skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Life cycle management of radioactive materials packaging.

Abstract

The objective of life cycle management of radioactive materials packaging is to ensure the safety functions (i.e. containment of radioactivity, protection against radiation, and criticality safety for fissile contents) during the entire life cycle of the packaging in storage, transportation and disposal. A framework has been developed for life cycle management regarding type B radioactive and fissile materials packaging, drawing upon current US Department of Energy (DOE) storage standards and examples from interim storage of Pu bearing materials in model 9975 transportation packagings. Key issues highlighted during long term storage of Pu bearing materials included gas generation and stability of PuO{sub 2+x}; other operation safety issues highlighted for interim storage of model 9975 transportation packagings included the need to consider a facility design basis fire event and the long term behaviour of packaging components such as Celotex and elastomeric O-ring seals. The principles of aging management are described, and the key attributes and examples of effective aging management programmes are provided based on the guidance documents for license renewal of nuclear power plants. The Packaging Certification Program of DOE Environmental Management, Office of Safety Management and Operations, plans to expand its mission into packaging certification for storage and aging management,more » as well as application of advanced technology, such as radiofrequency identification, for life cycle management of radioactive materials packagings.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Argonne National Lab. (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
EM
OSTI Identifier:
977355
Report Number(s):
ANL/DIS/CP-60408
TRN: US1002902
DOE Contract Number:
DE-AC02-06CH11357
Resource Type:
Conference
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Packag., Transp. Storage Secur. Radioact. Mater.; Journal Volume: 18; Journal Issue: 4 ; 2007; Conference: 15th International Symposium on Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials (PATRAM 2007); Oct. 21, 2007 - Oct. 26, 2007; Miami, FL
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
ENGLISH
Subject:
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS; 21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS; AGING; BEARINGS; CONTAINMENT; CRITICALITY; DESIGN; FISSILE MATERIALS; GASKETS; LIFE CYCLE; MANAGEMENT; NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS; PACKAGING; RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS; RADIOACTIVITY; SAFETY; STABILITY; STORAGE; WASTE STORAGE

Citation Formats

Liu, Y., Bellamy, S., Shuler, J., Decision and Information Sciences, SRL, and DOE. Life cycle management of radioactive materials packaging.. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.1179/174651007X265033.
Liu, Y., Bellamy, S., Shuler, J., Decision and Information Sciences, SRL, & DOE. Life cycle management of radioactive materials packaging.. United States. doi:10.1179/174651007X265033.
Liu, Y., Bellamy, S., Shuler, J., Decision and Information Sciences, SRL, and DOE. Mon . "Life cycle management of radioactive materials packaging.". United States. doi:10.1179/174651007X265033.
@article{osti_977355,
title = {Life cycle management of radioactive materials packaging.},
author = {Liu, Y. and Bellamy, S. and Shuler, J. and Decision and Information Sciences and SRL and DOE},
abstractNote = {The objective of life cycle management of radioactive materials packaging is to ensure the safety functions (i.e. containment of radioactivity, protection against radiation, and criticality safety for fissile contents) during the entire life cycle of the packaging in storage, transportation and disposal. A framework has been developed for life cycle management regarding type B radioactive and fissile materials packaging, drawing upon current US Department of Energy (DOE) storage standards and examples from interim storage of Pu bearing materials in model 9975 transportation packagings. Key issues highlighted during long term storage of Pu bearing materials included gas generation and stability of PuO{sub 2+x}; other operation safety issues highlighted for interim storage of model 9975 transportation packagings included the need to consider a facility design basis fire event and the long term behaviour of packaging components such as Celotex and elastomeric O-ring seals. The principles of aging management are described, and the key attributes and examples of effective aging management programmes are provided based on the guidance documents for license renewal of nuclear power plants. The Packaging Certification Program of DOE Environmental Management, Office of Safety Management and Operations, plans to expand its mission into packaging certification for storage and aging management, as well as application of advanced technology, such as radiofrequency identification, for life cycle management of radioactive materials packagings.},
doi = {10.1179/174651007X265033},
journal = {Packag., Transp. Storage Secur. Radioact. Mater.},
number = 4 ; 2007,
volume = 18,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 2007},
month = {Mon Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 2007}
}

