |
|
|
|
|
Transportation External Coordination Working Group |
|
|
Transportation External Coordination Working Group |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
November 2, 2001 |
|
| TEC was formed in 1992 to improve coordination between the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and external groups interested in the Department's transportation activities. TEC is co-chaired by DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and the Office of Environmental Management. For more information on the background and history of this organization, please see the TEC Charter and Work Plan. TEC membership includes representatives from national, state, tribal and local government organizations, labor, industry and professional groups. Members meet semiannually to participate in plenary sessions, breakout work sessions, and in more specialized Topic Groups. | |
|
|
|
|
Revision to the Record of Decision for the Department of Energy's Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic Waste |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
July 13, 2001 |
|
| The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1021.315, is revising the Record of Decision (ROD) for the DOE Waste Management Program: Treatment and Storage of Transuranic (TRU) Waste, issued on January 20, 1998 (63 Federal Register (FR) 3629) and revised previously on December 29, 2000 (65 FR 82985). The Department has now decided to transfer approximately 300 cubic meters of contact-handled transuranic (CH-TRU) waste from the Mound Plant in Ohio to the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina for storage, characterization, and repackaging prior to sending it to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico for disposal. The CH-TRU waste will be shipped to SRS in specially designed railcars under an exemption granted by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The exemption allows for the shipment of 10 railcar loads, each containing no more than 200 curies of plutonium, and is in effect through May 2002. Previously in its ROD, based in part on the analysis in the Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (WM PEIS, DOE/EIS-0200F, dated May 1997), DOE had decided (with one exception) that each DOE site would prepare its own TRU waste for disposal and store it onsite until it is shipped to WIPP. Because DOE is closing the Mound Plant and the site is being converted into a commercial/industrial park, establishing a new capability at Mound to repackage its TRU waste to meet the specifications for shipment to WIPP is not practical or cost-effective. | |
|
|
|
|
Yucca Mountain Project |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Yucca Mountain Project, Las Vegas, NV |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
November 30, 2001 |
|
| The U.S. Department of Energy is studying Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to determine if it's a suitable place to build a geologic repository for the nation's commercial and defense spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. | |
|
|
|
|
DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), Washington, DC |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
November 29, 2001 |
|
| The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 established the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to develop and manage a Federal system for disposing of all spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear reactors and high-level radioactive waste resulting from atomic energy defense activities. The statute provides detailed direction for the scientific, technical, and institutional development of the system, and it requires that waste management facilities be licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 directed DOE to characterize only Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to determine its suitability as a repository site for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. | |
|
|
|
|
Washington State Department of Ecology Nuclear Waste Program - Documents |
|
|
Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
November 15, 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
Yucca Mountain Project - Technical Documents |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Yucca Mountain Project, Las Vegas, NV |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
November 14, 2001 |
|
| On this web site access is provided to over 17,000 documents with over 153,000 pages including documents, data bases and data sets. | |
|
|
|
|
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Page |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, NM |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
November 14, 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
Waste Disposition Project |
|
|
Bechtel Jacobs Company, Oak Ridge, TN |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
November 9, 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque Operations, Waste Management Division |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque Operations Office, Albuquerque, NM |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
November 7, 2001 |
|
| The Waste Management Division works with its DOE contractors to manage hazardous and nuclear wastes at AL sites. This work involves treating, storing, and disposing of waste; developing programs to prevent or minimize generation of new waste, and special projects like the Offsite Source Recovery Project. WMD provides expertise and oversight to DOE sites, states, tribes, and others in areas such as pollution prevention, waste treatment, waste storage, waste disposal, and program and project management. | |
|
|
|
|
Transportation Resource Exchange Center |
|
|
University of New Mexico, ATR Institute, Transportation Resource Exchange Center, Albuquerque, NM |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
October 31, 2001 |
|
| The Transportation Resource Exchange Center (T-REX) is a comprehensive Web site where you will find the answers to complex questions surrounding radioactive materials transportation. The T-REX Web site provides pertinent documents, databases, and links to the people, organizations, and programs that are involved in the transport of radioactive materials. In addition, the T-REX Center offers reference services and resource staff. | |
|
|
|
|
Draft EPA Guidance on LDR Alternative Soil Treatment Standards and Draft Interpretive Memorandum on Stabilization of Organic-Bearing Hazardous Wastes |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC |
|
|
Memorandum; 2 pp. |
|
|
October 29, 2001 |
|
|
http://tis.eh.doe.gov/oepa/comments/rcra/ldrguidancerequest.pdf |
|
