CASE STUDY AND PRESENTATION OF THE DOE TREATABILITY GROUP CONCEPT FOR LOW-LEVEL AND MIXED WASTE STREAMS

Timothy D. Kirkpatrick INEL

Lockheed Idaho Technologies Trevion I, Room 434

12850 Middl ebrook Road Germantown,. MD 20874

(301) 903-1299

Beth A. Heath INEL

Lockheed Idaho Techno1 ogi es 1955 Fremont Ave.

P.O. Box 1625, MS 2420 Idaho Falls, ID 83415

(208) 526-8052

Keith D. Davis Roy F. Weston, Inc.

1920 E. 17th St., Suite 103 Idaho Falls, ID 83404

(208) 528-9326

ABSTRACT

The Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to prepare an inventory report o f its mixed waste and treatment capacities and technologies. technological requirements is the logical means of matching waste streams to treatment technologies, and streamlines the effort of identifying technology development needs. To provide consistency, DOE has developed a standard method01 ogy for categorizing waste into treatabil i ty groups based on three characteristic parameters: radiological, bulk physical/chemical form, and regul ated contami nant . Based on category and component definitions in the methodology, descriptive codes or strings of codes are assigned under each parameter , resulting in a waste characterization amenable to a computerized format for query and sort functions. this methodology can be applied to all waste types generated within the DOE complex: radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and sanitary/municipal. Implementation of this methodology will assist the individual sites and DOE Headquarters i n analyzing waste management technol ogy and faci 1 i ty needs.

Grouping waste streams according to

By using only the applicable parameters,

BACKGROUND

The need for a consistently applied, technically based approach for categorizing waste information has been demonstrated by past national strategic planning efforts involving mixed waste. rul emaki ng , several U . S . Department of Energy (DOE) compl ex-wi de reports and studies have been required to address mixed waste characteristics and inventories , and associated treatment technol ogy and capacity needs.

Since the 1987 byproduct

Some key examples of these are:

1 1

I

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. images are produced from the best available original document.

0

National Reoort on Prohibited Wastes and Treatment Ootions, submitted t o the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in January 1990 as required by the Rocky Fl a t s P1 ant Federal Facil i t y Compl i ance Agreement

DOE complex-wide Land Disposal Restrictions Case-bv-Case Extension ADolication f o r Thirds Radioactive Mixed Wastes, submitted t o the EPA in November 1991

Interim Mixed Waste Inventory Reoort, submitted t o the EPA and the States in April 1993 as required by the Federal Faci l i ty Compliance Act (FFCA)

Department of Enerqy Proqrammatic Soen t Nuclear Fuel Manaaement and Idaho National Enqineerinq Laboratorv Environmental Restoration and Waste Manaqement Proqrams Draft Environmental Imoact Statement, DOE/EIS- 0203-D, June 1994.

Throughout these e f fo r t s , character is t ic and inventory data on mixed waste streams were collected from the s i t e s , resul t ing in the development of a national data set . Problems tha t became apparent during these data collection e f fo r t s were: (a) mixed waste streams are n o t always defined on a technical basis t h a t support assessment o f treatment techno1 ogy and capacity needs, and (b) information and data available on mixed waste streams have improved through time, resul t ing in apparent inconsistencies between reports. Contributing fac tors t o these problems have been the lack of both a technically based approach t o defining waste streams and a standardized method t o define t r e a t a b i l i t y groups.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

A technical ly based methodology has been developed fo r categorizing DOE waste information in a consistent and technically val id manner t o be used for the development o f waste management needs and options, including those for treatment. The methodology provides a formal approach for categorizing waste based on waste charac te r i s t ics . methodol ogy i ncl udes :

The guidance document describing the

2

A methodology with standard definitions for aligning site-specific waste into treatability groups that share similar treatment needs

A standard structure that will allow comparing waste treatability groups among sites, and combining all site-specific data into one data set for the national summary

A technically based approach to identify treatment technology, capacity, and development needs, along with storage and disposal requirements for DOE mi xed waste.

The treatability group assignments will facilitate identification of potenti a1 matches between waste streams and avai 1 ab1 e or planned treatment capacity. Assigning these category designations to each of the site waste streams represents the "common denominator," or core set of data, for lending consistency to DOE-wide planning and analysis efforts. Individual sites are encouraged to collect and maintain whatever additional information they feel necessary t o properly manage their waste. supplement, not preclude, other data needs. Also, the assignment of a treatability group to a waste stream is not intended to provide the detailed level of knowledge necessary to certify waste streams to treatment or disposal facility waste acceptance criteria, or to provide detailed characterization information required to proceed beyond conceptual design of specific facilities. In addition to the treatability grouping, characterization information will ultimately be required to meet these specific needs.

