4
* - t.*c~~ jxyDepartment of Energy
Oak Ridge OperationsP. O. Box E VM Record rile
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 378_ |WMl Proiject - _Docket No. ::
POR b/
LPDR _ _ :
|c C- kAL in .1 PP-
;M;M .. -QW a _
October 6, 1987
Those on Attached List
Gentlemen:
0- -�'. stri out'09':
M�_Qr_"_rZk)V__1nS0fle"urn to u;< __,
tl- �MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 WASTE MANAGEMENTADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
The quarterly meeting of the Waste Management Advisory Committee was heldon Tuesday, September 15, 1987 at the Sheraton South in Chattanooga,Tennessee. The meeting provided updates on the status of the LLWDDDdemonstrations, the Y-12 proposed improved operations in Bear Creek BurialGround (BCBG), the BCBG site characterization, the ORGDP fixed wastedelisting, and the Y-12 sludge treatment demonstration. An overview ofthe Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc. hazardous and mixed wastestrategy and the results of phase I of the management of contaminatedscrap metal at ORO sites were provided. In addition, working groups wereformed to discuss and give feedback on the proposed scope of theEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) for new low level waste disposalareas on the Oak Ridge Reservation.
The next meeting of the Advisory Committee will be held on Tuesday,December 8, at the Sheraton South in Chattanooga. A preliminary agendawill be distributed in mid-November. If you have any comments, pleasecall me on 615/576-0715 or FTS/626-0715.
Sincerely,
(24@ TCi, -
Robert C. Sleeman, ChiefWaste Management BranchResearch and Management Division
Enclosures:As stated
ccC.R.J.E.H.J.J.T.S.
w/encls:M. Borgstrom, EH-25, HQ, FORSTLN. Collier, DP-84R. Jansen, SROA. Jordan, DP-22, HQ, GTNW. Hibbitts, SE-31W. McCullough, CE-52Moore, EO-22S. Tison, DP-81Woodbury, EH-232, HG, FORSTL
-J C0~
C= C"'C, OK1
0- r qc
C0
7102730102 87PDR WA T 1006WtRlWATL -iI
10-14MMUM-Aw-
IC.;
Addressees - Letter dated October 6, 1987
MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORYCOMMITTEE MEETING
Bill Adams, DOE/OROJake Alexander, DOE/OROPaul Alexander, Analysas CorporationSteve Allison, TDHE/KnoxvilleJim Bailey, MMES/Y-12James Bearden, WMCO/FMPCDick Blake, MMES/PORTSTommy A. Bowers, MMES/ORGDPGail Bradshaw, DOE/HQCarole Broderick, MMES/ESARick Brown, TDHE/KnoxvilleMichael Bruner, TDHETodd Butz, MMES/Y-12W. E. Cantrell, TDHETexas C. Chee, DOE/HQKenneth Church, TDHE/KnoxvilleRoger Clapp, MMES/ORNLTerry Cothron, TDHE/NashvilleBobby Davis, DOE/OROMax R. Dolenc, EG&G Idaho/DEF LLWMPDon Dunning, Maxima CorporationMike Eisenhower, MMES/ESARichard Genung, MMES/ORNLGay Hashbarger, TDHE/KnoxvilleBecky Hinton, DOE/OROScott Hinchberger, DOE/IDJami D. Holbert, TDHE/DRHFrank Homan, Advanced Waste ManagementDavid Hopkins, EPACheryl Hutchison, NumatecE. A. Jennrich, EG&G IdahbL. S. Jones, MMES/Y-12Mike Jugan, DOE/OROJoseph Kane, NRCR. J. Keeling, MMES/PaducahJohn Kennerly, MMES/ORNLRobert Kispert, WMCOLarry Ledford, TDHE/NashvilleDon Lee, MMES/ORNLEarl Leming, TDHE/KnoxvilleNelson Lingle, DOE/ORO
Addressees (continued) - Letter dated October 6, 1987
Arthur Linton, EPABrian Looney, DuPont/SRLRichard McLean, MMES/ORNLLance J. Mezga, MMES/ESAMike Mitchell, MMES/ESAMike Mobley, TDHE/NashvilleR. W. Morrow, MMES/ORNL Eng.John M. Napier, MMES/Y-12Michael O'Rear, DOE/SRCarolyn Osborne, DOE/HQ/NEPATom Perry, MMES/ESASuzy Riddle, EPAAngel L. Rivera, MMES/ORNLPaul Rohwer, MMES/ORNLTom Row, MMES/ORNLSteve Seltzer, MMES/PADJohn Shoemaker, MMES/ORGDPDebra Shults, TDHE/NashvilleBob Sleeman, DOE/OROBrian Spalding, MMES/ORNLKeith Stalnaker, MMES/PORTSJohn Starmer, NRCLisa Stetar, TDHE/NashvillePriscilla Stith, TDHE/EEPLeroy Stratton, MMES/ORNLDirk Van Hoesen, MMES/ORNLBruce Vaughn, MMES/ORGDPChuck Wakamo, EPACassandra Washington, TDHE
I- . _
Waste Management Advisory Committee MeetingSeptember 15, 1987
List of Attendees
Tommy A. Bowers, MMES/ORGDPHelen M. Braunstein, ORNLCarole A. Broderick, MMES/CWMOTexas C. Chee, DOE/HQ-DWTMRoger Clapp, MMES/ORNLKeith D. Colamarino, EPA/REGION IVMike Eisenhower, MMES/ESARichard Genung, MMES/WMTCSteve Goodpasture, MMES/ORGDPGay Hashbarger, TDHE/KNOXVILLEWayne Hibbitts, DOE/OROJami D. Holbert, TDHE/DRHPaul E. Hollenbeck, ORNL/WMTCDavid Hopkins, EPA/REGION IVDavid Huizenga, DOE/HQ-NEPAEd Jennrich, EG&G IDAHO/DEF LLWMPL. S. Jones, MMES/Y-12Mike Jugan, DOE/OROJohn Kennerly, MMES/WMTCDon Lee, ORNLNelson Lingle, DOE/OROArthur G. Linton, EPARichard B. McLean, MMESLance J. Mezga, MMES/ESATom Row, MMES/ORNLBob Sleeman, DOE/ORODirk Van Hoesen, MMES/ORNLEddie Watson, JOHN M. COCKERHAM & ASSOCIATES
Waste Management Advisory Committee MeetingSeptember 15, 1987
List of Working Groups
Group I
Facilitator - Richard B. McLean
Arthur G. LintonGay HashbargerTommy A. BowersDavid HuizengaTom RowRoger ClappCarole A. BroderickJohn Kennerly
Group II
Facilitator - Nelson Lingle
David HopkinsJami D. HolbertTexas C. CheeRichard GenungEddie WatsonL. S. JonesMike Eisenhower
Group III
Facilitator - Lance J. Mezga
Keith D. ColamarinoSteve GoodpastureEd JennrichDon LeeDirk Van HoesenMike JuganWayne Hibbitts
0-
Waste Management Advisory Committee MeetingSeptember 15, 1987
Action Items from July 14, 1987 Meeting
Action Item: Determine RCRA permit requirements needed for uraniumlysimeter project.
