Appendix B
B.1 ALPHA VITRIFICATION FACILITY
OBJECTIVE:
The alpha vitrification facility
would provide treatment of nonmixed and mixed alpha waste
(10 to 100 nanocuries of transuranics per gram of waste)
and nonmixed and mixed transuranic waste
(greater than 100 nanocuries of transuranics per gram of waste).
The facility would have the ability to open drums of waste, perform
size reduction, produce a glass waste form suitable for disposal,
and treat secondary wastes.
DESCRIPTION:
An alpha vitrification facility
would treat nonmixed and mixed alpha waste and
transuranic waste. The facility would
have three main activities: preparation of waste for treatment,
primary waste treatment, and secondary waste treatment.
The alpha vitrification facility
would be located in E-Area. The facility would accept drummed
waste that has first been processed through the transuranic waste
characterization/certification facility.
In most cases the solid waste would be removed from the drum,
sorted by size, and shredded as needed to meet the vitrification
unit requirements. This would be accomplished using shredding
shears and/or bandsaws. If the radioactivity levels of the waste
were too high to maintain worker radiation levels as low as reasonably
achievable, the intact drum would be shredded without removing
the waste. Wastes would be combined with frit and additives and
sent to the thermal pretreatment unit. Under alternative C, the
facility would crush concrete culverts and sort concrete rubble
to separate alpha-contaminated rubble from reusable non-contaminated
rubble. Culverts that are not contaminated could be reused or
disposed of. A small amount of contaminated soil (mixed waste
soils) could be used as a frit substitute in the vitrification
process in an effort to recycle waste materials. The decision
to use mixed waste soils as frit would be based on the requirements
for the final glass waste form.
The facility would include a thermal pretreatment
unit to reduce the carbon content of the waste in order to increase
the quality of glass produced during vitrification,
prevent glass melt burping, and ensure Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) thermal treatment requirements are met. The
waste residue, or ash, would be vitrified (i.e., fused into a
solid waste matrix) in a high temperature melter. Gases produced
during the vitrification process would be sent through an afterburner
and an offgas treatment system. The afterburner would destroy
remaining organic compounds to meet RCRA standards prior to treatment
in an offgas system. The offgas system would filter the gases
to minimize the release of the remaining hazardous constituents
or particulates to the atmosphere. Liquids generated by the offgas
system would be evaporated and recondensed. The condensed evaporator
overheads would be sent to a dedicated wastewater
treatment unit for the treatment of mercury, trace
radionuclides, and other remaining hazardous materials. The closedloop
system would ensure that water would be returned to the offgas
system for reuse. The concentrate remaining after the liquid was
evaporated would be treated using stabilization techniques (Hess
1994a).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under the no-action alternative and alternative A,
the alpha vitrification facility
would not be constructed.
Under alternative B, only nonmetallic mixed-alpha
waste, plutonium238 waste
and high-activity plutonium-239 waste would be vitrified in the
facility. Where possible, metals would be separated from the plutonium-238
waste to remove the potential for gas generation problems. In
order to keep radiation exposure to workers
as low as reasonably achievable, it may not always be possible
to sort the wastes. Therefore, some drums may be shredded unopened,
resulting in metals in the melter. The output would be packages
of transuranic waste that would be sent
offsite for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
Under alternative C, prior to the operation
of the alpha vitrification facility,
alpha waste would be direct disposed or treated
in the Consolidated Incineration Facility.
Once operating, the remaining alpha and transuranic waste
volume would be vitrified. A minor portion of the output (less
than 10 percent) would be packages of alpha waste that would
be sent to shallow land disposal or
to RCRA-permitted disposal onsite. Most of the output would be
packages of transuranic waste that would be disposed offsite at
the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
In both alternatives B.and C, the vitrified and stabilized waste forms would be sent back to the transuranic waste characterization/certification facilityfor final certification before disposal.
The vitrification of solid waste
would achieve an average volume reduction ratio of 15 to 1. Liquid
waste would achieve an average volume reduction of 75 to 1. For
alternative C, the solid waste feed stream would contain
appreciable quantities of metal, yet it is assumed that vitrification
would still achieve an average volume reduction ratio of 15 to
1. This is because shredding bulky material would eliminate voids
and secondary liquid waste generated in the offgas system when
thermally treating metals would be much lower than that generated
when combustible material is processed (Hess 1994a).
The amounts and types of waste that would be treated
in the alpha vitrification facility
for each alternative and forecast is presented in Table B.11.
416 m3/yr | 559 m3/yr | 19,388 m3/yr | |
853 m3/yr | 1,177 m3/yr | 34,901 m3/yr | |
a. Source: Hess (1995a).
b. To convert to cubic feet, multiply by 35.31.
c. Metals would be removed when possible. The waste stream containing metals would be, for the most part, entirely metal, but other waste streams would not be free of metals because drums often cannot be opened and sorted due to high radiation levels.
B.2 AQUEOUS AND ORGANIC WASTE STORAGE TANKS
OBJECTIVE:
The aqueous and organic waste
storage tanks would provide
storage capacity for liquid mixed wastes.
DESCRIPTION:
DOE would need to construct two series of 114-cubic
meter (30,000-gallon) tanks in EArea. One tank series would
store mixed aqueous wastes, while the second tank series would
store mixed organic wastes. The aqueous waste
tanks would be similar in design and construction to the 114cubic
meter (30,000-gallon) solvent tanks planned in H-Area but would
be installed above grade. The organic waste tanks would be single-walled
tanks constructed in below-grade vaults. Each tank would be provided
with a leak-detection system, secondary containment, leak-collection
sump, overfill protection, waste agitation pumps, vent filtration
system, and inspection ports. Each tank would be secured to a
concrete pad or to anchors that would serve as a supporting foundation.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under the no-action alternative, DOE would need to
store large volumes of mixed aqueous and organic wastes.
DOE would add new tanks as needed to accommodate expected aqueous
and organic liquid waste generation over the next 30 years (Table B.2-1).
Based on DOE's 30-year expected waste forecast, approximately
4,850 cubic meters (1.28106 gallons) of mixed aqueous waste
would be generated over the 30-year period. The initial tank would
reach capacity in 1995. To accommodate mixed aqueous waste generation,
DOE would need to build an additional one or two tanks (depending
on waste generation rates) every year for the entire 30-year period.
Accordingly, a total of forty-three 114-cubic meter (30,000-gallon)
tanks would need to be constructed (Hess 1994b).
Based on DOE's 30-year expected waste forecast, approximately
2,900 cubic meters (7.68105 gallons) of mixed organic waste
would be generated over the 30-year period. The initial tank would
reach capacity in 2000, and the second tank would reach capacity
in the year 2001. Four additional tanks would need to be constructed by
the year 2003, and a new tank would need to be constructed every year until 2018.
From 2018 until 2024, a new tank would need to be constructed
every 1 or 2 years. A total of twenty-six 114-cubic meter (30,000-gallon)
tanks would need to be constructed over the entire 30-year period
(Hess 1994b).
For each of the other alternatives, adequate treatment capacity
would be available for the mixed aqueous and organic liquid waste
volumes in all waste forecasts. No additional tanks would be required.
Table B.2-1. New tanks needed to accommodate estimated aqueous and organic liquid waste forecast.a,b
4,850 m3 aqueous waste 43 tanks 2,900 m3 organic waste 25 tanks | |||
| Aqueous and organic wasteorganic waste storage tanksorganic waste storage tanks would not be required. | Aqueous and organic waste storage tanks would not be required. | Aqueous and organic waste storage tanks would not be required. | |
|
| Aqueous and organic waste tanks would not be required. | Aqueous and organic waste tanks would not be required. | Aqueous and organic waste tanks would not be required. |
|
| Aqueous and organic waste storage tanks would not be required. | Aqueous and organic waste storage tanks would not be required. | Aqueous and organic waste storage tanks would not be required. |
a. Source: Hess (1994b).
b. To convert to gallons, multiply by 264.2.
B.3 BURIAL GROUND SOLVENT TANKS
OBJECTIVE:
Burial Ground Solvent Tanks S23 through S30 store
spent solvent waste generated by the plutonium-uranium
extraction (PUREX) process that takes place in Savannah River
Site (SRS) separations facilities. Liquid waste solvent tanks
S33 through S36 would be constructed in H-Area to provide replacement
storage capacity for these wastes in October 1996, by which time
the existing solvent tanks must be removed from service.
DESCRIPTION:
There are eight interim-status storage tanks in E-Area,
of which two, S29 and S30, are currently used to store mixed solvent
wastes. Each tank is constructed of steel and can hold 95 cubic
meters (25,000 gallons) of waste. Each tank rests on four
steel saddles on top of a concrete slab. The slab.slopes to a
sump that collects liquid that could escape from the tank. These
tanks are used to store spent solvent (predominately tributyl
phosphate and nparaffin) from the PUREX process (enriched
uranium recovery process). This radioactive solvent may also contain
varying concentrations of lead, mercury, silver,
benzene, trichloroethylene, other organics, and an inorganic layer.
Future PUREX solvent waste generated from the separations facilities
would be radioactive but would not contain metal or organic contaminants
in sufficient concentrations to classify the solvent as a mixed
waste under RCRA. Mixed and low-level radioactive
PUREX solvent wastes would be managed in the same manner (WSRC
1990a).
Tanks S29 and S30 reach the end of their allowable service life in October 1996. At that time, replacement tanks would be required to extend storage capacity. DOE plans to construct four 114cubic meter (30,000-gallon) tanks in H-Area to replace Tanks S29 and S30. The replacement tanks would be buried, double-walled, and constructed of cathodically protected carbon steel. Each tank would have a leak-detection system, leak-collection sump, overfill protection, waste agitation pumps, common vent filtration system, and inspection ports. Each tank would be secured to a concrete anchor or pad that would serve as a supporting foundation and protect against flotation. Each tank's vent would be piped into a common stack or filter to capture volatile organic compounds and radionuclides (WSRC 1993a). The RCRA interim status storage capacity would be transferred from the existing solvent tanks to the four new tanks (WSRC 1994a).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under each of the alternatives, the contents of the
E-Area solvent tanks would be transferred to the four H-Area 114cubic
meter (30,000 gallon) tanks for storage [total capacity is 450
cubic meters (1.2´105
gallons)]. Table B.3-1 presents the volume of waste that would
be stored. The tanks currently store 120 cubic meters (31,700
gallons) of waste, and it is projected that an additional 307
cubic meters (81,200 gallons) of solvent waste would be generated
over the next 30 years, as follows: 54.5 cubic meters (14,400
gallons) in 1995 from the closure of tanks S23-S28, 15 cubic meters
(4,000 gallons) in 1997 from the closure of tanks S29 and S30;
151 cubic meters (40,000 gallons) in 2003 and 87 cubic
meters (23,000 gallons) in 2005 from deinventory of the SRS separations
facilities (Hess 1994c).
Table B.3-1. Estimated volume of waste stored in Burial Ground Solvent Tanks (cubic meters).a,b
(max storage) | |||
137 m3 (storage in 2024) | 137 m3 (storage in 2024) | 137 m3 (storage in 2024) | |
137 m3 (storage in 2024) | 137 m3 (storage in 2024) | ||
137 m3 (storage in 2024) |
a. Source: Hess (1994b).
b. To convert to gallons, multiply by 264.2.
B.4 COMPACTORS
OBJECTIVE:
Compactors provide a method to reduce
the volume of low-level waste, thereby increasing disposal capacity.
DESCRIPTION:
Low-activity waste is compacted in low-level waste
compactors in either H-Area, M-Area or L-Area
(WSRC 1993b, c). The H-Area compactor receives job.control waste
from separations facilities, Waste Management, Facilities and
Services, Reactors, Tritium, the Defense Waste Processing
Facility and Laboratories
(WSRC 1994b). The M-Area compactor processes primarily uranium-contaminated
job.control waste from M-Area facilities (WSRC 1993b). The L-Area
compactor compacts tritiated waste generated in reactor facilities
(K-, L-, P-, R-, C-, and 400-D-Areas).
The H-Area compactor and the M-Area compactor are
enclosed steel-box-container compactors with
vented high efficiency particulate air filter systems. Both compactors
receive 90 cubic feet steel containers of low-level waste. The
steel container is placed into an enclosed compactor unit and
its contents compacted. Cardboard boxes containing low-level waste
are manually added to the steel container and the contents recompacted.
This process is repeated until the compactor compression efficiency
limit is reached. The box compactor compression efficiency ratio
is 4 to 1 (Hess 1994a).
The L-Area compactor is a Container Products model
that includes the compactor, exhaust pre-filters, and high efficiency
particulate air filters. The compactor exhaust moves through a
duct into the main building exhaust and discharges from a permitted
stack. The compactor reduces the volume of bagged waste into 21-inch
cardboard boxes that are then placed into steel box containers
for disposal. The LArea compactor compression efficiency
ratio is 4 to 1.
Under the no-action alternative and alternative A,
DOE would operate the existing compactors at
their maximum capacities from the years 1995 until 2024 to compact
low-activity jobcontrol waste. Under alternative B, it is
assumed that DOE would operate the compactor only in 1995. DOE
would ship low-activity job.control waste offsite for treatment
by a commercial vendor beginning in fiscal year 1996. Under alternative
C, DOE would operate the compactors in 1995 at their maximum capacities.
In 1996, assuming the Consolidated Incineration
Facility begins operation,
DOE would treat incinerable job.control waste at that facility.
DOE would continue to compact waste that does not meet the Consolidated
Incineration Facility waste acceptance criteria; this material
is assumed to be 10 percent of the low-activity job.control waste
in a given year. Under alternative C, the existing compactors
would cease operation in the year 2005. DOE would then
vitrify low-activity job.control waste at the non-alpha vitrification
facility which would begin
operation in 2006.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Low-level waste management activities for the existing
compactors are shown in Table B.4-1.
Table B.4-1. Estimated volumes of waste compacted for each alternative (cubic meters).a,b
3,983m3/yr | |||
3,983 m3/yr | 3,983 m3/yr | 3,983 m3/yr | |
950 to 3,983 m3/yr | 1,199 to 3,983 m3/yr | 1,281 to 3,983 m3/yr |
a. Source: Hess (1994b).
b. To convert to cubic feet, multiply by 35.31.
B.5 CONSOLIDATED INCINERATION FACILITY
OBJECTIVE:
The Consolidated Incineration
Facility would provide
incineration capability for a wide range of
combustible hazardous, mixed, and lowlevel wastes. This
facility represents the consolidation of several separate SRS
incineration initiatives:
- a hazardous waste incinerator that would have provided incineration capability for SRS solid and liquid hazardous wastes
- a Defense Waste Processing Facility benzene incinerator that would have provided dedicated incineration capability for the benzene generated by the highlevel waste processing activities at the Defense Waste Processing Facility
- a hazardous waste incinerator upgrade that would accept SRS solid and liquid mixed wastes as well as solid and liquid nonhazardous, radioactive wastes
Further discussion of these initiatives and the basis
for development of the Consolidated Incineration
Facility can be found
in the Savannah River Site Consolidated
Incineration Facility Mission Need and Design Capacity Review
(WSRC 1993c).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) agreed to continue
its "fresh look" at operating the Consolidated Incineration
Facility in this environmental
impact statement (eis). Emissions and doses to workers and the
public from various waste-burning scenarios are presented independently
in this appendix chapter. These Consolidated Incineration Facility
emissions have been included in the analyses of each alternative
and waste forecast in the eis.
DESCRIPTION:
Incineration was selected because
it was the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)specified
technology or the best demonstrated available technology for many
SRS hazardous and mixed wastes, and it would
provide cost-effective volume reduction for lowlevel radioactive
wastes. The Consolidated Incineration Facility
would include processes to stabilize the incinerator solid waste
residues (ash) and offgas-scrubber-blowdown liquid with cement
into a form known as ashcrete for onsite disposal in accordance
with applicable regulations. A permit application to include stabilization
of the incinerator offgas-scrubber-blowdown liquid in the ashcrete
process has been submitted to applicable regulatory agencies.
Under the Federal Facility Compliance Act, DOE is
required to develop sitespecific plans to treat mixed wastes
to the standards established under RCRA. Incineration
is required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Land Disposal Restrictions regulations for the treatment of certain
SRS mixed wastes. The SRS Proposed Site Treatment Plan
(WSRC 1995) identified five SRS mixed waste streams for which
treatment by the Consolidated Incineration Facility
was determined to be the preferred option:
- Radiologically-contaminated solvents
- Solvent-contaminated debris
- Incinerable toxic characteristic material
- Defense Waste Processing Facility benzene
- Mixed waste oil - sitewide
These wastes were included in the Consolidated Incineration
Facility design basis
waste groups (WSRC 1990b). The proposed site treatment plan
identified nine additional mixed waste streams
that were not included in the design basis waste groups but for
which the Consolidated Incineration Facility was the preferred
option:
- Filter paper take-up rolls
- Mark 15 filter paper
- Paints and thinners
- Job.control waste containing solvent-contaminated wipes
- Tributyl phosphate and nparaffin
- Spent filter cartridges and carbon filter media
- Mixed waste from laboratory samples
- Wastewater from transuranic drum dewatering
- Plastic/lead/cadmium raschig rings
DOE's site treatment plan
options analyses also identified incineration
at SRS as the preferred treatment option for limited quantities
of mixed waste generated by Naval Reactors Program
sites (approximately 18 cubic meters over a 5year forecast
period). Incineration of these wastes has been
included in the analyses of this eis.
Final decisions regarding the treatment of these
wastes will be made in conjunction with ongoing negotiations with
the State of South Carolina pursuant to the Federal Facility Compliance
Act. Incineration at the Consolidated Incineration
Facility for the design
basis waste groups was considered in an Environmental Assessment
(DOE 1992) and Finding of No Significant Impact (57 FR 61402)
that established the NEPA basis for construction of the Consolidated
Incineration Facility.
The Consolidated Incineration
Facility main process
building (Building 261-H) would include areas for solid waste
receipt; solid waste handling; a rotary kiln incineration
system, including incinerator ash removal and treatment, and offgas
cleaning; and the necessary control room and support service facilities.
A system to solidify incinerator ash and offgas-scrubber-blowdown
would also be installed before operation.
The Consolidated Incineration
Facility would process
both liquid and solid wastes. Solid waste would be delivered in
cardboard boxes manually loaded onto a conveyor. The boxes would
pass through a portal monitor to determine if the radiation rate
of the box contents was below the maximum Consolidated Incineration
Facility waste acceptance criteria
of 10 millirem per hour at 3 inches. The boxes would be x-rayed
to ensure that materials unacceptable to the incineration
process were not present. Waste boxes would be assayed to ensure
that their curie content was in agreement with the waste manifest.
Boxes would be stored on the conveyor system before being fed
to the incinerator.
Liquid waste would be transported to the Consolidated
Incineration Facility
by various methods. Radioactive organic waste
(benzene) would be piped directly from the Defense Waste Processing
Facility for incineration.
Other liquid wastes would be transported in carboys, drums, or
tanker trucks to the Consolidated Incineration Facility tank farm
which consists of five tanks: a 25-cubic meter (6,500gallon)
aqueous waste tank, two 16-cubic meter (4,200-gallon) blend tanks,
a 25-cubic meter (6,500-gallon) spare tank, and a 48-cubic meter
(12,600-gallon) fuel oil tank. Dikes (secondary containment) to
contain accidental spills would be provided around the waste tanks,
fuel oil tank, and the truck unloading pads. Liquids collected
in sumps in the diked areas would be analyzed for contamination.
If contamination was found, the liquid would be pumped into the
aqueous waste tank for processing in the incinerator. Liquid wastes
from the tank farm would be blended to provide a solution with
a heating value, viscosity, and an ash and chlorine content that
would achieve stable combustion in the rotary kiln. Aqueous waste
may be blended with other liquids for incineration or be evaporated
in the incinerator, depending on the heating value of the liquid
and free water content. Additional Consolidated Incineration Facility-related
components would include a propane storage tank and two standby
diesel generators.
The incinerator system consists of a rotary kiln
primary incineration chamber and a secondary
combustion chamber. The system is designed to ensure a 99.99 percent
destruction and removal efficiency for each principle organic
hazardous constituent in accordance with RCRA regulations.
The secondary combustion chamber offgas (exhaust)
would be treated by a wet scrubbing system for acid gas control
and particulate removal to meet environmental regulations. The
offgas system consists of a quench system for temperature reduction;
a free-jet scrubber; a cyclone separator; a mist eliminator; a
reheater; high efficiency particulate air filters; induced draft
fans; and an exhaust stack. The offgas wet scrubber liquid chemistry
would be controlled to maintain suspended solids and chlorine
concentration limits. Concentration limits would be maintained
by emptying and refilling the offgas wet scrubber storage tank.
The scrubber liquid blowdown would be solidified in cement, in
the same manner as the incinerator ash, at the ashcrete stabilization
unit.
High efficiency particulate air filters are provided
for the container handling kiln feed, ashout areas exhaust vents,
and the kiln seal shroud exhaust. Stack monitoring equipment is
installed to monitor the discharge of chemical and radiological
materials.
The Consolidated Incineration
Facility is expected
to achieve a net volume reduction of 11 to 1 for lowlevel
job.control waste, 8 to 1 for other types of solid waste, and
40 to 1 for liquid waste, even considering the increase in volume
due to secondary waste stabilization. DOE would operate the Consolidated
Incineration Facility within design and permit mechanical and
thermal utilization limits. The mechanical design utilization
is based on a combination of waste throughput, waste forms, and
material handling requirements to physically accommodate waste
material feed. The thermal utilization is based on the amount
of heat that can be safely and effectively dissipated from the
incinerator.
