参考資料－２

Research Maps
– Tools for Aligning Fundamental and Applied Research with Operations

Kevin Kostelnik, Stephen King
Savannah River National Laboratory

November 8, 2016

SRNL-MS-2016-00204

Presentation Outline
 Introduction– Roadmaps & Research Mapping– Tools & Process

 Examples– Environmental Remediation– Waste Treatment

 Value Proposition2

Definitions / Context
 Roadmaps– Graphical, long-range strategic plans that identify activities and schedules necessary toachieve stated goals and objectives

!)$/ 3 3 ! 3$!"&!+$%&!%%!  !1%))% )$!+$&'! . ) 56.6459. &$3  %&$!) !$! & &&$ !%%!   %%)%

3

Definitions / Context
 Research Map– A type of Science & Technology Roadmap, focused on linking underlying scientificknowledge and technological advancements for desired improvements to existing(baseline) operations

4

Definitions / Context
 Mapping (Process)– The flexible process by which a roadmap / map
is created, implemented, monitored and updated.
 Structured framework
 Various approaches / techniques / outputs        $"#%
  

5Technology Readiness Technology Readiness Assessments– An assessment of technologies andtheir readiness for insertion into theproject design and execution schedule

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

 Technology Readiness Levels (TRL)– An indication of the maturity of a given
technology

COMMISSIONING
COLD

Concepts

Lab Scale

Bench Scale

Paper

PiecesPrototypes

TRL
1

2

Simulants
3

Engineering Scale

OPERATIONSHOTFull Scale

Plant

Simulants/Wastes

Simulants

Wastes

4

6

7

5

8

9

DOE-EM-SRP-2010, 2nd Edition

6

In Situ Groundwater Treatment System – Savannah River Site
Basic
Geochemistry

Applied Lab andField Studies

System Design
and Optimization

Deployment

10

Subsurface ContaminantGeochemistry

9
8

213
207
206
196
194
190
182

pH

7
6
5
4
3
0

10

20

30

40

Base Volume (ml)Column studies
and pH titrations ofplume impacted
aquifer sediments
Study of inter-related topics: solution-solidcontaminant interactions, potential treatment
amendments, and long term stability of inssitu stabilized phases

Focus on natural and plumeinduced facies and the chemical
dynamics at the leading and trailingedges of the plumeConfirmatory fieldststudiesDevelopment ofinnovative
treatment reagents

In Situ Treatment using Wall and Gate for Combined
Hydrologic and Geochemical Control

Problem:
Proble GroundwaterContamination
from
Conta
SeepageBasinsSeep

40 years of seepage basin operation resulted in
low pH groundwater plume containing
radionuclides and metals. 10 years of pump andtreat had limited impact on the plume and costover $12 million per year to operate.

Installed bariers (“walls”) toblock plume and force
water through treatment
zones (“gates”)
Alkaline treatment solution
periodically injected into thegate area to create
permeable reactive
treatment zone toimmobilize contaminants

Active work with stakeholders
and regulators to facilitatetransition from baseline pump &treat system to innovative in situ
treatment
Refined geological conceptual model and identified
target areas of opportunity for in situ treatment
deployment

Savings: $300M
7

Solvents for Cesium Removal – Savannah River Site
Molecular Modeling

Solvent Performance
Applied Studies

Performance
Optimization

Deployment

Savings: $600M to $1.8B
8

Main Processes for the Decommissioning of Fukushima Daiichi NPS!)$/ 3 3 ! 3$!"&!+$%&!%%!  !1%))% )$!+$&'! . ) 56.6459. &$3  %&$!) !$! & &&$ !%%!   %%)%

9Integrated Management from Fundamental/Basic Science to Practical Use!)$/ 3 3 ! 3$!"&!+$%&!%%!  !1%))% )$!+$&'! . ) 56.6459. &$3  %&$!) !$! & &&$ !%%!   %%)%