Status: At the present time, there are no plans to use mixedwastes in the lysimeters, therefore a permit is notrequired.
Action Item: Reevaluate disposal alternatives for Class III wastebased on feedback from working groups.
Status: Presented and discussed at September 15 meeting.
Action Item: Determine what regulatory permits are required for thestabilization and closure demonstration in SWSA-6.
Status: A formal closure plan will be submitted to TDHE at theend of September with additional data to enable theState of Tennessee to make a decision on permitrequirements.
Waste Management Advisory Committee MeetingSeptember 15, 1987
HIGHLIGHTS
I. LLNDDD DEMONSTRATION STATUS - J. M. Kennerly
Areas needing technology development and resolution ofuncertainty before implementation of the LLWDDD strategyincluded disposal methods for uranium, certification methods forwaste classes and treatment methods to remove uranium. Severalconceptual flowsheets for treatment of Class I and III uraniumtreatment scenarios were discussed. The uranium removal priorto disposal could enable disposal in a sanitary landfill orClass I facility.
A summary of the status of the waste treatment demonstrationswas presented. The supercompaction of baled Y-12 waste iscompleted and the report has been issued. The RFP for theimmobilization and packaging technologies for ORR priority wastestreams was redone and reissued. The supercompaction of ORNLRTR-examined drums on-site is complete. In FY88, demonstrationsinvolving supercompaction of ORNL boxes and drums off-site andsupercompaction of Y-12 wastes on-site is planned. Thestatement of work is being prepared for the decontamination oflead shielding demonstration.
The design of the ORNL Greater Confinement Disposal units is atthe 100% level. Monitoring of the ORNL Hillcut Facility iscontinuing. MMES is waiting on written comments from TDHE onthe Y-12 packaging demonstration before proceeding. The In-Trench Chip Oxidation demonstration is waiting for the secondresponses from the State and EPA before proceeding. The Stateresponses will be in by the end of the month.
The uranium removal demonstration for Y-12 priority wastestreams is in the planning stages. A statement of work is beingprepared. Three streams have been identified for thisdemonstration. The dredgings from New Hope Pond, the floorsweepings containing depleted uranium and other metals but noorganic solvents, and the Central Pollution Control Facility(CPCF) sludge. The objective of treatment of the first twowaste streams will be to produce a non-LLW suitable forlandfilling. The objective of treatment of the CPCF sludge isto remove the uranium and produce a delistable waste.
AZ
2
The alteration of Y-12 surrogate classified shapes off-sitedemonstration was discussed. All surrogate materials in allcases were unclassified and uncontaminated. The suggestedtechnologies were discussed. Four companies were awardedcontracts to demonstrate their technologies on the surrogatematerials. Summary reports from the companies will be issued inthe near future.
Review of Class III Disposal - R. Clapp
The proposed Class III disposal facility involves in-situleaching of the wastes to remove the soluble uranium from thewaste. Technical and economic assumptions regarding the conceptof Class III waste disposal were discussed. In support of thisconcept, the uranium lysimeter project is progressing. A draftORNL lab test plan has been written. Loading of the lysimeterswill begin in June 1988.
II. MIXED/HAZARDOUS HASTE STRATEGY - B. M. Eisenhower
An overview of the MMES Strategic Hazardous and Mixed WasteManagement Plan was given. The plan provides a broad,integrated approach to managing mixed and hazardous wastesgenerated by MMES. Development of a Hazardous WasteDevelopment, Demonstration, and Disposal (HAZWDDD) Program isthe primary functional component of the strategy. An actionplan to develop the HAZWDDD Program is being written.
Plan objectives, definitions, and strategy components, werereviewed for the committee.
The committee asked if Oak Ridge was receiving any of thePaducah or Portsmouth wastes. It was reported that Oak Ridgewould be receiving mixed, hazardous, and PCB wastes bound forthe TSCA incinerator. The committee recognized thatinteractions between states governments will be needed ifdemonstrations in the HAZWDDD Program involve state-to stateshipment and disposal of some wastes begin. Waste ManagementAdvisory Committees similar to this one are planned in thefuture for Kentucky and Ohio.
3
It should be noted that although the strategy to handle mixedwastes involves treatment of the wastes to produce a non-hazardous, delistable or low-level waste, there will probably besome waste or residue from treatment that cannot be renderednon-hazardous. The feasibility of an on-site mixed wastedisposal facility and the possibility of shipment of thesewastes will be investigated.
III. DORGDP FIXED WASTE DELISTING - S. T. Goodpasture
A flow sheet showing the process of delisting for the K-1407 B&Cponds at K-25 was reviewed for the committee. A samplinganalysis plan has been submitted to the EPA in Washington and aresponse is expected within two weeks. EPA has agreed to delistthe material to a low level waste. The sample schedule planwas reviewed. The solidified sludge, not the sludge itself,will be de-listed.
The solidified sludge is being analyzed using the TCLP Procedureand the EP Toxicity test. Results thus far have shown noorganics and the metals found have been well below the DrinkingWater Standards.
The uranium concentration prior to fixation is approximately 100parts per million. Uranium concentrations in the solidifiedsludge has to this point in time not been analyzed forclassification. A program for determining how much uranium isin the solidified sludge as well as the class of waste under theLLWDDD strategy was requested.
After the sample plan is approved, a petition with data will besubmitted to EPA. Depending on the response time from EPA, theprocess of de-listing should be accomplished within 1-2 years.
IV. MANAGEMENT OF CONTAMINATED SCRAP METAL AT ORO SITES PROJECT -RESULTS OF PHASE I - M. R. Jugan
A summary table of the estimated scrap metal inventory wasprovided. The results of the scrap metal decontaminationdemonstrations (Phase I) done by Babcox & Wilcox, BechtelNational, Inc., and Scientific Ecology Group including thetechniques used to decontaminate, and the problems encounteredwere discussed.
The schedule for Phases I and II were provided. Phase II of theproject is a five year project and will involve two firms. TheRFP for Phase II will be out in November.
4
V. PROPOSED EIS SCOPE - R. C. Sleeman
Small working groups were formed to discuss and provide feedbackon the proposed scope of the Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) for new disposal facilities on the ORR. The workinggroups were asked to provide input/ recommendations in thefollowing three areas:
-alternative to the proposed LLWDDD strategy,
-alternative treatment/disposal options for each class of wasteproposed in the LLWDDD strategy,
-alternative sites for each class of waste other than thoseproposed in the LLWDDD strategy.
The list of alternatives shown below resulted from the workinggroups. These alternatives will be carried forward in the EISusing a matrix-type approach within the alternatives.
Alternatives to Strategy
o off-site disposal at an existing DOE facility
o development of a new DOE facility at a new DOE site
o commercial disposal on ORR
o commercial disposal off ORR
o long-term storage versus disposal (both on-site)
4
5
Alternatives within the Strategy
o Class I: tumulus, unlined trench, storage
o Class II: shallow land burial, vaults, mined cavities,bore holes, intermediate depth burial (see10 CFR 61 EIS), storage
o Class III: disposal in vaults with no release for 100years, no release with in-situ treatment, norelease with pre-treatment
o Class IV: continuous release, storage
Alternative Sites
o For above grade and below grade facilities -Identify in the EIS what other sites were considered andwhy they were not chosen.