This effort is intended to

METHODOLOGY

The DOE guidance document provides a method for assigning waste to treatability groups based on characteristic parameters that influence waste management, technology, and facility needs. The parameters that, combined, are used to define the treatability groups are: (a) radiological; (b) physical/chemical matrix; and (c) regulated contaminant. The guidance document attempts to present a hierarchy of detail and definition for each of the three parameters that ranges, top-to-bottom, from the general to the specific. In every case, discussion and definitions are accompanied by

3

organization-type charts tha t depict each t i e r or level of de ta i l . Association l i n e s are used as necessary t o indicate whenever a category a t one level i s broken o u t or subdivided into multiple subcategories. This hierarchy o f de ta i l should aid the user in applying the methodology t o each waste stream and select ing the appropriate designation fo r each parameter. The hierarchy a l s o supports the computerized aggregation (or roll u p ) o f waste streams into higher levels (more general) t h a t may be of value i n support o f DOE complex- wide planning or reporting requirements. i s discussed in more detai l i n the following sections.

Each t r e a t a b i l i t y grouping parameter

Radioloqical Parameter

The radiological character is t ic of a waste stream influences management requirements, and must be considered in the design of treatment and other handling f a c i l i t i e s t o control radioactive releases and t o prevent worker exposures. categorized the waste stream as t o i t s secondary waste type. Considering "radioactive waste" t o be the primary waste type, the secondary waste types addressed by the methodology are mi 11 t a i 1 i ngs, 1 ow-1 eve1 waste, transuranic (TRU) waste, and high-level waste. Order 5820.2A, "Waste Management. 'I Except for high-level waste, the parameter is then fur ther defined by one or more descriptive components representing various radiological character is t ics that may af fec t the manner in which the waste i s t reated or otherwise managed. Individual code elements are associated with each secondary radioactive waste type and, a s applicable, each descriptive component; when p u t together, they create the radiological parameter category code.

The f i r s t step in determining the radiological parameter i s t o

These waste types are defined per DOE

Mill t a i l i n g s are designated with a code element "MT" followed by a descriptive component o f "M10" or "M20" ( i . e . , MT/MlO or MT/M20) indicating whether the waste i s managed as low-level waste or as mill t a i l i ngs , respectively. DOE orders allow mill t a i l ings meeting certain small quantity requirements t o be managed as low-level waste, ra ther than meeting a l l appl i cab1 e mi 11 t a i 1 i ngs requirements .

4

A low-level waste would be designated with an "LL" followed by four additional code elements to address each o f the following descriptive components:

Dose rate component. present by identifying whether the waste package is considered contact- or remote-handled (CH or RH)

Provides an indication o f beta-gamma activity

TRU alpha component. producing TRU radionuclides are present and, if present, in what general concentration range

Provides an indication of whether or not alpha-

Non-TRU alpha component. alpha-producing radionuclides other than TRU radionuclides are present and, if present, in what concentration range

Provides an indication of whether or not

Problem radionuclide component. whether a problem radionuclide is present in the waste. currently the only radionuclide singled out in the guidance document for this designation.

Provides a ''yes" o r "no" indication of Tritium is

Considering the detailed descriptions in the guidance document, the radi ol ogical parameter category code for a 1 ow-1 eve1 waste would 1 ook somethi ng 1 i ke "LL/CH/TZO/N20/PZO. "

A TRU waste stream would be designated with a "TR" followed by a dose rate component designation of "CH" or ''RH" to indicate contact- or remote- handled. This is the only descriptive component associated with TRU waste. High-level waste would be identified with a radiological parameter code of "HL" only. There are no descriptive components for this type of waste.

Matrix Parameter

The physical/chemical matrix parameter influences not only the treatment technology selection, but the waste handling mechanisms and the need for pretreatment conditioning. This portion of the treatability grouping is

5

designated by a single alpha-numeric code associated with a specific description tha t best f i t s the waste stream. several sequential decisions as t o the matrix character is t ics of the waste stream. table . Each decision takes the characterization from a summary level category t o a more detai led, or waste form specific category. The complete organization chart for the matrix parameter shows approximately 120 waste form spec i f ic categori es and about 35 summary 1 eve1 categories. assignment begins with determining whether the waste i s a l iquid, sol id , spec i f ic waste forms, or form acceptable fo r disposal.

The user i s asked t o make

That i s , what the waste would l o o k l i k e i f i t were dumped o u t on to a

Matrix category

Waste qualifying as a liquid will have a matrix code that begins with the l e t t e r "L" followed by a number i n the 1000 or 2000 ser ies , depending on whether i t belongs t o the "Aqueous Liquids/Slurries" category or the "Organic Liquids" category, respectively. The lowest level designations, those actually assigned t o waste streams, include such codes as L l l l O (Acid Waste Water), L1240 (Cyanide Aqueous Slurr ies) , and L2210 (Halogenated Pure Organic Liquids).