10

Research Maps help bridge the gap between Basic Science & Application
%&%"!%! $,%&!$)
"!,%%
"$!*6%$
&$&%2"'!
% ! )$&)%
!$$!%!
&)%) &
*!" &&,
&)%
%$%$
%$!$""'! 6&,

   5

5
!$$!%! 6&)%

7
! )
$
%$
8

9

&)!%%!  +!$

$')%

5

5

6

6
6



#)%&2&$ " &%
6 % !%& )$%
 " 7&)

8
7

7
7

%&  &

9

0%&!$%

%&
%"!%&$&%

 %&   &&,!$%!"
11

Research Mapping Value Proposition
 Solution-oriented method for aligning R&D with operational needs
 Illustrates the integration of Science, Technology and Practical Application
 Defensible basis for an R&D investment strategy
 Flexible to support decision-makers, scientists, general public Opportunity for broad, transparent stakeholder consensus building Applicable to long-term timelines)  &
%$

%$%$*!" &&!$""'! $')%

&)!%%!  +!$

12

Thank You
Questions ?

SRNL: We Put Science to Work– Begin with the outcome in mind and match the solution to the problem
13Legacy Waste Management in the United States

Roger Seitz
Environmental Restoration Technologies
Research Conference on Post-accident Waste Management Safety
Hosted by JAEA/CLADS
Iwaki, JAPANNovember 7, 20163 3:89<388:9;

Introduction
The United States Department of Energy – Office of Environmental Management (USDOEEM) is responsible for the largest cleanup program in the world

Large quantities of waste containing
radionuclides and non-radiologicalhazards are being managedRobust multi-criteria decision-making
process involving external regulationand input from stakeholders

*!!
*$&
6 

%$' !!  &$%&     ($
"  #

2

Contents
 Waste Management Strategic Considerations
 D&D and Remediation Waste Disposal Examples
 Regulatory Approach Waste Management Strategy – Example Considerations for
Solid Secondary Waste

3

Waste Management Strategic Considerations
Waste Hierarchy– Prevent  Reduce  Reuse  Recycle  Dispose

Interdependence (Integrated Technical and Regulatory
strategy) Costs, disposal needs, regulatory policies, etc. are factors
for D&D, characterization, segregation, and treatment
options– Treatment can increase volume & decrease concentration orvice versa, Potential for improper characterization?
 Waste Acceptance Criteria (store, transport, treat, dispose)?
?
 Volume of different categories of waste?
 Packaging and Transportation requirements ?
 Plans for reactor vessels and reactor components– Potential Intermediate-level waste/Greater than Class C in
USA ? Disposal and/or storage needed?

"&"%")$&%- 4

All Three D&D Options Applied in USDOE-EM (Safe Storage, Immediate
Dismantlement and Entombm
Entombment)

Hanford C Reactor – Safe
Storage Enclosure,'* 

SRS Entombment (R Reactor)
SRS F Area Canyon

Idaho - Reactor Vessel Disposal

SRS Vessel
Disposal (HWCTR)

"+%&,$%&,:"+('+$&,'%%&,
"&"%")$&%- 

Disposal Options for Remediation and Decommissioning Wastes
 USDOE-EM has the option of developing
on-site disposal cells, disposal at the
Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) or
using commercial disposal facilities On-site disposal has been selected as thepreferred alternative for large amounts of
the waste (can be combined with off-site
disposal of some waste) Transuranic (Intermediate-level) waste isdisposed at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plantt Spent-Fuel and High-Level Waste
currently being stored!$-  *%#"%&-4")$&%-0!$- 5

%&"!&$"#%&%,%%#"%&-4")$&%-0%&"!&$"#%&%5p of On-Site Disposal of Cleanup Waste (USDOE)
Examples&'*",

Fernald Site (Closed)

Idaho Site0",<(,+';+",1+,=
"&"%")$&%- Regulatory Context - Decision-Making Framework
 Most cleanup decisions are being
developed under a US Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) Regulatory
Process
 Decision-making through formal
process with continuous involvementof USDOE, USEPA, and State regulatorsand the public

Oak Ridge Site

Key Elements of USEPA Process Applied to Remediation Waste"+# '$+*,!*,!&'&+,*"&,+

