[en] The results showed that catalase and urease activity of soils susceptible to the action of Cs 137 and these indicators could be used for biological monitoring of areas contaminated with this radionuclide. (authors)

No abstract available

[en] This work at demonstrating one of the accelerated tests in the frame of the Norm ASTM E-632-82, in order to evaluate the life of service for Reinforced Concrete Structures with High Performance.These will be used as barriers of engineering in containers for Radioactive Wastes.The results of the evaluation are necessary for the probabilistic and deterministic analysis, which are required to obtain licentiate for the emplacement and construction of this type of installations.Since concrete is the principal material used in this type of containers, its properties, in particular, its durability must be evaluated taking into accounts both, intrinsic factors and the extrinsic factors.Within the intrinsic factors we can mention your formulation, including design of armors of steel, production, treated and structural design.As extrinsic factors, weather and environmental, soil characteristic and service operation must be considered.It is important to emphasize that within the criteria used in the conceptual design of these types of repositories, the structures that act of barrier must not alter their insulation properties during all the period of service, which may be several hundreds of years.Although it is not possible to guarantee that repository's performance will not be altered throughout its time of service, the fact to obtain results of accelerated tests and the long term, it will enable us to estimate the durability of such structures, across the support of mathematical suitable models.The different stages which should be taken into account for the development of the evaluation tests, determining the relevant parameters to be considered in them and results obtained so far, are showing in this work

[en] The Russian Navy under the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation (AMEC) Program has designated the Polyarninsky Shipyard as the regional recipient for solid radioactive waste (SRW) pretreatment and storage facilities. Waste storage technologies include containers and lightweight modular storage buildings. The prime focus of this paper is solid radioactive waste storage options based on the AMEC mission and Russian regulatory standards. The storage capability at the Polyarninsky Shipyard in support of Mobile Pretreatment Facility (MPF) operations under the AMEC Program will allow the Russian Navy to accumulate/stage the SRW after treatment at the MPF. It is anticipated that the MPF will operate for 20 years. This paper presents the results of a regulatory analysis performed to support an AMEC program decision on the type of facility to be used for storage of SRW. The objectives the study were to: analyze whether a modular storage building (MSB), referred in the standards as a lightweight building, would comply with the Russian SRW storage building standard, OST 95 10517-95; analyze the Russian SRW storage pad standard OST 95 10516-95; and compare the two standards, OST 95 10517-95 for storage buildings and OST 95 10516-95 for storage pads

No abstract available

[en] The Hanford Site contains 177 large underground radioactive waste storage tanks (28 double-shell tanks and 149 single-shell tanks). These tanks are categorized into one of three waste groups (A, B, and C) based on their waste and tank characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement gas release event. Assignments of waste groups to the 177 double-shell tanks and single-shell tanks, as reported in this document, are based on a Monte Carlo analysis of three criteria. The first criterion is the headspace flammable gas concentration following release of retained gas. This criterion determines whether the tank contains sufficient retained gas such that the well-mixed headspace flammable gas concentration would reach 100% of the lower flammability limit if the entire tank's retained gas were released. If the volume of retained gas is not sufficient to reach 100% of the lower flammability limit, then flammable conditions cannot be reached and the tank is classified as a waste group C tank independent of the method the gas is released. The second criterion is the energy ratio and considers whether there is sufficient supernatant on top of the saturated solids such that gas-bearing solids have the potential energy required to break up the material and release gas. Tanks that are not waste group C tanks and that have an energy ratio < 3.0 do not have sufficient potential energy to break up material and release gas and are assigned to waste group B. These tanks are considered to represent a potential induced flammable gas release hazard, but no spontaneous buoyant displacement flammable gas release hazard. Tanks that are not waste group C tanks and have an energy ratio (ge) 3.0, but that pass the third criterion (buoyancy ratio < 1.0, see below) are also assigned to waste group B. Even though the designation as a waste group B (or A) tank identifies the potential for an induced flammable gas release hazard, the hazard only exists for specific operations that can release the retained gas in the tank at a rate and quantity that results in reaching 100% of the lower flammability limit in the tank headspace. The identification and evaluation of tank farm operations that could cause an induced flammable gas release hazard in a waste group B (or A) tank are included in other documents. The third criterion is the buoyancy ratio. This criterion addresses tanks that are not waste group C double-shell tanks and have an energy ratio (ge) 3.0. For these double-shell tanks, the buoyancy ratio considers whether the saturated solids can retain sufficient gas to exceed neutral buoyancy relative to the supernatant layer and therefore have buoyant displacement gas release events. If the buoyancy ratio is (ge) 1.0, that double-shell tank is assigned to waste group A. These tanks are considered to have a potential spontaneous buoyant displacement flammable gas release hazard in addition to a potential induced flammable gas release hazard. This document categorizes each of the large waste storage tanks into one of several categories based on each tank's waste characteristics. These waste group assignments reflect a tank's propensity to retain a significant volume of flammable gases and the potential of the waste to release retained gas by a buoyant displacement event. Revision 8 is the annual update of the calculations of the flammable gas Waste Groups for DSTs and SSTs

No abstract available

[en] This paper provides a description of the remote ultrasonic examinations of a high level radioactive waste storage tank at the Savannah River Site. The inspections were performed from the contaminated, annular space of the 46 year old, inactive, 1.03 million gallon waste storage tank

[en] The radioactive waste temporary storage in Malaysian Nuclear Agency is to store waste that obtained from extraction of monazite and rare earth mineral in order to produce thorium. Hence, the waste temporary storage shall follow safety, security and safeguard guideline. One of the criteria in designing the radioactive waste temporary storage is ventilation system that can control the temperature and humidity level in order to ensure radioactive waste in good condition. The objective of this research is to design the ventilation system for portable cabin as a temporary storage for radioactive waste that obtained from thorium extraction process. The output of this research is important to ensure ventilation system was designed as per good engineering practice in order to ensure temperature and humidity level in radioactive waste temporary storage as per design requirement. (author)

[en] The Finnish power companies, TVO and IVO, chose the wet storage method when building the interim spent fuel stores at Olkiluoto and Loviisa NPP sites. These choices were based on extensive comparative studies of different storage methods and designs. TVO's and IVO's stores started operation in the financial years 1987 and 1984 respectively. TVO's was built as an away-from-reactor (AFR) store on the NPP site, IVO's as an at-reactor-store, wall-to-wall to the NPP process building. The operating experience with both stores is good. 4 figs