CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTIONS OF THE ALTERNATIVES
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to implement a waste management strategy for the Savannah River Site (SRS) that is protective of human health, complies with environmental regulations, prevents pollution, minimizes waste generation, uses effective and commercially available technology, and controls cost. The strategy must address minimization, treatment, storage, and disposal of liquid high-level radioactive [dealt with more fully in the Defense Waste Processing Facility Environmental Impact Statement (eis) and supplemental eis], low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed (low-level radioactive and hazardous), and transuranic wastes at SRS. Such a strategy may be structured in several ways, depending on the elements that are emphasized, and may include both onsite and offsite applications of the technologies selected. This chapter describes the no-action alternative and the three action alternatives that DOE has proposed as waste management strategies; the action alternatives place different degrees of emphasis on treatment, storage, and disposal. These alternatives encompass the full range of reasonable alternatives. In addition, this chapter summarizes the results of studies that were necessary to define the alternatives and to evaluate them consistently. Finally, this chapter presents a summary comparison of the alternatives and their potential impacts.
The analyses of the alternatives are based on forecasts of the amounts of wastes that DOE could be required to manage over the next 30 years (1995 through 2024). Section 2.1 presents the forecasts of waste volumes; the radiological, physical, and other characteristics of each waste type; and their requirements for handling and management.
DOE used information available in spring and summer 1994 to forecast the expected, minimum, and maximum amounts of waste that would require management. Several factors make it difficult to predict the types and amounts of waste that will be managed over the 30-year period considered in this eis. These factors are the result of a number of uncertainties. One uncertainty is the future mission of SRS. DOE is evaluating alternative missions in several programmatic eiss (see Chapter 1). Future decisions based on these ongoing eiss may include changes in operations at SRS and transfers of waste to SRS from the Department of Defense and between SRS and other DOE facilities. The decisions on SRS's future operations will affect the amount of waste SRS will manage. Another source of uncertainty is the future decisions regarding the extent of environmental restoration and decontamination and decommissioning at SRS which would substantially affect the amount of waste generated onsite over the 30-year analysis period. There is limited data on the waste types and volumes from environmental restoration and decontamination and decommissioning because specific cleanup criteria have not yet been established. Not all of the existing waste sites have been sufficiently characterized to determine how much or what type of remediation is necessary and, hence, how much remediation waste would be produced. Similarly, estimates of the waste that would be generated by the decontamination and decommissioning program were extrapolated from data based on inspections of a limited number of surplus facilities and, therefore, are uncertain.
Section 2.2 describes the no-action alternative, under which DOE would continue current practices for treatment and storage of liquid high-level radioactive waste, mixed and transuranic wastes, and low-level waste (primarily long-lived); disposal of low-level radioactive waste; and treatment and disposal of hazardous waste offsite. The no-action alternative provides a baseline for comparing environmental impacts of the alternatives. Because it is a baseline and represents a continuation of current practices, it is based on the expected 30-year waste forecast (Section 2.1.3).
For all but the no-action alternative, DOE investigated various combinations of waste minimization, pollution prevention, and technologies for treating, storing, and disposing of all waste types except high-level waste. The availability, advantages, and disadvantages of the potential technologies to treat the wastes must be understood before reasonable treatment, storage, and disposal systems for managing four of the five types of waste considered in this eis can be determined. Note that the treatment and disposal options for high-level waste remain the same for all alternatives. Section 2.3 describes the technology evaluation process and the reasonable technologies that were chosen in developing the alternative systems of treatment, storage, and disposal. Under each alternative, DOE selected a mix of technologies which favorably met five criteria: process parameters (including degree of volume reduction, the amount of secondary waste generated, and the efficiency of process decontamination and decommissioning); engineering parameters (including process maturity, availability, and ease of maintenance); environment, health and safety factors (public and occupational risks, environmental risks, and transportation requirements); public acceptance (including regulatory permitting and schedule considerations); and cost considerations.
DOE constructed two bounding waste management strategies that provide direction for choosing treatment, storage, and disposal options for the various types of waste. The bounding strategies considered in this eis and described in this chapter include:
- Limited treatment configuration (alternative A) (Section 2.4) - This strategy seeks to provide the minimum treatment required to meet applicable storage and disposal standards.
- Extensive treatment configuration (alternative C) (Section 2.5) - This strategy applies to treatment technologies that minimize the volume and toxicity of wastes and create highly migration-resistant waste forms.
Under alternative A, DOE would select technologies that provide the minimum treatment required to meet applicable storage and disposal standards and expeditiously store or dispose of the wastes in a manner that prevents or minimizes short-term releases to the environment. Although this strategy focuses on the narrow objective of minimizing short-term impacts, it uses reasonable technologies analyzed in Section 2.3. DOE believes that this strategy establishes one end of the range of alternatives that meets the purpose and need for action as described in Chapter 1.
The other bounding strategy, alternative C, is based on applying proven treatment technologies that reduce the volume and toxicity of waste and create a highly migration-resistant waste form. In general, construction and operation of new treatment facilities would result in greater short-term impacts than options presented for alternative A, but would provide a greater margin of safety against adverse long-term effects of the waste after disposal.
- Moderate treatment configuration (alternative B) (Section 2.6) This mix includes limited treatment of some wastes and extensive treatment of others, depending on the particular characteristics of the waste.
DOE has identified the moderate treatment configuration, alternative B, as its preferred alternative based on the careful consideration of beneficial and adverse environmental impacts, regulatory commitments, and other relevant factors. The moderate treatment configuration would provide a balanced mix of technologies that includes extensive treatment of those waste types that have the greatest potential to adversely affect humans or the environment because of their mobility or toxicity if left untreated (such as wastes containing plutonium-238), or that would remain dangerously radioactive far into the future (such as wastes containing transuranics). It would provide less extensive treatment of wastes that do not pose great threats to humans or the environment, or that will not remain dangerously radioactive far into the future (such as non-alpha low-level waste).
DOE bases its preference of alternative B on the following environmental impacts, regulatory commitments, and other factors:
- Mixed waste technology selections are compatible with the site treatment plan. When a waste in the eis 30-year forecast was also included in the site treatment plan 5-year forecast, alternative B uses the same technology as that identified as the preferred treatment by the proposed site treatment plan.
- Mixed waste technology selections are consistent with DOE's commitments under the Land Disposal Restrictions Federal Facility Compliance Agreement with EPA.
- Transuranic waste technology selections are compatible with what the final Waste Isolation Pilot Plant waste acceptance criteria are expected to require. Treatment is provided only for those transuranic wastes that do not conform to the shipping requirements (i.e., plutonium-238 and higher activity plutonium-239). All other SRS transuranic wastes are expected to meet the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant waste acceptance criteria after repackaging and characterization/certification.
- Hazardous wastes are treated onsite subject to availability of treatment capacity and compatibility with technologies required to manage mixed waste.
- Alternative B provides the best volume reduction for low-activity waste (75 percent reduction in alternative B compared to 22 percent for alternative A and 70 percent for alternative C), conserves space in low-activity waste vaults, reduces the total number of low-activity waste vaults, and thus avoids expenditures of land and money.
- Alternative B also results in the fewest number of additional transuranic and alpha waste pads, shallow land disposal trenches, and RCRA-permitted vaults.
- Alternative B results in the least construction-related air emissions.
- Alternative B employs less thermal treatment (technologies generally resulting in higher air emissions) than alternative C, resulting in smaller radiological air impacts than would occur in alternative C (e.g., fewer involved worker latent cancer fatalities and lower maximally exposed offsite individual fatal cancer probability).
In summary, DOE believes that alternative B provides the preferred configuration of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for SRS. It maintains technology selection flexibilities that are not shared by alternatives based on strategies to provide limited (alternative A) or extensive (alternative C) treatment configurations.
Throughout the public comment period, DOE continued to consider many of the issues addressed in the draft eis. As a result of these considerations, DOE identified improvements in the management of its wastes and modified the alternative configurations accordingly, particularly the moderate treatment alternative (alternative B) for low-level waste. Table 2-1 describes the most significant changes between the draft and final eis, the alternatives they affect and the sections that describe the modifications and their benefits in greater detail. Additional changes between the draft and final eis, including changes to align the technologies proposed for mixed wastes with the preferred alternatives presented in the proposed site treatment plan, are discussed in the appropriate sections for the affected alternatives.
On May 17, 1995, DOE published a notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 26417) describing these improvements and soliciting comments through June 12, 1995. Modification of the treatment of low-level waste proposed in the draft eis would change the location, but not the treatment technologies, for the treatment of approximately 40 percent of the expected volume of this type of waste. In the draft eis, alternative B included onsite incineration, supercompaction, or direct disposal of low-level waste. The final eis includes onsite incineration or direct disposal, and supercompaction, size reduction (e.g., sorting, shredding, and melting), and incineration at an offsite commercial treatment facility. All residues from offsite treatment would be returned to SRS for future treatment or disposal. This modification is more advantageous than the original proposal because it provides immediate utilization of commercial volume reduction capacity, and negates the need for DOE to construct a supercompactor. This is not only cost-effective, but saves existing disposal capacity.
In addition to the changes described in detail in Table 2-1, volumes and treatments for some mixed wastes were modified between the draft and final eis to make the eis compatible with changes to the proposed site treatment plan. These changes dealt with smaller volumes of waste and are described in the mixed waste sections of the alternatives.
DOE proposed a short-term, temporary method of volume reduction for low-level waste in the draft Environmental Assessment for the Offsite Volume Reduction of Low-Level Radioactive Waste from the Savannah River Site (DOE/ea-1061). The proposed action, by a commercial facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, would reduce the volume of low-level waste at SRS in an expedient and cost effective manner over the near-term (prior to the start of fiscal year 1996). Because the impacts of the proposed action would be very small and the proposed action would not limit the selection of alternatives under consideration in this eis, this proposed volume reduction qualifies as an interim action under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (40 CFR 1506.1).
DOE developed expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecasts for each waste type based on mid-1994 information about the disposition of the various wastes stored throughout the DOE complex. DOE evaluated the differences in waste management decisions that would result from the different volumes under the alternatives that meet the purpose and need for action as described in Chapter 1. Because the no-action alternative does not meet this purpose and need for action, DOE bases the no-action alternative solely on the expected waste forecast. The intent of the minimum and maximum waste forecasts is to identify how waste management needs would change within an alternative with different waste amounts, and to bound the impacts that might result from potential changes in the amount of waste SRS could be required to handle as a result of decisions based on other NEPA evaluations currently underway and described in Chapter 1.