G, Hashbarger will talk with the other TDHE representativesinvolved and will provide comments to R. Sleeman.
VI. Y-12 PROPOSED IKPROVED OPERATIONS - S. D. Van Hoesen
Results of studies completed show that there is a limited amountof below grade disposal capacity left in Bear Creek burialground. A plan for getting out of the BCBG and into newdisposal facilities was proposed. The plan includes increasedinterim storage, above grade disposal in a tumulus, andcontinued burial of some wastes using current disposal methodsin BCBG.
Y-12 is proposing to begin an above-grade disposal demonstrationof some low-level wastes beginning in FY88. This demonstrationwas described. A separate meeting will be held with the Stateto discuss what types of containers will be needed for thetumulus demonstration (concrete vaults, metal boxes, baled), theacceptability of this demonstration in BCBG, and theacceptability of continued operation in BCBG up to 1997 when theline item facility will be operational.
6
VII. Y-12 SLUDGE TREATMENT DEMONSTRATION - J. H. Kennerly
The new project manager, Paul Hollenbeck, was introduced to thecommittee as well as D. G. Padgett, Project Manager from Chem-Nuclear Services. Inc. A general process and equipmentdescription was provided by D. G. Padgett. The equipment willbe trailer mounted and mobile.
A RCRA RD & D permit will be required for this demonstration.The documentation required for this permit and the draft permitschedule were discussed. It was suggested that detaileddocumentation on the process be sent to EPA and TDHE as soon aspossible to expedite the permitting process.
VIII. SITE CHARACTERIZATION UPDATE - D. V. LEE
Extensive site characterization work is being or has beenperformed at the three potential areas for LLW disposal on theOak Ridge Reservation, SWSA 7, Bear Creek Valley, and WestChestnut Ridge. The purpose of site characterization studies isto obtain adequate data for the pathways analysis required inthe EIS. The steps involved in site characterization andassessment were discussed including reconnaissancecharacterization data collection, development of a conceptualmodel regarding site conditions, collection of first phase ofcharacterization data, modification of the conceptual model, anddocumentation of site conditions. The status of the Bear CreekValley site characterization work was reviewed.
Waste Management Advisory Committee MeetingSeptember 15, 1987
ACTION ITEMS FOR DECEMBER 8. 1987 MEETING
1. Requested feedback from EPA and the State of Tennessee regardingthe value of the Waste Management Advisory Committee meeting; isthe meeting providing the information the agencies need? Also,determine if the format is acceptable (discussion of both mixedand low-level wastes at the same meetings). Should standingmembers and alternates be identified to ensure consistency andattendance at the meetings?
Action: Dave Hopkins, Earl Leming
2. A program to determine the uranium concentrations in thesolidified K-1407 B & C pond sludge will be developed. Thisinformation will be used to classify the solidified sludge wasteaccording to the LLWDDD strategy.
Action: Tommy Bowers
3. Develop a matrix format for the LLWDDD strategy and alternativesthat will be included in the EIS scope.
Action: L. J. Mezga
4. Arrange a meeting with the State of Tennessee and EPA regardingcontinuing operation of the Bear Creek Burial Ground and theacceptability of the above-grade demonstration.
Action: Bob Sleeman
5. Feedback is needed from the EPA and TDHE on the proposed Y-12in-trench chip oxidation demonstration.
Action: Dave Hopkins, Earl Leming
6. State of Tennessee and EPA comments are needed on the Y-12packaging demonstration.
Action: Dave Hopkins, Earl Leming
Waste Management Advisory Committee MeetingSeptember 15, 1987
LIST OF HANDOUTS
1. September 15 Agenda
2. UPDATE ON WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL DEMONSTRATIONS andREVIEW OF CLASS III DISPOSAL, J. M. Kennerly and R. G. Clapp[presenters], Energy Systems.
3. STRATEGIC HAZARDOUS AND MIXED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THEDEPARTMENT OF ENERGY INSTALLATIONS OPERATED BY MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGYSYSTEMS, INC., B. M. Eisenhower [presenter], DOE/ORO.
4. SCRAP METAL RESULTS OF PHASE I, M. R. Jugan [presenter], DOE/ORO.
5. OAK RIDGE RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTSCOPING, R. C. Sleeman [presenter], DOE/ORO.
6. Y-12 ABOVE-GRADE LLW DISPOSAL PLANNING, S. D. Van Hoesen [presenter],Energy Systems.
7. DEMONSTRATION OF DETOXIFICATION OF Y-12 SLUDGE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTEREMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM BACKGROUND AND STATUS, J. M. Kennerly, and P.E. Hollenbeck (Energy Systems) and D. G. Padgett (Chem-NuclearServices, Inc. [presenters].
8. UPDATE ON POTENTIAL DISPOSAL SITES, D. W. Lee [presenter), EnergySystems.
Waste Management Advisory Committee MeetingChattanooga, TN
September 15, 1987
AGENDA
10:00 a.m.
10:15 a.m.
10:45 a.m.
12:00 noon
1:00 p.m.
1:15 pan.
1:45 p.m.
2:15 p.m.
2:45 p.m.
3:15 p.m.
3:30 p.m.
OPENING REMARKS/INTRODUCTIONS/REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS
LLWDDD STATUS UPDATE- DEMONSTRATIONS
OAK RIDGE RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTSCOPING
LUNCH
Y-12 IMPROVED OPERATIONS
SITE CHARACTERIZATION UPDATE
MIXED/HAZARDOUS WASTE STRATEGY
ORGDP FIXED WASTE DELISTING
Y-12 SLUDGE TREATMENT DEMONSTRATION
SCRAP METAL - RESULTS OF PHASE I
ADJOURN
R. C. SLEEMAN
J. M. KENNERLY/R. B. CLAPP
R. C. SLEEMAN
S.
D.
B.
S.
J.
M.
D.
W.
M.
T.
M.
R.
VAN HOESEN
LEE
EISENHOWER
GOODPASTURE
KENNERLY
JUGAN
4
UPDATE ON WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE
AND DISPOSAL DEMONSTRATIONS
PRESENTED TO THE
WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
IN
CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE
BY
JOHN M. KENNERLY
WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY CENTER
AND
ROGER
ENVIRONMENTAL
B. CLAPP
SCIENCES DIVISION
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
SEPTEMBER 15, 1987
DEMONSTRATION UPDATE AGENDA
I TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS . . . . . .
I URANIUM TREATMENT OPTIONS ASAPPLIED TO URANIUM DISPOSAL . . . . . .
I OVERVIEW OF TECHNOLOGYDEMONSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I STATUS OF Y-12 PACKAGING DEMO. . . . . .
I DISCUSSION OF CLASS III DISPOSAL . . . .
J. M. KENNERLY
J. M. KENNERLY
Jo M.
o R.
. R.