+" &+,&*+'*"+('+$"$"-+&,*,%&,  
+,&*+'*!4*'/+1+,'*%+<"&/+,*"$$"&&&!!*$"! !&
1+,=;8*+*"(-09* /$-'&" #-+&$!&&'$"& &!*,*"4-'&'*,+,'+/(('*,$)'"!%
"+"'&;%#"&    /+,%,*)/"*%&,+&
"!3&$ '*!%%45*)/"*%&,+<&2,*&$* /$,'**0"1
"$&3&$ '*!%%
(*'+++*'&'&/,"&(&&,$3=
4+"$$%/&$!%#"$&'"!5
'&+"*+$&/($,*&-0+ # !&&-4/%'!5"&*",*";/&-,-0&)/$",-0
"%&3'*!%%
++++%&,'(',&-$"%(,+'"*&,
 
$,*&-0+)&"$-#&!
'$$'1"& -'&6*'/-&*0"1+<>?3*=*









'&/,,'++++-0&++'+'$/-'&"&*",*"")!&-#&!

Prescriptive Regulation – Advantages and Disadvantages
 Disposal facilities for cleanup waste are often designed to meet USEPA standards
for hazardous waste disposal to address the non-radioactive hazards(“Prescriptive design-based standard”)
 Use of standardized and accepted design helps to build public confidence, but
introduces challenges if it is necessary to conduct long-term safety assessment
 USEPA prescribes specifictreatment approaches forhazardous wastes
 Standard approaches are notalways the best option for
special cases, need flexibility toconsider optimal solution (e.g.,grouting of ion exchange resins)

!$%!&&!"$&

Solid Secondary Waste - Background Examples of solid secondary wastes and contaminants


HEPA Filters (e.g., Tc-99, Cr, I-129)



Ion Exchange Resins (e.g., Cs-137, I-129, Tc-99, Cr)

Activated Carbon Beds (e.g., I-129, Hg)

Silver Mordenite (e.g., I-129, Silver)

Miscellaneous Debris

 Prescriptive treatment and disposal approaches in regulations forhazardous waste (“debris” and “non-debris”) – e.g., encapsulation andsolidification/stabilization using cementitious materials
 Safety assessment models for radioactive waste require numerous
inputs (e.g., hydraulic conductivity, moisture characteristics, diffusion
coefficients), but limited data are available Important to understand significance of uncertainties (inventory andproperties) to help guide research priorities

Directly Link Research to Needs of the Safety Assessment (SA)"+"!"$ '"!

1 ")##"$&2%&$ )%&"%$$%$
!"&$%)##"$'!
'*'%"$&

Linking initial SA results with prioritization of data collection  

     



    
  
  
$  "                 !  ! 
$& #   $&# 
  
   &'# 
 
$& # 
# "
# +!  &# 
 
$&' # 
# "
# !     
















 

 
!  '
!$
!  )'*
!   # 
$# 
! # 

  # 
$# # 









  

   !$& 
 (,-.   !) *
%! 
$& 
 (,-.

 % ! %

)%"!"!&%! %)!$%&""

Organic Ion Exchange Resins – Considerations and Options
 Prescriptive treatment standard for “hazardous” resins (solidification/
stabilization in cementitious materials)
 Resins dewatered and sent for treatment in hydrogen form – oxidizing
conditions (favorable for I-129, not favorable for Tc-99)
 Organic resins expand posing challenge for cementitious materials(hydraulic properties of solidified matrix may not be maintained) Grout formulation/waste form pretreatment needs to address potential
expansion and provide sufficient long-term performance (Key question:
Safety assessment can help determine what is sufficient? ) Example Options (Blending, Place in container – no pretreatment,
Pretreatment to swell resin (Na or Ca form) and solidify, etc.)

14Strategic Considerations Tied to Road Map for Cleanup How well are the wastes characterized (what is the range of uncertainty)? How
could uncertainty impact transportation, treatment, storage, disposal options?
 Is treatment increasing or decreasing concentration and volume ofcontaminants? Will there be limitations of effluents from treatment facility?