Based on the results of analyses in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, Section 2.7 summarizes and compares the environmental impacts of the alternatives (i.e., no-action, limited treatment, extensive treatment, and moderate treatment). Its intent is to clearly identify the critical issues for the public and to provide a sound basis for review by the decisionmaker. Cumulative impacts were assessed only for the moderate treatment alternative (alternative B) with the expected waste forecast since the impacts for this alternative generally fall between the other two action alternatives, and since the impacts do not vary greatly between alternatives. Despite some variation in impacts, this approach allowed DOE to assess the likely magnitudes of the cumulative impacts of the other alternatives based on the cumulative impacts of the moderate alternative. This eis presents the no-action alternative first, followed by alternative A (limited treatment), alternative C (extensive treatment), and alternative B (moderate treatment).
Four alternatives and three waste forecasts are ultimately considered in this eis. To help guide the reader, the stacked box symbol (Figure 2-1), is used throughout Chapters 2 and 4 to indicate the alternative and waste forecast being discussed. Shading indicates the alternative and forecast under consideration. Specific examples of this symbol are shown below.
Figure 2-1. Explanation of grid symbol used in the SRS Waste Management eis.
Table 2-1. Major changes in alternative configurations between the draft and final eis.
| Facility | Alternative | Discussion |
| Transuranic and Alpha Waste | No-action, A, B, and C |
Draft eis: In the draft eis, DOE assumed that generators could not distinguish between transuranic waste (greater than or equal to 100 nanocuries per gram) and alpha waste (less than 100 nanocuries per gram and suitable for onsite treatment and disposal). Under the no-action alternative DOE would continue to store transuranic and alpha waste. Under alternatives B and C, DOE proposed to store the transuranic and alpha waste until a transuranic waste characterization/certification facility could be constructed and begin operation. The facility would have treated transuranic and alpha waste. Alpha waste would have been disposed of onsite and transuranic waste would have been stored pending the availability of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Final eis: DOE believes that generators of transuranic wastes will have the capability to identify newly-generated alpha waste. In all alternatives in the final eis newly-generated nonmixed alpha waste would be certified by the generators for disposal in the low-activity waste vaults. In alternatives A, B, and C newly-generated mixed alpha waste would be treated and certified for disposal in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) vaults when they become operational in 2002. Reference Sections: 2.2.6, 2.4.6, 2.5.6, and 2.6.6 |
| Offsite Low-level Waste Volume Reduction | B |
Draft eis: Under alternative B in the draft eis, DOE would have treated approximately 50 percent of the low-activity job-control waste and tritiated job-control waste in the Consolidated Incineration Facility; treated about 40 percent in a newly constructed onsite supercompactor; and the remaining 10 percent placed directly into vaults. DOE also proposed to send 50 percent of the low-activity equipment waste to the onsite supercompactor. Final eis: In the final eis, DOE would still treat 50 percent of the low-activity job-control waste and tritiated job-control waste in the Consolidated Incineration Facility; the remaining tritiated job-control waste would be sent directly to disposal vaults. DOE would ship 50 percent of the low-activity job-control waste to a commercial facility for volume reduction and return it to SRS for further treatment or disposal. DOE would solicit proposals from commercial facilities for reducing the volume of low-level radioactivity waste in the future, and would require the facilities to supply information that DOE would use to prepare additional environmental reviews as required by 10 CFR 1021.216. For purposes of analysis in the final eis, it is assumed that the waste would be treated offsite as follows: 60 percent supercompacted; 20 percent reduced in size and repackaged for treatment in the Consolidated Incineration Facility; 10 percent incinerated, the resulting ash supercompacted; 5 percent reduced in size and repackaged for disposal; and 5 percent melted, with the melt residue supercompacted DOE would also ship 50 percent of the low-activity equipment waste to a commercial facility to be supercompacted. For purposes of assessment, it is assumed that the offsite treatment facility would be located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Reference Section: 2.6.3 |
| Offsite Treatment and Disposal of Hazardous Waste | B |
Draft eis: Under alternative B in the draft eis, DOE proposed to ship approximately 89 percent of its hazardous waste offsite for treatment and disposal and to treat composite filters, paint waste, organic liquids, and aqueous liquids in the Consolidated Incineration Facility; some aqueous liquids would have been treated in the M-Area Air Stripper. Final eis: DOE would increase the amount of hazardous waste that remains onsite for treatment in the Consolidated Incineration Facility. Fifty percent of the inorganic, organic, and heterogeneous debris groups and 100 percent of the organic and inorganic sludges would be incinerated onsite, in addition to the wastes proposed for incineration in the draft eis. Reference Section: 2.6.4 |
| Treatment of Alpha Waste in the Consolidated Incineration Facility | C |
Draft eis: In the draft eis under alternative C, DOE assumed that alpha waste would be stored on site and treated in the alpha vitrification facility after it became operational in 2008. Final eis: In the final eis, DOE would burn 50 percent of the alpha-waste (both mixed and nonmixed) in the Consolidated Incineration Facility from 1996 to 2005, then discontinue incineration and begin vitrifying these wastes at the alpha vitrification facility in 2008. Reference Section: 2.5.6 |
| Vitrification of High-Activity Plutonium-239 Waste | B |
Draft eis: In the draft eis, DOE assumed that all of the plutonium-239 waste would be acceptable for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant after repackaging. Final eis: DOE believes that it would be necessary to vitrify the high-activity fraction of plutonium-239 waste to eliminate unacceptable levels of gas associated with the higher-activity material. In alternative B of the final eis, DOE would treat the high-activity plutonium-239 waste in the alpha vitrification facility. Reference Section: 2.6.6 |
2.1 Waste Forecasts
This section describes the waste types and treatment categories discussed in this eis. It provides estimates of the volumes of each of the five waste types: liquid high-level radioactive, low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed low-level radioactive, and transuranic. DOE made assumptions regarding the future waste volumes to create a potential forecast for analysis. See Appendix A for these waste volume forecasts. The variations between the anticipated waste volumes in the forecasts are primarily a result of differences in assumptions about the environmental restoration and decontamination and decommissioning activities.
The assumptions DOE used to develop the waste forecasts were based on mid-1994 information from throughout the DOE complex. DOE recognized that the information available to predict the volumes and kinds of wastes that would be treated at SRS was subject to continual change as the DOE complex as a whole developed a waste management plan. For this reason, DOE tried to anticipate what might be treated at SRS, develop forecasts that it believes would encompass the most likely options, and analyze impacts for maximum and minimum waste forecasts, as well as what was considered most likely (or expected) at the time the forecasts were developed. However, if future decisions affect the waste volumes SRS anticipates treating so dramatically that the impacts fall outside the maximum-minimum envelope, DOE will prepare additional NEPA evaluations.
2.1.1 WASTE DESCRIPTIONS
Liquid high-level radioactive waste includes the highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. This waste contains a combination of transuranic elements or isotopes and highly radioactive fission products in concentrations requiring permanent isolation, and hazardous constituents regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). DOE uses the F- and H-Area chemical separations plants to separate and purify plutonium.-238 and plutonium-239 and to reclaim fissionable material (uranium-235) from onsite and offsite sources (e.g., research reactor fuel) for recycling.. These processes dissolve fuel and target elements in nitric acid and separate them into (1) a solution of plutonium, uranium, and neptunium and (2) liquid high-level radioactive waste. Further processing separates and purifies the metals in solution, converts the plutonium to solid form for shipment, and prepares the other materials for shipment, storage, or reuse. The liquid high-level radioactive waste is stored in carbon steel tanks in the F- and H-Area tank farms.
Low-level radioactive waste is radioactive waste that is not classified as high-level waste, transuranic waste., or spent nuclear fuel, and does not contain waste designated as hazardous by RCRA. Typical solid low-level radioactive waste includes operating and laboratory wastes (e.g., protective clothing, plastic sheeting, gloves, analytical wastes, decontamination residue), contaminated equipment, reactor and reactor fuel hardware, spent lithium-aluminum targets from which tritium. has been extracted, and spent deionizer resin from reactor areas. Liquid low-level radioactive waste includes tritiated oil (oil contaminated with tritium), process waste, evaporator condensate, and some storm and cooling waters. Numerous facilities listed in Table 2-2 and waste management, environmental restoration., and decontamination and decommissioning. activities (including surveillance, maintenance, recovery, cleanup, and stabilization) generate low-level radioactive waste at SRS. Small amounts of additional low-level waste (less than 3 percent of the expected forecast low-level waste volume) are received at SRS from other DOE facilities and nuclear naval operations. The offsite low-level wastes consist primarily of job-control wastes and naval hardware but may include other materials such as soils.. and equipment or construction debris generated as a result of decommissioning activities.
At SRS, low-level waste is segregated into several categories to facilitate proper treatment, storage, and disposal. Twelve such categories were defined for the five waste classes of low-level waste (Hess 1994a), as follows:
Long-lived low-level waste
- Long-lived spent-deionizer resins are low-level waste from purification systems for reactor moderators. They have less than 10 curies of tritium. per container and large curie quantities of carbon-14, which has a half-life of 5,730 years.
- Other long-lived low-level waste, such as offgas filters from chemical separations areas, contains large quantities of long-lived radionuclides.
Tritiated low-level waste
- Tritiated job-control waste contains tritium. in quantities greater than 10 curies per 2.55 cubic meters (90 cubic feet).
- Tritiated equipment is large equipment (i.e., too large to be packaged in standard containers) contaminated with tritium. in quantities greater than or equal to 10 curies per 2.55 cubic meters (90 cubic feet).
- Tritiated soil is contaminated with tritium. in quantities greater than or equal to 10 curies per 2.55 cubic meters (90 cubic feet).
Bulk low-level waste
- Naval hardware consists of large nuclear-ship-reactor components that are shipped from the Naval Reactors Program to SRS.
- Low-activity equipment produces a radiation dose. of less than 200 millirem per hour at 5 centimeters (2 inches) from an unshielded container.
Low-level waste soils
- Suspect soil consists of soils. and construction debris excavated from a radiological materials area that is potentially contaminated and that cannot economically be demonstrated to be uncontaminated.
- Low-activity soil consists of soils. and construction debris that produce a radiation dose. of less than 200 millirem per hour at 5 centimeters (2 inches) from an unshielded container.
Job-control waste
- Offsite job-control waste is generated by other DOE sites and by nuclear naval operations. It is compacted, containerized, and shipped to SRS for disposal. Job-control waste consists of plastic sheeting, paper, small pieces of wood and metal, glass, gloves, protective clothing, and pieces of small equipment that was used in a radioactive process.
- Low-activity job-control waste produces a radiation dose. rate of less than 200 millirem per hour at 5 centimeters (2 inches) from an unshielded container and is comprised of job-control waste.
- Intermediate-activity job-control waste contains beta or gamma emitters that produce a dose equal to or greater than 200 millirem per hour at 5 centimeters (2 inches) from an unshielded container and is comprised of materials such as contaminated equipment from the separations facilities or waste management facilities, spent lithium-aluminum targets from tritium . operations, equipment from F- and H-Area tank farm operations, reactor scrap, and irradiated reactor hardware that does not contain fuel.