Mechanical utilization limit is the hourly throughput rating. The annual operating capacity of the Consolidated Incineration Facility for liquid waste would be approximately 4,630 cubic meters (1.63105 cubic feet) per year at 70 percent attainment and for solid waste, approximately 17,830 cubic meters (6.3105 cubic feet) per year at 50 percent attainment (WSRC 1993c). The incinerator liquidwastefeedsystem design is based on a high heating value (i.e., organics) liquid waste flow rate of 687 pounds per hour and low heating value (i.e., aqueous) liquid waste flow rate of 950 pounds per hour. The incinerator is designed to incinerate an annual average of 720 pounds per hour of solid waste, based on the total heating value and ash content of the solid waste (WSRC 1993d). Modifications to the
Consolidated Incineration Facility's
waste handling systems are assumed to increase the solids handling
capacity to the following:
- 961 pounds per hour for alternative B.- minimum waste forecast
- 2,285 pounds per hour for alternative A - expected waste forecast
- 11,251 pounds per hour for alternative A - maximum
waste forecast
The ashout and ash stabilization systems would also
be modified for alternative A (all waste forecasts) and alternative
B.- minimum waste forecast to handle the larger throughputs associated
with soils incineration (Blankenhorn
1995).
Thermal utilization limits are expressed in terms
of British thermal units (amount of energy required to raise the
temperature of one pound of water from 58.5 degrees Fahrenheit
to 59.5 degrees Fahrenheit) per hour. The maximum feed rate is
determined by the combined heat release of the waste forms and
auxiliary fuel oil. The maximum thermal release rating for the
Consolidated Incineration Facility
rotary kiln system is limited to about 13 million British thermal
units per hour. The maximum thermal release rating for the secondary
combustion chamber is about 5 million British thermal units per
hour. The Consolidated Incineration Facility is limited to an
approximate thermal capacity of 18 million British thermal units
per hour.
DOE has submitted a permit application to operate the Consolidated
Incineration Facility
to segregate and incinerate listed hazardous and mixed wastes
separately from characteristic-only hazardous wastes
and nonhazardous wastes. It is assumed that treating hazardous,
mixed, and mixed alpha waste in the Consolidated
Incineration Facility would result in 70 percent secondary waste
disposal in RCRA-permitted disposal vaults and 30 percent secondary
waste disposal in shallow land disposal. It is also assumed that
low-level and non-mixed alpha waste treatment would result in
100 percent secondary waste disposal in shallow land disposal.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
The volumes of waste that would be treated by the Consolidated Incineration Facility for each alternative and waste forecast are shown in Table B.5-1. The table also identifies the percentage of the Consolidated Incineration Facility's mechanical or thermal operating limits (whichever is most critical) represented by the waste feeds evaluated for each alternative and forecast.
Under the no-action alternative, the Consolidated
Incineration Facility
would not operate.
Alternative A - For all
three waste forecasts, hazardous and mixed wastes
would be treated at the Consolidated Incineration
Facility. Mixed wastes
would include mixed waste requiring size reduction, Defense Waste
Processing Facility benzene,
organic liquid, radioactive oil, PUREX solvent, paint wastes,
composite filters, aqueous liquids, organic and inorganic sludges,
contaminated soils, and spent decontamination solution
from the containment building. Hazardous waste
would include composite filters, paint waste, organic liquids,
and aqueous liquids.
The Consolidated Incineration
Facility capacity for
treating soils is limited by the feed, ash-out, and
ash stabilization system. The rotary kiln and offgas system are
capable of treating large volumes of soil because the thermal
energy requirements and offgas flow rates for soil are much less
than for combustible solids and liquids. Under alternative A,
DOE would modify the Consolidated Incineration Facility by the
year 2006 to process large volumes of mixed waste
soil by installing new feed, material handling, ash-out, and ash
stabilization systems to treat approximately 750 cubic meters
(26,500 cubic feet) to 13,900 cubic meters (4.9105 cubic
feet) of soils per year (Hess 1995a). The Consolidated Incineration
Facility is expected to achieve a net volume increase of 1 to
3 for soils due to the increase in volume resulting from secondary
waste stabilization.
Under the maximum waste forecast, spent decontamination
solutions from the containment building would
not go directly to the Consolidated Incineration
Facility because volumes
would be too large and would require treatment by a wastewater
treatment facility. Solid (1 percent) and liquid (5 percent)
residuals from the wastewater treatment process would be incinerated.
Alternative B - For all
three waste forecasts, hazardous, mixed, and low-level wastes
would be treated at the Consolidated Incineration
Facility. Mixed wastes
would include mixed waste requiring size reduction,
Defense Waste Processing Facility benzene,
organic liquid, radioactive oil, PUREX solvent, paint wastes,
composite filters, aqueous liquids, and spent decontamination
solution from the containment building. Hazardous waste would
include composite filters, paint waste, organic liquids, and aqueous
liquids. Low-level waste would include low-activity and tritiated
job.control wastes.
Under the minimum waste forecast, mixed waste
soils and sludges would be incinerated because there
is insufficient volume of these wastes to warrant construction
of other facilities. DOE would modify the Consolidated Incineration
Facility by 2006 to process
large volumes of soil by installing new feed, material handling,
ash-out, and ash stabilization systems to treat approximately
750 cubic meters (26,500 cubic feet) per year of soils (Hess 1995a).
Under the maximum waste forecast, spent decontamination
solutions from the containment building would
not go directly to the Consolidated Incineration
Facility because volumes
would be too large and would require treatment by a wastewater
treatment facility. Solid (1 percent) and liquid (5 percent) residuals
from the wastewater treatment process would be incinerated.
Alternative C - Hazardous,
mixed, alpha, and low-level wastes would be treated at the Consolidated
Incineration Facility.
Mixed wastes would include mixed waste
requiring size reduction, Defense Waste Processing Facility
benzene, organic liquid, radioactive oil, PUREX solvent, paint
wastes, composite filters, and aqueous liquids. Hazardous waste
would include composite filters, paint waste, organic liquids,
and aqueous liquids. Alpha waste would include
mixed and nonmixed wastes. Low-level waste would include low-activity
and tritiated job.control wastes. The Consolidated Incineration
Facility would cease operating in 2005 in this alternative.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS:
The consequences of the incineration
of hazardous, mixed, and low-level radioactive wastes at the Consolidated
Incineration Facility
under alternative B.are described in Table B.5-2. Alternative
B.provides bounding impacts with respect to operations of the
Consolidated Incineration Facility because the facility would
operate throughout the 30-year analysis period (compared to alternative C
in which the facility would be replaced by the non-alpha vitrification
facility in 2006) and would
burn low-level, hazardous, and mixed wastes (compared to only
hazardous and mixed wastes under alternative A). The impacts resulting
from the incineration of hazardous and mixed wastes have been
identified separately from those associated with incineration
of low-level wastes.
| The Consolidated IncinerationIncineration FacilityConsolidated Incineration Facility would not operate under the no-action alternative. | |||
|
A | Solids (337 m3 per year) 5,214 m3 mixed 4, 561 m3 hazardous Liquids (1,188 m3 per year) 29,480 m3 mixed 4,967 m3 hazardous SoilsSoils (754 m3 per year) 14,324 m3 mixed 74% of solids handling capacityb 23% of aqueous liquids capacityc 40% of organic liquids capacityd | Solids (654 m3 per year)
10,633 m3 mixed 8,346 m3 hazardous Liquids (2,008 m3 per year) 49,436 m3 mixed 8,809 m3 hazardous SoilsSoils (2,790 m3 per year) 52,999 m3 mixed 85% of solids handling capacityb 37% of aqueous liquids capacityc 77% of organic liquids capacityd | Solids (964 m3 per year) (3%)
15,346 m3 mixed 12,617 m3 hazardous Liquids (1,234 m3 per year) 22,793 m3 mixed 12,990 m3 hazardous SoilsSoils (13,897 m3 per year) 264,036 m3 mixed 85% of solids handling capacityb 15% of aqueous liquids capacityc 61% of organic liquids capacityd |
B | Solids (7,317 m3 per year) 178,329 m3 low-level 19,743 m3 mixed 14,121 m3 hazardous Liquids (937 m3 per year) 22,210 m3 mixed 4,967 m3 hazardous SoilsSoils (780 m3 per year) 14,324 m3 mixed 84% of solids handling capacityb 18% of aqueous liquids capacityc 29% of organic liquids capacityd | Solids (9,456 m3 per year)
213,536 m3 low-level 33,594 m3 mixed 27,090 m3 hazardous Liquids (1,572 m3 per year) 36,784 m3 mixed 8,809 m3 hazardous 78% of CIF thermal capacitye | Solids (15,412 m3 per year) 307,468 m3 low-level 99,901 m3 mixed 39,589 m3 hazardous Liquids (1,179 m3 per year) 21,201 m3 mixed 12,990 m3 hazardous 98% of CIF thermal capacitye |
C | Solids (6,746 m3 per year) 56,605 m3 low-level 7,042 m3 mixed 3,497 m3 hazardous 318 m3 alpha
Liquids (708 m3 per year) | Solids (8,961 m3 per year) 72,718 m3 low-level 11,999 m3 mixed 4,199 m3 hazardous 694 m3 alpha Liquids (861 m3 per year) 4,100 m3 mixed 4,507 m3 hazardous 56% of CIF thermal capacitye | Solids (15,064 m3 per year)
79,311 m3 low-level 65,993 m3 mixed 4,658 m3 hazardous 680 m3 alpha Liquids (1,095 m3 per year) 6,167 m3 mixed 4,779 m3 hazardous 89% of CIF thermal capacitye |
a. Source: Hess (1995a,b); Blankenhorn (1995).
b. Percent of Consolidated Incineration Facility annual mechanical operating capacity for solids (including soilssoils).
c. Percent of Consolidated Incineration Facility annual mechanical operating capacity for aqueous liquids.
d. Percent of Consolidated Incineration Facility annual mechanical operating capacity for organic liquids.
e. Percent of Consolidated Incineration Facility annual thermal operating capacity.
Table B.5-2. Summary of impacts from the operation of the Consolidated Incineration Facility (CIF) under alternative B.a
| MW/HWb,c
33,518 m3 to RCRA-permitted disposal 14,366 m3 to shallow land disposal | MW/HW
6,108 m3 to RCRA-permitted disposal 2,618 m3 to shallow land disposal | MW/HW
12,803 m3 to RCRA-permitted disposal 5,488 m3 to shallow land disposal |
| LLWd
16,212 m3 to shallow land disposal | LLW 19,412 m3 to shallow land disposal | LLW
27,952 m3 to shallow land disposal |
| MW/HW
134´106 pounds | MW/HW
111´106 pounds | MW/HW
85´106 pounds |
| LLW
13.2´106 pounds | LLW
15.8´106 pounds | LLW
22.8´106 pounds |
| MW/HW
0.00352 millirem 1.76´10-9 probability of an excess fatal cancer | MW/HW
0.00452 millirem 2.26´10-9 probability of an excess fatal cancer | MW/HW
0.00783 millirem 3.91´10-9 probability of an excess fatal cancer |
| LLW
0.00528 millirem
2.64´10-9 probability of an
| LLW
0.00641 millirem
3.21´10-9 probability of an
| LLW
0.0159 millirem
7.97´10-9 probability of an
|
| Total
0.00880 millirem
4.40´10-9 probability of an
| Total 0.0109 millirem
5.47´10-9 probability of an
| Total
0.0237 millirem
1.19´10-8 probability of an
|
| MW/HW
0.207 person-rem
1.03´10-4 number of
| MW/HW
0.268 person-rem
1.34´10-4 number of
| MW/HW 0.466 person-rem
2.33´10-4 number of
|
| LLW 0.313 person-rem
1.57´10-4 number of
| LLW
0.379 person-rem
1.90´10-4 number of
| LLW
0.783 person-rem
3.91´10-4 number of
|
| Total
0.520 person-rem 2.60´10-4 number of additional fatal cancers | Total
0.647 person-rem 3.24´10-4 number of additional fatal cancers | Total
1.25 person-rem 6.24´10-4 number of additional fatal cancers |
Table B.5-2. (continued).
| MW/HW
0.0693 millirem
3.47´10-8 probability of an
| MW/HW 0.0900 millirem
4.50´10-8 probability of an
| MW/HW
0.157 millirem
7.84´10-8 probability of an
|
| LLW 0.106 millirem 5.28´10-8 probability of an excess fatal cancer | LLW
0.127 millirem
6.33´10-8 probability of an
| LLW
0.179 millirem
8.97´10-8 probability of an
|
| Total 0.0175 millirem
8.75´10-8 probability of an
| Total
0.217 millirem
1.08´10-7 probability of an
| Total
0.336 millirem
1.68´10-7 probability of an
|
| MW/HW
0.200 person-rem
1.00´10-7 number of
| MW/HW
0.260 person-rem
1.30´10-7 number of
| MW/HW
0.452 person-rem
2.26´10-7 number of
|
| LLW 0.302 person-rem
1.51´10-7 number of
| LLW
0.366 person-rem
1.83´10-7 number of
| LLW
0.666 person-rem
3.33´10-7 number of
|
| Total 0.502 person-rem
2.51´10-7 number of
| Total
0.626 person-rem
3.13´10-7 number of
| Total
1.12 person-rem
5.59´10-7 number of
|
| MW/HW
112 millirem
4.48´10-5 probability of an
| MW/HW 146 millirem
5.84´10-5 probability of an
| MW/HW
256 millirem
1.02´10-4 probability of an
|
| LLW
169 millirem
6.77´10-5 probability of an
| LLW 205 millirem
8.19´10-5 probability of an
| LLW
234 millirem
9.37´10-5 probability of an
|
| Total 281 millirem
1.13´10-4 probability of an
| Total
351 millirem
1.40´10-4 probability of an
| Total
490 millirem
1.96´10-4 probability of an
|
Table B.5-2. (continued).
| MW/HW
2.91 person-rem
0.00117 number of | MW/HW
3.80 person-rem
0.00152 number of | MW/HW
6.66 person-rem
0.00266 number of |
| LLW 4.40 person-rem
0.00176 number of | LLW
5.32 person-rem
0.00213 number of | LLW
6.09 person-rem
0.00244 number of |
| Total 7.31 person-rem
0.00293 number of | Total
9.12 person-rem
0.00365 number of | Total
12.8 person-rem
0.00510 number of |
a. Source: Hess (1995b). Waste disposal volumes and fuel consumption are for the entire 30-year analysis period.
b. MW/HW = mixed waste/hazardous waste.
c. Stabilized ash and blowdown volumes assume that 70 percent of hazardous/mixed waste residues require RCRApermitted disposal, 30 percent can be sent to shallow land disposal.
d. LLW = low-level waste.
e. Auxiliary fuel oil consumption based on categorization
of each waste type by soils, solids, and high and
low Btucontent liquids. Fuel oil consumption is calculated
based on each waste category being incinerated separately.
f. Includes emissions of dioxins (Mullholland et al. 1994) and products of incomplete combustion from the Consolidated Incineration Facility.
g. Average annual dose and probability of fatal cancer obtained by dividing the 30-year dose and associated probability by 29.
h. Direct exposure scaled to cesium-137. Direct exposure is normalized to the expected case average exposure provided by Hess (1994d).
i. Number of additional fatal cancers are per year of Consolidated Incineration Facility operation.
B.6 CONTAINMENT BUILDING (HAZARDOUS WASTE/MIXED WASTE TReaTMENT BUILDING)
OBJECTIVE:
At one time, the Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Treatment
Building project was to provide a RCRA-permitted facility for
the treatment of hazardous and mixed wastes
that could not be treated to meet land disposal restrictions standards
in other existing or planned facilities at SRS. The Hazardous
Waste/Mixed Waste Treatment Building would have provided a facility
in which wastes were processed into waste forms suitable for disposal.
The facility would have also repackaged some waste streams for
shipment to other SRS treatment facilities such as the Consolidated
Incineration Facility.
Changes in the applicable regulatory requirements and to the mission
of SRS have prompted DOE to re-evaluate the current scope and
design of the Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Treatment Building.
This facility has not yet been constructed.
Many treatment processes originally planned for the
treatment building could be performed in existing SRS facilities
in accordance with RCRA containment building regulations.
Design features of a containment building include:
- walls, floor, and roof to prevent exposure to
the elements
- primary barrier, such as the floor of a process
area, or process tankage that is resistant to the hazardous materials
contained therein
- secondary containment system, in addition to
the primary barrier, for hazardous liquid materials (the containment
building itself may act as secondary
containment to the tanks within)
- leak detection system between the primary barrier
and secondary containment system
- liquid collection and removal system
A containment building (as
defined by RCRA) must be constructed and operated to:
- ensure that the containment building is maintained free of cracks, corrosion, or other defects that could allow hazardous materials to escape
- control the inventory of hazardous material within
the containment walls so that the height of the containment wall
is not exceeded
- provide a decontamination area for personnel
and equipment to prevent spreading hazardous materials outside
the containment building
- control fugitive emissions
- promptly repair conditions that could result
in a release of hazardous waste
DESCRIPTION:
The SRS Proposed Site Treatment Plan identified
several preferred treatment options that could be carried out
in existing SRS facilities in accordance with RCRA containment
building standards. These treatment
options include:
- two 90-day generator treatments at the Savannah
River Technology Center that would discharge
treatment residuals to the Mixed Waste Storage Tanks
- macroencapsulation (in
a welded stainless steel box) of silver saddles at a separations
canyon building
- macroencapsulation (by
polymer coating) of mixed waste lead and contaminated
debris by an onsite vendor at an unspecified location
- macroencapsulation (in
a welded stainless steel box) at the tritium facilities
of mercury-contaminated equipment and a mercury-contaminated
recorder
- size reduction of filter paper take-up rolls
in preparation for treatment at the Consolidated Incineration
Facility
- decontamination and macroencapsulation
(in a welded stainless steel box) of high-level waste sludge and
supernatant-contaminated debris at the Building
299-H decontamination facility that would discharge spent decontamination
solutions to the high-level waste tank farms.
Low volume and/or one-time generation wastes would
be treated at existing SRS facilities as indicated in the SRS
draft site treatment plan. Approximately
1,703 cubic meters (4.49 105 gallons) of mixed waste
would be treated at these facilities, 63 percent of which would
be high-level waste sludge and supernatant-contaminated
debris that requires decontamination or macroencapsulation.
The 30-year waste forecast for this eis identified larger quantities
of mixed waste lead than those anticipated in the 5year
waste forecast used to develop the SRS proposed site treatment
plan. As a result of the increased volume, a dedicated waste management
facility has been proposed to treat mixed waste lead.
DOE proposes in this eis to construct a containment
building as a self-contained facility
to accommodate waste quantities too large to be managed within
existing SRS facilities or for which an existing facility that
conforms to RCRA containment building standards cannot be identified.
The eis has identified several additional treatments that could
be performed in such a containment building. These include:
- physical and chemical decontamination of debris,
equipment, and nonradioactive lead wastes
- macroencapsulation (in
a welded stainless steel box) of debris
- macroencapsulation (by
polymer coating) of radioactive lead
- wet chemical oxidation of reactive metals
- roasting and retorting of mercury-contaminated
equipment and amalgamation of the elemental
mercury
DOE proposes to construct a containment buildingfor
the decontamination and treatment of hazardous and/or mixed wastes.
This building would begin operation in 2006. The activities to
be conducted in the containment building are identical under alternatives
A and B. Under alternative C, the containment building would operate
differently.
Alternatives A and B
Under alternatives A and B, the containment buildingwould
be designed with five separate processing bays. The activities
to be conducted in each of the bays are as follows: (1) container
opening/content sorting, (2) size reduction, (3) decontamination,
(4) macroencapsulation, and (5) repackaging/waste
characterization. Each bay would contain the necessary equipment
to conduct the respective activities. Waste would be processed
through each bay as was necessary to properly handle each individual
waste type. If processing associated with a particular bay is
not required for a specific waste, the bay would be bypassed.
The container opening/content sorting bay would contain
equipment to help facilitate the opening of mixed waste
containers. Once the container was opened, the contents would
be removed and hand sorted by size. Materials that need to be
further reduced in size for treatment/decontamination would be
separated from those that are already small enough for treatment/decontamination.
Mixed wastes would be sorted using gloveboxes.
Wastes requiring size reduction would be sent to the size reduction
bay. This bay would contain equipment such as shredder shears
and bandsaws that would be used to reduce the size of waste for
subsequent processing.
Mixed waste such as bulk equipment
and debris would be decontaminated in the decontamination bay
using technologies such as degreasing, water washing, and/or carbon
dioxide blasting. This bay would contain the necessary equipment
to implement the selected decontamination technologies. Spent
decontamination solutions would be collected in a tank truck for
treatment onsite. Mixed wastes that are decontaminated (i.e.,
the hazardous component of the waste has been removed) would be
reclassified as low-activity equipment waste and would be managed
in accordance with the proposed alternatives for that treatability
group. Wastes that are not decontaminated would continue on to
the macroencapsulation bay for further
processing.