Conference:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share:
  • Product Life-Cycle Management (PLCM) is the control of environmental impacts associated with all the life phases of a product, from design through manufacture, packaging and disposal. PLCM dictates that products be manufactured using less harmful chemicals and fewer resources. Product packaging must be minimal and made of renewable and recyclable resources. Both the product and the package must contain recycled material. Packaging and products must also be collected for recycle at the end of their intended use, requiring infrastructure to collect, transport and process these materials. European legislation now requires the return and recycle of packaging materials by the endmore » of 1993. Requirements are also being imposed on manufacturers of automobile related products; automotive batteries, tires and even automobiles themselves must now be accepted back and recycled. Increasing public concerns and awareness of environmental impacts plus the decreasing availability of natural resources will continue to push product life-cycle legislation forward.« less
  • This paper provides a comprehensive perspective on the scope of Environmental Management (EM) activities and on the existing capability to estimate their costs. The scope is defined in terms of both activities and associated cost driving factors. The capability to estimate this scope was determined by evaluating existing cost estimating tools identified through a survey of the US Department of Energy (DOE), the US Department of Defense (DoD), the US Environmental Protection Agency, and private industry. This paper is largely based on the results of a report produced for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, US Department of Defense,more » entitled, Evaluation of Environmental Management Cost-Estimating Capabilities of Major Defense Acquisition Programs, March 22, 1995. The DoD sponsored report was designed to have a broad application relevant not only to DoD, but to other government agencies, and industry. In addition to DoD, it has particular application to DOE because significant portions of the analyses and data were derived from DOE environmental management databases, cost models, reports, and work breakdown structures. This paper provides the basis used and methodology employed to conduct an evaluations of selected EM cost estimating tools. The following topics are discussed: Life Cycle of EM Activities; Major Elements of EM Activities; Cost Tool Evaluation Matrix; Results of Cost Tool Evaluations; Cost Tool Development Plan.« less
  • Comparisons of costs of low-level radioactive waste management techniques invariably degenerate into parochial arguments over differences in commercial objectives. The purpose of this paper is to establish a common basis for comparing technologies and then to examine the result as a complete cycle instead of a snapshot view taken at an arbitrary point in the progression. One objective is to portray cost sensitivity in terms of the options available for waste management. A second, perhaps less obvious, point is the definition of cost factors hidden from the short-term view. The final objective is to show the cumulative effects of costsmore » externally imposed without reference to the technology employed (e.g., legislated surcharges based on arbitrary parameters).« less
  • Industrial and Municipal Solid Waste management has become the focus of local, state and federal regulations. However, most actions undertaken are focusing on the immediate benefits for the industrial site considered, rather than trying to assess the overall benefit for the environment of end-of-life management programs (landfilling, incineration, recycling, etc.). Also when properly analyzed, a lot of ``pollution prevention`` measures often displace pollution from one media to another (for example, from air to water). As illustrated by the two following examples, LCA is a competitive tool that allows one to identify the best end-of-life alternatives in a particular situation: (1)more » the LCA results carried out on actual packaging end-of-life case studies led to the phasing out of the traditional hierarchy reuse/recycle/incinerate/landfill and the enforcement of caps in mandatory recycling rates, in the final version of the European directive on packaging and packaging waste and (2) the LCA results on the end-of-life alternatives of a monitor computer housing carried out for a very large US computer manufacturer led to the integration of recycling constraints at the design stage of the product.« less
  • This report provides cost estimates for the fifth evaluation of the adequacy of the fee and is consistent with the program strategy and plans. The total-system cost for the reference cases in the improved-performance system is estimated at $32.1 to $38.2 billion (expressed in constant 1986 collars) over the entire life of the system, or $1.5 to $1.6 billion more than that of the authorized system (i.e., the system without an MRS facility). The current estimate of the total-system cost for the reference cases in the improved-performance system is $3.8 to $5.4 billion higher than the estimate for the samemore » system in the 1986 TSLCC analysis. In the case with the maximum increase, nearly all of the higher cost is due to a $5.2-billion increase in the costs of development and evaluation (D and E); all other system costs are essentially unchanged. The cost difference between the improved-performance system and the authorized system is smaller than the difference estimated in last year's TSLCC analysis. Volume 2 presents the detailed results for the 1987 analysis of the total-system life cycle cost (TSLCC). It consists of four sections: Section A presents the yearly flows of waste between waste-management facilities for the 12 aggregate logistics cases that were studied; Section B presents the annual total-system costs for each of the 30 TSLCC cases by major cost category; Section C presents the annual costs for the disposal of 16,000 canisters of defense high-level waste (DHLW) by major cost category for each of the 30 TSLCC cases; and Section D presents a summary of the cost-allocation factors that were calculated to determine the defense waste share of the total-system costs.« less