Radioactivity in low-level waste generally consists of beta- and gamma-radiation-emitting radionuclides which decay to near-background levels within several hundred years, and therefore pose very small long-term risks to the environment. Alpha-emitting low-level wastes are discussed separately if the alpha-contamination level is sufficient to warrant special handling practices. Low-level wastes with transuranic nuclides at concentrations of 10 to 100 nanocuries per gram, called "alpha waste." in this eis, are managed in a manner similar to transuranic waste.s at SRS and are discussed in the transuranic and alpha waste sections of this eis. The management of "non-alpha waste" (waste with less than 10 nanocuries per gram of transuranic contamination) is addressed in the low-level waste sections of this eis.
Waste is classified as hazardous waste if it exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), is identified as such and listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), is a mixture containing a listed hazardous waste and a solid waste, or is derived from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a listed hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes include materials such as lead, solvents, paints, pesticides, and hydrocarbons. For purposes of analysis in this eis, hazardous wastes are categorized into the following primary treatability groups: organic liquids, aqueous liquids, organic debris, inorganic debris, heterogeneous debris, metal debris, glass debris, organic sludges, inorganic sludges, and soils.. Wastes with unique treatment requirements or specific management practices (e.g., a waste managed in accordance with an approved RCRA variance to land disposal restrictions treatment standards) are categorized separately. Facilities listed in Table 2-2 and waste management, environmental restoration., and decontamination and decommissioning. activities generate SRS hazardous waste. Hazardous waste is subject to regulation under RCRA. Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) wastes regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act have been included in the hazardous waste analyses of this eis.
Mixed low-level radioactive waste contains both hazardous waste subject to regulation under RCRA and low-level radioactive waste subject to the Atomic Energy Act. Mixed low-level radioactive waste includes materials such as tritiated mercury., tritiated oil contaminated with mercury, other mercury-contaminated materials, radioactively contaminated lead shielding, equipment from the tritium. facilities in H-Area, and filter paper take-up rolls from the M-Area Liquid Effluent Treatment Facility. Mixed wastes are categorized into the same primary treatability groups as listed above for hazardous wastes. The facilities listed in Table 2-2 and waste management, environmental restoration., and decontamination and decommissioning. activities generate SRS mixed low-level radioactive waste. Radioactively contaminated PCBs regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act are included with mixed waste in this eis.
Transuranic waste is waste containing alpha-emitting radioactive isotopes of elements above uranium ("transuranic") on the periodic table (atomic number greater than 92) that have half-lives greater than 20 years (several abundant transuranic nuclides have half-lives greater than 10,000 years) at concentrations exceeding 100 nanocuries per gram. Alpha radiation emissions typically have very high energies but low penetrating power. A number of alpha-emitting radionuclides, when inhaled or ingested, are cleared from the body very slowly and can cause substantial radiation exposure. to specific organs of the body (e.g., bone surfaces, lungs) over long periods of time. Transuranic waste normally takes a long time to decay to background levels; thus it requires the same sort of long-term isolation as high-level waste. Due to the non-penetrating nature of alpha particles, little or no shielding is required, but some transuranic waste does require shielding and remote handling when mixed with large quantities of beta-gamma emitting radionuclides. SRS also manages low-level radioactive waste with transuranic radionuclides at concentrations of 10 to 100 nanocuries per gram (called alpha waste at SRS) in a manner similar to transuranic waste. Due to the similarity in their management practices, alpha waste (which consists of low-level and mixed low-level wastes) is discussed in the transuranic waste sections of this eis. The facilities listed in Table 2-2 and waste management, environmental restoration., and decontamination and decommissioning. activities generate transuranic and alpha waste.
Transuranic and alpha waste.s can be segregated into four waste classes based on their treatment, storage, and disposal requirements (Hess 1994a), as follows:
Low-activity with processing
- Mixed alpha job-control waste is similar to alpha job-control waste but includes hazardous waste.s and is, therefore, also subject to RCRA (portions are in the burial ground complex).
- Transuranic job-control waste with less than 0.5 curie per drum would be accepted at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant if it meets waste acceptance criteria..
- Mixed transuranic job-control waste with less than 0.5 curie per drum is the same as the third treatability group but contains hazardous waste. and is subject to RCRA (portions are in the burial ground complex).
High activity
- Transuranic job-control waste with greater than 0.5 curie per drum contains higher concentrations of transuranic isotopes than the third treatability group and would be sent to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
- Mixed transuranic job-control waste with greater than 0.5 curie per drum is similar to the fifth treatability group but includes hazardous waste. that makes it subject to RCRA (portions are in the burial ground complex).
- Transuranic equipment is bulk waste generated primarily by process modifications or decontamination and decommissioning. activities that would be sent to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The quantities of transuranic isotopes require special control of airborne contamination, heat load, and criticality.
- Mixed transuranic equipment is similar to the seventh treatability group but includes hazardous waste.
- Remote-handled transuranic and mixed-transuranic is job-control or bulk waste that emits a radiation dose. rate greater than 200 millirem per hour at 5 centimeters (2 inches), and requires remote handling to protect workers. This waste would be sent to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
Low activity without processing
- Alpha job-control waste is generated incidentally to transuranic processes; activity level is too low to warrant disposal in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, but the waste does require treatment and disposal.
Burial ground complex - Includes 50 percent mixed alpha job-control waste, 40 percent mixed transuranic job-control waste with less than 0.5 curie per drum, and 10 percent mixed transuranic job-control waste with greater than 0.5 curie per drum.
In view of the uncertainties in the various factors potentially affecting the amounts of wastes to be generated and managed, DOE developed estimates of amounts of waste for an expected, a minimum, and a maximum waste forecast. A summary of each 30-year forecast, by waste type and year, can be found in Table A-1 of Appendix A. Several refinements have been made to the waste forecasts since the draft eis was published. In March 1995, DOE published the SRS Proposed Site Treatment Plan (WSRC 1995), which included revised estimates of mixed waste. generation for the period 1995-1999. The mixed waste forecasts were updated to be consistent with the revisions to the site treatment plan.. Table A-2 of Appendix A provides a summary of the forecast revisions that were incorporated in the analyses of the eis. The net effect of these changes is a slight increase (approximately 4 percent) in the expected amount of mixed waste to be managed over the 30-year period considered in this eis.
Table 2-2. Major facilities and types of waste generated at SRS.a
| Facilities | Function | Waste types |
| Analytical Laboratories | Analytical services and testing | LLWb, MWc, TRUd |
| Defense Waste Processing Facility | High-level waste vitrification. | LLW, HWe, MW |
| F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility | Treatment of routine process effluent and wastewater. | LLW, HW, MW |
| F/H-Area High-Level Waste Tanks | Storage and treatment of high-level waste supernatant, sludge, and saltcake | LLW, HW, MW |
| Reactor Materials (M-Area) Reactors | Fuel and target fabrication | LLW, HW, MW |
| Production reactors currently in standby (K) or shutdown condition (C, L, P, and R) | LLW, HW, MW | |
| Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuels/ Resin Regeneration Facility | Storage and packaging of offsite fuels, cleaning targets for processing, and processing deionizers | LLW, HW, MW |
| Replacement Tritium Facility | Tritium separation from targets | LLW |
| Separations (F- and H-Areas) | Chemical and physical processing of nuclear materials | LLW, HW, MW |
| Savannah River Technology Center | Research and development activities | HLWf, LLW, HW, MW, TRU |
| Z-Area Saltstone Manufacturing and Disposal Facility | Saltcrete processing and disposal | LLW, HW, MW, TRU, LLW |
a. Source: WSRC (1994a).
b. Low-level radioactive waste.
c. Mixed
waste.
d. Transuranic and alpha waste.
e. Hazardous waste.
f. Liquid
high-level waste.
2.1.2 TReaTABILITY GROUPS
DOE categorized wastes into treatability groups, which are based on waste characteristics that affect how the wastes can be treated. Treatability groups were developed based on three parameters: radiological properties, physical and chemical characteristics, and hazardous constituents. Wastes within a treatability group can generally be treated with similar technologies. Different treatability groups often require different technologies.
2.1.2.1 Radiological Properties
The radiological parameters reflect the level and nature of the radioactivity of the waste and influence the design and operation of facilities in order to limit releases and worker exposures. These parameters are based on the isotopes present (e.g., plutonium..-238 versus plutonium-239), the curie content (a measure of the radioactivity of the material), and whether the radiation is penetrating (e.g., beta-gamma) or non-penetrating (e.g., alpha). The radiological categories of waste (as described in Section 2.1.1 and defined by DOE Order 5820.2A, "Radioactive Waste Management") determine treatment, storage, and disposal options. Other radiological parameters include handling requirements (e.g., can be handled directly by workers or must be handled remotely by machine) and transuranic alpha content. Generally, workers can handle most low-level waste without massive or bulky shielding around the waste; however, some form of worker protection may be required. Such wastes are referred to as contact-handled. Containerized wastes producing radiation levels greater than 200 millirem per hour at the surface of the container in the form of beta particles, gamma rays, or both, are usually handled remotely at SRS.
Transuranic waste typically requires special handling to protect workers from inhaling or ingesting the material and to prevent releases to the environment. Because transuranic isotopes are primarily alpha emitters, external radiation exposure. is usually low, and controls focus on preventing the inhalation of alpha particles. Controls also seek to minimize the potential for accidents. that could result in airborne releases. Some transuranic wastes emit so much beta and gamma or neutron radiation that they cannot be directly handled. These remote-handled wastes have radiation levels that exceed 200 millirem per hour at the surface of their storage container. In disposing of transuranic waste, the objective is to isolate the waste and allow its radioactivity to diminish. The long half-lives of most transuranic isotopes make permanent isolation in a facility like a geologic repository the only suitable location for disposal.
The most prevalent isotopes in high-level waste are cesium.-137 and strontium-90; this waste also contains transuranic isotopes. Because high-level waste contains high concentrations of beta-gamma-radiation-emitting isotopes (50 to 100 curies per gallon) and is in liquid form, controls are directed at radiation shielding, dissipation of the heat produced by the radioactive decay, and containment of the liquid. Due to the high radiation and presence of long-lived transuranic isotopes in high-level wastes, permanent isolation in a geologic repository is required. At SRS, liquid high-level waste is stored in underground steel tanks shielded by concrete and earth. Newer tanks have complete secondary containment and are much less likely to leak into the soil than older tanks with different containment configurations. Although the tanks use multiple leak detection systems, a risk. of leaks will remain as long as the waste is in liquid form. High-level waste management is directed at processing the liquid wastes to stable solid forms (i.e., a borosilicate glass form encased in a stainless steel canister) for storage pending the availability of a geologic repository for disposal.