Two types of macroencapsulation
would be conducted in the macroencapsulation bay. The first macroencapsulation
process would be for debris and bulk equipment that could not
be successfully decontaminated. The debris and bulk equipment
would be macroencapsulated by packaging it in stainless steel
boxes that would then be welded shut. The second macroencapsulation
process would be for mixed waste lead, debris,
and bulk equipment. The lead would not have been sent to the decontamination
bay in the previous step, but, rather would be sent directly from
the container opening/content sorting bay or the size reduction
bay to the macroencapsulation bay. The lead, debris and bulk equipment
would be macroencapsulated by coating the surface with a polymer.
Mixed waste that is macroencapsulated would
be able to be disposed in RCRA-permitted disposal vaults because
it would meet the applicable land disposal restriction treatment
standards under the debris rule.
The fifth bay would be the packaging bay. This bay
would house equipment to facilitate the packaging of waste into
a waste container. Wastes would either be packaged for onsite
disposal as a mixed waste (i.e., if macroencapsulated)
or packaged for transportation to the applicable low-level waste
facility for further processing if successfully decontaminated
(Hess 1994a).
For alternatives A and B, it is estimated that approximately
80 percent of the incoming debris and bulk equipment waste would
be successfully decontaminated and that 20 percent would need
to be macroencapsulated prior to disposal. Additionally, it is
estimated that the quantity of spent decontamination solutions
generated during decontamination procedures would be equal to
50 percent of the influent waste volume (Hess 1994b).
Alternative C
The major differences between the containment buildingproposed
under alternative C and that proposed under alternatives A and
B.are the inclusion of:
- roasting, retorting, and amalgamation
(see glossary) of mercury and mercury-contaminated
wastes
- wet chemical oxidation of reactive metals
- debris and equipment that could not be decontaminated
would be transferred to the non-alpha vitrification
facility instead of treated
by macroencapsulation
- nonradioactive materials would be separated into
lead and non-lead components by a combination of physical and
chemical separation techniques
- radioactive lead would be treated at the non-alpha vitrification facility instead of macroencapsulated by polymer coating at the containment building
The containment building would
process both hazardous and mixed wastes under
alternative C.
Under alternative C, the containment building would
be designed with six separate processing bays as follows: (1)
container opening/content sorting, (2) size reduction/physical
separation, (3) roasting/retorting and amalgamation,
(4) wet chemical oxidation, (5) decontamination, and (6) repackaging/waste
characterization. As discussed for alternatives A and B, waste
would be processed through each bay as necessary to properly handle
each individual type of waste. If processing associated with a
particular bay is not required for a specific waste, the bay would
be bypassed. Each bay would contain the necessary equipment to
conduct the respective activities.
The container opening/content sorting bay and the
size reduction/physical separation bay would have the same function
as discussed above. Hazardous and mixed waste
containers would be opened and their contents sorted by size.
Hazardous wastes would be sorted on tables,
while mixed wastes would be sorted using glove boxes. Wastes requiring
size reduction would be sent to the size reduction/physical separation
bay. Additionally, hazardous waste that
contains lead would be separated into lead and nonlead components
by cutting or disassembling the lead-containing waste items (e.g.,
removing lead components such as solder or washers from a piece
of equipment). After sorting, dismantling, and/or size reduction,
hazardous waste lead would not be further processed in the containment
building; instead, it would be sent directly to the last bay for
repackaging (Hess 1994a).
Approximately 48 cubic meters (1,700 cubic feet)
of pumps that contain mercury would be sent to the
third bay for roasting and retorting. The mercury that is captured
during the process and additional elemental mercury wastes would
be amalgamated to meet the land disposal restrictions treatment
standards. The amalgamated mercury would be approximately 1 cubic
meter (264 gallons) in volume and would be able to be disposed
of at the RCRA-permitted disposal vaults. The metal pumps would
be reclassified as a low-level waste and would need no further
treatment (Hess 1994b).
Approximately 5 cubic meters (170 cubic feet) of the hazardous and mixed waste metal debris that would be sent to the containment building contains reactive metals. This waste would be treated in the fourth bay by wet chemical oxidation to eliminate the reactivity in accordance with the land disposal restrictions treatment standards. Liquid residuals that are generated during the wet chemical oxidation process, approximately 15 cubic meters (530 cubic feet), would be collected in a tank truck for treatment at the non-alpha vitrificationfacility(Hess 1994b).
Bulk equipment and debris would be decontaminated
in the fifth bay using technologies such as degreasing, water
washing, and/or carbon dioxide blasting. No hazardous lead wastes
would be sent to the decontamination bay. Decontamination solutions
would be collected in a tank truck for treatment at the non-alpha
vitrification facility.
Mixed wastes that are successfully decontaminated
(i.e., the hazardous component of the waste has been removed)
would be reclassified as low-activity equipment waste and managed
in accordance with the proposed alternatives for that treatability
group. Hazardous wastes that are successfully
decontaminated would be recycled. Wastes that are not successfully
decontaminated would require further onsite processing.
Wastes would be packaged in the sixth bay. This bay
would have equipment to facilitate the packaging of waste from
the various bays into a waste container. Mixed wastes
that are successfully treated and/or decontaminated (i.e., the
hazardous component of the waste has been removed) and the pumps
that were roasted/retorted would be reclassified as low-level
waste and would be packaged for transport to an onsite low-level
waste disposal facility. Amalgamated mercury would
be packaged for disposal at RCRA-permitted disposal vaults. Mixed
wastes that are not treated and/or decontaminated (i.e., the hazardous
component of the waste still remains), hazardous wastes
that are not decontaminated, and the dismantled lead hazardous
wastes would be repackaged for further processing onsite. Hazardous
waste metals that are decontaminated would
be reused onsite as a substitute for a new product or would be
sold as scrap (Hess 1994a).
Under alternative C, it is estimated that approximately
80 percent of the hazardous and mixed waste
would be able to be decontaminated. It is estimated that the quantity
of spent decontamination solutions generated during decontamination
procedures for both hazardous and mixed wastes would be equal
to 50 percent of the influent waste volume to the decontamination
unit (Hess 1994b).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under the no-action alternative, the containment
building would not be constructed.
For each alternative, Table B.6-1 presents the volume
of wastes to be decontaminated and macroencapsulated.
Alternative A - For each
forecast, only mixed waste would be treated
in the containment building. The following mixed waste treatability
groups would be processed: glass debris, metal debris, equipment,
lead, heterogeneous debris, inorganic debris, organic debris,
and composite filters.
Alternative B - Only mixed
waste would be treated in the containment building.
The following mixed waste treatability groups would be processed:
glass debris, metal debris, bulk equipment, lead, heterogeneous
debris, inorganic debris, and organic debris.
In the maximum forecasts of alternatives A and B,
the volume of spent decontamination solution would exceed the
available treatment capacity for this waste at the Consolidated
Incineration Facility.
The containment building would be modified
to include a wastewater treatment unit to treat
the spent decontamination solutions. The wastewater treatment
process would result in a liquid residual, a solid residual, and
the remainder which would be discharged to a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permitted outfall. The liquid and
solid residuals from the wastewater treatment unit would be treated
at the Consolidated Incineration Facility.
Alternative C - Both hazardous
waste and mixed waste
would be processed in the containment building. Hazardous waste
treatability groups to be decontaminated and/or treated include
metal debris (some of which is reactive), bulk equipment, and
lead. Mixed waste treatability groups to be
decontaminated and/or treated include metal debris (some of which
is reactive), bulk equipment, elemental mercury and
mercury-contaminated process equipment.
| the containment building containment buildingwould not be constructed | |||
|
| 40,601 m3 decontaminated
(2,136 m3 annually)
9,439 m3 macroencapsulated | 76,983 m3 decontaminated
(4,052 m3 annually)
18,419 m3 macroencapsulated | 275,684 m3 decontaminated
(14,510 m3 annually)
62,803 m3 macroencapsulated mixed wastemixed waste only |
mixed wastemixed waste only | mixed wastemixed waste only | 137,842 m3 decontamination
solution | |
|
| 26,062 m3 decontaminated
(1,372 m3 annually)
6,531 m3 macroencapsulated | 51,680 m3 decontaminated
(2,720 m3 annually)
13,358 m3 macroencapsulated | 185,468 m3 decontaminated
(11,000 m3 annually)
39,896 m3 macroencapsulated mixed wastemixed waste only |
mixed wastemixed waste only | mixed wastemixed waste only | 92,734 m3 decontamination
solution | |
|
| 11,120 m3 MW decontaminatedd
(586 m3 annually)
3,977 m3 HW decontaminatedd
| 23,409 m3 MW decontaminatedd
(1,233 m3 annually)
13,743 m3 HW decontaminatedd
| 86,088 m3 MW decontaminatedd
(4,700 m3 annually)
24,325 m3 HW decontaminatedd
|
a. Source: Hess (1995a).
b. To convert to gallons, multiply by 264.2.
c. Treated in the Consolidated Incineration Facility.
d. Waste volumes MW = mixed waste; HW = hazardous waste.
B.7 DEFENSE WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY
OBJECTIVE:
The Defense Waste Processing Facility
is a system for treatment of high-level radioactive waste
at SRS. Defense Waste Processing Facility refers to high-level
waste pre-treatment processes, the Vitrification
Facility, Saltstone Manufacturing and Disposal, radioactive glass
waste storage facilities, and associated support facilities. The
process used to recover uranium and plutonium
from production reactor fuel and target assemblies in the chemical
separations areas at SRS resulted in liquid high-level radioactive
waste. This waste, which now amounts to approximately 131 million
liters (3.46´107
gallons), is stored in underground tanks in the F- and H-Areas
near the center of SRS. After its introduction into the tanks,
the high-level waste settles, separating into a sludge layer at
the bottom of the tanks and an upper layer of soluble salts dissolved
in water (supernatant). The evaporation of the
supernatant creates a third waste form, crystallized saltcake,
in the tanks. See the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement Defense Waste Processing Facility (DOE 1994a) for
details.
The Defense Waste Processing Facility
is designed to incorporate the highly radioactive waste constituents
into borosilicate glass in a process called vitrification
and seal the radioactive glass in stainless steel canisters for
eventual disposal at a permanent Federal repository located deep
within a stable geologic (e.g., rock) formation.
DESCRIPTION:
The Defense Waste Processing Facility
system includes processes and associated facilities and structures
located in H-, S-, and Z-Areas near the center of SRS. The major
parts of the Defense Waste Processing Facility system are listed
below:
Pre-treatment (H-Area)
- Pre-treatment processes and associated facilities to prepare
highlevel waste
for incorporation into glass at the Vitrification
Facility, including:
- Extended Sludge Processing - a washing process,
carried out in selected HArea high-level waste tanks, to
remove aluminum hydroxide and soluble salts from the high-level
waste sludge. The facility is built, and the process is presently
being tested.
- In-Tank Precipitation - a process in HArea
to remove cesium through precipitation with sodium
tetraphenylborate and strontium and plutonium
through sorption onto the sodium titanate solids from the highly
radioactive salt solution. The precipitate would be treated by
the late wash process; the low radioactivity salt solution that
remains would be sent to the Saltstone Manufacturing and Disposal
Facility. The In-Tank Precipitation facility is constructed, and
testing is nearly complete.
- Late Wash - a process to wash the highly radioactive
precipitate resulting from In-Tank Precipitation to remove a chemical
(sodium nitrite) that could potentially interfere with operations
in the Vitrification Facility. This HArea
facility is presently being designed and constructed.
Vitrification Facility and associated support facilities and structures (S-Area) - These facilities include:
- Vitrification Facility -
a large building that contains processing equipment to immobilize
the highly radioactive sludge and precipitate portions of the
high-level waste in borosilicate glass. The sludge and precipitate
are treated chemically, mixed with frit (finely ground glass),
melted, and poured into stainless steel canisters that are then
welded shut. The facility is presently constructed and undergoing
startup testing.
- Glass Waste Storage Buildings - buildings for
interim storage of the radioactive glass waste canisters in highly
shielded concrete vaults located below ground level. One building
is completed; one building is in the planning stage.
- Chemical Waste Treatment Facility
- an industrial waste treatment facility that neutralizes nonradioactive
wastewater from bulk chemical storage areas and
nonradioactive process areas of the Vitrification
Facility. This facility is constructed and in operation.
- Failed Equipment Storage Vaults - shielded concrete vaults that would be used for interim storage of failed melters and possibly other process equipment that are too radioactive to allow disposal at existing onsite disposal facilities. These vaults would be used until permanent disposal facilities can be developed. Two vaults are nearly constructed; four more vaults are planned for the near future. DOE estimates that a total of approximately 14 vaults would be needed to accommodate wastes generated during the 24-year operating period covered under the Defense Waste Processing Facility Supplemental eis.
- Organic Waste Storage Tank - A 568,000-liter
(150,000-gallon) capacity aboveground tank that stores liquid
organic waste consisting mostly of benzene.
During radioactive operations, the tank would store hazardous
and low-level radioactive waste that would be a byproduct of the
vitrification process as a result of processing
high-level radioactive precipitate from the InTank Precipitation
process. The tank is constructed and stores nonradioactive liquid
organic waste generated during startup testing of the Vitrification
Facility.
Saltstone Manufacturing and Disposal (Z-Area)
- Facilities to treat and dispose of the low radioactivity salt
solution resulting from the In-Tank Precipitation pre-treatment
process, including:
- Saltstone Manufacturing Plant - a processing
plant that blends the low radioactivity salt solution with cement,
slag, and flyash to create a mixture that hardens into a concrete-like
material called saltstone. The plant is constructed and in operation
to treat liquid waste residuals from the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment
Facility, an existing wastewater treatment facility
that serves the tank farms. The plant is ready for treatment of
the low radioactivity salt solution produced by In-Tank Precipitation.
- Saltstone Disposal Vaults - large concrete disposal
vaults into which the mixture of salt solution, flyash, slag,
and cement that is prepared at the Saltstone Manufacturing Plant
is pumped. After cells in the vault are filled, they are sealed
with concrete. Eventually, the vaults will be covered with soil,
and an engineered cap constructed of clay and other materials
will be installed over the vaults to reduce infiltration by rainwater
and leaching of contaminants into the groundwater.
Two vaults have been constructed. DOE estimates that 13 more
vaults would be constructed over the life of the facility (DOE
1994a).
Note that the treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
described as part of Defense Waste Processing Facility
are not considered in this eis.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under each alternative, the Defense Waste Processing
Facility would operate
until 2018 to process high-level waste stored at SRS.
B.8 E-ARea VAULTS
OBJECTIVE:
The E-Area vaults would provide disposal and storage
for solid, low-level, nonhazardous wastes to support continuing
SRS operations. As presently planned, the facility would include
three types of structures for four designated waste categories:
low-activity waste vaults would receive one type of waste; the
long-lived waste storage buildings would accept wastes containing
isotopes with half-lives that exceed the performance criteria
for disposal; a third type of structure divided in two parts,
intermediatelevel nontritium vaults and intermediate-level
tritium vaults, would receive two categories of
waste.
DOE Order 5820.2A, "Radioactive Waste Management,"
establishes performance criteria for the disposal of low-level
wastes. A radiological performance assessment is required to ensure
that the waste inventory and the proposed disposal method provide
reasonable assurance that the performance objectives would be
met. The radiological performance assessment projects the migration
of radionuclides from the disposed waste to the environment and
estimates the resulting dose to people. DOE has completed the
radiological performance assessment for the E-Area vaults and
has incorporated the results into the waste acceptance criteria
to define maximum radionuclide inventory limits that are acceptable
for disposal. DOE would construct additional vaults of the current
designs or alternate designs that can be demonstrated to achieve
the performance objectives.
For purposes of analysis in this eis, low-level wastes
that are not stabilized prior to disposal (except for suspect
soils and naval hardware) would be certified to meet
the waste acceptance criteria
for disposal in the low-level waste vaults. The analyses do not
distinguish between the waste forms that are sent to vault disposal.
It was assumed that the impacts were a function only of the volume
of waste disposal (the number of low-activity waste and intermediate-level
waste vaults) for each alternative.
DESCRIPTION:
The Waste Management Activities for Groundwater Protection Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 1987) and its Record of Decision (53 FR 7557) identified vaults as one of several projectspecific technologies considered for new disposal/storage facilities for low-level radioactive waste. One of the actions was construction of a new "vault design" low-level radioactive waste facility in EArea adjacent to the existing Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility.
The E-Area vaults are centrally located between the
two chemical separation areas (F-Area and HArea) near the
center of SRS and consist of three types of facilities. Below-grade
concrete vaults (referred to as intermediate-level waste vaults)
would be used for disposal of containerized intermediate-activity
tritiated and nontritiated waste. Above-grade concrete vaults
(referred to as lowactivity waste vaults) would be used
for disposal of containerized low-activity waste. On-grade buildings
(referred to as longlived waste storage buildings) would
be used for storage of containerized spent deionizer resins and
other long-lived wastes.
Intermediate-Level Waste Vaults
An intermediate-level nontritium vault is a concrete
structure approximately 58 meters (189 feet) long, 15 meters
(48 feet) wide, and 9 meters (29 feet) deep with a seven-cell
configuration. Exterior walls are 0.76 meters (2-1/2 feet) thick;
and interior walls forming the cells are 0.46 meter (11/2
feet) thick. Walls are structurally mated to a base slab.which
is approximately 0.76 meter (21/2 feet) thick and extends
past the outside of the exterior walls approximately 0.6 meter
(2 feet) (WSRC 1994c). An intermediatelevel nontritium vault
has approximately 4,400 cubic meters (1.55´105
cubic feet) of usable waste disposal capacity (Hess 1995b).
An intermediate-level tritium vault
is structurally identical to the intermediate-level nontritium
vault except for length and depth. The intermediate-level tritium
vault is 2 feet deeper and approximately 57 feet long with
a two-cell configuration. The intermediate-level tritium vault
has approximately 400 cubic meters (14,000 cubic feet) of
usable waste disposal capacity (Hess 1995b). One of the intermediate-level
tritium vault cells has been fitted with a silo storage system
designed to house tritium crucibles.
Shielding blocks and raincovers are provided during
cell loading operations. Reinforced concrete blocks are positioned
across the width of a cell to provide personnel shielding from
the radioactive materials within the cell. The raincover is a
roof-truss-type of steel structure that fits around the cells'
walls to completely cover the cell opening. Raincovers are installed
on a cell until interim closure is accomplished.
Waste containers placed in an intermediate-level
vault cell would be encapsulated in grout. Successive grout layers
are cured before installing additional waste containers. A permanent
roof slab.of reinforced concrete that completely covers the vault
cells would be installed after the cells in a vault have been
filled. Final closure would be performed after vaults were filled
by placing an earthen cover with an engineered clay cap over the
entire vault area (WSRC 1994c).
At this time, one intermediate-level nontritium vault
and one intermediate-level tritium vault have each
been constructed. It is assumed that future intermediate-level
vaults would be constructed in a combined single vault configuration
of nine cells housing both tritiated and non-tritiated intermediate-activity
waste (Hess 1994e). The vault construction would be identical
to the intermediate-activity nontritium vaults except that the
structure would be approximately 75 meters (246 feet) long.
No silos would be provided for tritium crucibles. The usable disposal
capacity of each vault would be approximately 5,300 cubic
meters (1.87´105 cubic
feet).
Low-Activity Waste Vaults
The low-activity waste vaults are concrete structures
approximately 200 meters (643 feet) long by 44 meters
(145 feet) wide by 8 meters (27 feet) deep. Each vault contains
12 cells with approximately 30,500 cubic meters (1.07´106
cubic feet) of usable waste disposal capacity. At this time, one
low-activity waste vault has been constructed. End, side, and
interior walls of each module are 0.61 meter (2 feet) thick.
The low-activity waste vault walls are structurally mated to the
footers, and the floor slabs are poured between and on top of
the footers.
Low-activity waste vaults have a permanent 41-centimeter
(16-inch) thick, poured-in-place concrete roof to prevent the
infiltration of rainwater and are constructed on poured-in-place
concrete pads with sidewalls. When the vaults are filled to capacity,
a closure cap would be used to cover the concrete roof to further
reduce the infiltration of water. Each cell within the vault has
a means of collecting and removing water that enters the vault.
Low-activity waste to be disposed of would be containerized
and stacked using an extendible boom forklift. Low-activity waste
would be packaged in various approved containers such as steel
boxes and Department of Transportation-approved drums. Packaging
and stacking would be similar to the engineered low-level trench
operation for low-activity waste (see Appendix B.27).
Each low-activity waste vault would be closed in
stages. Individual cells would be closed, then the entire vault
area would be closed. Low-activity waste vault final closure consists
of placing an earthen cover with an engineered clay cap over the
entire vault area (WSRC 1994c).
Long-Lived Waste Storage Buildings
The long-lived waste storage buildings would be built
on-grade and consist of a poured-in-place concrete slab.covered
by a steel, pre-engineered, single-span building. The floor slab
would be 15 meters (50 feet) square, and the building
would be approximately 18 meters (60 feet) square and 6.1 meters
(20 feet) high. The floor slab.would be 0.3 meter (1 foot)
thick with integral deep footings and surface containment curbs
around each side. The building would extend past the concrete
floor slab.on each side. This area would be covered with compacted,
crushed stone on three sides, and the fourth side would be covered
with a pouredinplace, reinforced concrete pad. This
pad would provide an access ramp for vehicle travel into the long-lived
waste storage building.