Waste f i t t i n g the definit ion of a s o l i d will have a matrix code beginning with the l e t t e r "S." groupings o f S3000 (Homogeneous Solids), S4000 (Soil/Gravel), and S5000 (Debris Waste). u n t i l detai led codes actually assigned t o waste streams are reached. Inorganic and organic sludges and particulates are included in the S3000 group; the lowest level designations include such matrix types as S3111 (Ash), S3121 (Pond Sludges), and S3221 (Biological Sludges). Several categories of s o i l , rock, and gravel are included in the S4000 group, with S4100 (Soi l ) , and S4300 (Rock/Gravel) as examples. The S5000 group i s based on EPA's definit ion of debris and includes a broad range of sol id waste t h a t f i t s into one of the second t i e r categories of S5100 (Inorganic Debris), S5300 (Organic Debris), o r S5400 (Heterogeneous Debris). The lowest level designations within t h i s group include such matrix types as S5111 (Metal Debris without Lead or Cadmium), S5122 (Wood Debris), and S5410 (Composite F i l t e r s ) .

The f i r s t t i e r of detai l s p l i t s the waste into

Each o f these groupings i s fur ther broken down and so on,

6

Matrix descriptions f i t t i n g those defined under "Specific Waste Forms" will have matrix codes beginning with the l e t t e r " X , " and will f i t under the X6000 (Lab Packs) or X7000 (Special Waste) groups. The X6000 group i s s e l f - explanatory, b u t i s s t i l l divided into several categories. The X7000 group i s divided into seven different categories tha t include elemental hazardous materials (mercury, lead, cadmium, e t c . ) , ba t te r ies , reactive metals, explosives and propel 1 ants, and compressed gases and aerosols.

The l a s t category in the upper t i e r o f matrix types i s "Final Waste Forms." and f i t s in to e i the r the ZlOOO (Immobilized Forms) or 22000 (Decontaminated Solids) group. a l l known or expected disposal c r i t e r i a , including those established for the regulated contaminants under EPA's land disposal res t r ic t ions (LDRs). The lowest level designations within the "Z" ser ies include such matrix types as ZlllO (Cement Forms), 21120 (Vitrif ied Forms), 21200 (Macro-Encapsul ated Forms), and 22100 (Decontaminated Metal).

Waste f i t t i n g this definit ion has a matrix code t h a t begins w i t h "Z"

The "Z " matrix ser ies are reserved for waste streams t h a t meet

As a user follows the methodology t o assign a matrix code t o a waste, the "Unknown/Other" o p t i o n i s provided a t each decision level or t i e r . t h i s manner, each waste stream can be assigned a matrix code t h a t i s as specif ic as the available characterization information will allow. A t the very t o p leve l , i f the waste cannot be placed in the S , L, X , or Z ser ies ( i . e . , essent ia l ly n o t h i n g i s known o f the waste matrix), i t will be assigned a code o f U9999 (Unknown/Other Matrix). Correspondingly, i f the waste i s known t o be a l i q u i d , b u t i t i s unknown whether i t i s aqueous or organic, i t will be given a matrix code o f L9000 (Unknown/Other Liquid). This logic car r ies t h r o u g h t o each lower t i e r o f increased detai l for each matrix type. As additional characterization detail i s obtained on a waste stream, i t s matrix code should be revised t o a lower t ie red , more detailed code description.

In

Reaul ated Contaminant Parameter

The regulated contaminant parameter i s intended t o designate those hazardous consti tuents or character is t ics of the waste tha t cause i t t o be

regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (as hazardous waste), and/or the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) (as containing PCBs), or under more stringent State regulations. In most cases, t h i s parameter d i c t a t e s the general treatment requirements from both a regulatory (what must be achieved) and technical (how i t must be achieved) perspective. The regulated contaminant parameter a1 so influences the management of treatment residues and eff luents . The methodology for determining the appropriate regulated contaminant category code for a waste i s very similar t o the methodology described for the radiological parameter. t o make an i n i t i a l decision between s ix different t o p level categories and then, depending on t h i s i n i t i a l selection, the contaminant parameter code will consist of s ingle o r multiple descriptive elements. The t o p level categories and t h e i r codes are: (a) RCRA State Regulated, ST; ( b ) TSCA Regulated, TS; (c) RCRA/TSCA EPA Regulated, RT; (d) RCRA EPA Regulated, R C ; (e) RCRA Regulated Meets LDR Standards, LD; and (f) Unknown I f Regulated, UN.