KENNERLY
B. CLAPP
B. CLAPP
JMK 9-87
It9
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
* IMPLEMENTATION OF LLWDDD STRATEGY REQUIRES DEVELOPMENT OFTECHNOLOGY AND RESOLUTION OF UNCERTAINTY IN SEVERAL KEYWASTE MANAGEMENT AREAS
* AREAS RECOGNIZED AS LLWDDD STRATEGY DEVELOPED
* DISPOSAL METHODS FOR URANIUM
- CLASS I
- CLASS III
- BACKUP POSITION (CLASS II)
* CERTIFICATION METHODS FOR WASTE CLASSES
- - TO MEET WASTE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
* TREATMENT METHODS TO REMOVE URANIUM
- SMALL RESIDUAL
- LARGE VOLUME SUITABLE FOR SLF OR CLASS I DISPOSAL
* SHIPMENT OFF-SITE
- WASTE NOT HAVING A DISPOSAL OPTION ON-SITE
* CURRENT YEAR WORK PLAN REFLECTS THESE NEEDS
JMK 9-87
s
ORNL DWG 87-895
RELEASE UNDER NPDES
RECEIVING WATER
RELEASE UNDER NPDES
RECEIVING WATERS
® : DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNOLOGY NEEDED
Fig. 5.2. Conceptual flowsheet for post-treatment after disposal ofClass I and IHI long-half-life wastes.
4 .
ORNL DWG 87-894R
YES
®i: DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNOLOGYNEEDED
RELEASE UNDER NPDES
RECEIVING WATERS
Fit *5.3. Conceptual flowsheet for pretreatment of Class IVlong-ha f-life.
SUMMARY OF DEMONSTRATIONS (CONTINUED)
WASTE DISPOSAL
ORNL TUMULUS . .e. ...... . . *. ...... LLWDDD
Y-12 URANIUM LEACHING DISPOSALDEMONSTRATION . . . . ........ .*. .*..*.*..* . . LLWDDD
Y-12 PACKAGING DEMONSTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . LLWDDD
Y-12 TUMULUS . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LLWDDD
MODULAR DISPOSAL UNIT EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . LLWDDD
ORNL GREATER CONFINEMENT DISPOSAL (GCD) LLWDDDDEMONSTRATIONS . . .* . . ... . . . . . . AND ORNL WMO
ORNL WMOORNL IMPROVED OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . AND LLWDDD
ORNL HILLCUT FACILITY . . e . . . . . . . . . . LLWDDD
JMK 9-87
ORNL DWG 87-893R
MAKEUPCHEMICALS
LIQUIDRECYCLE
(: DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNOLOGY NEEDED
Fig. 5.4. Conceptual flowsheet for liquid treatment of Class IVuranium wastes.
4'.
ORNL DWG 87-892R
(: DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNOLOGY NEEDED
Fig. 5.5. Conceptual flowsheet for thermal treatment of Class IVuranium wastes.
4. a
SUMMARY OF DEMONSTRATIONS
WASTE TREATMENT
Y-12 SLUDGE DETOXIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . HAZWRAP
SUPERCOMPACTION OF PREVIOUSLY-BALED Y-12URANIUM WASTE OFF-SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LLWDDD
IMMOBILIZATION AND PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIESFOR ORR PRIORITY WASTE STREAMS . . . . . . . . . . LLWDDD
ALTERATION OF Y-12 SURROGATE CLASSIFIEDSHAPES OFF-SITE *. . . . .-.-.- . .. . . . LLWDDD
SUPERCOMPACTION/GROUTING OF ORNL RT-R-EXAMINEDDRUMS ON-SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LLWDOD
SUPERCOMPACTION OF ORNL DRUMS AND BOXESOFF-SITE . . . . . . .. . . . * . . . . . . . . . LLWDDD
SUPERCOMPACTION OF Y-12 DRUMMED URANIUMWASTE ON-SITE .*.. ... ... e.g...... .. . LLWDDD
URANIUM REMOVAL FROM Y-12 PRIORITYWASTE STREAMS . .*. . . .*. . .. . . . . . . . . LLWDDD
DECONTAMINATION OF LEAD SHIELDING . . . . . . . ORNL WMO
WASTE STORAGE
INTERIM STORAGE IN ORGDP K-25 BUILDINGVAULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LLWDDD
JMK 9-87
4. *1
URANIUM REMOVAL DEMONSTRATION
FOR Y-12 PRIORITY WASTE STREAMS
PLANNING PHASE FOR THE DEMO:
I MET WITH Y-12 TO DISCUSS THE STREAMS
I STATEMENT OF WORK IN EARLY STAGE OF PREPARATION
THREE WASTE STREAMS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED:
* DREDGING FROM NEW HOPE POND
e HEAVY METALS, LOW LEVELS OF URANIUM, PASSES EP TOX,30,000 FT3
* IF DECLARED RCRA, BECOMES A OMIXEDN WASTE
* OBJECTIVE: PRODUCE NON-LLW SUITABLE FOR LANDFILLDISPOSAL
I FLOOR SWEEPINGS
* HIGHLY VARIABLE, CONTAINS ABSORBANT, WIPES, BLOTTERPAPER, TRASH, ETC., SOME DEPLETED URANIUM, OTHERMETALS (Cu. FE, ETC.), NO SOLVENTS OR ORGANICS
* OBJECTIVE: ASSAY AND SEGREGATE, SEPARATE THE URANIUM,PRODUCE NON-LLW SUITABLE FOR LANDFILL DISPOSAL
I C.P.C.F. PROCESS SLUDGE
* 'MIXED' WASTE, CONTAINS DEPLETED URANIUM, HEAVYMETALS, CERTAIN ORGANICS
* OBJECTIVE: REMOVE URANIUM AND PRODUCE A "DELISTABLE"WASTE
JMK 9-87
.1 *
ALTERATION OF Y-12 SURROGATE
CLASSIFIED SHAPES OFF-SITE
OBJECTIVE
e DETERMINE IF ALTERATION OF THE SHAPE OR PHYSICALCONFIGURATION OF AN OBJECT CAN RESULT IN ITSDECLASSIFICATION
e IF SUCCESSFUL, DECLASSIFIED-URANIUM-CONTAMINATEDWASTES COULD BE HANDLED AS ORDINARY LLW
* SECONDARY BENEFIT - VOLUME REDUCTION INFORMATION
THREE CATEGORIES OF MATERIAL
e METAL: ALUMINUM, FERROUS ALLOYS, STAINLESS STEEL
e CARBON (GRAPHITE)
e OTHER: WOOD, PLASTICS, CARDBOARD, FOAM, COMPOSITIONMATERIALS, ETC.
ALL SURROGATE MATERIALS
* UNCLASSIFIED
* UNCONTAMINATED
SUGGESTED TECHNOLOGIES
MECHANICAL ALTERATION: GRINDING, CHOPPING, CRUSHING,CUTTING, ABRADING, COMPACTING, SHEARING, SHREDDING,ETC.
* CHEMICAL OR THERMAL ALTERATION: CHEMICAL DESTRUCTION,OXIDATION, BURNING, INCINERATION, MELTING, ETC.