Process water deionizers from Reactors would be stored
in the long-lived waste storage building that has been constructed
in the E-Area. These deionizers contain carbon-14 which has a
half-life of 5,600 years (WSRC 1994b). The building would be able
to store a total of 140 cubic meters (4,839 cubic feet) of waste.
Wastes would be placed using a forklift and would be containerized
and provided with adequate shielding. DOE plans to build additional
storage buildings as needed (WSRC 1993b).
After long-lived waste storage buildings are filled
with waste containers, the equipment and personnel access doors
would be closed and locked. Long-lived waste storage buildings
would not be permanent disposal facilities (WSRC 1994c). The disposition
of the long-lived waste has not been determined and would be subject
to a subsequent National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation.
Long-lived wastes would continue to be stored for the duration
of the 30-year analysis period for each alternative and forecast
considered in this eis.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under the no-action alternative, the E-Area vaults
would be used for disposal of low-activity and intermediate-activity
wastes. Low-activity wastes planned for disposal in the E-Area
vaults include low-activity job.control waste, offsite jobcontrol
waste, low-activity equipment waste, and low-activity soils.
Nonmixed alpha waste would also be segregated
for disposal in low-activity waste vaults. Intermediate-activity
wastes planned for disposal in vaults include tritiated job.control
waste, tritiated soils, tritiated equipment wastes, and intermediate-activity
job.control waste. Long-lived waste would be stored in the long-lived
waste storage building.
Under alternative A, the E-Area vaults would be used
for disposal of the same lowlevel waste identified under
the no-action alternative.
Under alternative B, the E-Area vaults would be used
for disposal of low-activity job.control waste, offsite job.control
waste, low-activity soils, lowactivity equipment,
intermediate-activity jobcontrol waste, tritiated jobcontrol
waste, intermediate-activity equipment, tritiated equipment, tritiated
soils, and compacted low-level waste. Nonmixed alpha waste
would also be segregated for disposal in low-activity waste vaults.
Low-activity job.control and equipment waste treated by offsite
commercial vendors would also be returned to SRS for disposal
in the low-activity waste vaults.
Under alternative C, the E-Area vaults would be used
for disposal of the same waste as indicated under alternative
B, except for off-site commercial vendor-treated lowactivity
job.control and equipment waste, from the year 1995 to 2005. After
2006, when the non-alpha vitrification facility
begins operation, all low-level waste would be disposed of by
shallow land disposal.
Estimated volumes for long-lived waste storage and
low-level waste vault disposal for each alternative are presented
in Tables B.8-1 and B.8-2.
24 buildings | |||
7 buildings | 24 buildings | 34 buildings | |
7 buildings | 24 buildings | 34 buildings | |
7 buildings | 24 buildings | 34 buildings |
a. Source: Hess (1994b).
Table B.8-2. Estimated volumes of low-level waste and number of additional vaults required for each alternative (cubic meters).a
10 low-activity waste vaults 28,912 m3 5 intermediate-level waste vaults | |||
9 low-activity waste vaults 15,045 m3 2 intermediate-level waste vaults | 12 low-activity waste vaults 28,912 m3 5 intermediate-level waste vaults | 31 low-activity waste vaults 166,201 m3 31 intermediate-level waste vaults | |
1 low-activity waste vaults 13,878 m3 2 intermediate-level waste vaults | 1 low-activity waste vaults 27,013 m3 5 intermediate-level waste vaults | 8 low-activity waste vaults 48,730 m3 9 intermediate-level waste vaults | |
2 low-activity waste vaults 5,831 m3 1 intermediate-level waste vaults | 2 low-activity waste vaults 10,953 m3 2 intermediate-level waste vaults | 5 low-activity waste vaults 16,032 m3 3 intermediate-level waste vaults |
a. Source: Hess (1995b).
B.9 EXPERIMENTAL TRANSURANIC WASTE ASSAY FACILITY/ WASTE CERTIFICATION FACILITY
OBJECTIVE:
The Experimental Transuranic Waste Assay Facility,
which is not currently operating, is designed to weigh, assay,
and x-ray drums of alpha waste to ensure they
are properly packaged to meet the waste acceptance criteria
of the transuranic waste storage pads,
low-activity waste vaults, or RCRA-permitted disposal vaults.
The Waste Certification Facility
provides certification capabilities for disposal of nonmixed and
mixed alpha waste (10 to 100 nanocuries of transuranic activity
per gram). The Experimental Transuranic Waste Assay Facility/Waste
Certification Facility is designed to accept only vented 55-gallon
drums of waste.
DESCRIPTION:
The Experimental Transuranic Waste Assay Facility/Waste
Certification Facility would
ensure that SRS transuranic waste meet
the acceptance criteria established by the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant. The criteria identify
the numerous requirements that must be met to allow transuranic
waste to be disposed at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, including
but not limited to packaging, waste characterization, and radiological
content.
The overall facility is housed in a metal building
in E-Area. The facility was constructed in two parts. The Experimental
Transuranic Waste Assay Facility
portion is 15 meters (50 feet) wide by 9.1 meters (30 feet)
long and 4.3 meters (14 feet) high. The assay bay has the
capacity to temporarily hold a 100drum backlog of waste
while operating. The facility handles one drum at a time. Each
drum is xrayed to see if proper waste forms have been packaged
and weighed to assist assay calculation. The drum is assayed for
alpha radioactivity measured in nanocuries per gram of waste.
The weight of the container is subtracted from the weight of the
container plus contents to ensure that the assay calculation is
done on the waste only (WSRC 1992a).
The Waste Certification Facility portion has a packaging bay measuring 10 meters (33 feet) wide, 16 meters (53 feet) long, and 9 meters (30 feet) high and side offices that are 4.6 meters (15 feet) wide, 5.2 meters (17 feet) long, and 4.3 meters (14 feet) high. The facility was originally designed to certify and band drums in 7-drum arrays and load them for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The packaging bay is equipped with an 18-metric-ton (20-ton) bridge crane for the loading operations. The packaging bay has the capacity to temporarily hold a 56-drum backlog while operating (WSRC 1992a).
A ventilation system for the facility provides a
once-through air source. The assay and packaging bays each have
individual air supply systems. The exhaust system that is common
to both facilities includes high efficiency particulate air filters
and a stack. The assay bay and the packaging bay each have washdown
capabilities that drain to collection sumps and are emptied by
a pump (WSRC 1992a).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Table B.9-1 presents the volume of waste that would
be processed through the Experimental Transuranic Waste Assay
Facility/Waste
Certification Facility for
each alternative.
Under the no-action alternative, the facility would
x-ray, weigh, and assay waste 55- and 83-gallon drums. The assay
would be performed to check generator packaging and to certify
drums of alpha waste for vault disposal. The
overall throughput of the facility would range from 14 to 116
cubic meters (3,700 to 30,600 gallons) per year.
For all waste forecasts of alternative A, the facility
would assay, treat, and certify the nonmixed and mixed alpha wastefor
disposal until the transuranic waste characterization/certification
facility began operation in 2007. The average throughput of the
facility would range from 67 to 192 cubic meters (15,900 to 51,800
gallons) per year.
The majority of the mixed alpha waste
would be considered hazardous debris in accordance with RCRA land
disposal restrictions. DOE would request a treatability variance
for macroencapsulation of the mixed alpha
waste that was not classified as hazardous debris. The mixed alpha
waste would be macroencapsulated by welding the lids of the steel
drums. The Waste Certification Facility
would be modified to include a drum welding unit to treat the
mixed alpha waste and certify this waste for disposal in RCRA-permitted
vaults. The nonmixed alpha waste would also be certified in the
Waste Certification Facility in accordance with the acceptance
criteria of the low-activity waste vaults.
Under alternatives B.and C, the facility would not
operate.
| 40 m3 per year (1,216 m3 total) | |||
| 67 m3 per year until 2007 (801 m3 total) | 108 m3 per year until 2007 (1,303 m3 total) | 192 m3 per year until 2007 (2,302 m3 total) | |
| Would not operate | Would not operate | Would not operate | |
| Would not operate | Would not operate | Would not operate |
a. Source: Hess (1995a).
b. To convert to gallons, multiply by 264.2
B.10 F/H-ARea EFFLUENT TReaTMENT FACILITY
OBJECTIVE:
The F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility is a permitted
industrial wastewater treatment facility that
decontaminates and treats low-level process water and stormwater
contaminated with radioactive and/or chemical constituents. Routine
influents accepted by the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility
are primarily evaporator condensate from the chemical separations
facilities and the tank farms. Approximately 34 percent of
the influent to the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility comes
from FArea sources, including the separations facility,
cooling and stormwater retention basins, evaporator overheads,
and laboratory liquid waste. Influents from H-Area comprise approximately
48 percent of the influent and include the separations facility,
cooling and stormwater retention basins, evaporator condensate,
tritium laboratory liquid waste, water inside the
In-Tank Precipitation dike (an embankment designed to control
water runoff), and laboratory liquid waste. The remaining 18 percent
of the influent consists of Defense Waste Processing Facility
recycle water generated from nonradioactive chemical testing,
rainwater and process water, investigation-derived waste from
groundwater monitoring wells, and laboratory
waste. Roughly 76,000 cubic meters (2.0´107
gallons) per year of wastewater is currently treated at the F/H-Area
Effluent Treatment Facility (Todaro 1994). The chemical and radiological
constituents of the influent wastewater are presented in Table B.10-1.
The contaminants which the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility
removes from the influent stream are concentrated into 1 to 2 percent
of the original volume. The F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility
concentrate is pumped to Tank 50H for eventual disposal at the
Z-Area Saltstone Manufacturing and Disposal Facility (WSRC 1994a).
The decontaminated wastewater is discharged to Upper Three Runs.
The F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility was built
to replace the old F- and H-Area seepage basins, which, under
the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA, could not
be used after 1988. NEPA documentation (MemotoFile)
was completed in 1986 for construction and operation of the F/HArea
Effluent Treatment Facility. F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility
operations began in October 1988 (Wiggins 1992).
DESCRIPTION:
The F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility process is diagrammed in Figure B.10-1. The facility consists of process wastewater tanks, treated water tanks, double-lined storage basins, and a 0.9cubicmeter-per-minute (235gallon-per-minute) water treatment facility (WSRC 1994d). Dilute wastewater streams from various generators at SRS are discharged into process sewers, which drain by gravity to the F- and H-Area lift stations, from which they are pumped to the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility. As previously stated, most of the wastewater influent comes primarily from evaporator condensate generated at the F/H-Area separations areas and tank farms. Another minor contributor is rainwater that collects in various dikes located in radiological areas and near chemical tanks. The separations areas and high-level waste processes require monitoring of non-contact cooling water before it is discharged to the environment to ensure that it is not radioactively contaminated (WSRC 1994e). Radioactively contaminated water is diverted to one of four large, lined basins. Water in the basins is segregated depending on its source and degree of contamination (DOE 1986a). Historically, such diversions occur infrequently. Each diversion is evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the proper handling (WSRC 1994e).
Figure B.10-1. F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF).
The F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility decontaminates
wastewater through a series of steps consisting
of pH adjustment, sub.micron filtration, heavy-metal and organic
adsorption, reverse osmosis, and ion exchange.
The treatment steps concentrate the contaminants into a smaller
volume of secondary waste, which is then further concentrated
by evaporation. The waste concentrate is eventually disposed of
in the Z-Area Saltstone Manufacturing and Disposal Facility.
The treated effluent is analyzed to ensure that it has been
properly decontaminated and discharged to Upper Three Runs
through permitted outfall H-016 (DOE 1986b) if it meets the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System discharge criteria. The
effluent's chemical content is regulated by the F/H-Area Effluent
Treatment Facility Wastewater Permit, and the
discharge radionuclide limits are set by DOE Order 5400.5, "Radiation
Protection of the Public and the Environment."
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under each alternative, the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment
Facility would continue to treat low-level radioactively contaminated
wastewater. The expected forecast wastewater
flow into the F/HArea Effluent Treatment Facility from current
F and HArea operations (based on historical data)
is approximately 62,000 cubic meters per year, or 1.8´106
cubic meters over the 30year analysis period. The volume
of F- and HArea wastewater to be treated at the Effluent
Treatment Facility is approximately 14.7´106
cubic meters over 30 years for the maximum forecast and 9.3´105
cubic meters over 30 years for the minimum forecast (Todaro
1994). An increased volume of waste is expected due to the projected
increase in environmental restoration
activities and operation of the Defense Waste Processing Facility
over a 30year period. Investigationderived wastes
from environmental restoration activities (aqueous liquids from
groundwater monitoring wells), which would be
treated at the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility, are currently
projected at approximately 27,838 cubic meters (7.35´106
gallons) over the 30-year period (Hess 1995a) for the expected
waste forecast. For the maximum waste forecast, the volume of
investigationderived wastes to be treated at the F/HArea
Effluent Treatment Facility is estimated to be approximately 44,800 cubic
meters (1.18´107 gallons)
over the 30-year period. For the minimum waste forecast, the volume
of investigation-derived wastes to be treated at the F/HArea
Effluent Treatment Facility is estimated to be approximately 3,964 cubic
meters (1.05´106 gallons)
over the 30-year period. The Defense Waste Processing Facility
is expected to generate approximately 37.8 cubic meters (10,000
gallons) per day of recycle wastewater (at 75 percent attainment)
or 22.7 cubic meters (6,000 gallons) per day at 45 percent
attainment after radioactive operations have begun. The Defense
Waste Processing Facility wastewater would be processed by the
tank farm evaporators and the overheads treated
at the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility. During nonradioactive
startup testing, the Defense Waste Processing Facility is expected
to generate approximately 18.9 cubic meters (5,000 gallons)
per day of wastewater to be treated directly at the F/H-Area Effluent
Treatment Facility. Table B.102 presents additional
volumes of wastewater to be treated at the F/HArea Effluent
Treatment Facility as a result of Defense Waste Processing Facility
recycle and investigation-derived wastes from groundwater monitoring
well operations.
| Chemical Constituents | Radioactive Constituents |
| MercuryMercury | Gross alpha radioactivity |
| Chromium | Nonvolatile beta/gamma radioactivity |
| Copper | (Dissolved) tritiumtritium |
| Lead | CesiumCesium-137 |
| Zinc | |
| Silver | |
| Aluminum | |
| Iron | |
| Nitrate | |
| Magnesium | |
| Arsenic | |
| Cadmium | |
| Selenium | |
| Silicon | |
| Sulfur | |
| Chlorine |
a. Source: WSRC (1994d).
a. Source: Todaro (1994); Hess (1995a).
b. To convert to gallons, multiply by 264.2.
B.11 HAZARDOUS WASTE/MIXED WASTE DISPOSAL VAULTS
OBJECTIVE:
DOE Order 5820.2A establishes performance objectives
for the disposal of low-level wastes, including mixed low-level
wastes. A radiological performance assessment is required to ensure
that the waste inventory and the proposed disposal method provide
reasonable assurance that the performance objectives of DOE Order
5820.2A will be met. The radiological performance assessment projects
the migration of radionuclides from the disposed waste to the
environment and estimates the resulting dose to man. DOE has submitted
a RCRA permit application to the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) requesting
permission to construct 10 Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Disposal
Vaults. A radiological
performance assessment will be prepared at a later date to determine
the performance of the Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Disposal Vault
design and establish waste acceptance criteria
defining the maximum radionuclide inventory limits that are acceptable
for disposal. Based on results from the radiological performance
assessment, DOE could determine that alternative disposal methods
meeting RCRA design specifications would also achieve the performance
objectives of DOE Order 5820.2A for certain SRS mixed wastes.
For purposes of analysis in this eis, RCRA disposal capacity has
been based on the current Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Disposal
Vault's design, which conforms to the joint design guidance for
mixed waste land disposal facilities issued by EPA and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in 1987.
DESCRIPTION:
RCRA-permitted disposal vaults were addressed in
the Waste Management Activities for Groundwater
Protection Final eis, and DOE decided to construct and operate
these vaults (53 FR 7557; March 2, 1988). Since then, DOE has
submitted a RCRA permit application to SCDHEC to
construct 10 Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Disposal Vaults
in the central portion of SRS about 0.80 kilometer
(0.5 mile) northeast of F-Area. Once the permit application is
approved by SCDHEC, the vaults would be constructed and operated.
They would be above-grade reinforced concrete vaults designed
for the permanent disposal of hazardous and mixed waste
generated at various locations throughout SRS. The disposal vaults
would be permitted as landfills in accordance with 40 CFR 264,
Subpart N, and designated as Buildings 645-1G through 645-10G.
The approximate outside dimensions of each vault
would be 62 meters (205 feet) long by 14 meters (46.5 feet)
wide by 7.8 meters (25.7 feet) high. Each vault would contain
four individual waste cells which could each contain 300 concrete
disposal containers or 2,250 55gallon drums. This is
equivalent to a capacity of 2.3 acre-feet or a usable capacity
of approximately 2,300 cubic meters (81,200 cubic feet) (Hess
1994e). Wastes would meet land disposal restriction standards
prior to placement in the Hazardous Waste/Mixed Waste Disposal
Vaults. Liquid
wastes would not be disposed in these vaults. Each vault would
contain a leachate collection system, leakdetection system,
and primary and secondary containment high-density polyethylene
liners. The waste would be placed in the cells using a crane and
a closed circuit camera/monitoring system. The waste would generally
be transported to the vaults in either concrete containers or
55gallon drums. During the time that waste is being placed
in the vault, each individual waste cell would be covered with
temporary steel covers. Once each individual vault was filled,
a permanent reinforced concrete cap would be added to the structure.
After the last vault is sealed, the area surrounding the vaults
would be backfilled with soil to the top of the roofs. A cover
of low permeability material would be constructed over the top
of the soil backfill and the vaults.
Wastes planned for disposal in the Hazardous Waste/Mixed
Waste Disposal Vaults
would include vitrified mixed wastes from the
M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility; stabilized ash and blowdown
wastes from the Consolidated Incineration Facility;
macroencapsulated wastes from the containment building; gold traps,
safety/control rods, In-Tank Precipitation filters, Defense Waste
Processing Facility late
wash filters, and mercury-contaminated process equipment;
and vitrified wastes from the alpha and nonalpha vitrification
facilities.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under the no-action alternative, RCRA-permitted disposal
would only be used for the disposal of mixed waste.
Mixed waste planned for disposal includes vitrified
wastes from the M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility, gold traps,
safety/control rods, In-Tank Precipitation filters, and Defense
Waste Processing Facility
late wash filters. In-Tank Precipitation and Defense Waste Processing
Facility late wash filters would not be disposed of immediately
because they must be stored for a period of time prior to disposal
to allow for offgassing.
Due to the limited amount of treatment under the
no-action alternative, only 2,182 cubic meters (77,000 cubic
feet) of mixed waste would be suitable for placement
in RCRA-permitted disposal over the 30year analysis period.
Because each vault has a usable capacity of 2,300 cubic meters
(81,200 cubic feet), a single vault would be sufficient to
meet onsite disposal capacity requirements under the no-action
alternative. This vault would begin accepting waste in 2002.
Under each of the action alternatives, DOE plans
to treat both hazardous and mixed waste (including
alpha waste containing 10 to 100 nanocuries
per gram transuranics) onsite and send residuals to onsite RCRA-permitted
disposal. DOE would build additional vaults as needed to provide
for RCRA-permitted disposal capacity needs. The additional vaults
would be identical in construction to the initial vault.
Wastes that would be placed in the vaults under alternative
A include vitrified wastes from the M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility;
stabilized ash and blowdown wastes from the Consolidated Incineration
Facility; macroencapsulated
mixed wastes treated in the containment building;
gold traps, safety/control rods, In-Tank Precipitation and Defense
Waste Processing Facility
late wash filters, and mercurycontaminated
process equipment; and macroencapsulated mixed alpha wastes.
Wastes planned for RCRA-permitted disposal under
alternative B.include vitrified wastes from the M-Area Vendor
Treatment Facility; stabilized ash and blowdown wastes from the
Consolidated Incineration Facility;
macroencapsulated mixed wastes treated in the
containment building; gold traps, safety/control rods, In-Tank
Precipitation and Defense Waste Processing Facility
late wash filters, and mercurycontaminated
process equipment; vitrified soils and sludges from
the non-alpha vitrification facility;
and macroencapsulated mixed alpha wastes.
Wastes planned for RCRA-permitted disposal under alternative C include vitrified wastes from the MArea Vendor Treatment Facility; stabilized ash and blowdown wastes from the Consolidated Incineration Facility; gold traps, safety/control rods, and In-Tank Precipitation and Defense Waste Processing Facility late wash filters; amalgamated radioactive mercury; vitrified hazardous and mixed wastes from the non-alpha vitrification facility; macroencapsulated mixed alpha wastes; and vitrified mixed wastes containing 10 to 100 nanocuries per gram transuranics from the alpha vitrification facility.
Table B.11-1 presents the different volumes of waste
that would be disposed and the number of vaults required for each
alternative.
| Min. | Max. | ||
1 vault | |||
21 vaults | 61 vaults | 347 vaults | |
20 vaults | 21 vaults | 96 vaults | |
10 vaults | 40 vaults | 111 vaults |
a. Source: Hess (1995a).
b. To convert to gallons, multiply by 264.2.
B.12 HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES
OBJECTIVE:
The hazardous waste storage
facilities would provide storage capacity for SRS containerized
hazardous wastes in accordance with RCRA requirements.
DESCRIPTION:
Hazardous wastes generated at various locations throughout
SRS are stored in three RCRA-permitted hazardous waste storage
buildings and on three interim status storage pads in B. and NAreas.
