Radioactive Waste Characterization Strategies; Comparisons Between AK/PK, Dose to Curie Modeling, Gamma Spectroscopy, and Laboratory Analysis Methods- 12194
- Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 (United States)
In the coming fiscal years of potentially declining budgets, Department of Energy facilities such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) will be looking to reduce the cost of radioactive waste characterization, management, and disposal processes. At the core of this cost reduction process will be choosing the most cost effective, efficient, and accurate methods of radioactive waste characterization. Central to every radioactive waste management program is an effective and accurate waste characterization program. Choosing between methods can determine what is classified as low level radioactive waste (LLRW), transuranic waste (TRU), waste that can be disposed of under an Authorized Release Limit (ARL), industrial waste, and waste that can be disposed of in municipal landfills. The cost benefits of an accurate radioactive waste characterization program cannot be overstated. In addition, inaccurate radioactive waste characterization of radioactive waste can result in the incorrect classification of radioactive waste leading to higher disposal costs, Department of Transportation (DOT) violations, Notice of Violations (NOVs) from Federal and State regulatory agencies, waste rejection from disposal facilities, loss of operational capabilities, and loss of disposal options. Any one of these events could result in the program that mischaracterized the waste losing its ability to perform it primary operational mission. Generators that produce radioactive waste have four characterization strategies at their disposal: - Acceptable Knowledge/Process Knowledge (AK/PK); - Indirect characterization using a software application or other dose to curie methodologies; - Non-Destructive Analysis (NDA) tools such as gamma spectroscopy; - Direct sampling (e.g. grab samples or Surface Contaminated Object smears) and laboratory analytical; Each method has specific advantages and disadvantages. This paper will evaluate each method detailing those advantages and disadvantages including; - Cost benefit analysis (basic materials costs, overall program operations costs, man-hours per sample analyzed, etc.); - Radiation Exposure As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) program considerations; - Industrial Health and Safety risks; - Overall Analytical Confidence Level. The concepts in this paper apply to any organization with significant radioactive waste characterization and management activities working to within budget constraints and seeking to optimize their waste characterization strategies while reducing analytical costs. (authors)
- Research Organization:
- WM Symposia, 1628 E. Southern Avenue, Suite 9-332, Tempe, AZ 85282 (United States)
- OSTI ID:
- 22293491
- Report Number(s):
- INIS-US-14-WM-12194; TRN: US14V1146115015
- Resource Relation:
- Conference: WM2012: Waste Management 2012 conference on improving the future in waste management, Phoenix, AZ (United States), 26 Feb - 1 Mar 2012; Other Information: Country of input: France; 6 refs.
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
New York's development of low-level radioactive waste disposal capability
Alternatives To The Burial Of Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Related Subjects
42 ENGINEERING
ALPHA-BEARING WASTES
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
DOSES
GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY
HAZARDS
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
LANL
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES
NONDESTRUCTIVE ANALYSIS
RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
SAFETY
SIMULATION