JMK 9-87
ALTERATION (CONTINUED)
* FOUR COMPANIES AWARDED CONTRACTS
* QUADREX
* BABCOCK AND WILCOX (SHREDDING SYSTEMS, INC.)
* SHRED PAX
* SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGY GROUP
O VQUADREX PRELIMINARY RESULTS
* HIGH-SPEED, LOW-TORQUE CRUSHER FAILED TO REDUCE THEHARD GRAPHITE
CROSS-CONTAMINATION BY CESIUM 137 AND COBALT 60 OF THE10 POUNDS PROCESSED
* SHREDDING SYSTEMS (B&W) PRELIMINARY RESULTS
* USED A LARGE HYDRAULIC ROTARY SHREDDER SUCCESSFULLY ONALL THREE CATEGORIES
* FURTHER SHAPE ALTERATION ACHIEVED USING A SMALLERROTARY SHEAR SHREDDER
* SHREDDER UNABLE TO NEGOTIATE HARDENED STEEL > 3/4 IN-,STAINLESS STEEL > 3/8 IN-
* SHRED PAX PRELIMINARY RESULTS
* USED LARGE ELECTRIC ROTARY SHREDDER SUCCESSFULLY ONALL THREE CATEGORIES
FURTHER SHAPE ALTERATION ACHIEVED A SMALLER SHREDDERAND CRUSHING MILL
OPTED NOT TO PROCESS HEAVY GAGE FERROUS AND STAINLESSSTEEL
JMK 9-87
ALTERATION (CONTINUED)
I SEG DEMO SCHEDULED FOR NEAR FUTURE
* PLAN TO USE SHREDDING FOLLOWED BY SUPERCOMPACTION
* ALUMINUM SMELTING WILL PROBABLY NOT BE DONE DUE TOCONTAMINATION OF SEG EQUIPMENT
JMK 9-87
41
1
ROGER CLAPP 9/15/87
REVIEW OF.CLASS III DISPOSAL
:ASSUMPTIONS FOR DISPOSAL
COMMENTS-FROM ADVISORY MEETING IN JULY
-.- PROGRESS IN THE URANIUM LYSIMETER PROJECT
*t LABORATORY CHARACTERIZATION DRAFT-'TEST PLAN@ was 2; -,1 or, *, { * * e : . . -.;.,.-. . i . *
v *LYSIMETER DRAFT CONCEPTUAL PLAN .j .
-COMMENTS BY STATE.REGULATORS .. . .. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U
... . !.-r '-.' ,I . .. .
I ,j� - - . .:
. e . .I.. ....
.. .- . .. -
* . *IAt**�
*1
I * ..
k
� P.
*�Ir. � �'- -
I. �k' .1I**� �
3%.. *�
�'4
>e\. 4.1
* -MV
* ha-. ..
it'
.1
'it.
'.2i-I-
* ..1. .
- I.. . - . .
| The fundamental technical and economic assumptions underlying the
concept of the Class III waste are as follows:
I 1.- Uranium in the contaminated waste' can be divided into fractions
that are very soluble and almost insoluble.
2. These fractions are sufficiently stable to be characterized for the
range of biogeochemical conditions in the soil environment.
| 3. The soluble fraction can be effectively renioved by leachi-ng within,
the period of institutional control.v
4 4. By providing leachate monitoring and leacd te treatment capability
to ensure that liquid effluent is below a uranium-concentration
threshold, no adverse risk will occur.
5. That threshold can be defined by chemical and aquatic toxicirty
levels, by radiological dose to man, or by regulation. (However,
it must be greater than zero.)
6. a. The insoluble fraction will yield a dose to man less than the
trigger dose either before or at the end of institutional
control, or
b. Intruder protection can be provided.
7. Disposal by the Class III method will be economical for certain
wastes relative to the alternatives of pretreatment or off-site
shipment.
#I
ORNLt OWG 87-870
la
Fig. ,5.6. Schemntte drawinq showing the required ciwmponents for alandf il s .proposed by thl, Tannessen StAte Divit'ion IOf'SOLI WasteManagement.
I 1
4ag
URANIUM LYSIMETER PROJECT . -...
OBJECTIVEs TO PROVIDE LEACH RATES AND CHARACTERIZATION FOR URANIUM '-'
CONTAMINATED WASTES. GENERATED AT THE Y-12 PLANT. ,.
aC.V- DETERMINE.-THE RADIOLOGICAL AND.CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS O.-.'THE
:WAE. AND. THE:EFFLUENT FROM4LYSIMETERS ...
X * , ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. * '* -.>t * -r' ,
...PROVIDE:DATA ON SOURCE 'TERMFOR MODELERS .
- PROV;DE DATA FOR A PILOT SCALE FACILITY
*'r -. 'DETERMINE BIOLOGICAL EFFECT OE.;THE.EFFLUENT ;
2StO *eg ;21 TO 30 LYSZMETER; .** ;*t.^ . :- . W~S WTE STREAMS *;.. - . . .. ;,.
: . ENHANCED WATER APPLICATION RATE
DEPLETE URANIUM WASTE ONLY
RESPONSES TO STATEs
NO RCRA-TYPE WASTES WILL BE EVALUATED AT THIS STAGE
ALL LEACHATE INITIALLY WILL BE COLLECTED, HAULED AND TREATED
BIO-TOXICITY WILL BE EXAMINED
GROUNDWATER WILL BE MONITORED
TREATABILITY OF WASTES WILL OCCUR IN PHASE-2 OF PROJECT
-- NO RESPONSE FROM THE SOLID WASTE DIVISION --
If
UPDATE ON POTENTIAL DISPOSAL SITES
D. W. LEE
Presentation toWaste Management Advisory Committee
Chattanooga, TennesseeSeptember 15, 1987
Jr
SITE CHARACTERIZATION/ASSESSMENT LOGIC PATH
STEP 1 - Reconnaissance characterization data collection.
Determine locations where long term Investigation isappropriate.
STEP 2 - Obtain first phase of characterization data.
STEP 3 - Develop Hypotheses (Conceptual Model) regarding siteconditions.
STEP 4 - Test Hypotheses--Modify Conceptual Model.
STEP 5 - Document site conditions.
i
IDENTIFICATION OF SITES
THE LLWDDD PROGRAM HAS IDENTIFIED THE FOLLOWINGSITES FOR POTENTIAL USE.
BEAR CREEK VALLEY (Hwy. 95 to Gum Hollow Road)--FissionProduct waste In tumulI and trench disposal of uranium.
SWSA 7 AREA--Greater Confinement Disposal of Fission ProductWaste.
WEST CHESTNUT RIDGE--Burial of slightly contaminated lowlevel waste.
60'
pn�� i-.Duke
4
Ar-
NA
AM,
t
N
& " v
STATUS OF THE SITE CHARACTERIZATION DATA COLLECTION
Site
Bear ChestnutData Type Creek Ridge SWSA 7 7X
1. Soil/Bedrock Maps 0 C C P
2. Aquifer Properties P C/P C/P P
3. Piezo. Head Distrib. O/P C/O 0 C/P
4. Precip. Discharge& GW Fluctuation 0 C/O 0 0
5. Baseline Water Qual. P 0 P P
6. Radlonuclide Atten. 0 C C C
7. Model Validation P - -
C
0
P
= Complete
= Ongoing
= Planned for completion 9/88
.1
. I
v .f . - �14* I I.
v , , ,f I 7 . L .