| The purpose of this memorandum is: (1) to notify DOE elements that on October 18, 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice announcing the availability of the following two draft documents: (a) Draft Guidance on Demonstrating Compliance With the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Alternative Soil Treatment Standards, and (b) "Draft Interpretive Memorandum on Stabilization of Organic-Bearing Hazardous Wastes to Comply with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions"; and (2) to request that DOE elements having comments on either draft document provide their input to EH-413 for inclusion in the consolidated Departmental response. | |
|
|
|
|
DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) Program Documents |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, DC |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
October 25, 2001 |
|
|
http://www.rw.doe.gov/progdocs/progdocs.htm; http://www.ymp.gov/learn/document.htm |
|
| On this web site you will find the documents that are requested the most by our users. We have over 17,000 documents with over 153,000 pages including documents, data bases and data sets. You may choose to order a document if it is not found in the list below. We encourage you to bookmark or add this page to your favorites for easier access. Additional documents can be found at the DOE Information Bridge, a database which includes the full-text and bibliographic records of DOE-sponsored report literature produced by the DOE and DOE contractor research and development community. This vast collection includes over 37,000 reports that have been received and processed by the Department's Office of Scientific and Technical Information since January 1996. | |
|
|
|
|
DOE's Waste Generation and Pollution Prevention Web Site |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
October 5, 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
Underground Radioactive Waste Repository Fills First Area |
|
|
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), Carlsbad, NM |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
September 18, 2001 |
|
|
http://www.gnet.org/portal/readingroom/Index.cfm?Page=1&NewsID=17846 |
|
| The first underground room used for the disposal of transuranic waste generated from the research and production of nuclear weapons has been filled the US Department of Energy announced. The operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) mark a milestone in the disposal of this defense-generated waste. WIPP became the world's first operating underground repository for the permanent disposal of transuranic waste on March 26, 1999. Transuranic waste consists of clothing, tools, rags, residues, debris and other such items contaminated with small amounts of radioactive elements - mostly plutonium. These elements are radioactive, manmade, and have an atomic number greater than uranium - thus the term "transuranic," or beyond uranium. Project facilities include excavated rooms 2,150 feet underground in an ancient, stable salt formation. The full room, called Room 7 Panel 1, now holds 10,089 drums of transuranic waste. The site will ultimately hold the equivalent of about 648,000 55-gallon drums of radioactive transuranic waste. Disposal operations are expected to continue through 2034 as WIPP reaches its authorized capacity of 6.2 million cubic feet. WIPP's underground waste disposal panels are arranged in parallel sets of seven rooms each. Each set of seven rooms is called a panel. Each disposal room is 300 feet long, 33 feet wide and 13 feet high. Two disposal panels have been mined to date. The stored waste represents 352 shipments from five DOE sites. | |
|
|
|
|
DOE Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group - Library |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
August 17, 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
Radiation Protection at Yucca Mountain Project |
|
|
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
August 3, 2001 |
|
| EPA has developed radiation protection standards for Yucca Mountain to safeguard public health and the environment. Yucca Mountain, Nevada is the U.S. Department of Energy's potential underground geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. | |
|
|
|
|
Environmental Management INEEL's Site Treatment Plan Summary |
|
|
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
July 18, 2001 |
|
| The INEEL currently has existing or planned facilities for the treatment of mixed waste. Mixed waste streams to be treated in these facilities are discussed in Section 2; the schedules for design and operation of these facilities are included in Section 3 of this summary, and the identification and relationship of waste streams to treatment facilities are included in Section 4. | |
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board's Reactions to the Presentations Made by the DOE and Its Yucca Mountain Project |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
July 17, 2001 |
|
| This letter conveys the Board's reactions to the presentations made by the Department of Energy (DOE) and its Yucca Mountain Project contractor team at the Board's meeting in Arlington, Virginia, on May 8 and 9, 2001. | |
|
|
|
|
Soft-Sided Containers for Low Level Waste - ASTD ID&D |
|
|
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
June 21, 2001 |
|
| Transport Plastics Inc. Lift Liner's soft-sided waste packaging system includes a 25-mil woven and coated outer polypropylene fabric shell with a 40-mil high-density polyethylene inner liner. The outer shell is equipped with 18 lifting straps made of two-inch polyester seat belt webbing material. The containers meet the Department of Transportation requirements for transport of low specific activity and surface contaminated objects. The system also includes a loading frame used to support the shell and inner liner during loading and a lifting/spreader bar. The lifting/spreader bar attaches to the lifting strap for hoisting the container from the loading frame onto a transport vehicle. The empty bags are light and compact enough to move by hand. A small forklift can move the empty loading frame and lifting/spreader bar. Each container has a capacity of 260 cubic feet and holds up to 24,000 lbs. This is about 3 times the capacity of a metal waste box. There is a one-time cost of approximately $7,000 for the loading frame and lifting/spreader bar. The cost of the soft-sided containers is $380 per bag. This results in savings of about $1,100 in container costs for each bag filled vs. filling three metal boxes. These containers reduce disposal volume, disposal container costs, shipping costs, and disposal costs. | |
|
R038934 |
|
|
Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, DC |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
November 14, 2001 |
|
| This Act provides for the development of repositories for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, to establish a program of research, development, and demonstration regarding the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, and for other purposes. | |
|
|
|
|
Rapid Commercialization Initiative Verification Statement for WIT |
|
|
Bio-Imaging Research Inc., Lincolnshire, IL; U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Technology Center, Morgantown, WV; Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID |
|
|
Report; 7 pp. |
|
|
August 31, 1998 |
|
| Through a federally sponsored program called the Rapid Commercialization Initiative (RCI), a team of state and federal representatives convened to oversee the demonstration of the WIT technology and verify its performance. The verification objective was to assess the WIT system capability to meet the NDA bias and precision performance criteria which are the key performance NDA parameters of the National TRU Program Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) required by the Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC). WIT was tested on three surrogate drums with known waste matrices and radioisotopic compositions and five actual DOE generated drums which were independently characterized. Access to surrogate and actual drum alpha activity loading was limited to the project referee; chain of custody forms and non-disclosure agreements were used to protect the integrity of the verification process. The waste matrices ranged from combustibles to sludge, and the isotopic measurements ranged from 0 to 69 grams of 239 Pu (0-6.1 alpha curies). Due to the throughput limitations of WIT (see Technical Limitations), replicate measurements needed for precision analysis were not taken directly on the eight RCI drums and accuracy was calculated using single WIT measurements for each. The precision statistics were obtained from replicate WIT measurements on similar drums under a separate test program (the Capability Evaluation Program or CEP which was not RCI verified). The WIT bias results for the eight drums ranged from 180% to 86% (percent recovery), while precision (relative standard deviation) ranged from 1.5% to 7.0%. WIT assay results met test plan objectives for bias and precision on seven drums. The eighth (sludge) drum assay bias was not verified due to a lack of sludge rad chemistry data for bias comparison. WIT NDE results verified all drum content codes (waste types) and matrices. The three surrogate drum matrices were glass, dry combustibles, and metals. The five real waste drum matrices from DOE included sludge, wet combustibles, graphite, filters plus insulation, and raschig rings. In summary, WIT successfully met the verification objectives of this RCI project. | |
|
|
|
|
Monitors for the Prediction of Alternate Nuclear Material Concentrations for Pressurized Water Reactor Spent Fuel |
|
|
Charlton, W.S.; Stanbro, W.D. |
|
|
Nuclear Technology 136(1):24-36 |
|
|
October 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
Critical Review of the Practice of Equating the Reactivity of Spent Fuel to the Fresh Fuel in Burnup Credit Criticality Safety Analyses for PWR Spent-Fuel Pool Storage |
|
|
Wagner, J.C.; Parks, C.V. |
|
|
Nuclear Technology 136(1):130-140 |
|
|
October 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
Landfilling of Low-Level Radioactive and Contaminated Wastes Generated from Site Remediation |
|
|
Reif, M.A. |
|
|
University of Padua, Padu, Italy, Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg, Germany |
|
|
Sardinia 2001; Proceedings of the 8th International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium, Sardinia, Italy, October 1-5, 2001 |
|
|
October 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
The International Conference on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management: A Way Forward for Solving the Achilles Heel of the Nuclear Industry |
|
|
Metcalf, P. |
|
|
World Nuclear Association, London, United Kingdom |
|
|
World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium, London, United Kingdom, September 5-7, 2001 |
|
|
September 5-7, 2001 |
|
| Significant developments are taking place in respect of finding solutions to the safe management of radioactive waste. A number of high profile scientific and political meetings have taken place in the recent past which have concluded that indefinite on-surface storage of radioactive waste is not a sustainable option. Further, although the technology has been developed to allow repository development to move forward, its acceptance by broader elements of society requires further careful consideration. Building the necessary confidence within broader societal spheres will need step-by-step processes involving all relevant stakeholders. The International Joint Convention came into force on 18 June 2001 and it is considered that this will contribute to public confidence building. Work is advancing on the development of international safety standards for the geological disposal of high level waste. A number of forums are being established at local, national and international levels to bring together stakeholders and to provide for the necessary exchange of information and views on moving forward with the disposal of radioactive wastes. Progress has been made in a number of countries with development work on geological repositories. In particular this has included Finland, Sweden, the United States and France. A range of issues requires further consideration such as the control over disused radiation sources; the removal of materials from within regulated domains; and the long-term management of wastes containing natural radionuclides, including those from the mining and processing of uranium and thorium ores. Attempts to rationalise the management of all radioactive wastes within a common radiation safety framework are under development at the international level to address these issues. | |
|
|
|
|
World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium |
|
|
World Nuclear Association, London, United Kingdom |
|
|
World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium, London, United Kingdom, September 5-7, 2001 |
|
|
September 5-7, 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's Advice to Ministers on the Process for Formulation of Future Policy for the Long Term Management of UK Solid Radioactive Waste |
|
|
Department of the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), London, United Kingdom |
|
|
RWMAC Report; 40 pp. |
|
|
September 2001 |
|
|