Disposal facility capacity and WAC considerations (will a more robust facility be needed
for smaller volume of waste or is it more effective to dispose of larger volumes?), Will it bemore difficult to store and transport a higher concentration waste?

 Would prescriptive regulations be helpful or limit availability of good options?
Could solidification of the waste reduce performance (e.g., activated carbon or
resin stabilization in cementitious material) If Tc-99 and I-129 are both present, would oxidizing or reducing conditions be
more favorable? Need input from safety assessment.
 How to address “evolution” of a waste form over time (improve or degradationof properties) in safety assessment? (e.g., fracture behavior in unsaturated
conditions)

Conclusions
 Variety of different approaches for D&D and remediation waste managementin the USDOE-EM Complex
 Decision-making is based on multi-criteria approach with engagement of
external regulators and public involvement Prescriptive regulations can be helpful (public perception, consistency), but
can also limit optimization for special cases
 Safety Assessment helps to identify priority areas for research activities(process helps to provide sound basis for need for research) Many competing factors when identifying optimal waste management
strategy, research inputs can help to identify and assess critical assumptions
that could result in changes in the strategyFor further information, please contact:
Roger Seitz
Savannah River National Laboratory
Roger.Seitz@srnl.doe.gov

17

Backup Slides

18Strategic Considerations - IAEA Waste Classification

19

Background - Terminology
International Atomic Energy Agency Options for Reactor Decommissioning Immediate Dismantling (DECON)– Equipment, structures, and parts of facility containing
radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to alevel that permits facility to be released for unrestricted use orwith restrictions imposed by the regulatory body.

 Deferred Dismantling (SAFSTOR)– Parts of a facility containing radioactive contaminants are either
processed or placed in such a condition that they can be safely
stored and maintained until they can subsequently bedecontaminated and/or dismantled to levels that permit facility to
be released for unrestricted use or with restrictions imposed by
the regulatory body.

 Entombment– Radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long
lived material until radioactivity decays to a level permitting
unrestricted release of a facility, or release with restrictions
imposed by regulatory body– Position paper specific to entombment being prepared20

Decommissioning Considerations
Institutional
 Roles and responsibilities (government, regulator, licensee, interested parties)
 Policy, laws and regulations (health and environmental standards, worker
protection, end states, risk assessment, clearance process for radioactive waste) Availability of– Funding/cost estimates– Experienced staff (challenge for deferred actions)– Waste management system (processing, storage, disposal)

Facility State Future use of facility or site, co-located facilities with shared infrastructure
 Type of facility and physical status
 Residual activity in facility, characterization information
 Soil and groundwater contamination outside of the buildings/structures
 Transportation of waste - proximity to disposal/storage site(s)21Example Lessons Learned: Accurate surveys at beginning of process (well informedplans, waste planning): Availability of disposal options (commitment to accept
waste): Setting expectations for final surveys and monitoring(ranges of values): Cost estimation reassessed as site conditions evolve: Efficient characterization: Effective clearance process and waste segregation (soiland potential groundwater contamination): Quality assurance, independent samples: Areas where deeper contamination can occur (e.g., joints): Removal of surface contamination on concrete structures
resulting in non-radioactive debris: Fukushima – transparency, land use, public engagement

RR
Reactoreactor22

Building Stakeholder Confidence
'*,+%'/,!(*'('+$$

!3+"$%'$+*(!"$0"+/$"4-'&',!+/+/*
2,*&$*0"1+-& *)/"*%&,+'
* /$-'&+&2,*&$* /$,'*+
'/-&(/$"*"& +<7 76
"-4&+0"+'*3'*=

-% ""#$"#"%%#"%&-+&$ "*-$%4!$/+%&/"*$5 $*1+,(,&*",*"
'*%$(*'++,'*++
/&2(,'&"-'&+<7 76&1
1+,'*%+6%'&",'*"& *+/$,+6
,=

/+/*"&'&* "'&',!!'",