-1�6. , ,I .li;,: *j -@
-A.
I,..4..,4
* -.
t: .^ en 'o, En, - - ,''I
_, .Z
*. , AN
.. ...
.A. A,1. .. . I . .
mmwmmmmmwI
a.
* - - � �2 0 .. -
- �
- -�
-4 �1 - -
I�..I *�S � I *�
A._An*_
__
.._§
-s
.§_.
._.
._,..
@...
... .._
It 11~~ i
* .* . . . .
A ..., _, -
El r Om NUCLAR amE Cl laSB SECTION
a
I
arn
m
on
-an
0
AV
4.
STRATEGIC HAZARDOUS AND MIXED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANFOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY INSTALLATIONS
OPERATED BY MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
Presented to theWaste Management Advisory Committee
September 15, 1987
B. M. Eisenhower
4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4
PLAN OBJECTIVES
o Provide a broad, integrated approach for the managementof hazardous and mixed wastes generated by operations and
X -activities at Martin Marietta' Energy Systems-installations, i.e., ORGDP, ORNL, PGDP, PORTS, Y-12.
o Develop the Hazardous Waste Development, Demonstration,and Disposal (HAZWDDD) Program as the primary functionalcomponent to this strategy.
DEFINITIONS
o Hazardous Wastes - Solid wastes defined as hazardousunder RCRA (40 CFR, Part 261). Also includes PCBs.
o Mixed Wastes - Hazardous wastes (as defined above) + low-level radioactivity.
44
CURRENT POLICIES
0
0
No on-site disposal of hazardous or mixed wastes
No off-site disposal of mixed wastes
All mixed wastes are currently being stored.
STRATEGY COMPONENTS
o Waste Stream Identification and Evaluation
o Waste Minimization
o Continuation of on-site waste management operations
o Technology Demonstrations
o Detoxification/Delisting/Mobility Reduction
o Waste Disposal
6
WASTE STREAM IDENTIFICATIONAND EVALUATION
GOALS:
o Identify and characterize all hazardous/mixed wastestreams
o Ensure that these waste streams are being managed inaccordance with all applicable regulatoryrequirements
t
& 6
WASTE STREAM IDENTIFICATIONAND EVALUATION
(CONT'D)
o The Waste Stream I & E task consist of five functionalelements:
* - Waste Stream Identification- Waste Stream Characterization- Waste Disposition- Documentation- Oversight/Audit
o Each installation is currently formulating the necessaryaction plans to accomplishment and in some instances haveinitiated activities.
11 ."A.,,, -
WASTE MINIMIZATION
Goals:
- Reduce volumes of waste generated
-t Red-uce toxicity of. wastes
- Minimize the amount of hazardous wastes requiringtreatment/disposal at off-site facilities
i T -
WASTE MINIMIZATION(cont'd)
o Each installation hasfor reduction of both(hazardous, mixed, and
developed plansthe toxicity and
radioactive).
identifying actionsvolume of wastes
.C
- waste segregation at generation source- process changes- material substitution- recycle/recovery
o Projects/activities for reducing volume and/or toxicity
- TSCA Incinerator- Supercompaction- Silver Recovery- Y-12 Sludge Detoxification Demonstration
I- I I
Z
ON-SITE STORAGE AND TREATMENT -HAZARDOUS WASTES
Goals:- Significant reduction in volumes of hazardous wastes
requiring long-term storage due to unavailability ofon-site or off-site treatment/disposal facilities
- Increase on-site treatment capabilities tostable waste form prior to off-site disposal
provide a
- Providesufficienttreatment
storage for hazardous wastes to getquantities for shipment to on- or off-sitefacilities
- Gradual reduction in Energy Systems dependence onoff-site commercial facilities fortreatment/disposal.
4.
ON-SITE STORAGE AND TREATMENT -HAZARDOUS WASTES
(cont'd)
Current Activities/Conditions '
o Storage in containers and/or tanks
o Treatment/disposal at off-site, permitted facilities
o On-site treatment capabilities
- detonation of explosive/shock-sensitive chemicals- photographic waste processing for silver recovery- wastewater treatment
o Must comply with storage requirements imposed on landdisposal banned wastes
o DOE-ORO and Energy Systems policies prohibit disposal ofhazardous/mixed waste on Oak Ridge Reservation
PI i
ON-SITE STORAGE AND TREATMENT -MIXED WASTES
Goals:
- Utilize on-site storage until treatment technologiescan be developed and demonstrated to be effective.
- Identify/develop/demonstrate technologies fortreatment of a significant backlog of stored mixedwastes. Also provide treatment systems for mixedwastes currently being generated.
ON-SITE STORAGE AND TREATMENTMIXED WASTES
(cont'd)
Current Activities/Conditions
-- o Storage in containers and/or tanksr -
o Limited on-site treatment capabilities, e.g., wastewatertreatment
o No off-site mixed waste treatment/disposal facilities
o Current DOE and Energy Systems policies prohibit disposalof hazardous/mixed wastes on the Oak Ridge Reservation
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS
Goals:
- Reduce volume and/or toxicity of hazardous and mixedwastes
- Separate hazardous and radioactive components
- Produce waste forms that are amendable to delistingor mobility reduction of hazardous components
- Waste detoxification
TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS(cont'd)
Technologies of interest include:
o Volume reduction
o Separation of hazardous and- radioactive components
o Solidification/fixation/encapsulation into waste formswhich are amendable to delisting under RCRA, and
o Detoxification
o Disposal Methods
ORNL-DWG 87M-Mg4R
Figure 3.2 Scheme for Hazardous/Mixed Waste Technology Demonstrations
DETOXIFICATION/DELISTING/MOBILITY REDUCTION
Gdals:^
- Treatment to reduce toxicity or completely detoxify
- Treatment to produce a delistable waste form
- Treatment to produce a more manageable waste form
- Treatment to reduce mobility of hazardousconstituents
DETOXIFICATION/DELISTING/MOBILITY REDUCTION(cont'd)
o Efforts will focus on mixed, waste streams currently. instorage or being generated by treatment processes
o Need a waste form that:
1) Meets RCRA delisting criteria, or
2) Meets LLW acceptance criteria, or
3) Provides BDAT for disposal as a mixed waste.
I .
-1
WASTE DISPOSAL
Goals:
- To ascertain the feasibilitywaste disposal facility
of an on-site mixed-
- To examine the possibility of shipping mixed wastesto other DOE sites for disposal
TO HELP MEET THE OBJECTIVE OF THE STRATEGY PLAN, ENERGYSYSTEMS WILL:
o Involve the private sector contractors in conductingtechnology demonstrations and in the implementation ofthose.technrologies found to be sucdk -*-
o Minimize the amount of DOE capital investment that wouldbe required through cost-sharing demonstrations andutilization of small-scale demonstrations to select finaltreatment/disposal technologies.
o Strive to integrate the strategies of the LLWDDD Programwhere applicable.
