Utilization of Remotely Operated Heavy Equipment to Prevent Occupational Exposures During Remediation of

Highly Hazardous Waste Sites and Military Ordnance

Michael Larrañaga, PhD, PE, CIH, CSPUniversity of North Texas Health

Science Center at Fort Worth

Outline

• Introduction--Systems• Background• Decision Process• Case Studies• Robotic Equipment• Conclusion

Systems—Peter Senge

• Today's problems come from yesterday's solutions

• The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back

• The easy way out usually leads back in• The cure can be worse than the disease• Cause and effect are not closely related in

time and space

System Dynamics

• Solutions have a finite lifetime

Circa~WWII• Waste disposal

– Burial– Dilution (e.g. lakes, rivers, streams)– Surface– Evaporation– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY7mTCMvpEM

• Any imaginable hazardous waste – Containerized materials– Liquids– Solids– Equipment– Debris (trash)– Explosives– Ordinance– Missiles

1960’s

• Environmental impact concerns began to influence waste management practices– Linings– Increased depth of soil layers– Waste compaction– Encapsulating layers– Increased storage depths

1970’s

• Environmental Protection Agency was born (1970)

• Environmental regulations enacted into law (RCRA-1976)

• Paperwork Reduction Act (1975)– Resulted in the loss of records for many

government facilities that would later become hazardous waste sites

1980’s

• CERCLA—Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980– 144 Top Priority Sites (1981)– NPL—406 Priority Sites (1983)

• (~1300 Priority Sites, 2006)– Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization

Act (1986)

1990’s

• Clean Air Act Amendments– Air pollution prevention and control– Emission standards for moving sources

• Remediation of DOE and DOD sites• Beginning of the usage of robotics in

hazardous waste remediation

2000’s

• Clean Air Act– Executive Order

• Cut greenhouse gas emissions• Reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years

• Remediation of DOE and DOD sites• Continued advancement of robotics for

hazardous waste operations

Why Robotics?

Why Robotics?

Why Robotics?

Why Robotics?

• Unknown Disposal History– Retiree reports

• Incompatible materials were sometimes placed in the same trench

• Once, a fire broke out that burned for days• Once, two explosives technicians were dumping

high explosives into the dump then the HE detonated, killing both

Remote Technology Development

• Driving Forces– NASA– DOE

• Hazardous waste remediation (including explosives)

• Site characterization– DOD

• Explosive ordinance disposal and characterization• Hazardous waste remediation

– Private Industry

Decision Process

• Site Specific– Debris characteristics– Waste characteristics (solid, liquid, sludge,

chemicals, explosives)– Weight bearing capacity of the waste– Extent and rate of waste decomposition– Density of the waste site– Surface area and depth of waste site

Decision Process

• Equipment Specific– Equipment purpose– Weight– Transportation requirements– Attachments available– Availability– Maintenance, servicing, inspection– Production rates– Cost

Decision Process

• Utilization of Remote Technologies– Exposure potential (risk) is greater than what

is acceptable• Explosion potential• Personnel exposure• Potential for criticality• Potential for fire• Potential for spread of contamination• Unknown conditions

• Increasing Production Rates– Larger bucket sizes– End-effectors (attachments) available– More than one retrieval operation in process– Second piece of equipment for sizing and

sorting

Decision Process

Decision Process

• Decreasing Production Rates– Remote technologies– One piece of equipment to dig, size, and sort– Unexpected conditions– Unknowns

Remotely Controlled Equipment

• Excavators– Brokk (wheeled)– Caterpillar, Komatsu (tracked)

• Loaders/Dozers• Backhoes• Skid steers

Brokk Excavator with Cutting Attachment and Control Station

Modified and Shielded Remote Excavator and Control Station

Remotely Operated Excavators

Remotely Operated Crawler Loader and Control Station

Hanford Pit Viper

Uses for Heavy Equipment• Unexploded ordnance• Buried waste• Digging• Trenching • Cutting • Lifting • Material handling• Screening• Sorting• Characterization

Specific Remote Equipment Development Programs

• T-rex—developed at INEEL– Remotely operated excavator designed for drum

handling and front shovel digging• TREX Program (Lockheed Martin-Baltimore)

– Remediation of hazardous waste and ordnance waste site (Edgewood Arsenal)

• Remotely operated CAT 235D Excavator (47K lbs)– Remediation of an unexploded ordnance field

(Edgewood Arsenal)• Remotely operated CAT D6 Dozer (45K lbs)• Remotely operated CAT 320 L Extended Reach Excavator

(46K lbs)– HERMES (LANL) Hybrid Remote Robotic

Manipulation and Excavation System

Case Study #1• Material Disposal Area P (MDA-P), Los Alamos National

Laboratory– Operated from 1950 to 1984 as a high explosives waste dump

• High explosives (HE)• HE-contaminated equipment and material• Barium nitrate• Construction debris• Trash• Vehicles• Drums• Miscellaneous containers

– Acute detonation potential due to explosive chunk– “Remote excavation was the only option”

MDA-P, Los Alamos National Laboratory

– HERMES-Komatsu PC250 Remote Controlled Excavator (65K lbs) and control room

• 31,000 cubic yards of explosively contaminated soil excavated remotely (55,000 total)

• 607 tons of steel• Large chunks of 9404 Explosive—shock sensitive• Initial classification and segregation was conducted with