http://www.defra.gov.uk/rwmac/reports/formulation/pdf/formulation.pdf |
|
| This report represents advice to the Government from independent experts on the optimum methods and techniques available to support public consultation on the long-term management of solid radioactive wastes. If the initiative is to be successful, it must use broadly-based, transparent, and properly structured processes from which policy proposals can be seen logically to emerge. | |
|
|
|
|
Determination of Dissolution Rates of Spent Fuel in Carbonate Solutions under Different Redox Conditions with a Flow-Through Experiment |
|
|
Rollin, S.; Spahiu, K.; Eklund, U.B. |
|
|
Journal of Nuclear Materials 297(3):231-243 |
|
|
September 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
Nondestructive Assay of Nuclear Low-Enriched Uranium Spent Fuels for Burnup Credit Application |
|
|
Lebrun, A.; Bignan, G. |
|
|
Nuclear Technology 135(3):216-229 |
|
|
September 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
Coupled Model for Oxidative Dissolution of Spent Fuel and Transport of Radionuclides from an Initially Defective Canister |
|
|
Longcheng, L.; Neretnieks, I. |
|
|
Nuclear Technology 135(3):273-285 |
|
|
September 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
Effect of Coprecipitation in Some Key Spent Fuel Elements |
|
|
Quinones, J.; Serrano, J.; Diaz Arocas, P. |
|
|
Journal of Nuclear Materials 298(1-2):63-68 |
|
|
September 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
WTQA 2001, Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Waste Testing & Quality Assurance Symposium |
|
|
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC |
|
|
WTQA 2001; Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Waste Testing & Quality Assurance Symposium, Arlington, VA, August 12-16, 2001 |
|
|
August 12-16, 2001 |
|
|
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/proceedings/pdf/final01.pdf |
|
| This year we have more special sessions than ever before. They reflect the diversity and rapidly evolving changes in modern environmental sampling and analysis. Three sessions devoted to Department of Defense topics highlight the growing importance of environmental technology to this government agency. Two sessions covering new technologies, and highlighting field analyses, continue an expanded coverage of last year's popular topic. Two sessions on air source emissions and monitoring introduce a new topic for WTQA. Three sessions on EPA data and information improvements feature the continued quality assurance focus and are supplemented with another special session on data quality and validation under PBMS. A final special session focuses on the technical issues faced by NELAC. Supporting these special sessions are the inorganic and organic regular sessions that provide a continuing foundation for the conference. Special sessions with invited speakers for oral sessions include: (1) Data Information Quality Improvement; (2) NELAC and ACIL Technical Issues Involving the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program; and (3) Data Quality and Evaluation Under PBMS in Department of Defense Programs. Short course topics will include: assessor training; using the DoD model to develop quality assurance project plans; writing permits using the PBMS approach; the triad approach to streamlining site characterization/cleanup; designing more effective and cost-efficient sampling and analysis plans by using a mix of field and fixed lab measurements; using solid phase extraction (SPE) sample preparation procedures to reduce monitoring costs; identifying appropriate laboratory practices; taking advantage of the benefits the PBMS approach offers when using SW-846 for RCRA monitoring; and effectively employing analytical organic mass spectrometry techniques. | |
|
|
|
|
Effect of Water Radiolysis Caused by Dispersed Radionuclides on Oxidative Dissolution of Spent Fuel in a Final Repository |
|
|
Liu, J.; Neretnieks, I. |
|
|
Nuclear Technology 135(2):154-161 |
|
|
August 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
Deferral of LDR Treatment Standards for PCBs in Certain Soils |
|
|
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Policy and Guidance, Washington, DC |
|
|
Environmental Guidance Regulatory Bulletin (August 2001):1-4 |
|
|
August 2001 |
|
| On December 26, 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) temporarily deferred the portions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal restrictions (LDR) regulations that define polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as constituents subject to treatment (CSTs)1 in certain soils (65 FR 81373 - 81381). Specifically, the rule temporarily defers the universal treatment standards (UTS) for PCBs in soils exhibiting the toxicity characteristic (TC) for metals. During the temporary deferral, achieving compliance with LDR treatment standards for soils exhibiting the TC for metals will not require treatment to remove PCBs, or to reduce the mobility or toxicity of PCBs. However, these soils still must be treated to meet applicable LDR treatment standards for non-PCB constituents, as appropriate. In addition, the total concentration of halogenated organic compounds, including PCBs, allowed in soils exhibiting the TC for metals that will be land disposed is capped at 1,000 parts per million (ppm). | |
|
|
|
|
Civilian Nuclear Waste Disposal |
|
|
Holt, M. |
|
|
National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, DC |
|
|
IB92059 |
|
|
July 30, 2001 |
|
| Management of civilian radioactive waste has posed difficult issues for Congress since the beginning of the nuclear power industry in the 1950s. Although federal policy is based on the premise that nuclear waste can be disposed of safely, new storage and disposal facilities for all types of radioactive waste have frequently been delayed or blocked by concerns about safety, health, and the environment. Civilian radioactive waste ranges from the highly radioactive spent fuel from nuclear power plants to the far-less-radioactive uranium mill tailings that result from the processing of uranium ore. Most of the debate over civilian waste disposal focuses on spent fuel and on "low level" waste from nuclear power plants, medical institutions, civilian research facilities, and industry. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) calls for disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a repository in a deep geologic formation that is unlikely to be disturbed for thousands of years. NWPA established an office in the Department of Energy (DOE) to develop such a repository and required the program's civilian costs to be covered by a fee on nuclear-generated electricity, paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Amendments to NWPA in 1987 restricted DOE's repository site studies to Yucca Mountain in Nevada. DOE is studying numerous scientific issues in determining the suitability of Yucca Mountain for a nuclear waste repository, which must be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Questions about the site include the likelihood of earthquakes, volcanoes, groundwater contamination, and human intrusion. | |