Nuclear processes at SRS generate low-level wastes that are generally packaged in 55-gallon drums or 90-cubic-foot metal boxes. While most low-level wastes contain short-lived radioisotopes, some may present an appreciable radiation hazard. The radiation from low-level wastes may be sufficient to require shielding for worker protection during handling and shipment. However, most low-level wastes will decay over a few hundred years and do not require permanent isolation in the manner required for transuranic and high-level wastes.
Mixed wastes are mixtures of hazardous and high-level, low-level, or transuranic waste. components, which require management in accordance with the particular risks presented by the radioactive constituents they contain, as described above, in addition to the risks of their RCRA or Toxic Substances Control Act hazardous constituents. In this eis, high-level and transuranic mixed wastes are evaluated with the nonhazardous radioactive wastes of those radiation types because the management requirements for these wastes are primarily determined by their radiological properties. The mixed waste category considered in this eis is limited to low-level non-alpha mixed wastes.
2.1.2.2 Physical and Chemical Characteristics
Since the radioactive constituents account for only a small fraction of the waste volume, the physical and chemical characteristics of a waste determines its overall form. These characteristics affect both regulatory requirements and the applicability of specific treatment technologies. Wastes were grouped for a particular treatment based on the similarity of their physical and chemical characteristics. The three primary categories are liquid waste, solid waste, and unique waste. The liquid and solid categories have particular handling characteristics or requirements by virtue of their physical form. For example, liquids can be pumped via pipelines and are more readily subject to chemical processing (e.g., ion exchange.), while solids require conveyor or containerized transfer systems and are processed, if at all, by physical means (e.g., compaction). Each category of unique wastes includes materials that have unique treatment or handling requirements. For example, radioactively contaminated lead is subject to specific RCRA treatment requirements and is categorized as a separate form of solid waste. Similarly, elemental mercury. is subject to specific RCRA treatment requirements and is categorized as a separate form of liquid waste.
2.1.2.3 Hazardous Constituents
Hazardous constituents determine the treatment required to manage the hazardous properties of a waste from both a technical and a regulatory perspective. The primary categories are organics; metals; and ignitables, reactives, and corrosives. Organics and metals are classes of contaminants, while ignitability, reactivity, and corrosivity refer to the characteristics that a material may possess.
The type of hazardous constituents will often dictate the regulatory requirements applicable to treating, storing, and disposing of the waste. The principal regulatory programs are RCRA and the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Hazardous wastes are defined and regulated under RCRA. A waste is a hazardous waste if, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical and chemical characteristics, it may pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of or otherwise managed.
Materials regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act include PCBs and asbestos. The presence of these contaminants imposes specific requirements on the management of waste. PCB-contaminated materials are subject to treatment standards that specify more stringent destruction and removal efficiencies than those applicable to hazardous waste.s under RCRA. Asbestos is an inhalation hazard and asbestos-bearing materials must be handled and packaged to avoid exposure to asbestos fibers by inhalation. Non-radioactive asbestos is outside the scope of this eis, but radioactively contaminated asbestos-bearing materials have been included in the waste forecasts. Because asbestos does not generally have specific treatment or disposal requirements, asbestos-bearing materials have not been categorized into separate treatability groups in this eis.
The technical requirements for waste treatment depend on whether the hazardous constituents can be destroyed (e.g., thermal destruction of an organic contaminant), extracted from the waste (e.g., removal of metal contaminants via ion exchange.), or must be immobilized (e.g., stabilization of metal-bearing wastes with a binding agent). A waste can contain more than one constituent; if it does, a series of treatment processes could be required. For example, an ignitable liquid with metal contaminants could be incinerated to eliminate the ignitable fraction; residues from the incineration. would then be stabilized to immobilize the metals. For reactive and corrosive materials, treatments such as neutralization can be used to eliminate the hazardous characteristics.
Tables A-3 through A-6 of Appendix A summarize the expected, minimum, and maximum 30-year waste forecast for low-level, hazardous, mixed, and transuranic waste. by waste classes and year. Liquid high-level radioactive waste is considered as a single waste class; hence, it is included only in Table A-1 (30-year waste forecast by waste type) of Appendix A.
2.1.3 EXPECTED WASTE FORECAST
Thirty-year forecasts (based on fiscal years, not calendar years) of waste at SRS were developed for the types of wastes addressed in this eis. For each waste type, three forecasts were developed to create an expected, minimum, and maximum estimate of volume. Each forecast is based on wastes generated by the three major activities at SRS: (1) operations, (2) decontamination and decommissioning., and (3) environmental restoration.. DOE made assumptions regarding each of these activities to create three potential waste forecasts for analysis. This section presents the amounts of waste that could result from each activity for the expected forecast. Sections 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 describe changes in operations, decontamination and decommissioning, and environmental restoration that would produce the minimum and maximum amounts of waste.
The expected forecast is based on reasonable assumptions regarding waste generation over the next 30 years. It is assumed that SRS would continue to be a government-owned and contractor-operated facility. It is also assumed that defense material processing and environmental management activities (e.g., disposal and monitoring of waste materials that remain onsite) would continue to be consolidated within the central portion of SRS (Figure 2-2). Surplus defense material facilities located beyond the central portion of SRS would cease to operate and be decontaminated and decommissioned. The expected waste forecast reflects this change in the DOE mission.
The forecast assumes that 658 SRS facilities will be scheduled and funded for decontamination and decommissioning. during the 30-year analysis period. The SRS Decontamination and Decommissioning Program Facilities Plan (WSRC 1993a) reported these facilities as having some form or combination of radiological, chemical, and/or asbestos contamination. These facilities include the Separations Equipment Development Facility at the Savannah River Technology Center, a tritium. manufacturing facility (Building 232-F), the Beta-Gamma Incinerator (Building 230-H), and the Heavy Water Components Test Reactor.
Figure 2-2. The central SRS defense processing and environmental management areas.
Table 2-3 lists the 12 major facilities that are expected to continue to operate beyond 2024 and that, therefore, will not be decontaminated and decommissioned during the analysis period. A list of the SRS facilities that will cease to operate during the forecast period (1995 through 2024) is provided in Table 2-4. The assumptions regarding when these facilities would cease to operate in the expected, minimum, and maximum waste forecasts are included in Table 2-4.
The forecast assumes that environmental restoration. activities would be scheduled for all 129 units identified in Appendixes C and H of the Federal Facility Agreement for SRS (EPA 1993a) and listed in Appendixes G.1 and G.2 of this eis. The remediation may consist of in-place methods or stabilization and capping, and hence would not result in waste removal. Some form of remediation is also scheduled for a portion of the 303 units identified in Appendix G of the Federal Facility Agreement for SRS (and Appendix G.3 of this eis). The selection of environmental restoration activities will be made in accordance with the Federal Facility Agreement and its supporting Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and RCRA documents.
The expected waste forecast assumes that waste minimization. programs will proceed in accordance with the Savannah River Site Waste Minimization Plan (WSRC 1990). DOE does not assume major technological developments that would substantially decrease the waste generation. Other specific assumptions include:
- Nonradioactive PCB wastes are categorized as hazardous waste. and radioactively contaminated PCB wastes as mixed waste.
- Radioactively contaminated oils are categorized as mixed waste., and only half of the radioactively contaminated oil will need RCRA-permitted storage.
Table 2-3. Major SRS facilities that would continue to operate beyond 2024.a
| Facilities | Function |
| Defense Waste Processing Facility | High-level waste vitrification. |
| Z-Area Saltstone Manufacturing and Disposal Facility | Saltcrete processing and disposal |
| F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility | Treatment of routine process effluent and wastewater. |
| In-Tank Precipitation | Removal of radionuclides from highly radioactive salt solution |
| Savannah River Technology Center | Research and development activities |
| Replacement Tritium Facility | Tritium separation from targets |
| Type III Liquid High-Level Waste Tanks | Storage of liquid high-level waste, sludge, and saltcake |
| New Special Recovery Facility of 221 FB-Line | Plutonium scrap recovery |
| 484-D Powerhouse Facility | Coal-fired power generation |
| 483-1D Water Treatment Facility and support buildings | Treatment and discharge of powerhouse effluent |
| Consolidated Incineration Facility (under alternative C would only operate until 2006) | Incineration of specific hazardous and radioactive waste |
| Analytical Laboratories (excluding Building 772-D) | Analytical services and testing |
a. Source: WSRC (1994a).
2.1.3.1 SRS Operations and Offsite Waste Receipts
The first component of the expected waste forecast is the waste generated by routine SRS operations within the 30-year period of analysis. Individual SRS waste generators provided detailed estimates of their operation's waste generation for a 3-year period (1995 through 1997). The generators also provided a general estimate of waste generation for the next 27 years (1998 through 2024). These long-term estimates are representative of the types and volumes of wastes generated by SRS operations and are based on historical data, anticipated operations, and assumptions about each existing facility. The waste to be managed includes the forecast of waste generation in Appendix A and existing waste in storage, such as liquid high-level wastes stored in the F- and H-Area tank farms, transuranic waste. stored on the transuranic waste storage pads., and mixed waste.s stored in the mixed waste storage building.s. For this analysis, all facilities are considered to be in a safe inactive status (i.e., liquid waste and chemicals would have been removed, systems flushed and drained, and storage warehouses emptied) before decontamination and decommissioning.. Waste volumes associated with reaching a safe storage condition have been included in the operations forecast. Wastes from ongoing environmental restoration. operations (investigation-derived wastes such as waters purged from groundwater. monitoring wells during sampling) are also included. Wastes generated from decontamination and decommissioning and planned environmental restoration projects are discussed in Sections 2.1.3.2 and 2.1.3.3, respectively.
Assumptions specific to the operations portion of the expected waste forecast include:
- Secondary waste from the Defense Waste Processing Facility, In-Tank Precipitation, and Extended Sludge Processing operations addressed in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Defense Waste Processing Facility is accounted for in the operations forecast.
- High-level waste volumes are closely aligned with the selected option identified in the Record of Decision for F-Canyon Plutonium Solutions Environmental Impact Statement and the Interim Management of Nuclear Materials at SRS Environmental Impact Statement.
- High-level waste volumes do not include wastes that may result from future nuclear materials processing decisions, such as concentration/stabilization of plutonium. residues or enriched uranium denaturing.
- RCRA regulations would require that some investigation-derived wastes be handled as hazardous waste. (less than 20 percent of the soils. and mud generated from routine environmental restoration. activities).
- Purge water from well sampling would be handled as hazardous waste.; however, it is assumed that monitoring well sample volumes could be reduced by 50 percent of current volumes.
- Continued receipt of small amounts (less than 3 percent of the forecast) of low-level waste from other DOE facilities and nuclear naval operations.