HERMES• Once explosive chunk was removed from the soil, a shielded

loader conducted material handling• Project completed safely (Zero lost work days)

– Project excavation duration = 23 months (1997-2000)• Completed May 3, just before the Cerro Grande Fire

– Project cost = $20 Million

Case Study #2

• TA-16 260 Outfall, Los Alamos National Laboratory– Contaminated with explosive chunk (30% by weight in

soil) • DOD limit is 10%• DOE limit is 5%

– Acute detonation potential– “Remote excavation was the only option”

TA-16 260 Outfall, Los Alamos National Laboratory

– HERMES-Komatsu PC250 Remote Controlled Excavator (65K lbs) and control room

• 600 cubic yards excavated (100 cubic yards of large boulders)

• Excavator conducted excavation, blending, and loading of soil for removal

• Zero lost work days

Case Study #3Kerr Hollow Quarry

Kerr Hollow Quarry• Provided limestone for the Manhattan project

– 3 acres, 55 feet deep, 60 ft. cliffs on 3 sides– Quarry abandoned in the 1940’s

• Excavation breached a water bearing fracture– 1951

• Disposal of water-reactive materials and explosive chemicals• Disposal of compressed gas cylinders

– Full barrels of un-reacted alkali metals and other unknown hazardous materials

– Remotely characterized, retrieved, and remediated– 19,000 items retrieved weighing over 100 metric tons

Kerr Hollow Quarry

Case Study #4

• Classified Waste Landfill, Sandia National Laboratory-NM– 45 acre secure, controlled access facility– Established in 1948 for assembly and

maintenance of nuclear weapons– Classified Waste Landfill (CWLF) operated from

1947-1987• 2.5 acres• Disposal pits and trenches with discreet disposal cells• Used for disposal of classified weapons components

until 1958– Chemical, explosive, radioactive hazard potential

• Records were not maintained until 1958• Historical information came from interviews with former

workers

CWLF

• Items Disposed– Security containers, hoppers, skids, missiles,

weapons cases, shells, lasers, radar equipment, and accountable material

– Chemicals/contaminants• Tritium, thorium, Cs-137, Sr-90, uranium,

plutonium, beryllium, cadmium, lithium, chloroform, toluene, benzene, and others

CWLF

• Remote robotic manipulation and excavation for characterization and retrieval

• Robotic system allowed the excavator to accomplish conventional operations– Maintained the versatility and dexterity to safely scan,

inspect, and retrieve sensitive objects found in the landfill

• Remote Operation Duration = 85 days• Surface removed in 6”-12” layers

Pioneer

Remote Equipment-Houdini

Andros

Nemesis De-mining Machine• Detection instrumentation platform• Backhoe, box rake, other attachments• Unexploded ordnance surface-clearance attachments• Small munitions disrupter

Rotary Mine Comb• Mechanical anti-tank mine clearer • Two rotors with four tines counter-rotate

and dig, gently lifting and moving mines from the path of the vehicle

• Capable of handling large anti-tank mines• Excavate to (12 inches) below the surface

in heavy sod and 40 centimeters (16 inches) in lighter soils

Rotary Mine Comb

Remote Controlled Loader/Backhoe on Unimog Chassis

Remotely Operated Wheel Loader

Demining EquipmentSlashbuster with Hydraulic Thumb

Conclusion

• Continued and expanded use of robotic-remote equipment

• We will be remediating today’s solutions, tomorrow

• Robotic equipment has been effective at eliminating personnel exposures to exposures at hazardous waste sites

References:• Bailey, S. A., Alzheimer, J. M., Baker, C. P., Smalley, J. T., Tucker, J. C., Valdez, P. L. (1999)

Remote pit operation enhancement system: concept selection method and evaluation criteria, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Document # PNNL-130406.

• Boissiere, P. T., Lockhart, J. L., Steffes, J.M., Santo, J., Baumgartner, T. Dresel, P. E. (2005) Remote systems for hazardous waste site remediation and characteriazation, WM ’05 Conference, February 27-March 3, Tuscon, AZ.

• Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (2002) Evaluation of Soil and Buried Transuranic Waste Retrieval Technologies for Operable Unit 7-13/14, Document # INEEL/EXT-01-00281 Revision 0.

• McCabe, B., Carpenter, C., Kovach, J., Blair, D. (2003) The use of DOE technologies at the World Trade Center incident: lessons learned, WM’03 Conference, February 23-27, Tucson, AZ.

• Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (2007) Robitics capabilities at PNNL, http://www.pnl.gov/robotics/ARE.html.

• Richardson, B.S. (2000) Melter dismantlement, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Document R00-108812.

• Sandia National Laboratory (2003) Technical approach and cost estimate for excavation of the classified area using robotics, Document # 840857.04.04.00.00.

• Sensamaust, S., (2006) Taking learning to the field: Fort A.P. Hill demining Equipment demonstration, Journal of Mine Action, Issue 9.2 February.

• Ward, D.C. (1999) Remediation of a classified waste landfill at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, 32nd Annual Midyear Meeting, "Creation and Future Legacy of Stockpile Stewardship Isotope Production, Applications, and Consumption", Environmental Implications of Stockpile Stewardship Session, 1/24/1999-1/27/1999.

• Young, S. G., Schofield, D. P., Kwiecinski D., Edgmon C. L., Methvin R. (2002) Results of Hazardous and Mixed Waste Excavation from the chemical waste landfill, WM ’02 Conference, February 24-28, Tucson, AZ.