|
|
|
|
Advice to Ministers on the Ministry of Defence’s Radioactive Waste Management Practices |
|
|
Department of the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), London, United Kingdom |
|
|
RWMAC Report; 110 pp. |
|
|
July 2001 |
|
|
http://www.defra.gov.uk/rwmac/reports/modwaste/pdf/modwaste.pdf |
|
| The Ministry of Defence (MoD) is a major UK user of radioactive materials and produces significant amounts of radioactive wastes. Its activities also give rise to discharges of radioactivity to the environment. In this report, RWMAC notes continued improvement in MoD's arrangements and standards for dealing with its radioactive wastes, examples of which are discussed throughout this report. These improvements include progressive extension of civil regulation (as a consequence of processes of contractorisation and privatisation), establishment of the Naval Nuclear Regulatory Panel (NNRP) to improve control of the naval nuclear propulsion programme, better liaison with Nirex, and increasing openness and transparency in the way in which MoD conducts its radioactive waste management activities. There have also been significant improvements in respect of both management practices and facilities at individual sites. In general terms, RWMAC is able to reaffirm its view, first expressed in its 1997 report on defence wastes , that MoD's radioactive waste management practices are of a similar standard to those of the civil nuclear industry. Nevertheless, a number of problems have been encountered by MoD, and the private companies engaged in defence-related work, during the period since 1997. One such problem concerns identification of carbon-14 in naval nuclear propulsion programme (NNPP) waste streams; this has had a significant impact on "store and decay" strategies for radioactive waste management at the major NNPP sites. This and other problems, together with MoD's response, are reported here. The recommendations set out below, if implemented, would, RWMAC believes, help to sustain the general improvements already made in management of defence wastes. Other recommendations concern ongoing difficulties with regard to MoD's management of its radioactive wastes, in relation to both general programmes, such as that for nuclear weapons, and specific sites. The recommendations which follow include, in parentheses at the end of each individual recommendation, a reference to the paragraph of the main text where the point in question is fully discussed. | |
|
|
|
|
Spent Fuel Management: Two Alternatives at the FiR 1 Reactor |
|
|
Salmenhaara, S.E.J. |
|
|
Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland |
|
|
INIS-CH-038; RRFM 2001; Proceedings of the Fifth International Topical Meeting on Research Reactor Fuel Management, Aachen, Germany, April 1-3, 2001. European Nuclear Society, Berne, Switzerland; (pp. 104-106) |
|
|
July 1, 2001 |
|
|
http://www.osti.gov/doebridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=20167350 |
|
| The FiR 1 -reactor, a 250 kW Triga reactor, has been in operation since 1962. The reactor with its subsystems has experienced a large renovation work in 1996-97. The main purpose of the upgrading was to install the new Boron Neutron Capture Therapy (BNCT) irradiation facility. The BNCT work dominates the current utilization of the reactor: four days per week for BNCT purposes and only one day per week for neutron activation analysis and isotope production. The Council of State (government) granted for the reactor a new operating license for twelve years starting from the beginning of the year 2000. There is however a special condition in the new license. We have to achieve a binding agreement between our Research Centre and the domestic Nuclear Power Plant Companies about the possibility to use the final disposal facility of the Nuclear Power Plants for our spent fuel, if we want to continue the reactor operation beyond the year 2006. In addition to the choosing of one of the spent fuel management alternatives the future of the reactor will also depend strongly on the development of the BNCT irradiations. If the number of patients per year increases fast enough and the irradiations of the patients will be economically justified, the operation of the reactor will continue independently of the closing of the USDOE alternative in 2006. Otherwise, if the number of patients will be low, the funding of the reactor will be probably stopped and the reactor will be shut down. | |
|
|
|
|
Small-Scale Demonstration of Pyrometallurgical Processing for Metal Fuel and H.L.L.W |
|
|
Koyama, T.; Kinoshita, K.; Inoue, T. |
|
|
Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), Tokyo, Japan |
|
|
Proceedings of the Workshop on Pyrochemical Separations, Avignon, France, March 14-16, 2000. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, France, 331 pp.; (177-186) |
|
|
July 1, 2001 |
|
| CRIEPI and JRC-ITU have started a new joint study on pyrometallurgical processing. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the capability of this type of process to separate actinide elements from spent fuel and HLLW. In the first phase, the following two different series of experiments will be carried out: - Pyro-reprocessing of unirradiated metal alloy fuel (U-Pu-Zr or U-Pu-MA-RE-Zr) by molten salt electrorefining and molten salt/liquid metal extraction. - Pyro-partitioning of TRUs by chlorination of de-nitrated HLLW and molten salt/liquid metal extraction. For this purpose, a new experimental apparatus has been installed at JRC-ITU. It consists of stainless steel box equipped with tele-manipulators and double glove box, both operated in a pure Ar atmosphere. The electro-refiner consists of three electrodes and a liquid Cd pool covered by a molten LiCl-KCl eutectic mixture. The steel box will later be installed in a lead shield in order to treat real HLLW and irradiated fuel. | |
|
|
|
|
Evaluation of Aluminum-Clad Spent Fuel Corrosion in Argentine Basins |
|
|
Haddad, R.; Loberse, A.N.; Semino, C.J.; et al. |
|
|
CNEA, Buenos Aires, Argentina |
|
|
INIS-CH-038; RRFM 2001; Proceedings of the Fifth International Topical Meeting on Research Reactor Fuel Management, Aachen, Germany, April 1-3, 2001. European Nuclear Society, Berne, Switzerland; (pp. 93-97) |
|
|
July 1, 2001 |
|
|