The total quantity of waste generated by operations in the expected waste forecast during the next 30 years is approximately 6.03x105 cubic meters (2.13x107 cubic feet). The percentage that each waste type contributes to the total operations estimate is shown in Figure 2-3. The operations estimate is dominated by low-level and liquid high-level wastes. In fact, the operations estimate includes 1.31x105 cubic meters (4.63x106 cubic feet) of liquid high-level waste already accumulated in storage at the F and H-Area tank farms. During the 30-year period, about 22,000 cubic meters (7.77x105 cubic feet) of additional liquid high-level waste would be generated. Beginning in 1996, when the Defense Waste
Processing Facility is scheduled to begin operating, the liquid high-level waste will be reduced through treatment. Low-level, mixed, transuranic, and hazardous waste.s will continue to be generated by defense-related operations and waste treatment activities, such as the Defense Waste Processing Facility. After a peak in volume in 1996, the quantity of operations waste would decrease until 2004 due to facility closures (Table 2-4) and then remain constant through 2024.
Figure 2-3. The 30-year expected waste forecast by SRS activity.
Figure 2-4 charts the estimated changes in waste volume from operations, environmental restoration., and decontamination and decommissioning. in the expected waste forecast during the 30-year period of analysis. The quantities of operations, environmental restoration, and decontamination and decommissioning waste fluctuate from year to year, as shown in the forecast, because of the assumptions made about the types of operations, environmental restoration, and decontamination and decommissioning performed and the amount of waste generated in a given year. Detailed plans for these three SRS programs are not known for the entire 30-year period, so estimates of waste generation become less reliable beyond the 5-to-10-year planning window.
2.1.3.2 Decontamination and Decommissioning
The second component of the expected waste forecast is the 30-year forecast for waste generated by decontamination and decommissioning.. The Thirty Year Decontamination and Decommissioning Waste Generation Forecast for Facilities at SRS (WSRC 1994b) was derived from a detailed 5-year forecast of 53 typical SRS facilities scheduled to be decontaminated and decommissioned during the next 5 years (1995 through 1999). The 30-year estimate is an uncertain projection of the 5-year forecast; it estimates the wastes for 658 SRS facilities that are assumed to be scheduled and funded for decontamination and decommissioning during the period covered in this eis.
DOE would decontaminate and decommission facilities. as necessary to one of the following cleanup statuses: greenfield, foundation, gutting, or removal. To estimate volumes of waste that would be generated during decontamination and decommissioning, the average waste volume generated per facility was estimated. The volume does not include the sanitary waste. that would be generated. The waste volume estimates are based on information extrapolated from the estimates for the first 53 facilities scheduled for decontamination and decommissioning. The range and distribution of sizes of the first 53 facilities were considered to be a reasonable basis for estimating the average size of the remaining 605 facilities. The methods that will be used to decontaminate and decommission facilities to a particular cleanup status at SRS are described in the following paragraphs.
"Greenfield" refers to the removal of the facility, its foundation, and contaminated soil under the foundation. It is estimated that on average 0.6 meter (2 feet) of soil would be removed from beneath a building's foundation. For purposes of the forecast, it was estimated that 15 percent of the removed soil would be contaminated and be transported to a treatment, storage, and disposal facility. The remaining soil would be used as backfill. If more than 15 percent of the soil were contaminated, then remediation would be conducted at the facility (in place treatment). The total waste volume generated by decontaminating and decommissioning an average facility to a greenfield state is estimated to be 1,434 cubic meters (50,600 cubic feet).
"Foundation" refers to the removal of the building to its foundation. The foundation and soil would remain in place. The total waste volume generated by decontaminating and decommissioning an average facility to its foundation is estimated to be 717 cubic meters (25,300 cubic feet), 50 percent of the greenfield waste volume.
"Gutting" refers to the removal of materials, equipment, ductwork, and process tanks from the building, and decontaminating the remaining structure. The building could be used for other purposes, such as storage. The total waste volume generated by gutting an average building is estimated to be 179 cubic meters (6,300 cubic feet), 13 percent of the greenfield waste volume.
"Removal" is the elimination of the major sources of contamination (either hazardous or radioactive) such as process equipment or storage tanks that contain product or waste, and decontaminating the remainder of the facility to levels that require only minimum monitoring and maintenance. The total waste volume generated by removal from an average building is estimated to be 90 cubic meters (3,200 cubic feet), 6 percent of the greenfield waste volume.
High-level waste tanks without adequate secondary containment would be stabilized in place. Associated equipment and buildings would be removed. The canyon and reactor buildings would be cleaned, but the buildings would remain in place. The decontamination and decommissioning. forecast does not ensure that the volume of wastes will be reduced by volume reduction activities, compaction, treatment, or recycling. (i.e., operations activities prior to decontamination and decommissioning). A total of 658 facilities are scheduled to be decontaminated and decommissioned during the next 30 years, pending available funding. The assumptions regarding the level of decontamination and decommissioning required are presented in Table 2-5.
The total quantity of waste forecast from decontamination and decommissioning. under the expected waste forecast during the next 30 years is estimated to be 2.41x105 cubic meters (8.51x106 cubic feet). The percentage of each waste type that contributes to the total decontamination and decommissioning forecast is depicted graphically in Figure 2-3. Based on the forecast assumptions, low-level and mixed waste.s would dominate the decontamination and decommissioning forecast for the expected waste forecast.
Figure 2-4 charts the changes in decontamination and decommissioning. waste estimates during the 30-year period of analysis. The forecast waste volume would initially be small (1995 through 1999) due to the number of facilities addressed (i.e., 532), and would then increase and remain constant during the years 2000 through 2024 as the remaining 605 facilities are decontaminated and decommissioned. The quantities of decontamination and decommissioning waste fluctuate from year to year in the forecast because of the assumptions made about the number and types of facilities that would be decontaminated and decommissioned in a given year. Liquid high-level waste would not be generated during decontamination and decommissioning.
| 1995 through 1999 | 2000 through 2024 | |
| Inside central area | Outside central area | |
| 53 to foundation | 182 gutted | 423 to foundation |
Source: WSRC (1994a).
2.1.3.3 Environmental Restoration
The third component of the expected waste forecast is the 30-year estimate for waste generated by environmental restoration.. The estimate for environmental restoration was derived from estimates for units (i.e., facilities, spills, miscellaneous) that would undergo restoration during the next 9 years (1995 through 2003). The 9-year waste estimate was averaged over the units undergoing restoration during this period to create an average volume of restoration waste of 3,292 cubic meters (1.16x105 cubic feet) per unit. This value was extrapolated to estimate the annual waste volume from environmental restoration for each year. The estimated volume for remediation of each area contaminated by spills would be 10 cubic meters (350 cubic feet) per spill unit. Of the 432 units identified in Appendix G of this eis, two-thirds are assumed to have no radioactive contamination, and one-third are assumed to be radioactively contaminated. Assumptions were made about the types of waste that would be generated depending on whether a facility was assumed to have or lack radioactive contaminants (i.e., the percentage that would be low-level, mixed, hazardous, or transuranic waste.). Large tracts of land that require environmental restoration, such as the Mixed Waste Management Facility in E-Area, would have their wastes treated in place without removal from the waste site, or the units would be capped. The distribution of environmental restoration waste into treatability groups was based on the assessment in the Thirty-Year Solid Waste Generation Forecast by Treatability Group (WSRC 1994c).
The expected waste volumes resulting from environmental restoration. activities (Table 2-6) were developed based on the assumptions regarding the various types of units listed in the SRS Federal Facility Agreement (and presented in Appendix G of this eis).
The total quantity of waste that would be produced by environmental restoration. under the expected waste forecast is estimated to be 4.71x105 cubic meters (1.66x107 cubic feet). The contribution of each waste type to the total waste is depicted in Figure 2-3. Based on the forecast assumptions, environmental restoration waste would be dominated by hazardous waste.
Figure 2-4 charts the changes in environmental restoration. waste during the 30-year period of analysis. The quantities of this waste fluctuate from year to year because of assumptions about environmental restoration activities in a given year. The forecast has four major volume peaks that can be attributed to a few SRS units generating large volumes of waste. These units include: Silverton Road in 1998, the Metal Burning Rubble Pit in 1999, the D-Area Ash Basin and K-Area Sludge Land Application in 2001, and the Par Pond Sludge Application and Par Pond Groundwater Operable Unit in 2003. Liquid high-level wastes would not be generated by environmental restoration.
| Appendixes G.1 and G.2 | Appendix G.3 (non-spills) | Appendix G.3 (spills) | ||
| Inside central portion of SRS | Outside central portion of SRS | Inside central portion of SRS | Outside central portion of SRS | . |
| 7 of 36 units would have wastes removed | 93 of 93 units would have wastes removed | No units would have wastes removed | 43 of 143 units would have wastes removed | 67 of 134 spill units would have wastes removed |
| (19 percent) | (100 percent) | . | (30 percent) | (50 percent) |
Source: WSRC (1994a).
2.1.4 MINIMUM WASTE FORECAST
2.1.4.1 SRS Operations and Offsite Waste Receipts
DOE made assumptions regarding projected waste volumes to create a potential minimum forecast for analysis. There are limited changes in the assumed operating status of SRS facilities for this minimum waste forecast. Minimum processing, maintenance, and upgrades would be used to maintain the safety of the liquid high-level waste tank farm facilities. Other assumptions for the minimum waste forecast are the same as for the expected waste forecast.
The minimum forecast assumes that small quantities of additional low-level waste (less than 4 percent of the low-level waste volume) would continue to be received at SRS from other DOE facilities and Naval Reactors Program sites.
Variation between the expected forecast and the minimum forecast for operations would occur because of presumed changes in requirements for handling wastes generated from environmental restoration. activities (investigation-derived wastes). The minimum forecast assumes that only 5 percent of the waste (i.e., soil and mud) generated by routine environmental restoration activities would need to be managed as hazardous waste. (versus an estimate of slightly less than 20 percent for the expected waste forecast). It was also assumed that purge water from well sampling would be treated as hazardous waste only if its contamination was greater than 10 times the applicable maximum contaminant limits as established by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The total quantity of the waste from operations under the minimum waste forecast is approximately 5.06x105 cubic meters (1.79x107 cubic feet). The percentage that each waste type contributes to the total operations, environmental restoration., and decontamination and decommissioning. minimum waste forecast is shown in Figure 2-5. The relative percentages of the waste types do not change substantially between the expected and minimum waste forecasts for operations waste. Figure 2-6 charts the estimated changes in the operations, environmental restoration, and decontamination and decommissioning minimum forecast during the 30-year period of analysis.
2.1.4.2 Decontamination and Decommissioning
A total of 658 facilities are scheduled to be decontaminated and decommissioned during the 30-year analysis period, pending available funding. The assumptions regarding the state of decontamination and decommissioning. required under the minimum waste forecast are presented in Table 2-7.
