Tank Waste Retrieval, Processing, and On-site Disposal at Three Department of Energy Sites Final Report (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
V Tank Grouting and Closure
V Tank Grouting and Closure
Pages 62-71
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 62... ...
. In this chapter, the committee reiterates this waste to be stabilized (e.g., salt waste at the Savannah River Site)
|
From page 63... ...
is outside the These grouts are being used for tank closures at the Savannah general operating envelope for cementitious materials in River Site and are planned for tank closures at the Idaho industrial applications. There are no good precedents for National Laboratory, as discussed in the sections that follow.
|
From page 64... ...
In addi Savannah River Site staff is doing extensive work in tion, there are physical limitations on where the grout can be discharged into a tank (tremie2 placement) and differences developing grout formulations for tank wastes and estimating how these grouts might perform, working to address in density and viscosity between the cementious material and some of the concerns discussed in Sidebars V-1 and V-2.
|
From page 65... ...
If the walls and pipe surfaces of a tank cannot be adequately cleaned, some radioactive waste will remain above the elevation of the grouted bottom layer. Thus, the low-strength "filler" would require some ability to immobilize the waste.
|
From page 66... ...
. Lower levels of radiation may or may not affect the properties of the grout material.b Radiation levels from tank wastes are much lower than in reactor applications and decrease with time.
|
From page 67... ...
Idaho National Laboratory waste environments, which differ from conditions at the staff assumes that intruders who might attempt to drill in the Savannah River Site (Harbour et al., 2004)
|
From page 68... ...
Table VI-3 shows some very of the draft Section 3116 waste determination for Tanks 18 optimistic assumptions in DOE's environmental impact and 19, the milestone for closing these two tanks was one of statement for tank closure at the Savannah River Site. Many the top three criteria for determining that "waste has been or most tanks were assumed to contain only 100 gallons after removed to the maximum extent practical" (DOE-SRS, retrieval was completed.
|
From page 69... ...
gone waste removal, are estimated to have an order of Tank lay-up activities are discussed at five DOE sites magnitude more radioactivity than Tanks 17 and 20, but the (Hanford, Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National greater challenges lay ahead. DOE started its tank waste Laboratory, Savannah River Site, and West Valley Demonremoval and closure campaign with Type IV tanks, which stration Project)
|
From page 70... ...
the entire waste management operation at a given site from Even if the decoupling did result in some delay, the both a risk and a cost perspective. If DOE can relax other federal facility compliance agreements could be modified, constraints on tank waste removal, such as the tank space as they have on many other occasions, provided that the problem, delaying tank closure could free up funds planned for closure activities, and those funds could be devoted to 3At Hanford the closure schedule is 2024 for single-shell tanks and 2032 4It is the committee's understanding that the geometry of the tanks is for double-shell tanks; at the Savannah River Site the closure milestones are 2022 for Type I, II, and IV, and 2028 for Type III tanks; at Idaho the tanks inherently stable (i.e., resistant to collapse)
|
From page 71... ...
The comRecommendation V-1: DOE should maintain its primary mittee has not seen any reports of long-term testing or more objective of removing radioactive tank wastes from DOE fundamental research directed at the unique aspects of DOE sites. Immobilization of wastes left on-site cannot be a sub- applications, particularly the binding capacity of grouts and stitute or justification for not removing tank wastes from the changes in various properties over the extended times consites to the maximum extent practical (e.g., to meet schedule templated by DOE.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.