BOTTOM LINE
o Major waste management projects (increased storagecapacity, volume/toxicity reduction, and treatment oflarge volumes of liquid waste streams) are underway ateach installation to improve waste management operations.
o Storage backlogs and the generation of mixed wastes fromseveral of the existing and proposed treatment facilitiesall contribute to the problem.
o There are many questions, particularly for mixed wastes.Technology demonstrations will be used to provide the answers.
SCRAP METAL
RESULTS OF PHASE I
M. R. JUGAN
PRESENTATION TO
WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEECHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE
SEPTEMBER 15, 1987
MAJOR SCRAP STOCKPILES AT ORO-MANAGED SITES
WI
OODYEAR ATOMIC
MMES
WMO 0186 08.07
ESTIMATED CONTAMINATION LEVELS
URANIUM (U & U-235)*
TECHNETIUM (TC-99)
NEPTUNIUM (NP-237)
PLUTONIUM (Pu-239)
< 500.00 PPM
< 10.00 PPM
< 0.05 PPB
< 110.05 PPB
I
* AVERAGE ENRICHMENT 1 - 1.5% U-235
WMO 0586 08.06
V
ESTIMATED SCRAP METAL INVENTORYDOE FACILITIES - OAK RIDGE OPERATIONS
(TONS)
TYPE SCRAP ORGDPI PADUCAH 2 PORTSMOUTH 2 FERNALD 2 Y-12 2 TOTAL
SteelAluminumStainless SteelCopperBrassMonelMixed Metal
150001350130
251030
900
105002150
13000420
3000 20(
90 12502 -
300
00 43500- 3920- 130- 1365- 12- 30)0 69001000 - 2000
_______________________________________________________________
Subtotal
Steel Tube Shoets1
UF6 Cylinders1
Nickel Inpot 1
Monel Ingots-Aluminum IngotslCrushed Steel Drums2
Subtotal
Grand Total
0
17445 13650 13512 6250 5000 55857
2827225
3000
85151S
161820.00
7600247
1000
- 13427_ 472- 8515_ 15
2618- 2000
___ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ------- ; -__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3052 15148 8847 0 0 27047
20497 28798 22359 6250 5000 82904
(1) Figures Based on Actual Weights(2) Estimated - Yet to be Processed
westscrp10/9/85
. ,
WMO 0186 08.05
SCRAP METAL SCHEDULE
PHASE IB&W BNI SEG
ISSUE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 2/18/86*RECEIVE PROPOSALS 5/02/86*RECEIVE BEST & FINAL OFFERS 7/03/86*SELECTION OF AWARDEES 7/18/86*AWARD CONTRACTSMETAL DECONTAMINATED
(25-50 TONS)DRAFT FINAL REPORT TO DOE (ESTIMATED)DOE APPROVED DRAFT
TO CONTRACTORFINAL REPORT TO DOEPHASE 11
9/1 6/86*4/13/87*
6/29/876/16/87
7/16/87
9/25/86*5/20/87*
6/26/875/09/87
5/25/87
9/24/86*2/22/87*
7/3/876/24/87
7/24/87
ISSUE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALSRECEIVE PROPOSALSSELECTION OF AWARDEE(S)AWARD CONTRACT(S)CONTAMINATED SCRAP ELIMINATED
AT DOE SITES* ACTUAL
11/15/871/01/889/15/88
12/15/88TBD (1991 - 1996 TIME FRAME)
WMO 0687 18.02
SCRAP METAL DECONTAMINATIONPHASE I
e BABCOCK & WILCOX- 25 TONS AT OAK RIDGE AND VIRGINIA
4 BECHTEL NATIONAL, INC.- 50 TONS AT OAK RIDGE
* SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGY GROUP- 25 TONS AT OAK RIDGE AND PENNSYLVANIA
WWO 0987 14.32
.,
e
SCRAP METAL DECONTAMINATIONPHASE I
. LIQUID ABRASIVE BLASTINGe HIGH PRESSURE WATER BLASTING. DRY ABRASIVE BLASTINGe FREON SPRAYe SPOT CUTTING, GRINDING, SCRUBBING* ELECTRO-REFINING* CHEMICAL REFININGo MELT REFINING* NUCLEAR* FOREIGN
USESUSE
WWO 0987 14.33
* CONVENTIONAL DECONTAMINATION WAS MORE DIFFICULT THANANTICIPATED, BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE
o GREATER THAN 80% OF METAL CAN BE DECONTAMINATED BYCONVENTIONAL METHODS
* DECONTAMINATION OF Ni INGOTS RELATIVE TO URANIUMVERY SUCCESSFUL
WAS
* DECONTAMINATION OF Ni INGOTS RELATIVE TO Tc-99WAS UNCERTAIN
* DECONTAMINATION OF Cu INGOTS AND WIRE WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL
WMO 0987 14.34
.,
PROBLEMS
* CURRENTLY, INGOTS WITHCONTAMINATION CANNOTIN THE U. S.
ANY DETECTABLEBE FREE-RELEASED
1)
* CONVENTIONAL DECONTAMINATION IS EXPENSIVE
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* PROGRAM CURRENTLY MUST BE SELF-SUPPORTING
WMO 0987 14.35
.,
PHASE II
* 2 FIRMS- ASSURANCE OF SUCCESS
- COMPETITION FOR FUTURE WORK
* FIVE YEAR PROGRAM
* NO LIQUID OR HAZARDOUS WASTES
* SITE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSURINGSITE ES&H PROGRAM
WMO 0987 14.36
t .�' . .I
ft
OAK RIDGE RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING
R. C. SLEEMAN
PRESENTATION TO
WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEECHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE
SEPTEMBER 15, 1987
a'
v PROPOSEDi EIS SCOPE
IMPLEMENT LLWDDD STRATEGY
CLASS I - INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL
CLASS 11 - TUMULUS WITH 100 AND 300 YEARSINSTITUTIONAL CONTROL PERIODSEVALUATED
CLASS III - CONTAINED TREATMENT FOR 100YEARS FOLLOWED BY IN SITU CLOSURE
CLASS IV - TREAT TO CLASS I, 11, OR III,OR SHIP OFF SITE
WMO0 0987 RCS01
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES* OFF-SITE DISPOSAL AT EXISTING DOE DISPOSAL FACILITY
* DEVELOPMENT OF- LLW DISPOSAL FACILITY AT NEW DOE SITE
* 10 CFR PART 61 DISPOSAL FACILITY ON THE OR RESERVATION
ALTERNATIVE WITHIN PROPOSED STRATEGY* CLASS I
- TUMULUS- UNLINED TRENCH WITH NO LEACHATE COLLECTION
* CLASS II
- SHALLOW LAND BURIAL
* CLASS III
- DISPOSAL VAULTS WITH ZERO RELEASE FOR 100 YEARS
o CLASS IV
- LONG TERM STORAGE- INCINERATION WITH OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVE SITES FOR EACH CLASS OF WASTE
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVEWMO 0987 RCS02
e * <
Y-12 ABOVE-GRADE LLW DISPOSAL PLANNING
.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~.