http://www.osti.gov/doebridge/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=20167348 |
|
| An IAEA sponsored Coordinated Research Program was extended to study corrosion effects in several sites. Racks containing Aluminum samples were placed in different positions of each basin and periodic sampling of all the waters was performed to conduct chemical analysis. Different forms of corrosion have been encountered during the programme. In general, the degree of degradation is inversely proportional to the purity of the water. Maximum pit depths after 2 years of exposure are in the range of 100-200 {mu}m. However, sediments deposited on the coupon surfaces seem to be responsible for the developing of large pits (1-2 mm in diameter). In many cases, what appears to be iron oxide particles were found originated by the corrosion of carbon steel components present elsewhere in the basin. These results correlate with observations made on the fuel itself, during exhaustive visual inspection. | |
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Age: Cleaning up the Mess |
|
|
Menezes, M.; Stunell, A. |
|
|
CR-P-21; 32 pp. |
|
|
July 2001 |
|
| This paper focuses on just one essential component of a 'non nuclear' future - the management of nuclear waste. Waste produced by nuclear power is invariably contaminated by radioactivity. It is therefore a serious health and environmental hazard which requires special consideration. As residual radioactive contamination is generally very long lasting, the treatment and disposal options not only have to be robust in themselves, but also capable of retaining their integrity for hundreds, even thousands of years. Until now the debate over the issue of nuclear waste has been polarised; on the one hand there are those who see blocking a long-term solution to waste management as a powerful lever against further nuclear development. On the other, there are those who are in favour of a nuclear-powered future and who consequently have attempted to minimise the problem of dealing with nuclear waste. However, the time is now right for developing a long-term waste strategy for two reasons. Firstly we are confronted with reality, as nuclear plants coming to the end of their life are decommissioned, and secondly, the privatisation of the electricity generation market- has meant that nuclear cannot longer compete in the market with cheaper forms of energy generation and so new build is unlikely. Two options for storing waste have, in the main, been explored: surface storage and geological disposal with the option of retrieval. We believe that geological disposal is the only real option as it does not rely on future societal or climate stability to remain safe and secure. The most vital requirements for the success of finding a long-term solution are public support and legitimacy. Nirex's attempt to gain planning permission for the Rock Characterisation Facility and experience in other countries of gaining support for geological disposal bear this out. | |
|
|
|
|
Nuclear Spent Fuel Dry Storage in the EWA Reactor Shaft |
|
|
Mieleszczenko, W.; Moldysz, A.; Hryczuk, A.; et al. |
|
|
Institute of Atomic Energy, Otwock-Swierk, Poland |
|
|
INIS-CH-038; RRFM 2001; Proceedings of the Fifth International Topical Meeting on Research Reactor Fuel Management, Aachen, Germany, April 1-3, 2001. European Nuclear Society, Berne, Switzerland; (pp. 83-87) |
|
|
July 1, 2001 |
|
| The EWA reactor was in operation from 1958 until February 1995. Then it was subjected to the decommissioning procedure. Resulting from a prolonged operation of Polish research reactors a substantial amount of nuclear spent fuel of various types, enrichment and degree of burnup have been accumulated. The technology of storage of spent nuclear fuel foresees the two stages of wet storing in a water pool (deferral period from tens to several dozens years) and dry storing (deferral period from 50 to 80 years). In our case the deferral time in the water environment is pretty significant (the oldest fuel elements have been stored in water for more than 40 years). Though the state of stored fuel elements is satisfactory, there is a real need for changing the storage conditions of spent fuel. The paper is covering the description of philosophy and conceptual design for construction of the spent fuel dry storage in the decommissioned EWA reactor shaft. | |
|
|
|
|
Design Progress of HYPER System |
|
|
Park, W.S.; Hwang, W.; Kim, Y.H.; et al. |
|
|
Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Yusong, Taejon, Korea |
|
|
IWGFR-104; IAEA-AG-1076; Proceedings of the IAEA-IWGFR Advisory Group Meeting on Design and Performance of Reactors Systems with Lead and Lead-Bismuth as Coolant and/or Target Material, Moscow, Russia, October 23-27, 2000. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, 367 pp.; (pp. 75-72) |
|
|
July 1, 2001 |
|
| Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) has been performing accelerator driven system related research and development called HYPER for the transmutation of nuclear waste and energy production through the transmutation process. HYPER program is within the framework of the national mid and long-term nuclear research plan. KAERI is aiming to develop the system concept and a type of roadmap by the year of 2001 and complete the conceptual design of HYPER system by the year 2006. Some major design features of HYPER system have been developed. Burnable poison concept is being developed to keep the core reactivity swing less than 10%. In order to increase the proliferation resistance, a pyrochemical process is employed for the separation. The trade-off studies for the fuel fabrication are being performed. A dispersion type is believed to have advantages in terms of achieving high discharge burnup. The long-lived fission products such as Tc-99 and I-129 will be destroyed using the localized thermal neutrons separately in the HYPER. A calcium hydride is employed as moderator. SSC-H(Super System Code-HYPER) is being developed to simulate the behavior of coolant systems. The thermal hydraulic properties of Pb-Bi are implemented to SSC-H. The design optimization of target and beam window is performed using FLUENT and ANSYS computer codes. In addition, beam irradiation test is performed to estimate the hardness of window material (9Cr-2WVTa) due to the proton using KeV order accelerator. Beam diameter and window thickness are optimized based on the simulation results. | |
|
R039077 |
|
|
Mixed Waste Rule: 40 CFR 266, Storage, Treatment, Transportation, and Disposal of Mixed Waste |
|
|
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
November 20, 2001 |
|