Figure 2-5. The 30-year minimum waste forecast by SRS activity.
The total waste volume during the next 30 years from decontamination and decommissioning. under the minimum waste forecast is expected to be 1.06x105 cubic meters (3.74x106 cubic feet), less than half the volume of wastes generated by decontamination and decommissioning in the expected waste forecast. The contribution of each waste type to the total decontamination and decommissioning estimate is depicted in Figure 2-5. For decontamination and decommissioning, the relative percentages of the waste types are not substantially different between the expected and minimum waste forecasts. Figure 2-6 charts the estimated changes in the decontamination and decommissioning waste during the 30-year period of analysis.
| 1995 through 1999 | 2000 through 2024 | |
| Inside central area | Outside central area | |
| 53 to foundation | 182 by removal | 338 gutted |
| 85 to foundation | ||
Source: WSRC (1994a).
2.1.4.3 Environmental Restoration
The minimum estimate of wastes resulting from environmental restoration.. activities (Table 2-8) were developed based on the assumptions regarding the various types of units listed in the SRS Federal Facility Agreement (and presented in Appendix G of this eis).
The minimum forecast for environmental restoration. during the next 30 years predicts 2.21x105 cubic meters (7.8x106 cubic feet) of waste, roughly half the volume of environmental restoration waste in the expected case. The contribution of each waste type to the total forecast is shown in Figure 2-5. For environmental restoration, the relative percentages of the waste types do not change substantially between the expected and minimum waste forecasts. Figure 2-6 charts the estimated changes in environmental restoration waste during the 30-year period of analysis.
| Appendixes G.1 and G.2 | Appendix G.3 (non-spills) | Appendix G.3 (spills) | ||
| Inside central portion of SRS | Outside central portion of SRS | Inside central portion of SRS | Outside central portion of SRS | |
| No units would have wastes removed | 23 of 93 units would have wastes removed
(25 percent) |
No units would have wastes removed | 3 of 143 units would have wastes removed (2 percent) |
40 of 134 spill units would have wastes removed (30 percent) |
Source: WSRC (1994a).
2.1.5 MAXIMUM WASTE FORECAST
2.1.5.1 SRS Operations and Offsite Waste Receipts
The maximum waste forecast assumes that SRS would be required to manage additional waste due to: (1) changes in the SRS mission or additional nuclear materials processing that would increase the anticipated generation of waste, and (2) a small increase in the receipt of wastes from other DOE facilities. Seven major SRS facilities would continue to operate until 2013 (Table 2-4) and would continue to generate job-control waste. The wastes that DOE assumes it will receive in this forecast are identified in alternatives being considered in other eiss. Sources of increased wastes volumes are:
- Aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel would come to SRS for processing in accordance with the DOE Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs eis.
- Plutonium and tritium. would come to SRS for recycling. between 1995 and 2005 in accordance with DOE's plan to continue to operate the Pantex Plant as described in the Continued Operation of the Pantex Plant and Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapon Components eis
- An additional 6,440 cubic meters (2.27x105 cubic feet) of low-level, 1.5 cubic meters (53 cubic feet) of mixed, and 9 cubic meters (320 cubic feet) of hazardous waste.s would be generated at SRS from new or expanded DOE operations annually beginning in 2005 and continuing beyond the 30-year analysis period in accordance with the tritium. supply and recycling. alternatives under the programmatic eis on reconfiguration of the nuclear weapons complex (now being considered in a separate tritium supply and recycling programmatic eis). The forecast did not include spent nuclear fuel (approximately 23 cubic meters per year) or liquid low-level wastes (5 million gallons per year) associated with the operation of a potential tritium supply at SRS.
- Other wastes from elsewhere in the DOE complex as proposed in the working draft analyses of the Waste Management Programmatic eis.
- Low-level waste received from the Naval Reactors Program was assumed to double due to the closure of the Barnwell commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.
- Mixed waste. from other DOE sites proposed for treatment at SRS in the SRS Proposed Site Treatment Plan.
It is anticipated that additional transuranic waste. containing appreciable quantities of plutonium.-238 would come to SRS. SRS was the primary producer of plutonium-238. The maximum forecast assumes the receipt of 127 cubic meters (4,490 cubic feet) per year of mixed plutonium-238 waste from other DOE operations over the 30-year period.
The maximum waste forecast assumes that additional low-level waste (approximately 30 percent of the low-level waste volume) would be received at SRS from other DOE facilities and nuclear naval operations. SRS would also receive limited quantities of mixed waste. from other DOE facilities and Naval Reactors Program sites in accordance with the site treatment plan. and other evaluations (approximately 3 percent of the mixed waste volume).
Another variation between the expected and maximum waste forecasts for operations is the result of presumed changes in requirements for handling wastes generated by environmental restoration. (i.e., investigation-derived wastes). The maximum waste forecast assumes that all waste (i.e., soils. and mud) generated by restoration activities would be handled as hazardous waste. [versus estimates of less than 20 percent in the expected waste forecast (and 5 percent in the minimum waste forecast)]. Purge water from groundwater. monitoring wells would be managed as hazardous waste.
The total quantity of waste from operations in this forecast during the next 30 years is estimated to be 1.43x106 cubic meters (5.05x107 cubic feet), roughly twice the volume in the expected forecast. The percentage of each waste type that contributes to the total operations forecast is shown in Figure 2-7. The relative percentage of high-level waste decreases and low-level waste increases substantially between the expected and maximum forecasts. Figure 2-8 charts the estimated changes in operations waste during the 30-year period of analysis.
2.1.5.2 Decontamination and Decommissioning
All 423 facilities outside the central portion of SRS scheduled for decontamination and decommissioning. between 2000 and 2024 would be cleaned up to greenfield status (compared to foundation status in the expected waste forecast). Facilities within the central portion of SRS would be taken to their foundations (compared to gutted in the expected waste forecast).
A total of 658 facilities are scheduled to be decontaminated and decommissioned during the 30-year analysis period, pending available funding. The assumptions regarding the level of decontamination and decommissioning. required under the maximum waste forecast are presented in Table 2-9.
Figure 2-7. The 30-year maximum waste forecast by SRS activity.
The total quantity of waste generated by decontamination and decommissioning. during the next 30 years in the maximum waste forecast is estimated to be about 5.24x105 cubic meters (1.85x107 cubic feet), more than twice the volume in the expected waste forecast. The contribution of each waste type to the total forecast is depicted in Figure 2-7. The relative percentages of the waste types do not change substantially between the expected and maximum waste forecasts. Figure 2-8 charts the estimated changes in the decontamination and decommissioning waste during the 30-year period of analysis.
| 1995 through 1999 | 2000 through 2024 | |
| Inside central area | Outside central area | |
| 53 to foundation | 182 to foundation | 423 to greenfield |
Source: WSRC (1994a).
2.1.5.3 Environmental Restoration
The maximum estimate of waste volumes from environmental restoration. (Table 2-10) was based on the assumptions regarding the various types of units listed in the SRS Federal Facility Agreement (and presented in Appendix G of this eis).
In the central portion of SRS, 20 percent of the Burial Ground Complex in E-Area and 5 percent of the Mixed Waste Management Facility in E-Area would be removed for treatment and disposal. The remainder of the wastes at each of these facilities would be treated in place. As a result of the more intensive forms of environmental remediation (e.g., removal of previously disposed waste), the amount of each waste type would be greater than in the expected waste forecast.
The total quantity of waste from environmental restoration. in the maximum waste forecast during the next 30 years is estimated to be 1.65x106 cubic meters (5.83x107 cubic feet), roughly three and one-half times the volume of the environmental restoration waste in the expected waste forecast. The percentage of each waste type that contributes to the environmental restoration forecast is depicted graphically in Figure 2-7. The relative percentages of transuranic and mixed waste.s increase and hazardous waste. decreases substantially between the expected and maximum waste forecasts. Large volumes of transuranic and mixed waste result from the removal of previously disposed waste in the Burial Ground Complex and Mixed Waste Management Facility during the years 2000 through 2005. The large volume of waste is in addition to the waste from those units previously discussed in the expected waste forecast. Figure 2-8 charts the estimated changes in the environmental restoration waste during the 30-year period of analysis.
| Appendixes G.1 and G.2 | Appendix G.3 (Non-spills) | Appendix G.3 (spills) | ||
| Inside central portion of SRS | Outside central portion of SRS | Inside central portion of SRS | Outside central portion of SRS | |
| 36 of 36 units would have wastes removed (100 percent) |
93 of 93 units would have wastes removed
(100 percent) |
No units would have wastes removed | 101 of 143 units would have wastes removed (71 percent) |
134 of 134 spill units would have wastes removed (100 percent) |
Source: WSRC (1994a).
2.2 No-Action Alternative
This section describes how each waste would be handled under the no-action alternative. For this eis, the no-action alternative is defined as the continuation of current practices and includes the need to construct additional storage and disposal facilities to manage additional wastes, as has been done in the past.
Section 2.2.1 discusses the current waste minimization program at SRS and its goal of reducing the amounts of waste generated. Waste reduction is an essential aspect of the no-action alternative. The waste minimization program reduces the amounts of liquid high-level radioactive, low-level radioactive, hazardous, mixed, and transuranic wastes and would be applied under each alternative, including the no- action alternative. Sections 2.2.2 through 2.2.6 each describe a specific type of waste and how that waste is handled under the no-action alternative. Section 2.2.7 presents a summary of the treatment, storage, and disposal options applied to each waste type under the no-action alternative. See Acronyms, Abbreviations, Use of Scientific Notation, and Explanation of Number Conversions for a discussion of how numbers were treated.
2.2.1 POLLUTION PREVENTION/WASTE MINIMIZATION
2.2.1.1 Introduction
The pollution prevention program at SRS began as isolated efforts to reduce waste. In 1985, DOE developed a hazardous waste minimization plan (Roberts 1985) in response to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-616). A sitewide approach to waste minimization for each waste type began in 1990 with the development of the Savannah River Site Waste Minimization Plan. This more comprehensive approach was required by DOE Order 5400.1, "General Environmental Protection Program."
Since 1990, DOE expanded the waste minimization program with a dedicated management group and annual funding of approximately $1 million. The waste minimization program is part of SRS's pollution prevention program under the Department of Energy, Savannah River Site Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Awareness Plan, FY 1995 (WSRC 1994e).
Waste reduction is achieved through (1) source reduction or (2) recycling. Source reduction decreases or eliminates wastes before their generation and includes recycling within a process, material substitution, process modification, administrative controls, and good housekeeping practices. Recycling is the use, reuse (return of a material to a process as input), or reclamation (recovery of a useful or valuable material) of a material. Waste minimization activities are part of pollution prevention, which also includes energy conservation, source reduction and recycling of wastewater, and source reduction of air emissions.