These locations are collectively referred to as the Hazardous
Waste Storage Facility.
For RCRA permitting purposes Building 645-2N is included
in the Hazardous Waste Storage Facility permit. However, since
Building 645-2N is used for the storage of mixed waste,
it is discussed under mixed waste storage in Appendix B.16.
The three RCRA-permitted hazardous waste
storage buildings are Buildings 710-B, 645-N, and 6454N.
Buildings 710-B.and 645-4N are completely enclosed structures
with metal roofs and sides. Building 645N is a partially
enclosed metal building; two sides of the building are sheet metal
while the remaining two sides are enclosed by a chain-link fence
with gates. Usable storage capacities of each of the hazardous
waste storage buildings are as follows: Building 710B, 146
cubic meters (5,200 cubic feet); Building 645-N, 171 cubic meters
(6,000 cubic feet); and Building 645-4N, 426 cubic meters
(15,000 cubic feet) (WSRC 1993e). The three buildings rest
on impervious concrete slabs. Building 645N and Building
710-B.are divided into waste storage cells that have concrete
curb.containment systems. Building 645-4N has a single bay with
a concrete curb.containment system. In Buildings 645N and
645-4N, the floor of each storage cell (or, for Building 645-4N,
the floor in general) slopes toward an individual sump for the
collection of released liquids. Hazardous waste
is stored primarily in 55-gallon Department of Transportation-approved
drums. However, metal storage boxes may be used to store solid
wastes. Containers are stored on wooden pallets, and the boxes
have metal risers to elevate them off the floor. Once DOE has
accumulated enough containers, they are transported to an offsite
RCRA treatment and disposal facility.
The Solid Waste Storage Pads are open storage areas
located on the asphalt pads within the fenced area of N-Area.
Waste Pad 1 is located between Building 645-2N and Building 645-4N;
Waste Pad 2 is located between Building 645-4N and 645-N; and
Waste Pad 3 is located east of Building 645-N. Hazardous wasteis
stored in 55-gallon Department of Transportation-approved drums
or in metal boxes. Only solid wastes are stored on the Solid Waste
Storage Pads. The combined usable storage capacity of the Solid
Waste Storage Pads is 1,758 cubic meters (62,000 cubic feet) (WSRC
1993e). The asphalt pads are sloped to drain rainwater; the containers
are placed on pallets and the metal boxes have risers to prevent
rainwater from coming into contact with them. Once DOE has accumulated
enough containers, they are transported to an offsite RCRA treatment
and disposal facility.
Hazardous wastes are also stored
in the interim status storage building, Building 316-M. The building
is essentially an above-grade concrete pad with a pavilion-like
structure surrounded by a chain-link fence. The pad is curbed
on three sides; the fourth side is built to a sufficient elevation
to ensure drainage to static sumps within the pad. Hazardous waste
is containerized in 55gallon drums. The building measures
37 meters (120 feet) by 15 meters (50 feet) with an actual storage
area of 30 meters (100 feet) by 12 meters (40 feet). The
building has maximum usable capacity of 117 cubic meters
(4,100 cubic feet).
Hazardous wastes stored in
the Hazardous Waste Storage Facility
and Building 316-M include, but, are not limited to the following:
lead; organic, inorganic, heterogeneous, glass, and metal debris;
equipment; composite filters; paint wastes; organic sludges and
liquids; soils; inorganic sludges; still bottoms from
onsite solvent distillation; and melt waste from the onsite lead
melter.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under the no-action alternative, hazardous wastes
would continue to be sent offsite for treatment and disposal.
Therefore, additional hazardous waste storage would not be required.
Alternatives A and B
- All hazardous wastes would be sent offsite
for treatment and disposal or would be incinerated onsite. Accordingly,
additional hazardous waste storage would not be required.
Alternative C - All hazardous wastes would be sent offsite for treatment and disposal or treated onsite at the containment building, Consolidated Incineration Facility, or non-alpha vitrification facility. Accordingly, additional hazardous waste storage would not be required.
B.13 HIGH-LEVEL WASTE TANK FARMS
OBJECTIVE:
In F- and H-Areas there are a total of 50 active
waste tanks designed to store liquid high-level waste. These tanks
and associated equipment are known as the F- and H-Area tank farms.
The primary purpose of the tank farms is to receive and store
liquid high-level waste until the waste can be treated into a
form suitable for final disposal. Liquid high-level waste is an
aqueous slurry that contains soluble salts and insoluble sludges,
each of which has high levels of radionuclides. Tables B.13-1
and B.13-2 present the chemical and radionuclide composition of
the high-level radioactive waste. The potential environmental
impacts of storing high-level waste in the tank farms were evaluated
in the Double-Shell Tanks for Defense High-Level Radioactive
Waste Storage, Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 1980).
Approximately 130,600 cubic meters (3.45´107
gallons) of liquid high-level waste are currently contained in
the 50 waste tanks (WSRC 1994f). Collectively, the tanks are at
greater than 90 percent of usable capacity. During the next 30
years, DOE's primary objective for its high-level waste program
is to remove the waste from the tanks without adequate secondary
containment and prepare it for vitrification
at the Defense Waste Processing Facility
(WSRC 1994g). The potential environmental impacts of operating
the Defense Waste Processing Facility and associated high-level
waste facilities as they are presently designed were examined
in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Defense
Waste Processing Facility (DOE 1994a).
Additionally, DOE is obligated under the Federal
Facility Agreement executed by DOE, EPA, and SCDHEC
in 1993 to remove from service those tanks that do not meet secondary
containment standards, that leak, or that have leaked. Of the
50 tanks in service at SRS, 23 do not meet criteria specified
in the Federal Facility Agreement for leak detection and secondary
containment; these tanks have been scheduled for waste removal
(WSRC 1993f).
DESCRIPTION:
The high-level waste tank farms include 51 large
underground storage tanks, 4 evaporators (only
2 are operational), transfer pipelines, 14 diversion boxes, 13
pump pits, and associated tanks, pumps, and piping for transferring
the waste (WSRC 1991). Tank 16 is empty and will remain so. Tank
16 closure will be addressed under the SRS RCRA Facility Investigation
program. The tank farm equipment and processes are permitted by
SCDHEC as an industrial wastewater
facility under permit number 17,424-IW. Tank 50 is permitted
separately under an industrial wastewater treatment permit. Twenty-two
of the active tanks are located in F-Area, and 28 are in HArea
(WSRC 1991). Figure B.13-1 lists the status and contents
of each individual highlevel waste tank.
Figure B.13-2 is a general description of tank farm
processes. The tank farms receive waste from a number of sources,
primarily in F- and H-Areas. The wastes were produced as the result
of the separation of useful products from spent aluminum-clad
nuclear fuel and targets. SRS currently generates small amounts
of high-level waste as a result of limited production activities.
The separations facilities generate two waste streams which are
sent to the tank farms: (1) high-heat waste, which contains most
of the radionuclides and must be aged in a high-heat waste tank
before evaporation, and (2) low-heat waste, which contains
a lower concentration of radionuclides and can be sent directly
to an evaporator feed tank. A smaller percentage of the total
influent to the tank farms is generated from other SRS facilities,
including:
- Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuel/Resin Regeneration Facility
- Savannah River Technology Center
- H-Area Maintenance Facility
- Reactor areas (filter backwash)
- F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility
- Recycle wastewater from the Defense Waste Processing Facility, when it becomes operational
The supernatant
contains mostly sodium salts and soluble metal compounds (mercury,
chromium, lead, silver, and barium) with the main radioactive
constituent being an isotope of cesium and strontium
(WSRC 1992b). To save tank space, supernatant is processed through
large evaporators to remove the water, which
reduces the liquid volume by approximately 75 percent (WSRC 1994e).
The purpose of evaporating the supernatant is to concentrate and
immobilize the waste as crystallized salt. Within the evaporator,
the supernatant is heated to the boiling point of its aqueous
component which induces a vapor phase (called evaporator overheads).
The evaporator overheads are condensed and monitored to ensure
that they do not contain excessive amounts of radionuclides. If
necessary, the overheads pass through a cesium removal column
to remove radioactive cesium. Following condensing and monitoring,
the evaporator overheads are sent to the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment
Facility for final treatment and discharge (WSRC 1991). The concentrated
waste remaining after evaporation is transferred to another tank,
where it forms into a saltcake. The salt would be processed by
InTank Precipitation when it becomes operational, where
the soluble radioactive metal ions (cesium, strontium, uranium,
and plutonium) would be precipitated using sodium
tetraphenylborate or adsorbed on monosodium titanate to form insoluble
solids. The resulting slurry would be filtered and the solids
concentrated. The concentrated precipitate would be sent to the
Defense Waste Processing Facility
for vitrification, and the filtrate would
be transferred to the Saltstone Manufacturing and Disposal Facility
for disposition in grout (WSRC 1994d). Refer to the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, Defense Waste Processing Facility
for a detailed discussion of In-Tank Precipitation.
Each tank farm has two single-stage, bent-tube evaporators
that concentrate wastes. Of these four evaporators, only two (2H
and 2F) are currently operating. The other two (1H and 1F) will
no longer be operated due to equipment failures and estimated
amounts of waste that would come from the separations facilities.
The Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator is currently scheduled
for startup in May 1999. Without the Replacement High-Level Waste
Evaporator, the tank farm would run out of required tank space,
which would force the Defense Waste Processing Facility
to stop vitrifying high-level waste. A project description of
the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator included in this appendix
provides a detailed discussion of this facility.
The primary role of the 2H Evaporator is to evaporate
the 221-H separations facility's lowheat waste stream, the
Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuel waste, the planned Defense Waste
Processing Facility recycle
stream, and Extended Sludge Processing washwater. The Defense
Waste Processing Facility recycle [projected at 5,700 to 13,600
cubic meters (1.5 to 3.6´106
gallons) per year] and Extended Sludge Processing washwater would
add large volumes of waste to the tank farms and evaporators.
Further, the Defense Waste Processing Facility
recycle stream cannot be "turned off" in the event of
evaporator problems. Therefore, at least 11,400 cubic meters (3.0´106
gallons) of available tank space must be available prior to the
startup of the Defense Waste Processing Facility, in addition
to the 4,900 cubic meters (1.3´106
gallons) of emergency spare tank capacity required should a waste
tank fail. Current projections indicate that approximately 12,500
cubic meters (3.3´106
gallons) of tank space would be available at the startup of the
Defense Waste Processing Facility operations, and available tank
space would remain between 9,000 and 16,000 cubic meters (2.4
and 4.2´106
gallons) during the Defense Waste Processing Facility's operative
years (WSRC 1994e).
The primary role of the 2F Evaporator is to evaporate
the 221-F separations facility's low-heat waste, high-heat waste,
and the 8,000-cubic meter (2.1´106
gallon) backlog of F-Area high-heat waste in Tanks 33 and 34.
Once the backlog is evaporated, the 2F evaporator will become
the primary highheat waste evaporator for F- and H-Area
and assist the H-Area evaporator with the Defense Waste Processing
Facility recycle and Extended
Sludge Processing washwater streams (WSRC 1994e).
The 2H and 2F evaporators are each 2.4 meters (8 feet) in diameter and approximately 4.6 to 5 meters (15 to 16.5 feet) tall with an operating capacity of 6.8 cubic meters (1,800 gallons) (WSRC 1991). Each stainless-steel evaporator contains a heater tube bundle; two steam lifts, which remove the waste concentrate from the evaporator; a de-entrainer, which removes water droplets; a warming coil, which helps prevent salt crystallization within the evaporator; and two steam lances, which also inhibit salt crystallization (WSRC 1991). The evaporator systems also consist of a mercury collection tank, a cesium removal pumptank and column, a supernatantcollection and diverting tank (2F only), and a waste concentrate transfer system.
In approximately 10 years of operation (1982 through
1993), the maximum amount of evaporator supernatant
generated annually from the 2F and 2H evaporators
combined was approximately 27,300 cubic meters (7.2´106
gallons) (Campbell 1994a). The rate at which the evaporator overheads
are generated depends on the heat transfer rate of the evaporator
system, the dissolved solids content of the wastewater
feed, and the dissolved solids content maintained within the evaporator
pot. Waste forecasts were calculated assuming scheduled downtime
of the evaporators.
Several tanks are used for purposes other than waste
storage: Tanks 22, 48, and 49 are used for InTank Precipitation;
Tanks 40, 42, and 51 are used for Extended Sludge Processing;
and Tank 50 is used as the feed tank for the Z-Area Saltstone
Manufacturing and Disposal Facility.
The high-level waste tanks are built of carbon steel
and reinforced concrete using one of four designs. DOE plans to
remove the high-level waste from the old tanks and transfer it
to newer tanks (Type III) with secondary containment. Of the 50
tanks currently in use, 23 (Types I, II, and IV designs) do not
meet criteria for leak detection and secondary containment, and
27 tanks (Type III design) do meet these criteria (WSRC 1994g).
Table B.13-3 describes each type of tank by the following
features: construction dates, capacity, key design features, and
the percentage of total waste volume and radioactivity. The Double-Shell
Tanks for Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste Storage Environmental
Impact Statement contains a detailed discussion of tank designs.
Ventilation systems for the waste storage tanks vary;
some have no active ventilation, while others maintain negative
pressure (approximately -0.5 inches of water) on the structure
to ensure that the direction of unfiltered air flow is into the
potentially contaminated structure. For most tank systems, the
exhaust air is treated to remove moisture, heated to prevent condensation
at the filters, filtered by high efficiency particulate air filters,
and monitored for radioactive particulates prior to release into
the atmosphere. Exhaust ventilation systems for other waste-handling
operations in the tank farms use an air-mover system, high efficiency
particulate air filtration, and monitoring for radioactive particulates
prior to release into the atmosphere (WSRC 1994h).
The 50 waste tanks currently in use at SRS have a
limited service life. The tanks are susceptible to general corrosion,
nitrate-induced stress corrosion cracking, and pitting and corrosion.
The concentrations and volumes of incoming wastes are controlled
to prevent corrosion of the carbon steel tanks. Requirements for
accepting waste into the tank farms for storage and evaporation
are determined by a number of safety and regulatory factors. These
are specified in a document which discusses tank farm waste acceptance
criteria, and specifies limits
for incoming waste (WSRC 1994i).
In the history of the tank farms, nine of the tanks have leaked detectable quantities of waste from the primary tank to secondary containment with no release to the environment. A tenth tank, Tank 20, has known cracks above the level of the stored liquid; however, no waste has been identified leaking through these cracks (WSRC 1994d). A history of tank leakage and spills is presented in Table B.134.
Twentythree out of the 50 tanks currently in use (Tanks
1 through 24 except for Tank 16) and their ancillary equipment
do not meet secondary containment requirements (WSRC 1993f).
According to the Federal Facility Agreement executed by DOE, EPA,
and SCDHEC, liquid high-level waste tanks that do
not meet the standards set forth in the Agreement may be used
for continued storage of their current waste inventories. However,
these waste tanks are required to be placed on a schedule for
removal from service (WSRC 1993f).
According to the waste removal plan, salt would be removed from the Type III tanks first, and these tanks would be reused to support tank farm evaporator operations and to process Defense Waste Processing Facility recycle wastewater. The first sludge tanks to be emptied would be olddesign tanks, which would then be removed from service. The waste removal program includes removing salt and sludge by mechanical agitators, cleaning the tank interior by spray washing the floor and walls, and steam/water cleaning the tank annulus if necessary (WSRC 1994g). Waste removal equipment consists of slurry pump support structures above the tank top; slurry pumps (typically three for salt tanks and four for sludge tanks); water and electrical service to the slurry pumps; motor and instrument controls; tank sampling equipment; and interior tank washwater piping and spray nozzles (WSRC 1994g).
Each tank is currently being fitted with waste removal equipment,
including slurry pumps and transfer jets. According to current
operating plans and projected funding, by 2018 DOE expects that
the high-level wastes at SRS would have been processed into borosilicate
glass, and the tanks would be empty (DOE 1994a). This schedule
is based on successful completion of several key activities that
must be accomplished before waste removal can begin. These include
operation of the in-service evaporators, restart
and operation of Extended Sludge Processing, startup and operation
of In-Tank Precipitation, and startup and operation of the Defense
Waste Processing Facility
(WSRC 1993f).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under each alternative, the tank farms would continue to receive
waste (including Defense Waste Processing Facility
recycle wastewater), in Type III tanks, operate
the evaporators to reduce the volume of waste,
construct and begin operation of the Replacement High-Level Waste
Evaporator, proceed with waste removal operations as required
by the Federal Facility Agreement, and build no new tanks. Table
B.13-5 presents volumes of waste to be stored and treated for
each alternative.
Table B.13-1. Typical chemical composition of SRS liquid high-level waste.
| Component | ||
| Sodium nitrate | 2.83 | 48.8 |
| Sodium nitrite | 12.2 | |
| Sodium hydroxide | 3.28 | 13.3 |
| Sodium carbonate | 5.21 | |
| Sodium tetrahydroxo aluminum ion | 11.1 | |
| Sodium sulfate, anhydrous | 5.99 | |
| Sodium fluoride | 0.18 | |
| Sodium chloride | 0.37 | |
| Sodium metasilicate | 0.14 | |
| Sodium chromate | 0.16 | |
| Nickel (II) hydroxide | 1.94 | |
| MercuryMercury (II) oxide | 1.6 | |
| Uranyl hydroxide | 3.4 | |
| Iron oxide | 30.1 | |
| Aluminum oxide | 32.9 | |
| Manganese oxide | 0.51 | |
| Silicon oxide | 5.9 | |
| Zeolite | 3.7 |
a. Source: WSRC (1992b).
b. Analysis of insoluble solids (dry basis).
c. Analysis of soluble solids (dry basis).
|
|
| ||||||
| TritiumTritium | 0.00108 | ||||||
| Strontium-89 | 0.0232 | 0.291 | - | 0.0248 | 5.02 | ||
| Strontium-90 | 0.951 | 47.6 | 0.00145 | 1.54 | 9.25 | 2.91´10-4 | |
| Yttrium-90 | 0.951 | 47.6 | 0.00145 | 1.53 | 9.25 | 2.91´10-4 | |
| Yttrium-91 | 0.0396 | 0.502 | 0.0449 | 0.925 | |||
| Zirconium-95 | 0.0608 | 0.766 | 0.0766 | 1.51 | |||
| Niobium-95 | 0.135 | 1.66 | 0.166 | 3.17 | |||
| Ruthenium-106 | 0.0254 | 0.206 | 2.51´10-6 | 0.0925 | 1.35 | ||
| Rhodium-106 | 0.0254 | 0.206 | 2.51x10-6 | 0.0925 | 1.35 | ||
| CesiumCesium-137 | 1.03 | 3.43 | 0.0661 | 1.51 | 3.43 | 0.0114 | |
| Barium-237 | 0.951 | 3.17 | 0.0608 | 1.40 | 3.17 | 0.0103 | |
| Cerium-144 | 0.370 | 2.91 | 1.14 | 1.93 | |||
| Praeseodymium-144 | 0.370 | 2.91 | 1.14 | 1.93 | |||
| Promethium-147 | 0.262 | 1.72 | 4.76´10-4 | 0.978 | 10.30 | 2.40´10-5 | |
| Uranium-235 | 2.22´10-8 | 1.61´10-7 | 1.48´10-9 | 8.72´10-9 | 9.78´10-8 | 1.19´10-10 | |
| Uranium-238 | 8.72´10-7 | 7.66´10-6 | 1.66´10-8 | 5.55´10-8 | 1.03´10-6 | 1.85´10-11 | |
| PlutoniumPlutonium-238 | 4.49´10-5 | 6.08´10-4 | 0.0243 | 0.106 | |||
| PlutoniumPlutonium-239 | 2.59´10-4 | 0.00203 | 4.23´10-6 | 2.32´10-4 | 7.66´10-4 | 2.59´10-8 | |
| PlutoniumPlutonium-240 | 7.93´10-5 | 5.55´10-4 | 8.98´10-7 | ||||
| PlutoniumPlutonium-241 | 0.0251 | ||||||
| Americium-241 | 3.17´10-6 | ||||||
| Curium-244 | 0.00225 | 0.00248 | 2.22´10-5 | 2.54´10-4 | |||
a. Source: WSRC (1992b).
Table B.13-3. F- and H-Area high-level waste tank features.a
each tank | radioactive content stored in this tank type | ||||
| 2.8´106 liters
(7.4´105 gallons) | 1.5 meter (5-foot) high secondary containment pans
Active waste cooling systems | ||||
| 4´106 liters
(1.06´106 gallons) | 1.5 meter (5-foot) high secondary containment pans
Active waste cooling systems | ||||
| 4.9´106 liters
(1.3´106 gallons) | Full height secondary containment
Active waste cooling system | ||||
| 4.9´106 liters
(1.3´106 gallons) | Single steel tank, no secondary containment
No active waste cooling systems |
a. Sources: Main (1991); Wells (1994).
Table B.13-4. High-level waste tank leakage and spill history.
| Leakage from primary tank to secondary containment with no release to the environmenta | |||
| Fill-line encasement leaked approximately 5,700 liters (1,500 gallons), causing soil contamination and potential groundwatergroundwater contaminationa | |||
| Leakage of approximately a few tens of gallons from secondary containment to the environmentb | |||
| Spill of approximately 380 liters (100 gallons)c | |||
| Transfer line leaked approximately 225 kilograms (500 pounds) of concentrated (after volume reduction in evaporator) wasted |
a. Source: Odum (1976).
b. Source: Poe (1974).
c. Source: Boore et al. (1986).
d. Source: WSRC (1992c).
