Remote-Handled Transuranic Waste Disposition Discussion

Meeting of the National Governors’ Association

April 12, 2001

U. S. Department of EnergyU. S. Department of Energy

2

Topics To Be Discussed

• Definition of RH TRU Waste

• Volume of RH TRU at DOE sites

• Regulatory strategy for disposal of RH TRU at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)

• Requirements and considerations for approval

• RH shipping casks

• Small Quantity Sites (SQS) strategy

• Current schedule

3

Definition of RH TRU Waste

• TRU waste is waste containing more than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes per gram with half-lives greater than 20 years

• RH TRU waste has an outer surface dose rate of greater than 200 millirem per hour

• Homogeneous solids, debris, soil, and gravel

4

Source: The National TRU Waste Management Plan, Revision 2 (December 2000)(1) Waste may not be of defense origin; compliance with LWA requirement will need to be demonstrated prior to disposal at WIPP.(2) Waste is commercial and does not meet the LWA requirement for disposal at WIPP.

Volume of RH TRU at DOE Sites(Stored and Projected)

Hanford900 m3

INEEL 85 m3

ANL-W 54.5 m3

ETEC8.7 m3

11.8 m3

SNL 25.5 m3

123.5 m3

2253.5 m3

ANL-E77 m3

ORNL

20.8 m3BCL

BAPL3 m3

10.5 m3

KAPL

WV (2) 479 m3

GE Vallecitos (1)

LANL

5

Regulatory Strategy for Disposalof RH TRU at WIPP

• Characterization program to be proposed to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) is performance-based, responsive to:– ALARA requirements

– Joint EPA/NRC guidance

– NAS recommendations

• “Acceptable Knowledge” is the focus of the program, where available, to meet Compliance Certification, Land Withdrawal Act and RCRA requirements

• This strategy may require EPA rule-making and NMED Class 3 permit hearings

6

Requirements and Considerations forEPA and NMED Regulatory Approval

• DOE to submit RH characterization program to EPA that meets WIPP Land Withdrawal Act and 40 CFR 191/194 requirements, and EPA approves via 40 CFR 194.8 process

• New Mexico Environment Department must approve modification to the WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility Permit

• DOE to submit to NMED:

– RH Facility Modification Request

– RH Waste Analysis Plan

• NMED issues draft and final permit allowing RH TRU waste storage and disposal

7

Requirements and Considerations for EPA and NMED Regulatory Approval (cont.)

• Informally discussed draft RH TRU characterization process document and supporting position papers with EPA, March 14, 2001

• Two permit modification requests to be submitted to NMED, summer of 2001

• Independent review of performance-based approach by NAS or outside organization is expected

8

RH Shipping Casks

RH-72B•Outer thermal shield •Inner/outer containment vessels with impact limiters•12 feet long; 3.5 feet diameter•1-7/8 inch lead liner

CNS 10-160B•Carbon steel- and lead-shielded shipping cask•Steel-encased, rigid polyurethane foam impact liners on top and bottom•Cavity height 77 inch; diameter 68 inch•Wall thickness 4 in. including 1.875 inch lead

9

Small Quantity Site Strategy

• Ship directly to WIPP is the preferred option

• Where there are site closure considerations, DOE is continuing to examine intersite transfers

• Feedback requested from State representatives on moving forward with contingency planning for sites with closure schedules.

10

BACKUP SLIDES

11

Battelle Columbus Laboratory Summary

• Shipments of ~25 m3 of RH TRU waste (100-120 drums) must start by September 2001 to support site closure schedule

– TRU waste must be removed from current hot cell building so that D&D can proceed- Need to move offsite or into a new storage building

– Activities required for new building include NEPA action, license amendment, RCRA permit, design, and construction

– Cost of permitting, NEPA analysis, design, construction, and critical path delays ~ $10-15 Million (one+ years)– Decision about new storage building needed by June 1, 2001

• Oak Ridge and Hanford considered as receiving sites– Ohio EPA has had previous conversations with counterparts in both Tennessee and Washington state– Tennessee sent a letter in February 2001 to DOE stating they did not support receipt of RH TRU waste from

offsite until Oak Ridge begins shipping RH TRU to WIPP– State of Washington has also sent a letter (March 2001) stating they did not support receipt of RH TRU waste

from offsite until Hanford begins shipping RH TRU to WIPP– Oak Ridge scheduled to begin shipments of RH TRU to WIPP in January 2003– Hanford scheduled to begin shipments of RH TRU to WIPP in 2011-2015 timeframe

12

Energy Technology Engineering Center Summary

• Shipment of RH TRU waste (up to 8.7 m3) must start by September 2002 to support site closure schedule– Waste must be removed from Radioactive Materials Handling

Facility before D&D can begin

– CH waste must also be removed

• Current schedules for RH permit modification supports ETEC’s closure schedule

• Need to finalize decisions on ETEC RH TRU in early CY 2002

13

Argonne National Laboratory - East Summary

• RH waste in inventory will be shipped directly to WIPP when permit modifications approved - currently schedule in FY 2003

• RH waste generated in future (post-2006) will also be shipped to WIPP directly

• Mobile Vendor Units will be deployed onsite to characterize contact-handled (CH) waste

• CH characterization schedule to be completed in December 2001

14

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Summary

• Oak Ridge has large quantity of RH sludges requiring treatment before shipping to WIPP

• Foster-Wheeler contract in place to perform all treatment and necessary characterization for disposal at WIPP

• Shipments of RH TRU scheduled to begin in January 2003

• Oak Ridge has smaller amounts of CH TRU that are scheduled to be shipped to WIPP beginning in FY 2004

15

HALFPACT CASK

16

SCHEMATIC OF THE RH-72B CASK

17

R H - 72B CASK