2.2.1.2 Annual Reductions in the Generation of Waste
Since 1990, DOE has made substantial progress toward reducing wastes generated at SRS. The amounts of all types of waste have decreased since 1991, with the greatest percentage reductions in hazardous and mixed wastes. Reductions in hazardous and mixed wastes were accomplished mainly by material substitution. For example, hazardous solvents used for degreasing have been replaced by nonhazardous ones. Table 2-11 presents the amounts of each waste type generated in 1990 through 1993.
Table 2-11. Waste generated from 1990 through 1993 (cubic meters).a,b
| Waste type | 1990c | 1991c | 1992 | 1993 |
| High-level | 2,400 | 3,200 | 1,680 | 1,560 |
| Low-level | 25,480 | 22,090 | 12,500 | 14,200d |
| Hazardous | 170 | 90 | 100 | 70 |
| Mixed | NAe | 33 | 20 | 4 |
| Transuranic | 760 | 660 | 570 | 390 |
a. Source: Boyter (1994a21005).
b.To convert to cubic feet, multiply by
35.31.
c.Based on quarterly averages.
d.The 1993 increase in the amount
of low-level waste is attributed to environmental restoration activities.
However, even though the amount of low-level waste increased, approximately
1,200 cubic meters (42,400 cubic feet) more waste would have been generated if
waste minimization activities had not been implemented (Boyter 1994b)221006.
e.NA
= not available.
2.2.1.3 Waste Minimization Goals
The current goals for waste minimization are presented in Table 2-12. The goals are reviewed at least annually for appropriateness to SRS's wastes. Progress is tracked and reported quarterly.
A goal for the low-level waste minimization efforts for 1994 was to avoid generating at least 1,870cubic meters (66,000 cubic feet) of waste. By August1994, SRS had achieved 50 percent of this goal, eliminating approximately 935 cubic meters (33,000 cubic feet) of low-level waste generation (Stone 1994a).
Table 2-12. Waste minimization goals.a
| Implement waste minimization activities to avoid generating at least 1,870 cubic meters (66,000 cubic feet) of low-level waste by December31, 1994. |
| Reduce generation of high-level, hazardous, mixed, and transuranic wastes by 10 percent of fiscal year 1994 totals by September 30, 1995. |
| Reduce total releases of toxic chemicals and offsite transfers for treatment and disposal by 50 percent (based on the first year the chemical was reported on a TRI Reportb) by December 31, 1999. |
| Reduce the volume of newly generated low-level, hazardous, mixed, and transuranic waste (excluding decontamination and decommissioning and environmental restoration waste) by 50 percent by December 31, 1999. |
a. Source: WSRC (1994e).
b.TRI Report = Toxic Release Inventory Report
required by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.
2.2.1.4 Waste Minimization Practices and Initiatives
Major source reduction and recycling practices and initiatives are briefly discussed below and are summarized in Table 2-13.
2.2.1.4.1 Source Reduction
Radiological Controls
SRS currently has more than 0.4 square kilometer (100acres) of radiological materials areas within which waste is routinely categorized as low-level waste. DOE was able to reduce the size of such areas and thereby reduce the volume of low-level waste. In addition, SRS is implementing, on a trial basis, new waste segregation methods that could further reduce the amount of waste classified as low-level because it was generated in a radiological materials area.
SRS has implemented new radiological control procedures that eliminate some protective clothing requirements in radiological materials areas. In 1993, radiological controls kept approximately 540 cubic meters (19,100cubic feet) of low-level waste from being generated as a result of changes in protective clothing requirements and the implementation of these controls (WSRC 1994e). These control procedures include the use of prefabricated radiological containment huts and windbreaks that can be checked for contamination and reused if not contaminated. Prefabricated glove bags were also introduced to eliminate the use and subsequent disposal of special protective clothing. Use of these prefabricated radiological control devices is estimated to reduce low-level waste generation by up to 850 cubic meters (30,000 cubic feet) per year (WSRC 1994e).
Material Substitution and Chemical Product Management
Since 1990, SRS has implemented programs to reduce the use of products that generate hazardous or mixed waste by substituting those that do not contain hazardous components and therefore would not produce a hazardous or mixed waste. These substitutions have decreased the amounts of hazardous and mixed waste. Under the new chemical management program, SRS has centralized efforts to find substitutes for products containing hazardous ingredients and to ensure that those substitutes are purchased whenever possible (Stone 1994b). For example, DOE substituted the nonhazardous Engine Clean for the hazardous organic solvent Engine Brite previously used to clean machine engines; the nonhazardous Safetap fluid for the Rapid Tap cutting fluid that was up to two-thirds trichloroethylene; and the nonhazardous Decon-Ahol for a xylene-based organic solvent called Magnaflux SKC-HF Spotcheck, used for cleaning welds during metal fabrication work.
SRS's centralized chemical management uses commodity management. The intent is to use procurement controls to minimize the amount and toxicity of chemicals entering SRS and to minimize the amount of chemicals disposed of as waste by marketing excess chemicals both onsite and offsite (Stone 1994b). Before chemicals are purchased, procurement requests are reviewed by the Chemical Commodity Management Center, excess chemical inventories are checked for the chemicals, and less toxic material substitutions are evaluated.
Chemicals that are no longer needed by the organization that purchased them are designated as excess. Once a chemical is designated as excess, an alternate onsite user is sought. If no onsite user is identified, offsite users are sought. Offsite users are solicited by procurement and through government and school donation programs. Since 1992, the excess chemical program has reduced the amount of hazardous waste disposed of by SRS by approximately 56,900 kilograms (1.25x105pounds) (Larkin 1994; Tuthill 1994; Hess 1994b).
SRS sells used lead-acid batteries to a vendor for recycling. Approximately 1,600 (in 1992), 2,670 (in 1993) (Boyter 1994a), and 550 (through June 1994) (Stone 1994c) batteries have been sold to recyclers.
Miscellaneous Process Improvements
Numerous process improvements have been implemented to reduce waste generation. Process improvements are suggested by employees, imported from other DOE sites, and produced by in-depth studies of processes to evaluate minimization opportunities. Two examples of recent process improvements are:
- Modifications to process piping and procedures at the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility now allow for backflushing of large carbon filter beds. This process improvement at least doubles the life of the filter, reducing the amount of low-level waste generated by the facility (Stone 1994b).
- Disposable filter paper take-up rolls used at the M-Area Liquid Effluent Treatment Facility were replaced with reusable, cleanable filter belts. As a result of this process improvement, 33 cubic meters (1,200 cubic feet) less mixed waste will be generated by the facility over a 2-year period (Stone 1994b).
In-Process Recycling
SRS continues to reuse within its radioactive processes lead shielding that has been contaminated, provided that it is below a certain level of radioactivity. If the shielding is no longer needed in a particular location, it is surveyed for contamination and, if the levels are low enough the lead is reinstalled where needed within the process. Lead that is too contaminated to reuse is considered mixed waste and managed accordingly.
Material and Waste Packaging Improvements
To minimize the amount of waste needing disposal, SRS has reduced material and waste packaging. Materials and equipment are unpacked before entering radiological materials areas so the packaging does not have to be treated as low-level waste. Wooden pallets are being replaced with steel pallets that can be surveyed with more confidence and decontaminated if necessary. Replacing the wooden pallets will result in a low-level waste savings of approximately 370 cubic meters (13,100 cubic feet) in 1994 (Stone 1994b).
Improvements in waste packaging have been implemented to maximize use of disposal containers and save space in disposal facilities. Some low-level waste destined for disposal containers is no longer first packaged in cardboard boxes. Elimination of the cardboard boxes increases the amount of waste that can be packed in each container (Stone 1994b). DOE converted low-level metal materials such as piping into burial containers. Reuse of these metal wastes as burial containers saved approximately 415 cubic meters (14,700 cubic feet) of disposal space in 1993 (Stone 1994b).
In addition to packaging improvements, SRS implemented a program to use soil that is suspected of being contaminated (called "suspect soil"), rather than fresh soil, in waste disposal. Soil that has been removed from a site because of radiological contamination is surveyed for radionuclides and sorted as radioactively contaminated or suspect. Instead of disposing of the suspect soil, SRS uses it as the backfill for the engineered low-level waste trenches where the contaminated soil and other low-level radioactive waste is disposed of (Stone 1994b).
Table 2-13. Waste minimization activities under the no-action alternative.a
| Minimization activity | Waste | Annual minimization amountb,c |
| Implementing new radiological controls (reducing size of radiological materials areas, eliminating protective clothing requirements, using new waste segregation control protocols) | Low-level waste | 540 |
| Using prefabricated radiological control structures | Low-level waste | 850d |
| Substituting for hazardous materials | Hazardous and mixed waste | 46e |
| Offering excess chemicals for reuse | Hazardous waste | 5.69´104f,g |
| Modifying process and procedures at F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facilityh | Low-level waste | NAi |
| Modifying process at M-Area Liquid Effluent Treatment Facilityh | Mixed waste | 33j |
| Reusing lead shielding | Mixed waste | NA |
| Recycling cadmium-plated filter frames | Mixed waste | 100k |
| Replacing wooden pallets with reusable steel pallets | Low-level waste | 370d |
| Maximizing waste burial container volume | Low-level waste | NA |
| Using metal waste as burial containers | Low-level waste | 415 |
| Using "suspect" soils for backfill | Low-level waste | NA |
| Recycling spent photographic fixative | Hazardous waste | 2 |
| Recycling scrap lead | Hazardous waste | 2.72´104f |
| Recycling refrigerant chlorofluorocarbons | Hazardous waste | NA |
| Recycling solvents | Hazardous waste | 4 |
| Recycling lead-acid batteries | Hazardous waste | 2,670l |
| Decontaminating tools and equipment | Low-level and mixed waste | NA |
| Recycling contaminated steel equipment | Low-level waste | 6,551m |
a. Sources: WSRC (1994e); Hess (1995a).
b.Amount given in cubic meters;
to convert to cubic feet, multiply by 35.31.
c.Amount given is based on
historical waste forecast records, unless otherwise indicated.
d.Projected
annual waste reduction amount.
e.Waste reduction from 1992 to 1993, which
was due primarily to material substitution. Waste reduction amount exclusively
attributable to material substitution not available.
f.Amount given in
kilograms; to convert to pounds, multiply by 2.2.
g.Waste minimization
amount since 1992.
h.Example of a process improvement.
i.NA = not
available.
j.Reduction over a 2-year period.
k.One-time recycling
activity.
l.Number of batteries recycled.
m.Amount to be recycled over a
3-year period.
2.2.1.4.2 Recycling
SRS reclaims some hazardous wastes onsite, including spent photographic fixative, scrap lead, refrigerant chlorofluorocarbons (Freon¨), and paint solvents.