Note: These leak sites have been cleaned up or stabilized to prevent the further spread of contamination and are monitored by groundwater monitoring wells established under SRS's extensive groundwater monitoring program. Remediation and environmental restoration of contaminated sites at the F- and H-Area Tank Farms will be undertaken when waste removal plans for the tanks are completed and surplus facility deactivation and decommissioning plans are developed.
| 130,581 m3 existing inventory
22,212 m3 new waste | |||
| 130,581 m3 existing inventory 12,099 m3 new waste | 130,581 m3 existing inventory 22,212 m3 new waste | 130,581 m3 existing inventory 27,077 m3 new wastee. | |
| 130,581 m3 existing inventory 12,099 m3 new waste | 130,581 m3 existing inventory 22,212 m3 new waste | 130,581 m3 existing inventory 27,077 m3 new waste | |
| 130,581 m3 existing inventory 12,099 m3 new waste | 130,581 m3 existing inventory 22,212 m3 new waste | 130,581 m3 existing inventory 27,077 m3 new waste |
a. Source: Hess (1994f, g); WSRC (1994f).
b. To convert to gallons, multiply by 264.2.
c. Waste volumes are not additive because newly generated waste volume would be reduced by approximately 75 percent via evaporation.
d. Under all alternatives, the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator would begin operation in May 1999.
e. The 30-year maximum waste forecast indicates that, in order to empty the tanks as planned by the year 2018, the existing evaporators would have to be operated at higher rates.
B.14 M-ARea AIR STRIPPER
OBJECTIVE:
The M-Area Air Stripper treats the M-Area groundwater
plume that is contaminated with organic solvents as part of environmental
restoration.
DESCRIPTION:
The M-Area Air Stripper (also called the M-1 Air
Stripper), located at Building 323M, is part of the pump-and-treat
remedial action system designed to remove organic solvents from
a groundwater contaminant plume beneath MArea.
Volatile organic compounds of concern include trichloroethylene
and tetrachloroethylene. The system consists of an air stripper,
11 recovery wells, an air blower, an effluent-discharge pump,
an instrument air system, a control building, and associated piping,
instrumentation, and controls. The average water feed rate to
the air stripper is approximately 1.9 cubic meters (500 gallons)
per minute. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
permit requires the treated effluent to have a concentration of
not more than 5 parts per billion each of trichloroethylene
and tetrachloroethylene. Concentrations of volatile organic compounds
in the treated effluent have consistently been less than the detection
limit of 1 part per billion. A 20-inch line transports treated
effluent from the air stripper to Outfall M-005 in accordance
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit criteria.
During construction of groundwater
monitoring wells, DOE generates well development water; during
routine sampling of SRS groundwater monitoring wells, DOE generates
well purge water. DOE collects the development and purge water
(investigation-derived waste) in a tank truck and transports it
to the MArea Air Stripper for treatment.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Table B.141 presents volumes of hazardous
investigation-derived waste from groundwater
monitoring wells to be treated in the MArea Air Stripper
under each alternative. These volumes represent a very small
portion of the throughput of the M-Area Air Stripper; between
5,000 and 32,000 cubic meters (1.32´106
and 8.45´106
gallons) over
30 years versus approximately 13,000 cubic meters (3.43´106
gallons) per minute of groundwater.
Table B.14-1. Volumes of investigation-derived waste from groundwater monitoring wells to be treated in the M-Area Air Stripper (cubic meters).b
| 31,233 m3c | |||
| 5,369 m3d | 31,233 m3 | 31,495 m3e | |
| 5,369 m3 | 31,233 m3 | 31,495 m3 | |
| 5,369 m3 | 31,233 m3 | 31,495 m3 |
a. Source: Hess (1995a).
b. To convert to gallons, multiply by 264.2.
c. The initial annual amount would be 800 cubic meters (2.11´105 gallons). Due to the increase in groundwater monitoring well activities under environmental restoration, the annual quantity would increase to 1,286 cubic meters (3.4´105 gallons).
d. The annual amount would vary from 124 cubic meters (32,800 gallons) to 528 cubic meters (139,000 gallons) and would average 179 cubic meters (47,300 gallons).
TC
e. The annual amount would vary from 806 cubic meters (2.13´105 gallons) to 1,297 cubic meters (3.43´105 gallons) and would average 1,050 cubic meters (277´105 gallons) per year.
B.15 M-ARea VENDOR TReaTMENT FACILITY
OBJECTIVE:
The M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility would provide
a vitrification process to treat M-Area electroplating
wastes to meet the land disposal restrictions criteria. The wastes
to be treated include the following six waste streams which were
the basis of the initial treatability studies and procurement
of the vitrification subcontractor:
- M-Area plating-line sludge from supernatant treatment
- M-Area high-nickel plating-line sludge
- M-Area sludge treatability samples
- Mark 15 filtercake
- Plating-line sump material
- Nickel plating-line solution
The potential impacts of treating these six waste
streams were considered in an Environmental Assessment (DOE 1994b)
and a Finding of No Significant Impact issued in August 1994.
These six mixed waste streams constitute approximately
2,471 cubic meters (87,300 cubic feet) of mixed waste (Hess
1995a).
Under the Federal Facility Compliance Act, DOE must
develop site-specific plans for the treatment of mixed wastes
to the standards established by RCRA. The SRS Proposed Site
Treatment Plan identified two additional types of mixed waste
for which treatment by the M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility was
determined to be the preferred option:
- uranium/chromium solution
- soils from spill remediation
These mixed wastes streams [approximately
18 cubic meters (635 cubic feet)] would be introduced directly
to the vitrification unit. The treatment
of these two additional wastes would not appreciably alter the
processes or timeframe for operation of the M-Area Vendor Treatment
Facility. Final decisions regarding the treatment of these wastes
would be made in conjunction with ongoing negotiations with the
State of South Carolina pursuant to the Federal Facility Compliance
Act.
DESCRIPTION:
The M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility would be a temporary
vitrification facility; it has not yet been
constructed. Its operation would be linked to the existing M-Area
Liquid Effluent Treatment Facility
to treat the electroplating sludges stored in the Process Waste
Interim Treatment/Storage Facility
tanks, waste flushes from the tanks, and drummed wastewater
sludge stored in the M-Area mixed waste storage
building. The wastes would
be blended in existing M-Area tanks. Stabilizing chemicals and
glass-forming materials would be added to the mixture, which would
then be fed to the vitrification unit.
The offgas scrubber liquid from the vitrification
unit would be treated by the M-Area Liquid Effluent Treatment
Facility, which discharges
to Outfall M-004 in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit limits. M-Area Liquid Effluent Treatment
Facility filtercake and filter media generated from the treatment
of the offgas scrubber liquid effluent would be returned to the
Process Waste Interim Treatment/Storage Facility
tanks for blending with other waste feed to the vitrification
unit.
Molten glass from the vitrification
unit would be discharged either directly to 71-gallon drums or
to a gem-making machine. The gem-making machine consists of a
gob cutter that cuts the glass stream into small balls of glass
that drop onto a steel cooling disk where they harden to form
glass gems with a flattened marble appearance. The gems are then
dropped from the cooling disk into a hopper or 71gallon
drum.
The vitrification unit is sized
to treat the entire volume of design-basis wastes in one year.
It is anticipated that the 3.03´106
kilograms (6.26´105
pounds) of M-Area wastes would be reduced to 1.12´106 kilograms
(5.09´105 pounds)
of glass. A total waste volume reduction of approximately 83 percent
would be expected (WSRC 1994j).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under the noaction alternative, the facility
would treat the original six waste streams.
Under each alternative except the no-action alternative,
the MArea Vendor Treatment Facility would treat the six
original waste streams and two additional waste streams as described
in the Objective section (WSRC 1995).
B.16 MIXED WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES
OBJECTIVE:
The mixed waste storage facilities
would provide storage capacity for SRS containerized mixed wastes
in accordance with RCRA and DOE Order 5820.2A requirements.
DESCRIPTION:
DOE would store containerized mixed waste
in Building 645-2N, Building 643-29E, Building 64343E,
Building 316-M, and on the 315-4M storage pad and Waste Storage
Pads 20 through 22. Each of these mixed waste container storage
facilities is discussed below.
Three buildings are used to store mixed waste
at SRS. Building 645-2N is a RCRA-permitted facility and is located
in the Hazardous Waste Storage Facility
in N-Area. Building 645-2N is a steel-framed building with
sheet metal siding and an impervious concrete floor. The building
is divided into four waste storage cells, and each cell has a
concrete dike containment system. The floor of each storage cell
slopes toward an individual sump for the collection of released
liquids. The actual storage area for the four cells combined
is approximately 60 meters (196 feet) by 14 meters (46 feet).
The building has usable storage capacity of approximately 558 cubic
meters (19,700 cubic feet) (WSRC 1994k). Mixed waste
is primarily containerized in 55-gallon drums or steel boxes.
The 55-gallon drums are used to store both liquid and solid wastes;
metal storage boxes are used to store only solid wastes. Containers
are stored on wooden pallets, and the boxes have metal risers
which elevate the bottoms of the containers off the floor.
Two of the mixed waste storage buildings, Building 643-29E and Building 643-43E, have interim status and are located in EArea. Building 643-43E was constructed under the approved "General Plant Project" Categorical Exclusion (CX 9004020, Project S-2842, October 5, 1990). The buildings are similar in design and construction; only the dimensions are different. The buildings are metal structures with I-beam frames, sheet metal roofing, partial sheet metal siding, and concrete pad floors. The outside walls of each building consist of chain-link fencing from the ground to a height of about 1.5 meters (5 feet). The concrete pads are surrounded by reinforced concrete dikes to provide secondary containment. In Building 643-29E, the floor slopes towards a sump to collect released liquids or other liquids that enter the storage area. The floor in Building 643-43E is level. Mixed waste is stored in 55gallon drums and metal storage boxes; if necessary, concrete culverts are used for shielding. Waste containers are elevated off the floor to prevent the container bottoms from contacting accumulated liquids on the floor. Drums are placed on pallets and the metal boxes are constructed with metal risers. Other containers such as culverts are also elevated using devices such as pallets, risers, or wooden or metal blocks. Building 643-29E is 18 meters (60 feet) by 18 meters (60 feet) in size with an actual storage area of 15 meters (50 feet) by 15 meters (50 feet). The maximum usable storage capacity is 62 cubic meters (2,200 cubic feet) (Hess 1995a). Building 64343E measures 49 meters (160 feet) by 18 meters (60 feet) in size with an actual storage area of 46 meters (150 feet) by 15 meters (50 feet) and a maximum usable storage capacity of 619 cubic meters (21,900 cubic feet) (WSRC 1994k).
Mixed waste is also stored in an
interim status storage building (Building 316-M) in M-Area. The
building is essentially an above-grade concrete pad with a pavilion-like
structure surrounded by a chain-link fence. The pad is curbed
on three sides with the fourth side built to a sufficient elevation
to ensure drainage to static sumps within the pad. Mixed waste
management practices in the M-Area building are similar to management
practices in the N- and E-Area storage buildings. Mixed waste
is primarily containerized in 55gallon drums or steel boxes.
The building measures 37 meters (120 feet) by 15 meters
(50 feet) with an actual storage area of 30 meters (100 feet)
by 12 meters (40 feet) and a maximum usable capacity of 117 cubic
meters (4,100 cubic feet) (WSRC 1994k).
Three above-grade concrete pads in E-Area would be
used to store mixed waste. DOE has submitted
(in May 1992) a permit application for Waste Storage Pads 20,
21, and 22. Each waste storage pad consists of a concrete pad
enclosed by a chain link fence but exposed to the elements. To
contain leaks and direct rainwater, the waste storage pads have
curbs and sloped foundations that drain to sumps. Mixed waste
would be stored in 55-gallon drums and carbon steel boxes; concrete
culverts and casks are used for shielding. Only solid waste forms
would be stored on the waste storage pads. The pad dimensions
are: Pad 20 [46 meters by 18 inches (150 feet by 60 feet)],
Pad 21 [46 meters by 16 meters (150 feet by 54 feet)],
and Pad 22 [52 meters by 16 meters (170 feet by 54 feet)]. The
pads have a combined usable storage capacity of 2,056 cubic
meters (72,600 cubic feet) (Hess 1995a).
DOE has submitted a RCRA permit application requesting interim status for a storage pad in M-Area, Pad 315-4M, that would be used to store containerized vitrified mixed wastes from the M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility and stabilized ash and blowdown wastes from the Consolidated Incineration Facility. Pad 315-4M is a concrete pad that is completely fenced and exposed to the elements. The combination of curbing and a sloped foundation prevents run-on and directs rainwater to a stormwater drain that empties to Outfall M001 in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit limits. Mixed wastes are stored in 55gallon drums, carbon steel boxes, and 71-gallon square steel drums. The pad measures 41 meters (135 feet) by 61 meters (200 feet) with an actual storage area of 41 meters (134 feet) by 61 meters (199 feet) and a maximum usable capacity of 2,271 cubic meters (80,000 cubic feet) (WSRC 1994k).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under the no-action alternative, mixed non-alpha
waste that is currently stored on the transuranic
waste storage pads
(i.e., waste with less than 10 nanocuries per gram of transuranics)
would be transferred to Waste Storage Pads 20, 21, and 22. Due
to DOE's limited capacity to treat mixed waste,
the majority of mixed wastes would continue to be stored under
the no-action alternative. RCRApermitted disposal capacity
would not be available until the year 2002. Accordingly, mixed
waste that ultimately would be disposed in the RCRApermitted
disposal vault would continue to be stored in the mixed waste
storage buildings and pads
until the vault is ready to receive waste.
The expected waste generation forecast indicates
that approximately 1.84´105
cubic meters
(6.49´106
cubic feet) of containerized mixed waste would
be placed in RCRA storage over the next 30 years. The mixed
waste storage buildings and
pads (645-2N, 643-29E, 64343E, 316-M, 315-4M and Pads 20
through 22) would reach capacity by the year 1998. In order to
accommodate future mixed waste storage needs, DOE plans to build
additional mixed waste storage buildings as needed. Building 64343E
would serve as the prototype for future buildings. Each building
would have a usable storage capacity of 619 cubic meters (22,000
cubic feet). Approximately 291 additional mixed waste storage
buildings would be needed over the next 30 years (Hess 1995a).
Under the no-action alternative, Pad 315-4M would
be used to store containerized vitrified mixed wastes
from the M-Area Vendor Treatment Facility. These wastes would
be stored on the Pad until RCRA-permitted disposal became available
in the year 2002.
In order to accommodate future mixed waste
storage needs prior to the availability of treatment and disposal
capacity, DOE would build additional mixed waste storage buildings
as needed. Table B.161 presents the maximum storage
requirements, and the year they would be needed.
Table B.16-1. Mixed waste storage requirements for each alternative.a
| 291 additional buildings (limited treatment) | |||
| 45 additional buildings in 2008 | 79 additional buildings in 2005 | 757 additional buildings in 2005 |
|
| 39 additional buildings in 2008 | 79 additional buildings in 2005 |
652 additional buildings in 2005 | |
| 39 additional buildings in 2008 | 79 additional buildings in 2005 |
652 additional buildings in 2005 |
a. Source: Hess (1995a).
Under alternatives A, B, and C, Pad 3154M would be used to store containerized vitrified mixed wastes from the MArea Vendor Treatment Facility and stabilized ash and blowdown wastes from the Consolidated Incineration Facility. These wastes would be stored on the Pad until RCRA-permitted disposal became available in the year 2002. Storage capacity on Pad 3154M is sufficient to accommodate these wastes until disposal capacity becomes available. The maximum volume stored would be reached in the year 2001 for each alternative. Table B.162 presents maximum storage volumes.
Table B.16-2. Estimated amount of mixed waste that would be stored on Pad 3154M (cubic meters).a,b
a. Source: Hess (1995a).
b. To convert to cubic feet, multiply by 35.31.
B.17 NEW WASTE TRANSFER FACILITY NEW WASTE TRANSFER FACILITY
OBJECTIVE:
The New Waste Transfer Facility
is designed to be a highly reliable and flexible receipt and distribution
point for the Defense Waste Processing Facility
recycle and inter-tank farm waste streams (WSRC 1994e). No processing
would occur in the New Waste Transfer Facility (WSRC 1993f).
The New Waste Transfer Facility
(also referred to as H-Diversion Box-8) was built to replace the
operation of H-Diversion Box-2 and would allow H-Diversion Box-2
to serve only assigned tanks involved in waste removal operations.
The New Waste Transfer Facility is currently scheduled to be
connected to the Defense Waste Processing Facility
and the tank farm in mid1995 and begin operation in late
1995.
The New Waste Transfer Facility
was constructed as a categorical exclusion under then-current
NEPA guidelines (52 FR 47662). The startup date is scheduled
for November 1995 (WSRC 1994e).
DESCRIPTION:
The New Waste Transfer Facility
consists of five adjacent cells: four each contain one pump tank
and serve as pump pits; the fifth cell is a large diversion box.
The pump pits and diversion box would be housed in one section
of the building, and a second section would contain the local
instrumentation and operations equipment and controls. The facility
would be equipped with an enclosed overhead crane/camera system
for remote maintenance (WSRC 1992d). The facility would
handle transfers between the Defense Waste Processing Facility
and the H-Area tank farm, between the F-Area tank farm and H-Area
tank farm, between the F/H-Area Effluent Treatment Facility and
H-Area tank farm, and intra-tank transfers within the H-Area tank
farm (WSRC 1993g).
The New Waste Transfer Facility
is expected to handle the following waste streams:
- High-heat waste (i.e., liquid high-level waste
that contains a major portion of radioactivity)
- Low-heat waste (i.e., liquid high-level waste
that contains a reduced concentration of radionuclides)
- High-heat and low-heat supernatant
- Aged high-heat and low-heat waste sludge slurries
- Reconstituted salt (re-dissolved salt)
- In-Tank Precipitation washwater
- Extended Sludge Processing washwater
- Defense Waste Processing Facility
late wash process washwater
- Defense Waste Processing Facility
aqueous recycle waste from the vitrification
facility
- Receiving Basin for Offsite Fuel wastewater
(WSRC 1993g)
The ventilation system for pump tanks and pump tank
cells includes a discharged high efficiency particulate air filter
that removes airborne radionuclides from the air passing over
the pump pits and through the pump tanks and diversion box. The
filter equipment is housed in a separate concreteshielded
building. An emergency diesel generator would serve as backup
if the main power supply were interrupted (WSRC 1993g).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under each alternative, the New Waste Transfer Facility would begin operation according to the planned schedule to facilitate liquid high-level waste transfers between the Defense Waste Processing Facility and the F- and H-Area tank farms.
B.18 NON-ALPHA VITRIFICATION FACILITY
OBJECTIVE:
The non-alpha vitrification facility
would provide treatment for liquid, soil, and sludge wastes, primarily
resulting from environmental restoration
and/or decontamination and decommissioning
activities, for which treatment capacity is not otherwise available
at SRS.
DESCRIPTION:
DOE would construct a non-alpha vitrification
facility for the treatment
of mixed, hazardous, and lowlevel wastes under alternative
C and the expected and maximum forecasts of alternative B. It
would not be built under the no-action alternative, alternative
A, or the minimum forecast of alternative B. The facility is
targeted to begin operating in the year 2006. Activities that
would be conducted in the non-alpha vitrification facility can
generally be broken down into three steps: preparation of wastes
for treatment; vitrification; and treatment of byproducts generated
during the vitrification process. Each of these steps is discussed
in more detail below.
In the first step, waste containers would be opened
and the soils and concrete would be sorted. In alternative
B, the containerized waste would consist solely of sludges. In
alternative C, solid and liquid wastes would also be treated.
Therefore, an additional process in alternative C would be to
shred the solid wastes to approximately 1/8 inch in size using
shredder shears and/or bandsaws. Soils and concrete
would be processed through a sorting operation to separate contaminated
and uncontaminated materials. Concrete waste forms would be ball-milled
and then sorted. Soils and concrete that were uncontaminated
would be reused onsite as backfill, and the contaminated soils
and concrete would be vitrified. It is expected that 60 percent
of the mixed waste and low-activity waste soils
and concrete would be vitrified, and the remaining 40 percent
would be used as backfill. For suspect soils, it is expected
that 40 percent would be vitrified, and the remaining 60 percent
would be used as backfill. Frit and additives would be added
to the waste, and the mixture would be sent to the thermal pretreatment
unit (Hess 1994a).
The first phase of vitrification
is thermal pretreatment. During thermal pretreatment, the carbon
content of the waste would be reduced in order to produce a higher-quality
glass matrix. Then the waste would be vitrified (i.e., fused
into a solid waste matrix) in a high temperature melter. Gases
produced during the vitrification process would be sent through
an afterburner and an offgas treatment system. The afterburner
would destroy remaining hazardous organic compounds prior to treatment
in the offgas system. The offgas system would scrub the gases
to minimize the release of remaining hazardous constituents or
particulates to the atmosphere. Liquids generated by the offgas
system would be evaporated and recondensed. The condensed overheads
would be sent to a dedicated wastewater treatment
unit for the treatment of mercury, trace radionuclides,
and other materials. The closed-loop wastewater treatment system
would ensure that once treated, the wastewater would be returned
to the offgas system for reuse. Vitrified wastes would be sent
either to RCRA-permitted disposal vaults or to shallow land disposal.
