09/15/1987 minutes of the waste management advisory ... · don dunning, maxima corporation mike...

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


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-


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.


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.


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.


6. State of Tennessee and EPA comments are needed on the Y-12packaging demonstration.



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

09/15/1987 minutes of the waste management advisory ... · don dunning, maxima corporation mike...

Documents