| EPA is providing increased flexibility to generators and facilities that manage low-level mixed waste (LLMW) and technologically enhanced naturally occurring and/or accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM) containing hazardous waste. The Agency is exempting LLMW from some RCRA storage and treatment regulations, and LLMW or eligible NARM from RCRA hazardous waste transportation and disposal regulations. These wastes are exempt from RCRA Subtitle C requirements, including permitting, provided they meet specific conditions. The exempt wastes must then be managed as radioactive waste in accordance with NRC or NRC Agreement State regulations. The storage and treatment exemption applies to LLMW which is generated under a single NRC or NRC Agreement State license and which meets the specified conditions. The transportation and disposal conditional exemption applies to LLMW or eligible NARM which meets the specified conditions, including treatment to Land Disposal Restriction treatment standards. The exemption allows disposal at a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, if the facility has a disposal license from NRC or an NRC Agreement State. (Note that DOE disposal facilities are not eligible to accept the exempt waste since they are not subject to NRC regulation.) Additional flexibility is provided for manifesting LLMW or eligible NARM. | |
|
|
|
|
RWMAC Reports |
|
|
Department of the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), London, United Kingdom |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
October 31, 2001 |
|
| This page provides links for RWMAC reports published from August 2000 to the present. | |
|
|
|
|
Radwaste.org |
|
|
Herne Data Systems Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
October 29, 2001 |
|
| While the primary purpose of this site is to provide a reference source for radioactive waste management professionals, we recognize that radwaste is a hotly debated and emotional issue in today's society. Few other topics can polarize a community faster than the discussion of what to do with radioactive waste (or whether we should be generating any at all). Therefore, we strive to present all sides of the story in a non-partisan fashion. Intelligent people, like yourself, have a right to evaluate the available information and form their own opinions. Our attempt at non-biased coverage has earned us the respect of people and institutions on all sides of the issue, pro, anti, academic, governments, and professional societies to name a few. Just look at the Friends of RadWaste.org page to see some of the many links to our site. Thank you for stopping by, and let us know what you think of our site. The award winning WasteLink directory includes more than 7000 links to radwaste, nuclear, and radiation related companies, research centres, regulatory agencies, government organizations, non-governmental organizations, etc. | |
|
|
|
|
U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) |
|
|
U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Arlington, VA |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
October 24, 2001 |
|
| The NWTRB is an independent agency of the U.S. Government. Its sole purpose is to provide independent scientific and technical oversight of the U.S. program for management and disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel from civilian nuclear power plants. | |
|
|
|
|
Radioactive Waste Management |
|
|
Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, France |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
October 10, 2001 |
|
| The goal of radioactive waste management is to assist Member countries in the area of radioactive waste management, developing safe management and disposal strategies for spent fuel, long-lived waste, and waste from the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. | |
|
|
|
|
BNFL Seeks to Certify BRP Reactor Vessel as Transport Package Under U.S. NRC Rules |
|
|
Nuke Energy,, Washington Power Corporation |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
July 9, 2001 |
|
|
http://www.nuke-energy.com/data/other/bnfl_seeks_to_certify.html |
|
| BNFL Inc. has asked the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to license the Big Rock Point (BRP) reactor vessel as a Type B transport package under 10 CFR Part 71. In an application filed June 19 and made public by NRC last week, BNFL said the certification would allow a one-time shipment of the reactor vessel (RV) in fall 2002 to the Barnwell, S.C., low-level waste disposal facility operated by Chem-Nuclear Systems. The company was hired by BRP-owner Consumers Energy in 1999 under a $35 million fixed price contract to manage large component removal activities at the 67 MWe BWR shut down in August 1997. "The timely removal, packaging and shipment of the RV is a critical-path decommissioning activity necessary for the successful return of the BRP site to a green field site," BNFL told NRC. No exemptions from Part 71 requirements were requested. The application described the package as a cylindrical steel shell with welded steel flat top and bottom covers. The overall dimensions of the package are approximately 25 feet long and 13 feet in diameter. The reactor vessel is approximately 24 feet long, without the top head, with an outside diameter of almost 11.5 feet. The package shell is 3 inches thick with an additional 4-inch thick shield plate welded to the interior surface of the 3-inch thick cylinder shell. The interior shield plate is approximately 8 feet long covering the former reactor core region of the RV. The top and bottom covers are 4-inch thick steel plates. | |
|
|
|
|
WTQA Symposia |
|
|
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
October 1, 2001 |
|
|
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/proceedings/proceedingsdoclist.htm |
|
| This page contains links to the WTQA proceedings from 1997 to the present. | |
|
|
|
|
Waste and Decommissioning - Strategy Statement |
|
|
Health and Safety Executive, Sellafield, United Kingdom |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
September 26, 2001 |
|
| The Waste and Decommissioning Section of the NRI has been prepared to consider generic safety Issues relevant to outstanding NII concerns on reactor sites. The activities relate to both operating reactors and those which have been shutdown and are being decommissioned. The processes and technology of waste and decommissioning have been the subject of considerable research and development by the Industry. Issues in this section of the Programme may be cleared by establishing a programme of basic research, by collating information from existing facilities or by analysing existing data/information. The most appropriate method will be determined by the Technical Group. The Technical Group has reviewed the Issues to give a more logical structure to their listing and to more clearly identify any potential gaps in the knowledge base. The most recent revisions to this Section have been based on consultation within NII, with the Industry and various other groups. | |