It is assumed that 50 percent of the treated mixed and hazardous
wastes would require RCRA-permitted disposal,
and the remaining 50 percent could be disposed of as low-level
waste (Hess 1994a).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under the no-action alternative and each waste forecast
of alternative A, the facility would not be constructed.
For the expected and maximum waste forecasts of alternative
B, only mixed wastes would be treated in the
non-alpha vitrification facility.
The mixed waste treatability groups to be processed include soils,
organic sludge, and inorganic sludge. Table B.181
presents the volumes that would be treated.
For the expected waste forecast of alternative B, the feed rate to the non-alpha vitrification facility would be approximately 302 cubic meters (10,700 cubic feet) per year of sludges and approximately 2,790 cubic meters (98,500 cubic feet) per year of soils.
For the maximum waste forecast of alternative B,
the feed rate to the non-alpha vitrification
facility would be approximately
400 cubic meters (14,100 cubic feet) per year of sludges and approximately
15,000 cubic meters (5.30´105 cubic
feet) per year of soils.
For the minimum waste forecast of alternative B, the non-alpha vitrification facility would not be built. Insufficient waste volumes were forecasted for the minimum case to warrant construction of the non-alpha vitrification facility. Mixed waste soils and sludges would be incinerated at the Consolidated Incineration Facility after modifications to accommodate the treatment of such materials.
For each waste forecast of alternative C, hazardous,
mixed, and low-level wastes would be treated in the non-alpha
vitrification facility.
Hazardous wastes to be treated include
metal debris, equipment, and lead wastes that were not successfully
decontaminated in the containment building;
soils; inorganic, organic, heterogeneous, and glass
debris; organic and inorganic sludges; and organic and inorganic
liquids. Mixed wastes to be treated include
metal debris and equipment wastes that were not successfully decontaminated
in the containment building; spent decontamination solutions and
wet chemical oxidation residuals from the containment building;
glass, heterogeneous, inorganic, and organic debris; lead; benzene
waste from the Defense Waste Processing Facility;
aqueous and organic liquids; radioactive oil; PUREX solvent; paint
wastes; composite filters; soils; organic and inorganic sludge;
and mercury-contaminated material. Low-level wastes
to be treated include low-activity soils, suspect soils, low-activity
jobcontrol waste; job-control waste from offsite generators;
tritiated soils; tritiated job-control waste; tritiated equipment;
intermediate-activity job-control waste; and lowactivity
equipment (Hess 1994a).
For the expected waste forecast of alternative C,
the combined feed rate to the non-alpha vitrification
facility would average approximately
11,832 cubic meters (4.18´105
cubic feet) per year of soils, 17,975 cubic meters
(6.35´105
cubic feet) per year of solids, and 2,873
cubic meters (1.01´105
cubic feet) per year of liquids (Hess 1995a).
For the minimum waste forecast, the combined feed
rate to the non-alpha vitrification facility
would be approximately 2,450 cubic meters (86,500 cubic feet)
per year of soils, 13,115 cubic meters (4.63´105
cubic feet) per year of solids, and 808 cubic meters (28,500
cubic feet) per year of liquids (Hess 1995a).
For the maximum waste forecast, the combined feed
rate to the non-alpha vitrification facility
would be approximately 45,945 cubic meters (1.62´106
cubic feet) per year of soils, 33,397 cubic meters
(1.18´106
per year of solids, and 4,633 cubic meters (1.64´105
per year of liquids (Hess 1995a).
|
| |||
| 88,331 m3 soil/concrete sorted 5,174 m3 sludge vitrified
(302 m3 annually) 52,999 m3 soil vitrified (2,790 m3 annually) mixed wastemixed wastes only | 440,060 m3 soil/concrete sorted 7,451 m3 sludge vitrified
(400 m3 annually) 264,036 m3 soil vitrified (15,000 m3 annually) mixed wastemixed wastes only | ||
| 34,897 m3 soil/concrete sorted (23,873 m3 mixed; 11,024 m3 low-level)
Vitrifiedc: 59,654 m3 mixed 37,860 m3 hazardous 213,566 m3 low-level | 125,510 m3 soil/concrete sorted (88,331 m3 mixed; 37,179 m3 low-level)
Vitrifiedd: 141,020 m3 mixed 211,271 m3 hazardous 268,639 m3 low-level | 1,019,845 m3 soil/concrete sorted (440,098 m3 mixed; 579,747 m3 low-level)
Vitrifiede: 457,405 m3 mixed 395,795 m3 hazardous 742,319 m3 low-level |
a. Source: Hess (1995a).
b. To convert to gallons multiply by 264.2; to convert to cubic feet multiply by 35.31.
c. Mixed would include 14,324 m3 of soil; 33,970 m3 of solids; 11,360 m3 of liquids.
Hazardous would include 26,932 m3 of soil; 6,933 m3 of solids; 3,995 m3 of liquids.
Low-level would include 5,292 m3 of soil, 208,274 m3 of solids; no liquids.
d. Mixed would include 52,999 m3 of soil; 69,472 m3 of solids; 18,549 m3 of liquids.
Hazardous would include 152,815 m3 of soil; 22,417 m3 of solids; 36,039 m3 of liquids.
Low-level would include 19,001 m3 of soil, 249,638 m3 of solids; no liquids.
e. Mixed would include 264,059 m3 of soil; 132,453 m3 of solids; 60,893 m3 of liquids.
Hazardous would include 330,501 m3 of soil; 38,167 m3 of solids; 27,127 m3 of liquids.
Low-level would include 278,397 m3 of soil, 463,922 m3 of solids; no liquids.
B.19 LOW-LEVEL WASTE SMELTER
OBJECTIVE:
In this eis the decontamination of low-activity equipment
waste would be done by offsite commercial facilities because such
facilities are currently available to perform the treatment required.
DESCRIPTION:
DOE would ship low-activity equipment waste to an
offsite facility which uses a standard smelter process
for decontamination. The equipment waste would be smelted to
separate the pure metallic fraction from the slag that would contain
impurities, including the majority of the radionuclides. It is
assumed that 90 percent of the low-activity equipment waste volume
would be recovered as metal suitable for reuse, and 10 percent
of the incoming waste volume would be slag. The slag would be
formed into blocks and packaged for shipment back to SRS for disposal.
Because slag is a stable waste form, and the radionuclides would
be fixed in the waste matrix, the slag residues could be sent
to shallow land disposal.
DOE would ship offsite low-activity equipment waste
(including low-activity equipment waste resulting from the decontamination
of mixed wastes at the containment building)
for decontamination in alternatives B and C. Less waste volume
would be available for decontamination under alternative C due
to the diminished role of the containment building in that alternative
(Hess 1994a, h).
For purposes of assessment, the offsite decontamination
facility was assumed to be located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In
terms of transportation and surrounding population, this location
is representative of the range of possible locations.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
The volumes of low-activity equipment waste sent
offsite for decontamination by smelting for each alternative and
waste forecast are shown in Table B.19-1.
Table B.19-1. Estimated volumes of low-level waste smelted for each alternative.a,b
a. Source: Hess (1995a).
b. To convert to cubic feet, multiply by 35.31.
B.20 OFFSITE LOW-LEVEL WASTE VOLUME REDUCTION
OBJECTIVE:
Offsite commercial vendor facilities have been designated
for the treatment and repackaging of SRS lowactivity wastes
because such facilities are currently available. This commercial
volume reduction capability could be used to more efficiently
utilize low-level waste disposal capacity before a facility that
provided the same treatment capability could be constructed and
commence operations at SRS.
DESCRIPTION:
DOE would ship low-activity job-control and equipment
waste to an offsite facility for volume reduction. The low-level
waste would be treated or repackaged to make more efficient use
of lowlevel waste disposal capacity or to meet the waste
acceptance criteria for treatment
at the Consolidated Incineration Facility
at SRS. It is assumed that 50 percent of the low-activity job
control waste generated each year would be transferred to a commercial
vendor who would perform the following:
- 60 percent supercompacted (an average of volume
reduction 8 to 1; varies from 12 to 1 for job-control waste to
4 to 1 for bulk equipment)
- 20 percent reduced in size and repackaged
for treatment at the Consolidated Incineration
Facility (30 percent
volume reduction from repackaging; 8 to 1 volume reduction for
the Consolidated Incineration Facility)
- 10 percent incinerated at the vendor facility
followed by supercompaction of the ash (100 to 1 volume reduction)
- 5 percent reduced in size and repackaged for
disposal (30 percent volume reduction)
- 5 percent undergoing metal melt followed by
supercompaction (20 to 1 volume reduction)
DOE would also ship 50 percent of the low-activity equipment waste generated each year to a commercial vendor for supercompaction (8 to 1 volume reduction). The treated wastes would be returned to SRS for disposal in the low-activity waste vaults with the exception of the metal melt waste which would be sent to shallow land disposal.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
DOE would utilize commercial vendors for volume reduction
of low-level waste under alternative B only. Assuming that contracts
are executed based on the responses to the request for proposal,
DOE would begin offsite shipments of low-activity waste in fiscal
year 1996 at which time it is assumed that the existing SRS compactors
would cease operation.
Uncompacted wastes placed in the low-activity waste vault prior to October 1995 would be stored for retrieval and processing by the commercial vendor.
For purposes of assessment, the offsite volume reduction
facility was assumed to be located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In
terms of transportation and surrounding population, this location
is representative of the range of possible locations.
The volumes of low-activity waste sent offsite for treatment and repackaging for each alternative and waste forecast are shown in Table B.20-1.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS:
The consequences of the offsite treatment of low-level radioactive wastes are expected to be small. Treatment of SRS low-activity waste is not expected to result in exceedance of the vendor's permitted emissions limits. DOE would only ship wastes that conform to the vendor's waste acceptance criteria. SRS wastes are not expected to contain radionuclides that are not already being processed in the waste feed currently being treated by the vendor. Compliance with the vendor's waste acceptance criteria will ensure that the SRS radionuclide distributions are adequately considered in the vendor's permits and licenses.
The request for proposal specifies that the vendor
must have existing contracts for volume reduction of low-level
waste and that the SRS waste cannot exceed 50 percent of the vendor's
treatment capacity. It is expected that the SRS wastes will comprise
approximately 25 percent of the vendor's total operating capacity.
The request for proposal also stipulates that the vendor must
start treating SRS waste within three months of contract award.
As such, it is expected that the vendor will utilize idle capacity
since three months would not be sufficient time to develop new
capacity to support treatment of SRS waste (Hess 1995c).
Table B.20-1. Volumes of low-activity waste that would be treated offsite (cubic meters).a,b
|
| |||
| 158,350 m3 job control waste
95,010 m3 supercompacted 31,670 m3 repackaged for CIFc 15,835 m3 incinerated 7,918 m3 repackaged for disposal 7,918 m3 metal melt/ supercompacted
14,906 m3 equipment waste supercompacted 5,970 m3/year average | 186,671 m3 job control waste 112,002 m3 supercompacted 37,334 m3 repackaged for CIFc 18,667 m3 incinerated 9,334 m3 repackaged for disposal 9,334 m3 metal melt/ supercompacted
27,220 m3 equipment waste supercompacted 7,380 m3/year average | 210,269 m3 job control waste 126,161 m3 supercompacted 42,054 m3 repackaged for CIFc 21,027 m3 incinerated 10,513 m3 repackaged for disposal 10,513 m3 metal melt/ supercompacted
81,503 m3 equipment waste supercompacted 10,060 m3/year average | |
a. Source: Hess (1995a).
b. To convert to gallons multiply by 264.2; to convert to cubic feet multiply by 35.31.
c. Consolidated Incineration Facility.
Operational impacts associated with these offsite
facilities are presented in the Traffic and Transportation and
Occupational and Public Health Section of Chapter 4 (4.4.11 and
4.4.12) and Appendix E (Sections 3.0 and 4.0).
B.21 OFFSITE MIXED WASTE TReaTMENTS
OBJECTIVE:
Offsite commercial or DOE-operated treatment facilities
have been designated for treatment of mixed wastes
generated at SRS when an offsite facility currently exists that
could perform the treatment required or when a planned offsite
treatment facility would be available before a facility that provided
the same treatment capability could be constructed and commence
operations at SRS.
DESCRIPTION:
The SRS Proposed Site Treatment Plan evaluated
existing commercial and existing or proposed DOEoperated
treatment facilities (both onsite and offsite) in its options
analysis to arrive at a preferred option for each mixed waste.
Offsite commercial and DOE-operated facilities were identified
as the preferred options for several SRS mixed wastes.
The Waste Engineering Development Facility at the
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory was identified as the preferred
option for treating SRS mercury and mercury-contaminated
mixed waste. A small quantity of elemental
liquid mercury [less than 1 cubic meter (35 cubic feet)] would
be shipped to the Waste Engineering Development Facility's amalgamation
unit. The mercury waste would be treated by amalgamation (the
combination of liquid elemental mercury with inorganic reagents
such as copper, zinc, nickel, gold or sulfur that results in a
semi-solid amalgam and thereby reduces potential emissions of
mercury vapor into the air). Amalgamation
is the treatment standard specified for such radioactive mercury
waste. DOE would also ship a small quantity [less than 2 cubic
meters (71 cubic feet)] of mercury-contaminated waste (rocks,
dirt, sand, concrete, and glass) generated from cleaning Tank E3-1
in H-Area. This waste would be treated at the Waste Engineering
Development Facility's stabilization unit by immobilizing the
mercury in a grout matrix. Both the amalgamated mercury and the
stabilized mercury-contaminated waste would be returned to SRS
for disposal. The amalgamated mercury would be sent to RCRA-permitted
disposal, and the stabilized mercury-contaminated waste would
be sent to shallow land disposal.
DOE has generated a small amount [0.8 cubic meter (28 cubic feet)] of calcium metal waste. This waste would be shipped to the Los Alamos National Laboratory for treatment using the Reactive Metals Skid, a mobile treatment unit. The treatment would involve controlled wet oxidation to eliminate the reactivity of the calcium in metallic form. Treatment residuals would be returned to SRS for disposal.
DOE anticipates generating a limited quantity [less
than 60 cubic meters (2,100 cubic feet)] of radioactively contaminated
PCB wastes over the 30-year analysis period of this eis. These
wastes would be shipped to a commercial facility for treatment
to destroy the PCB fraction. The radioactively contaminated residuals
from the treatment process would be returned to SRS for shallow
land disposal.
The SRS Proposed Site Treatment Plan assumed
that half of the existing inventory and forecast waste generation
of mixed waste lead would consist of lead that
could be decontaminated and reused. DOE identified a commercial
facility that could perform the required decontamination procedures.
The commercial facility would decontaminate the lead using an
acid bath. It is assumed that this process would be able to successfully
decontaminate 80 percent of the lead. The decontaminated lead
would be sold for reuse. Lead that could not be decontaminated
would be stabilized and returned to SRS for disposal. The spent
acid solutions from the decontamination process would be neutralized,
volume reduced, stabilized, and then returned to SRS for disposal.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
No-Action - Offsite mixed
waste treatment facilities would not be used
under the no-action alternative.
Alternatives A and B
- The offsite mixed waste
treatment would be identical for alternatives A and B expected
waste forecasts.
DOE would ship radioactively contaminated PCB wastes
to a commercial facility for treatment of the PCB fraction. The
waste shipments would total approximately 2 cubic meters (71 cubic
feet) per year for a total of 56 cubic meters (2,000 cubic feet)
over the 30-year period. Residuals from the treatment process
[approximately 7 cubic meters (250 cubic feet) over the 30year
period] would be returned to SRS for shallow land disposal.
DOE would ship 3,010 cubic meters (1.06´105
cubic feet) of mixed waste lead to the commercial
facility for decontamination. The waste shipments would total
approximately 119 cubic meters (4,200 cubic feet) per year.
Lead that could not be decontaminated and spent decontamination
solutions [a total of 602 cubic meters (21,000 cubic feet) over
the 30-year period] would be stabilized and returned to SRS for
RCRA-permitted disposal.
Small quantities [approximately 2 cubic meters (70.6
cubic feet)] of mercury and mercury-contaminated
waste would be shipped to the Waste Engineering Development Facility
at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Residuals from
the treatment processes would be returned to SRS for disposal.
A small amount [0.8 cubic meter (28 cubic feet)]
of calcium metal waste would be shipped to the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. Residuals from treatment using the Reactive Metals
Skid would be returned to SRS for disposal (Hess 1995a).
For the minimum waste forecast, PCB wastes, mercury
wastes, and calcium metal wastes would be the same as described
in the expected waste forecast.
Under alternatives A and B, DOE would ship 1,316
cubic meters (46,500 cubic feet) of mixed waste
lead to the commercial facility for decontamination. The waste
shipments would total approximately 41 cubic meters (1,450
cubic feet) per year. Lead that could not be decontaminated and
spent decontamination solutions [a total of 263 cubic meters (9,300 cubic
feet) over the 30-year period] would be stabilized and returned
to SRS for disposal (Hess 1995a).
For the maximum waste forecast, mercury
wastes and calcium metal wastes would be managed as described
in the expected waste forecast.
DOE would ship radioactively contaminated PCB wastes
to a commercial facility for treatment of the PCB fraction. The
waste shipments would total approximately 2 cubic meters (71 cubic
feet) per year for a total of 55 cubic meters (1,900 cubic feet)
over the 30-year period. Residuals from the treatment process
[approximately 7 cubic meters (250 cubic feet) over the 30year
period] would be returned to SRS for shallow land disposal.
DOE would ship 7,675 cubic meters (2.71´105
feet) of mixed waste lead to the commercial
facility for decontamination. The waste shipments would total
approximately 780 cubic meters (27,500 cubic feet) per year
from the years 2000 to 2005 and approximately 152 cubic meters
(5,400 cubic feet) per year from the years 2006 to 2024.
Lead that could not be decontaminated and spent decontamination
solutions [a total of 1,535 cubic meters (54,200 cubic feet)
over the 30-year period] would be stabilized and returned to SRS
for disposal.
Alternative C - For each
waste forecast of alternative C, offsite mixed waste
treatment facilities would be utilized as described for alternatives
A and B except that no wastes would be shipped offsite to the
Waste Engineering Development Facility at the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory. Mercury-contaminated waste would be
vitrified at the non-alpha vitrification facility,
and mercury waste would be amalgamated at the containment
building under alternative C.
B.22 ORGANIC WASTE STORAGE TANK
OBJECTIVE:
The Organic Waste Storage Tank provides RCRA storage
for organic waste generated from high-level
waste processing at the Defense Waste Processing Facility.
DESCRIPTION:
Beginning in 1996, a 570-cubic meter (150,000-gallon)
stainless steel tank would be used for the storage of mixed organic
waste generated from the Defense Waste Processing
Facility. This tank is
referred to as the Organic Waste Storage Tank and is located in
the 200-S Area. The tank has a double-seal internal floating
roof in addition to a fixed dome roof. The tank vapor space would
be filled with nitrogen gas, an inert gas, to prevent ignition.
A full-height carbon steel outer vessel would serve as secondary
containment for the tank. Waste would be transferred to the tank
from the Defense Waste Processing Facility via a welded steel
overhead line. Mixed organic waste to be stored in the tank would
consist mostly of benzene (80 to 90 percent) and other aromatic
compounds, with small amounts of mercury (WSRC 1993h).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
No Action -
Based on DOE's 30-year expected waste forecast, approximately
151 cubic meters (5,300 cubic feet) of organic waste
would be generated every year from 1996 to 2,014 for a total of
2,793 cubic meters (98,600 cubic feet). Under the no-action alternative,
DOE plans to continue to store this organic waste. Therefore,
the storage capacity of the existing 570-cubic meter (150,000gallon)
tank would be sufficient for approximately 4 years. To accommodate
mixed organic waste generation, DOE would build additional organic
waste storage tanks identical
to the existing tank. Accordingly, 4 additional 570-cubic
meter (150,000-gallon) organic waste storage tanks would need
to be constructed in S-Area over the 30year period (Hess
1995a).
Alternatives A, B, and C - The amount of mixed organic waste generated would be the same for each waste forecast and is the same as described under the no-action alternative. Under alternatives A, B, and C, DOE would treat the mixed organic waste; therefore, the existing 570-cubic meter (150,000gallon) tank would provide sufficient storage capacity over the next 30 years. No additional tanks would need to be constructed.
B.23 PROCESS WASTE INTERIM TReaTMENT/STORAGE FACILITY
OBJECTIVE:
The Process Waste Interim Treatment/Storage Facility
was built to store the wastewater slurry generated
by the M-Area Liquid Effluent Treatment Facility
process until a concentrated wastewater treatment process was
developed. This vitrification treatment process
is to be provided by a commercial vendor, the M-Area Vendor Treatment
Facility (Appendix B.15). The treatment facility is currently
being permitted, and when it has been constructed and placed in
operation, it would treat the wastes currently stored in the Process
Waste Interim Treatment/Storage Facility tanks.
DESCRIPTION:
The M-Area Liquid Effluent Treatment Facility
was built to treat M-Area waste acids, caustics, and rinse waters.
The M-Area Liquid Effluent Treatment Facility is an industrial
wastewater treatment facility that includes three
linked treatment facilities: the Dilute Effluent Treatment Facility;
the Chemical Transfer Facility; and the Process Waste Interim
Treatment/Storage Facility.