The user i s asked

Of the t o p level categories, only the RCRA/TSCA EPA Regulated (RT) and

The three descriptive components t o be addressed in the RCRA EPA Regulated ( R C ) categories are associated with additional descriptive components. the contaminant parameter code for e i ther an RT or an RC waste are as follows:

Organics Component. contains RCRA organic components above LDR standards

Provides an indication o f whether or n o t the waste

Metals Component. contains RCRA metals above LDR standards

Provides an indication of whether o r n o t the waste

Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive (ICR) Component. Provides an indication o f whether or n o t the waste qual i f ies as one o r more of the RCRA ICR charac te r i s t ics , o r i f i t contains specif ic l i s t e d constituents defined ( for purposes of t h i s methodology) as corrosive o r reactive.

Each o f these component categories are broken into more detailed, coded subcategories t ha t are actually assigned t o the waste stream. subcategories are described in terms o f the EPA codes tha t are associated with the waste. The "RT" o r "RC" designation, along with code elements for each of

The detailed

8

t

the components, create a regul ated contaminant parameter code t h a t 1 ooks something 1 i ke "RT/0ll/M12/C9O1' or "RC/Oll/M12/C90." From a regulated contaminant perspective, the difference between the two example codes i s t ha t PCBs, a t regulated concentrations, are designated as being present in the f i r s t , b u t n o t in the second.

A s indicated, waste fa l l ing into any of the t o p level categories other than "RT" and "RC," i s given a single two-letter code with no additional descriptive elements. i s used t o designate waste t h a t contains no federal ly regulated contaminants, b u t because of more stringent State standards, i s considered hazardous within the State. No further descriptive de ta i l i s being sought for t h i s category of waste since there are re la t ively few DOE waste streams tha t f i t t h i s c r i t e r i a and, because they are regulated only within the State , they do n o t play key roles in national planning ef for t s . indicates the waste contains PCBs regulated under TSCA, b u t has no RCRA hazardous constituents. An "LD" tag indicates that the waste requires no fur ther action to t r ea t RCRA regulated contaminants ( b u t could require additional treatment t o address radiological o r matrix considerations). designation would be used fo r waste that meets a l l LDR standards, b u t s t i l l c a r r i e s EPA codes for l i s t e d waste under RCRA. t o describe a waste t h a t i s suspected of containing regulated contaminants b u t fo r which characterization has n o t been completed.

''ST"

"TS"

This

The ''UN" designation i s used

SUMMARY

The methodology described in th i s paper i s being implemented i n the form of a formal DOE guidance document. of t r ea t ab i l i t y groups through classifying or characterizing waste by three separate parameters. the t r e a t a b i l i t y g roup i s broken o u t into multiple categories and subcategories t ha t are defined in the guidance document. associated w i t h a specif ic definit ion and i s assigned a l e t t e r or alpha- numeric code and short t i t l e . When the codes ( o r s t r ing o f codes) for a specif ic waste a re grouped together by parameter in the format "radiologicaJ - physical/chemical matrix - regulated contaminant," the result ing nomenclature represents a t r ea t ab i l i t y group.

The method01 ogy specifies the devel opment

Each of the three character is t ic parameters tha t make up

Each breakout i s

Wastes a t any DOE s i t e , or across the

9

complex, with the same code string belong to the same treatability grouping.

The focus of this methodology is to assign each waste package (or group of packages with the same waste) to the lowest level subcategory for each applicable parameter based on the data available on that waste. The sites are asked to use this action to define their waste streams for purposes of the national data base (i.e., wastes with the same treatability grouping become a ''waste stream"). selecting "unknown/other" at almost every level o f detail, a waste package can be categorized to the greatest detail possible without misrepresenting the contents, and without diluting or tarnishing accurately categorized data with assumed information. waste's treatability group assignment may change. In support o national summaries, lower level subcategories may be rolled up to higher level categories for various general cross-cut evaluations. be lost during the roll up, but will be available for more spec fic waste management analyses.

Since each characteristic parameter contains an option of

As more detailed characterization data are obtained, the

Detailed data will not

Implementation of this methodology will assist the individual DOE sites in analyzing waste management technology and facility needs; consistent implementation at all of the sites will facilitate development of technically valid, comparable national waste data sets needed to support the same analysis on a complex-wide basis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was performed for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC07-94ID13223. Program Integration (EM-33) under the direction o f Mr. Matt Zenkowich, Waste Information Program Manager (EM-332).

The work was performed in support o f DOE'S EM Office o f

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi- bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, r a m -

' mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those-of the United States Government or any agency thereof.