Spent Photographic Fixative
Silver is reclaimed from spent photographic fixative generated by SRS's silk screening and x-ray operations. The silver recovery unit is described in Appendix B.24. Approximately 2 cubic meters (70 cubic feet) and 2.5 cubic meters (88 cubic feet) (Stone 1994c) of spent photographic fixative was recycled in 1993 and through June 1994, respectively. The unit's cartridge filters capture the silver, and the remaining nonhazardous solution is sent to an SRS sanitary treatment facility (Harvey 1994a). When a cartridge filter is filled, it is sent to the U.S. Department of Defense for recovery of the silver.
Scrap Lead
Scrap lead that is not contaminated with radioactivity is recycled at SRS by melting the lead and fabricating it into a useful form. Approximately 9,980 kilograms (22,000 pounds), 27,200 kilograms (60,000 pounds) (Boyter 1994a), and 16,100kilograms (35,500 pounds) (Stone 1994c) of lead were recycled in 1992, 1993, and through June 1994, respectively. The residue from the lead melting process, a hazardous waste, averages 2,450kilograms (5,400 pounds) per year (Harvey 1994a).
Refrigerant Chlorofluorocarbons (Freon¨)
Portable recovery units are used at SRS to recycle chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigeration and air conditioning units. The units are closed-loop systems that allow recovery and reuse of the existing refrigerant without escape to the atmosphere. Information on these recycling units is provided in Appendix B.24.
Solvents
Spent paint solvents from construction operations are distilled in five distillation units at SRS (described in Appendix B.24). Approximately 2 cubic meters (71 cubic feet), 4 cubic meters (140 cubic feet) (Boyter 1994a), and 1 cubic meter (35 cubic feet) (Stone 1994c) of spent paint solvents were recycled in 1992, 1993, and through June 1994, respectively. These amounts represent 100 percent of the spent paint solvent generated by construction operations. Since 1993, the distillation units have yielded approximately 4 cubic meters (140 cubic feet) of reclaimed solvents (Harvey 1994b) for construction projects. Approximately 220 kilograms (480pounds) of residue is disposed of as hazardous waste per year (Harvey 1994a). In addition to paint solvents, SRS also plans to distill chlorofluorocarbons used as solvents.
Radioactively Contaminated Tools and Equipment
SRS minimizes disposal of radioactively contaminated tools and equipment by collecting them for decontamination and subsequent reuse. Tools are collected and sent to a staging area in C-Area for segregation. Contaminated tools are decontaminated at facilities located in C- or N-Areas. In N-Area, a vacuum stripping process, which is similar to a recycling sandblaster, uses aluminum oxide as the grit. SRS plans to implement carbon dioxide blasting, which is less erosive than vacuum stripping but highly effective, as the main decontamination technology beginning in 1995. Carbon dioxide blasting has no secondary wastes; only the contaminants themselves are left for disposal. In addition, beginning in 1995 a Kelly Decon Machine¨, using superheated steam, will clean larger, more intricate equipment (Miller 1994). More information on decontamination technology is presented in Appendix B.24.
Beneficial Reuse Demonstration Program
Recycling opportunities exist for the large amount of scrap metal generated by the decommissioning of equipment. The beneficial reuse program demonstrates the viability of the decontamination of metals to levels where they can be smelted and fabricated into waste containers. This program is proceeding as a demonstration with private firms. This demonstration would convert approximately 54 metric tons (60 short tons) of radioactive scrap metal to waste containers over a 3-year period (Hess 1994b). If it is successful, it could lead to the recycling of large amounts of radioactive scrap metal into waste containers, eliminating the need to dispose of the contaminated metal as low-level waste and the need to obtain an equivalent number of new waste containers (Boettinger 1994a). Approximately 6,600 cubic meters (2.33x105 cubic feet) of low-level waste in the form of 68 scrap heat exchangers would be converted to waste containers and beneficially reused (Boettinger 1994b). Other types of contaminated scrap stainless steel would also be available for conversion.
Cadmium-Plated Filter Frames
DOE will recycle approximately 100 cubic meters of cadmium-plated high efficiency particulate air filter frames using an offsite vendor. The vendor will remove the filter media from the frames prior to processing the remaining metal. Filter media that are removed will be returned to SRS for disposal as low- level radioactive waste. This will be a one-time recycling activity because all of the cadmium-plated filters have been removed from service and replaced by nonhazardous stainless steel framed filters (WSRC 1995; Blankenhorn 1995).
2.2.2 HIGH-LEVEL WASTE
The no-action alternative for liquid high-level waste would continue current management practices. Figure2-9 shows the management practices for high-level waste from receipt and storage of liquid high- level waste in tanks to preparation and processing into forms suitable for final disposal. As currently planned, liquid high-level waste would be removed from the storage tanks and processed through the Defense Waste Processing Facility into borosilicate glass sealed in stainless steel containers. The major components of this plan have been analyzed separately in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Defense Waste Processing Facility. The remaining components of the plan, including storage, evaporation, wastewater treatment, and waste removal operations are considered in this eis.
Figure 2-9. Liquid high-level waste management plan.
Specific management practices for liquid high-level waste included under the no-action alternative are listed below.
- Continue receiving and storing liquid high-level waste in the F- and H-Area tank farms.
- Remove from service tank systems and components that do not have complete secondary containment.
- Continue operating existing evaporators.
- Continue removing waste from tanks and preparing it for treatment in the Defense Waste Processing Facility.
- Continue operating the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility.
In addition, under the no-action alternative, DOE would:
- Continue to construct and then operate the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator.
- Implement final construction, startup testing, and operation of the New Waste Transfer Facility.
2.2.2.1 Continue Receiving and Storing of Liquid High-Level Waste in the F- and H-Area Tank Farms
Under the no-action alternative, the tank farms would continue to receive waste from the chemical separations facilities (F- and H-Canyons), the Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuel, the Savannah River Technology Center, the H-Area Maintenance Facility, and reactor areas. Two additional facilities, the Defense Waste Processing Facility and Extended Sludge Processing, are expected to send recycled wastewater to the tank farms during the next 30 years.
The tanks currently contain approximately 1.31x105 cubic meters (3.45x107gallons) of high-level waste and are at more than 90 percent of usable capacity (WSRC 1994b, f). Approximately 22,000cubic meters (5.81x106 gallons) of high-level waste would be received in the tank farms during the remaining years of the high-level waste program, which would continue until 2018. According to current operating plans and projected funding, by 2018 DOE expects that the high-level waste at SRS would have been processed into borosilicate glass, and the tanks would be empty (Hess 1994c). This forecast assumes the expected amount of waste would be generated and that current waste management practices and stabilization options being considered for existing site inventories of nuclear materials would continue. Decisions made pursuant to other NEPA analyses could extend the period of waste generation. The effect of additional waste generated by future programs would primarily mean an extended period of waste storage and treatment, not treating larger volumes of waste within the next decade (Hess 1994d).
The no-action alternative assumes that DOE would continue to receive waste from the F- and H-Area separations facilities, store it in tanks with full secondary containment (TypeIII) in the tank farms (see Appendix B.13), operate the existing evaporators to reduce the volume of waste, complete construction and begin operation of the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator, and build no new tanks.
If the tank farms and evaporators operate as projected, tank space can be maintained at acceptable levels (Bignell 1994a). This projection assumes successful startup and operation of In-Tank Precipitation, Extended Sludge Processing, the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator, the New Waste Transfer Facility, and the Defense Waste Processing Facility, which are necessary to process the waste into borosilicate glass.
Approximately 3.03x104 cubic meters (8.0x106 gallons) of liquid high-level waste would continue to be stored in Type I, II, and IV tanks (older tanks with a greater potential for releasing waste into the environment) until waste removal operations were complete (Bignell 1994b). Additional tank capacity is reserved as a contingency in case scheduled surveillances reveal leaks in tanks or if a catastrophic failure were to occur. Should a situation arise that warranted it, alternative storage options, including constructing new tanks, would also be assessed and subjected to appropriate NEPA review. A detailed description of the tank farms is presented in AppendixB.13.
2.2.2.2 Waste Removal
In the Federal Facility Agreement (an agreement between DOE, EPA, and SCDHEC), DOE committed to removing wastes from older tanks that do not meet secondary containment requirements (Tanks 1 through 24). The high-level waste removal operations described in this eis would comply with the proposed plan and schedule provided under the Agreement. Under the no-action alternative, DOE would continue to remove waste from the older tanks that have the greatest potential for releases to the environment. All tanks would be empty by 2018. Under this alternative, activities would include removal of waste, water washing, and transferring tanks to a decontamination and decommissioning program. Completion of several key activities is necessary before waste removal can begin. These include putting the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator into operation, restarting and operating Extended Sludge Processing, and starting up and operating the New Waste Transfer Facility, In-Tank Precipitation, and the Defense Waste Processing Facility. A detailed discussion of waste removal operations as currently planned is presented under the tank farms facility description in Appendix B.13.
2.2.2.3 Continue Operating Existing High-Level Waste Evaporators
Under the no-action alternative, DOE would continue to operate the 2F and 2H evaporators. The primary goal of operating the two evaporators would be to reduce the current backlog of waste and ensure that there would be at least 1.14x104 cubic meters (3.01x106 gallons) of available tank space to receive recycled wastewater from the Defense Waste Processing Facility when that facility begins operating and maintain 4,900 cubic meters (1.29x106 gallons) of available space that is required to be held in reserve should a tank fail. After the Defense Waste Processing Facility begins operating, the 2F and 2H evaporators could not process waste fast enough to keep pace with the generation of recycled Defense Waste Processing Facility wastewater and other new waste. As a result of this shortfall in evaporation capacity, available space in the tank farms would decrease until the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator begins operating (targeted for May 1999) (WSRC 1994f). A detailed discussion of the existing evaporators is presented in Appendix B.13.
2.2.2.4 Continue Operating the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility
Under the no-action alternative, DOE would continue to operate the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility to support high-level waste processing. This facility discharges treated effluents to surface water in accordance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit and transfers concentrated waste to the Saltstone Manufacturing and Disposal facility for treatment and disposal. Additional treatment capacity would not be required for the additional wastes from treatment of high-level wastes over the 30-year period. Appendix B.10 describes the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility in detail.
2.2.2.5 Continue Constructing and Begin Operating the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator
Under the no-action alternative, DOE would complete construction of and operate the Replacement High- Level Waste Evaporator. A detailed discussion of the capabilities of the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator is presented in Appendix B.25. Operation of the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator would not be substantially different than operations of the existing high-level waste evaporators. The annual quantity of overheads processed and the characteristics of the materials handled would be similar to those of the existing evaporators.
Based on the 30-year waste forecast, the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator or another method of reclaiming tank sp