S. D. VAN HOESEN
SEPTEMBER 15, 1987
S.
Ipntvouza1 OPrJo; Ms
I Y- t2 W)O.Se-_ , _ _ .-
3iLrked P
()spos\ -\otc( I
di
. 1
I L"I te
I
gIoste- -. ciukNat cmJv"sIu~Was~t . MI;".n!Oth 4u4wLLdaoi a
i t ~~~~1Stra |
II
II CI.Ss 1:I
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. .
A..
I II L o.Nc 5, It
III
IIa t. e rP&-. 19 -
Q-I'z. L~ge, 62ae~o -% LLtAJ
.. fermm- oN- LWas eTI LLL4JD~~~~ ~~IjwSItc 'I I
iDQWAO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ases~
I ~~ClassT. tJDML
c13 9?
j V"
Y-12 Above-Grade LLW Disposal Planning FY 1988 - 1998
-Current Oerations, involving burial of LLW inhill-cut/landfill type units in BCBG will be reducedsignificantly over the next two years as above-gsadedisposal is implemented. Approximately 50,000 ft /yr ofunpackageable waste will continue to be buried until atleast 1992. At this point, a replacement of this operationby disposal in appropriate Class I, II, and/or III unitswill begin to be implemented. Based on this study, it isposssible that development of the Class II/III facilitycould be delayed until the FY 1993 time-frame when Line Itemfunding would be available. In this case, the burialoperation would continue in BCBG until 1997.
Begining in FY 1988, the burial of uranium chips is expectedto be phased out as the chip oxidizer is brought on line,and oxidized chips are placed in the existing storagevaults.
- Interim Storane at the ORGD§ is assumed to be increasedbegining in 1989 to 50,000 ft /yr. The waste selected wouldhave to meet ORGDP requirements (packageable, low firepotential, etc.), but would be directed toward that fractionof the Y-12 waste stream with the highest uraniumconcentration/solubility potential. The goal would be toinventory this waste for future treatment in Class IIIfacilities, and thus reduce the potential for releases tothe environment. Interim Storage at this rate is assumed tocontinue until 1997 when reasonably stable Class IIIoperations are underway and the inventory can be worked-off.
- efikAginPDemonstration, involving placement of Y-12 LLWin various containers, is expected to begin in early FY1988. The packaging demo will reduce the waste going toburial. The capacity available through this demo will beexhausted by 1990.
- Above-Grade Dis osal, involving placement of waste onmonitored pads will be implemented beginning in late FY1988. Three pad units will be built during FY 1988 andoperated during FY 1989. From 5-7 pads will be used duringFY 1990-92. A variety of loading methods will beinvestigated during this period, and information will bedeveloped on the large-scale application of the tumulustechnology. In addition, Class III disposal demonstrationswill be implemented beginning in 1990. During this period,current waste acceptance criteria will be used in theoperations.
Beginning in 1992, it is expected that the IWMF wasteacceptance criteria will begin to be implemented. It is notclear at this point what processing/disposal approaches willbe required. Given the potentially available above-gradedisposal capacity in BCBG, it is possible that large scaledevelopments of, and operations at, the new Bear CreekValley site may not be required until Line Item funding isavailable in 1993 time frame. Operation of the Line Itemfunded facility would begin by the end of FY 1997.
4.
Y-12 ABOVE-GRADE DISPOSAL DEMONSTRATION FACILITY
1. PROVIDE ABOVE-GRADE DISPOSAL CAPACITY FOR Y-1 2 SOLIDLLW WITH CURRENT WAC- LARGE SCALE TUMULUS (CLASS 11) DEMO- CLASS III DEMOS BEGINNING IN 1990- IMPLEMENT IWMF WAC IN 1992
2. DISPOSAL PADS SIMILAR TO ORNL DEMO
- 100-300 YEAR UFETIME
- LEACHATE MONITORING
- LINER?
3. DUAL LEACHATE COLLEC1iON SYSTEM
- CLEAN
o SURFACE RUNOFF DURING OPS; CLEAN LEACHATE
o RELEASE THROUGH MONITORED DISCHARGE UP TO
MCI/ML- CONTAMINATED
o CONTAMINATED LEACHATE > MCI/MLo COLLECTION IN SUMP - HAUL To TREATMENT
a _ - CAPABILJ11ES INCWDED -TO. .'..
o SAMPLE/MONITOR INPUTS TO SYSTEMo SHIFT INPUT TO CLEAN OR CONTAMINATED SYSTEM
AS WARRANTED4. VARIETY OF WASTE APPROACHES
- LOOSE WASTE
- BALED WASTE
- COMPACTED WASTE
- METAL BOXED WASTE
- CONCRETE VAULTS
(
DEMONSTRATION OF DETOXIFICATION OF Y-12 SLUDGE
FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
BACKGROUND AND STATUS
PRESENTED AT
THE WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
SEPTEMBER 15, 1987
CHATANOOGA, TENNESSEE
BY
P. E. HOLLENBECK, PROJECT MANAGERJ. M. KENNERLY, T. S. D. PROGRAM MANAGER
WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY CENTER
AND
D. G. PADGETT, PROJECT MANAGERCHEM-NUCLEAR SERVICES, INC.
I f
CHEM-NUCLEAR PRESENTATION UNDER SEPARATE COVER
rI
, � -. I1.71 1 wI , j
Y-12 SLUDGE DETOXIFICATION DEMO PRESENTATIONS
I TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHEM-NUCLEAR
I PERMITTING SCHEDULE * . . . . . . . . P. E. HOLLENBECK
f I-
Y-12 SLUDGE DETOXIFICATION DEMONSTRATION
PHASE I COMPLIANCE/PERMITTING
DOCUMENTATION TO BE GENERATED:
* NOTICE OF INTENT WILL INCLUDE:
(1) REQUEST FOR ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION,
(2) NOTICE OF PREAPPLICATION MEETING,
(3) NOTICE OF DELISTING INTENTION, AND
(4) REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW.
SAMPLIU6 ,* SEER -EN AND ANALYSIS PLAN
A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE WILL BE TAKEN FROM EACHOF 2 POPULATIONS. ANALYSIS WILL BE DONE TO VERIFYHOMOGENEITY AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS.
* OTHER PERMITS (WILL BE EVALUATED)
* PERMIT APPLICATION
(1) PURPOSE OF RESEARCH
(2) PROCESS IS EXPERIMENTAL AND INNOVATIVE
(3) RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
PEN 9-87
I--"..Awll�NN-40,
: .- -.
Y-12 SLUDGE DETOXIFICATION DEMONSTRATION
PHASE I COMPLIANCE/PERMITTING SCHEDULE
TRANSMIT NOTICE.OF INTENT TO EPA & TDHE
DRAFT APPLICATION CONFERENCE (ATLANTA)
SELECTION AND ANALYSIS PLAN AVAILABLE
OCTOBER 9, 1987
OCTOBER 30, 1987
NOVEMBER 30, 1987
APPLICATION TO EPA AND TDHE FEBRUARY 15, 198s
PEH 9-87