|
|
|
|
Land Disposal Restrictions: Resources |
|
|
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
August 28, 2001 |
|
| This page contains links to a variety of resources. While some of these resources do not always deal specifically with LDRs, they are good tools to gather information that pertain to managing a RCRA hazardous waste. The resources include: Guidance Documents - This page contains links to RCRA Hotline Training Materials, Manuals and Guidebooks, Variance Assistance, and Letter/Memos specific to the LDR program; (2)Hazardous Waste Handlers Databases; (3) Chemistry Databases; (4)Library Databases; and (5)Training Materials. | |
|
|
|
|
Land Disposal Restrictions |
|
|
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
August 3, 2001 |
|
| The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) mission is to protect human health and the environment - air, water, and land. EPA helps fulfill this mission by regulating how hazardous wastes are managed and disposed under a program known as the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program. EPA's LDR program works specifically to minimize potential environmental threats resulting from land disposal of hazardous waste. The LDR program achieves this by establishing hazardous waste protocol and treatment requirements that make the waste safe for land disposal. | |
|
|
|
|
Radioactive Waste Management - Summary of Legislative Action 2001 |
|
|
Sierra Club, San Francisco, CA |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
July 26, 2001 |
|
| Radioactive waste remains deadly for hundreds of thousands of years. The debate about what to do with the waste in Texas has raged on for not quite as many years, but has driven citizen participation in the issue for at least 20 years. During that time, the Sierra Club and other citizen groups have again and again forced the nuclear industry and state officials away from cheap and easy solutions such as dumping the waste in underground trenches in the backyards of low income, Mexican American communities. The 77th legislative session was filled with more drama and controversy, but in the end no radioactive waste legislation was passed and no nuclear waste disposal facility will be built in the next 2 years. Citizens walked away with another victory under their belts and momentum to build support for safe and reasonable radioactive waste solutions during the interim. The showdown over radioactive waste began before the session started, with dueling House and Senate interim studies and dueling waste disposal companies. The House Environmental Regulations Committee study proposed that the state own the license for waste disposal and that assured isolation (above ground management) become an option for dealing with waste that Texas could accept under the its compact with Vermont and Maine. (The Texas Compact, ratified by Congress in 1998, provides that if Texas builds a radioactive waste disposal facility it will accept waste from Vermont and Maine.) On the other hand, the Senate Natural Resources Committee interim study proposed that a private company be allowed to obtain a radioactive waste management license and permitted to dispose of nuclear weapons waste from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). While compact waste from Texas, Maine, and Vermont is expected to be approximately 2.7 million cubic feet over the 35-year lifespan of the compact, estimates on the volume for DOE waste reach into the hundreds of millions of cubic feet over the next ten years. | |
|
|
|
|
Primer on Radioactive Waste |
|
|
New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, WIPP Transportation Safety Program, Santa Fe, NM |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
July 20, 2001 |
|
| Radiation is energy in the form of high speed particles or electromagnetic waves. It can be ionizing or non-ionizing (see an illustration). Non-ionizing radiation lacks the energy to alter atoms (e.g., visible light and microwaves). Ionizing radiation has enough energy to change normal cellular functioning. Ionizing radiation may cause cells to die or transform into a cancerous cell. Ionizing radiation is categorized by its strength or energy level into three main categories: (1) Alpha particles, although the most densely ionizing, are the weakest form of ionizing radiation. They can travel a few inches through the air but can be stopped by something as thin as a sheet of paper. This means that cells can be protected or shielded from damage by alpha particles by clothing. Even your skin will protect you from damage from alpha particles. However, if alpha particles are inhaled or ingested or get into a cut on the skin, they can cause damage to cells. As alpha particles decay inside the body, the surrounding cells absorb the radiation. (2) Beta particles contain more energy than alpha particles. These particles are able to travel several feet through the air, but can be stopped with denser materials such as wood, glass or aluminum foil. (3) Gamma rays are high-energy electromagnetic energy waves and the most penetrating type of radiation. They travel at the speed of light through the air. Cells must be shielded from gamma rays with concrete, lead or steel. | |
|
|
|
|
EPA/OSW Hazardous Waste - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C |
|
|
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
July 12, 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) Reports |
|
|
U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Arlington, VA |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
June 21, 2001 |
|
| No abstract available. | |
|
|
|
|
Copper's Role in Radioactive Waste Disposal III: The US Experience |
|
|
Kundig, K. |
|
|
Copper Development Association, Inc. |
|
|
Web Page |
|
|
June 5, 2001 |
|
| In an earlier article, innovations described the properties that make copper an attractive candidate for containers for the permanent isolation of high-level radioactive waste in an underground repository. A companion article in this month's Innovations tells how Sweden expects to use such copper canisters. This article traces copper's role in the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) waste management program. It explains why copper and copper alloys made it to a "short list" of several viable materials and why metals other than copper were ultimately selected. | |
| Return to TOP |