The Dilute Effluent Treatment Facility (Building 341-M) consists
of wastewater equalization, physical/chemical precipitation, flocculation,
and pressure filtration process equipment. The filtercake resulting
from the precipitation and filtration processes is transported
to the Chemical Transfer Facility in dedicated 55gallon
drums. The Chemical Transfer Facility originally treated concentrated
process wastewater and plating-line solutions prior to transfer
to the Process Waste Interim Treatment/Storage Facility tanks,
but presently it only slurries the Dilute Effluent Treatment Facility
filtercake for pipeline transfer to the tanks.
The M-Area Process Waste Interim Treatment/Storage
Facility
tanks are used for storing concentrated mixed wastes
(i.e., electroplating sludge) from the M-Area Liquid Effluent
Treatment Facility.
These tanks have been granted interim status under RCRA. The
Process Waste Interim Treatment/Storage Facility consists of six
132-cubic meter (35,000-gallon) tanks and four 1,900-cubic meter
(500,000gallon) tanks (WSRC 1992e).
The 132-cubic meter (35,000-gallon) tanks are single-shelled,
welded-steel tanks and are located inside Building 3411M.
Building 341-1M consists of a single reinforced concrete pad
with steel walls and a roof. To contain leaks and gather accumulated
liquids, the concrete pad is diked and slopes towards a sump.
The tanks are mounted horizontally on steel saddle support structures
to prevent them from coming into contact with accumulated liquids.
The 1,900-cubic meter (500,000-gallon) tanks are
double-walled welded-steel tanks that have been field constructed
on individual reinforced concrete pads. These tanks are outside.
The double-walled construction would contain releases due to
tank failure. Additionally, each tank is designed to overflow
to one of the other tanks (WSRC 1992e).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under the no-action alternative and for all waste
forecasts of alternatives A, B, and C, the M-Area Process Waste
Interim Treatment/Storage Facility
tanks would continue to store concentrated mixed wastes
from the M-Area Liquid Effluent Treatment Facility.
The Process Waste Interim Treatment/Storage Facility tanks would
be used to prepare the waste feed to the M-Area Vendor Treatment
Facility and to store offgasscrubberblowdown liquid
from the vitrification unit prior to treatment
at the M-Area Liquid Effluent Treatment Facility. The existing
tanks would provide sufficient storage capacity under all alternatives.
B.24 RECYCLING UNITS
RECYCLING UNIT: Silver
Recovery
OBJECTIVE:
The silver recovery system is located in Building
725-N and extracts silver from waste photographic fixative solutions
used to develop X-rays films and silk screens. The silver is
extracted using ion exchange technology (Nelson
1993).
DESCRIPTION:
Waste solutions flow by gravity from a 18.93-liter
(5-gallon) storage vessel into the first of two ion exchange
cartridges connected in series to ensure that silver solutions
are not accidentally discharged. Each ion exchange cartridge
contains a core of iron powder or steel wool which acts as an
ion exchange media when the silver-containing solutions are passed
through. The waste solutions drain through the first cartridge
into the second one. The first (primary) ion exchange cartridge
is removed from the process line when it is saturated with silver.
The second ion exchange cartridge is then moved to the primary
cartridge location, and its original place filled with a fresh
ion exchange cartridge (WSRC No date).
The treated fixative solution is discharged to the
N-Area sanitary sewer at an average rate of 0.022 liters
(0.01 gallons) per minute with a peak discharge of 0.131 liters
(0.03 gallons) per minute. Rinse water is also generated when
spent ion exchange cartridge cores are flushed.
Periodically, the rinse water discharges through the spent ion
exchange cartridge and into the silver recovery unit at 0.379
liters (0.1 gallons) per minute (Stewart 1992). After the
spent cores are rinsed, dried, packaged, they are shipped offsite
for recovery of precious metals (WSRC No date).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under each alternative, the facility would operate
as described.
RECYCLING UNIT: Lead
Melter
OBJECTIVE:
The lead melter melts and recycles scrap lead that
is not radioactively contaminated (WSRC 1992f).
DESCRIPTION:
The lead melter is located in Building 711-4N.
The furnace consists of two pots which hold 4,082.4
kilograms (9,000 pounds) and 3,175.2 kilograms (7,000 pounds)
of scrap lead, respectively. The furnace operates at least weekly
for batch processing of scrap lead. It uses Number 2 Fuel Oil
(Dukes 1994). The molten lead is reconfigured for new uses and/or
stored. The recycled lead can be used as radiation shielding,
counterweights, or for other purposes (WSRC 1993i).
Particulates and vapors generated during lead melting,
from both the lead and the fuel combustion exhaust, are contained
within the furnace and discharged through a high efficiency particulate
air pre-filter and filter to the atmosphere. Lead and particulate
emissions are estimated to be between 2.43´10-8
and 4.86´10-8
metric tons per year (2.68´10-8
and 5.36´10-8
tons per year). Fugitive lead emissions (those not discharged
out a stack but escaping through doors, windows, etc.) from melting
and pouring are estimated at between 3.25´10-5
and 6.43´10-5
metric tons per year (3.58´105
and 7.14´10-5
tons per year) (Dukes 1994). Residue from melting operations
is regulated as hazardous waste and is managed
in a satellite accumulation area prior to onsite permitted storage.
Approximately 0.21 cubic meter (7 cubic feet) of residue are
generated per month.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under each alternative, the facility would operate
as described.
RECYCLING UNIT: Solvent
Reclamation
OBJECTIVE:
Solvent reclamation units distill waste solvents
and condense the reclaimed solvents for future use.
DESCRIPTION:
Five solvent reclamation units exist at SRS. Two
are located in building 725-2N, while three are portable and are
transported to various locations throughout SRS (WSRC 1992g).
Each solvent reclamation unit is composed of a 28.39-liter (7.5
gallon) electrically powered still. The still is filled with
waste solvent and heated to the boiling temperature of the solvent
to be reclaimed. Solvent vapors are captured within a unit-contained
condenser and cooled with a recycled antifreeze and water mixture.
The condensed solvent flows into a clean solvent drum. The duration
of distillation for each 28.39-liter (7.5 gallon) batch is approximately
4 hours (WSRC 1993i).
Each solvent distillation vessel is sealed to prevent
vapor releases to the atmosphere. Vapor effluent from the reclaimed
solvent container is treated with air-phased activated carbon
units which are periodically inspected for solvent saturation.
Discharges of volatile organic compounds to the atmosphere are
estimate at 0.005 kilograms (0.01 pounds) per hour of operation
per unit (WSRC 1992g).
Waste solvent residue is cleaned from the stills,
containerized, and managed in a satellite accumulation area prior
to onsite permitted storage. Coolant solution is collected in
a holding tank and reused (WSRC 1993i).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under each alternative, the facility would operate
as described.
RECYCLING UNIT: Refrigerant
Gas Recovery and Recycling
OBJECTIVE:
These closedloop systems recover and reuse
chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons without venting
to the atmosphere (WSRC 1993i). Equipment that uses refrigerant
gases is recharged with one of these units. Gases are also reclaimed
from decommissioned cooling equipment prior to disposal (Hess
1994i).
DESCRIPTION:
There are 71 refrigerant gas recovery and recycling
units at SRS (Hess 1994j). These portable units are based in
Buildings 711-5N and 716-N; however, they are used throughout
SRS. The process of reclaiming the refrigerants involves attaching
a refrigerant gas recovery unit to the equipment being recharged.
The refrigerant gas is released into the unit's sealed recovery
system. The warm gas is forced at high velocity into a oil/acid
separator where oils, acids, and particulates (e.g., copper chips)
drop to the bottom of the separator. The separated, cleaned vapors
then pass through a compressor and condenser to form a liquid
refrigerant. The liquid is then cooled to between 1.7 and 4.4
°C. The cooling promotes drying of the liquid and air separation.
The reclaimed refrigerant is stored within the unit (Hess 1994j).
Storage capacity is 13.61 kilograms (30 pounds) or 40.82 kilograms
(90 pounds), depending on the unit. Recycled refrigerant, stored
within the unit, is used to recharge the cooling equipment (Hess
1994i).
Refrigerant recycling units are closed
loop-systems; therefore, no refrigerant gas emissions are released
(Hess 1994i). Oil, acid, and particulates separated from waste
gas are removed from the separating unit and managed as waste
oil (a nonhazardous waste), which is burned for energy recovery
in an SRS powerhouse boiler (Harvey 1994).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under each alternative, the facility would operate
as described.
RECYCLING UNIT: Vacuum
Stripping Facility
OBJECTIVE:
This portable stripping device is used to abrade
contaminated surface coatings from materials (Miller 1994a).
DESCRIPTION:
The vacuum stripping facility is located in Building
728-N. Vacuum stripping pneumatically propels aluminum oxide
grit at the surface to be decontaminated. The surface is abraded
by the impact of the grit. The grit and dislodged material are
vacuumed from the surface immediately. The unit separates contaminated
material and shattered grit from the intact grit and reuses the
intact grit in the decontamination process (Miller 1994a).
Particulates generated during decontamination are
captured in a dust filter. The waste captured in the dust filter
is stabilized with an agent such as concrete if the waste is finely
powdered and managed as low-level waste. A secondary high efficiency
particulate air filter is installed on the stripper to prevent
releases to the atmosphere (Hess 1994k). The building is also
equipped with high efficiency particulate air filters to further
ensure contaminants are not released to the atmosphere.
The rate at which high efficiency particulate air
filters are used and the volume of waste from the dust filter
depends on the size and level of contamination of the equipment
being decontaminated. The volume of job-control waste depends
on the number of jobs at the facility. Based on the equipment
to be decontaminated during the first quarter of Fiscal Year 1995,
the waste estimate is 0.01 cubic meters (0.35 cubic feet)
of removed contamination and unusable grit (excludes stabilizing
agent volume) and 0.453 cubic meters (16 cubic feet) of job-control
waste (Miller 1994b). The volume of unusable grit generated is
estimated at 0.002 cubic meters (0.07 cubic feet) per day (Miller
1994a).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under each alternative, the facility would operate
as described.
RECYCLING UNIT: Carbon
Dioxide Blasting Facility
OBJECTIVE:
The carbon dioxide blasting facility would be located
in C-Area (Miller 1994b) and is scheduled to be in operation by
the second quarter of fiscal year 1995 (Miller 1994a). This facility
uses solid carbon dioxide pellets (i.e., dry ice) to remove surface
contaminants without degrading the surface (Hess 1994k).
DESCRIPTION:
The carbon dioxide facility would produce solid dry
ice pellets and pneumatically propel them at the contaminated
surface. Upon contact, the pellets flash into the gaseous phase,
simultaneously purging contaminants from the microscopic pores
on the surface. Large particles are also dislodged by this flashing
action. This nondestructive technology can be used on delicate
materials and equipment (Hess 1994k).
Carbon dioxide and contaminant emissions are captured
by the two sets of high efficiency particulate air filters installed
in the enclosure (Miller 1994a). The wastes generated during
the decontamination are spent high efficiency particulate air
filters from the carbon dioxide blaster enclosure, removed material
that does not reach the high efficiency particulate air filters,
and job-control waste (i.e., protective clothing, radiological
survey swipes, etc.). The spent high efficiency particulate air
filters would be managed as low-level or mixed waste,
depending on the equipment decontaminated. The decontamination
of lead equipment would yield mixed waste, while the decontamination
of steel equipment would yield low-level waste (Miller 1994c).
Larger particles of foreign material which do not reach the
high efficiency particulate air filters would be vacuumed from
the blaster's enclosure, stored, and disposed of as low-level
or mixed waste (Hess 1994k).
The number of high efficiency particulate air filters
and volume of large contamination particles generated depends
on the size and contamination level of the equipment decontaminated.
The volume of job-control waste depends on the production level
for the facility. Based on the equipment to be decontaminated
during the second quarter of fiscal year 1995, waste generation
is estimated at 0.03 cubic meters (1.1 cubic feet) of mixed waste
and 0.23 cubic meters (8.1 cubic feet) of low-level job-control
waste during that time (Miller 1994c).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under each alternative, the facility would operate
as described.
RECYCLING UNIT: Kelly
Decontamination Facility
OBJECTIVE:
The Kelly decontamination unit is portable and would
be used at various locations throughout SRS to decontaminate floors
and installed equipment; it would be housed in C-Area (Miller
1994b). This decontamination system would use superheated water
to pressure-clean contaminated surfaces (Miller 1994a).
DESCRIPTION:
Water and contaminated materials would be collected
by the unit and treated through a separator and a demister/high
efficiency particulate air filter. The Kelly unit generates 3.03
liters (0.8 gallons) per minute (Miller 1994a). The wastes generated
would be liquid radioactive waste that would be transferred to
211-F for eventual transfer to the F- and H-Area tank farms and
a filtercake that would be dewatered and stabilized prior to being
placed in a 2.6-cubic-meter (90-cubic-foot) box and managed as
low-level waste (Miller 1994c).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under each alternative, the facility would operate
as described.
B.25 REPLACEMENT HIGH-LEVEL WASTE EVAPORATOR
OBJECTIVE:
The Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator is currently
in the design and construction phase. It is being built so that
liquid high-level waste can be processed in the future to meet
waste tank capacity requirements. Of the four existing evaporators
at SRS, only two are operational; the Replacement High-Level Waste
Evaporator is needed to meet the demand for waste evaporation
and subsequent processing at the Defense Waste Processing Facility.
Once operational, the new evaporator would have more than twice
the design capacity of each of the 2H and 2F evaporators and would
be able to process the Defense Waste Processing Facility recycle
waste stream in addition to high-heat waste (i.e., waste that
contains high levels of radioactivity). Without the Replacement
High-Level Waste Evaporator, the tank farms would run out of required
tank space, and the Defense Waste Processing Facility would be
forced to stop processing high-level waste (WSRC 1993f).
Construction of the Replacement High-Level Waste
Evaporator was initiated and is continuing as a categorical exclusion
under then-current DOE NEPA guidelines (52 FR 47662). Regulatory
oversight for the project was originally provided under RCRA and
continues under the provisions identified in Industrial Wastewater
Permit number 17,424-IW for F/HArea tank farms. The planned
startup date for the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator is
May 1999 (WSRC 1994h).
DESCRIPTION:
Figure B.25-1 is a simplified process diagram of the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator. The Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator, like the existing evaporators, could be described as a large pot in which the waste is heated by a bundle of bent tube steam coils. The evaporator will be constructed of stainless steel, approximately 4.3 meters (14 feet) in diameter and 8.2 meters (27 feet), contained in a reinforced concrete building. Liquid supernatant would be transferred to the evaporator from an evaporator feed tank. Within the evaporator, the supernatant would be heated to its boiling point, forming a vapor phase called "overheads." The overheads would be condensed and monitored to ensure that they contain no unexpected excessive amounts of entrained (captured) radionuclides. Following condensing and monitoring, the overheads would be transferred to the F/HArea Effluent Treatment Facility for further treatment. The concentrated supernatant in the evaporator pot would be transferred to an evaporator receipt tank (WSRC 1994d).
The Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator is expected
to process 13,815 cubic meters (3.6´106
gallons) of overheads per year (Campbell 1994a). Comparatively,
the 2H and 2F evaporators have historically
had a maximum annual overhead process rate of 12,900 and 14,000
cubic meters (3.4´106
and 3.7´106
gallons), respectively (Campbell 1994b).
Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator design improvements
over the existing evaporators include material
changes in the heater tube bundle, elimination of deentrainment
equipment and the cesium removal column because of
improvements in deentrainment efficiency (WSRC 1991).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under each alternative, DOE would continue construction and begin operation of the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator. The operational rate of the Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator would not change as a result of the reduced volumes anticipated in the minimum waste forecast or the increased volumes anticipated in the maximum waste forecast.
B.26 SAVANNAH RIVER TECHNOLOGY CENTER
OBJECTIVE:
The Mixed Waste Storage Tanks provide storage and
treatment capacity for wastewater from the lowactivity
drain system and high-activity drain system that support research,
development, and analytical programs at the Savannah River
Technology Center (SRTC).
DESCRIPTION:
Ten interim status steel storage tanks are located
below grade in concrete vaults at the Savannah River
Technology Center in Building 776-2A. Seven tanks each have a
capacity of 22 cubic meters (5,900 gallons) and three tanks
each have a capacity of 14 cubic meters (3,670 gallons) (WSRC 1992h).
These tanks are used to store liquid radioactive waste that could
potentially be hazardous (hence mixed waste)
due to corrosivity or toxicity for chromium, lead, mercury,
or benzene.
Waste is segregated in the tanks by its radiological
levels: high-activity (greater than 1,000 disintegrations per
minute per milliliter alpha or beta-gamma activity) and low-activity
(less than 1,000 disintegrations per minute per milliliter alpha
or beta-gamma activity). When a tank is full it is sampled and
analyzed for radioactivity and selected hazardous constituents.
If the contents are determined to be nonhazardous, waste is transferred
to the separation facility in F-Area. If the contents are determined
to be hazardous, the waste is treated in the tank prior to transfer
to F-Area.
If the waste is hazardous because of corrosivity,
it would be made nonhazardous by adjusting the pH with an appropriate
neutralizer. The waste would be treated by sorption on an appropriate
ion exchange medium to remove the hazardous
constituent(s) of chromium, lead, mercury and/or
benzene. The ion exchange process can only remove chromium in
the trivalent form (chromium III). If chromium were present in
the hexavalent form (chromium VI), the waste would first be pretreated
to convert the chromium VI to chromium III. This could be done
by adding a reducing agent to the tank. After treatment, the
waste would be transferred to the separation facility in F-Area
(WSRC 1992h).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under each of the alternatives, DOE would continue
to receive, store, and treat via ion exchange
liquid mixed wastes in the Savannah River
Technology Center Mixed Waste Storage Tanks. If required, the
waste would also be treated by neutralization and/or chromium
reduction. It is expected that 75 cubic meters (2,600 cubic
feet) per year of high-activity waste and 75 cubic meters (2,600
cubic feet) per year of low-activity waste would be generated
and managed at the Savannah River Technology Center Mixed Waste
Storage Tanks (WSRC 1995). Because the waste is treated as it
is generated, the 10 existing Savannah River Technology Center
Mixed Waste Storage Tanks would have sufficient capacity for the
30-year analysis period. The treated wastewater
would be transferred to the separation facility in FArea
and has been included in the liquid high-level waste volume forecasted
for that facility.
B.27 SHALLOW LAND DISPOSAL
OBJECTIVE:
In general, shallow land disposal
in this eis refers to trench disposal.
DOE Order 5820.2A establishes performance objectives
for the disposal of low-level wastes. A radiological performance
assessment is required to ensure that the waste inventory and
the proposed disposal method provide reasonable assurance that
the performance objectives will be met. The radiological performance
assessment projects the migration of radionuclides from the disposed
waste to the environment and estimates the resulting dose to man.
DOE has completed a radiological performance assessment for trench
disposal of suspect soils (as part of the radiological
performance assessment for the E-Area vaults). DOE anticipates
that naval reactor hardware will be deemed suitable for shallow
land disposal after additional data
on the composition and configuration of the waste forms is obtained
and can be incorporated in the radiological performance assessment.
Stabilized waste forms resulting from the proposed treatment
activities (i.e., vitrification and incineration)
would be evaluated against the DOE Order 5820.2A performance objectives.
Radiological performance assessments for these stabilized low-level
wastes (wastes in which the radionuclides have been immobilized
in a cement or glass matrix or encapsulated) are expected to demonstrate
that shallow land disposal achieves the performance objectives
of DOE Order 5820.2A.
For purposes of analysis in this eis, stabilized
waste forms and selected low-level wastes (suspect soils
and naval hardware) are assumed to be suitable for shallow land
disposal. The analyses provide groundwater
concentrations as a result of shallow land disposal of suspect
soils based on the radiological performance assessment's unit
concentration factors and the eis waste inventories. DOE expects
that the releases resulting from the disposal of stabilized wastes
and naval hardware in slit trenches would be
comparable to those for unstabilized suspect soils and would comply
with performance objectives specified by DOE Order 5820.2A. Therefore,
for purposes of defining the alternatives in this eis, DOE has
assumed shallow land disposal for these wastes.
DESCRIPTION:
Shallow land disposal
(or trenches) was described in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement, Waste Management Operations (ERDA 1977). Shallow
land disposal (or shallow land burial) was also described in the
Waste Management Activities for Groundwater
Protection Environmental Impact Statement and identified as
an acceptable technology for low-level waste under the preferred
"combination" alternative. Shallow land disposal has
continued in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility
and is expected to continue at the E-Area vault site for some
lowlevel wastes (e.g., suspect soil and low-activity equipment
that is too large for disposal in the EArea vaults).
Radioactive waste disposal activities in the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility (see Figure 333)
commenced in 1972 and continue to the present. Areas within the
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility include:
- engineered low-level trenches for disposal
of containerized low-activity waste and suspect soils
- greater confinement disposal
boreholes and engineered trenches for disposal of intermediateactivity
waste that is compatible with trench disposal
- slit trenches for disposal
of containerized intermediate-activity waste, bulky noncontainerized
low-activity waste, loose soil and rubble, and containerized offsite
wastes
Engineered low-level trenches are basically large
open pits in which low-activity waste boxes are placed. The engineered
low-level trenches are several acres in size and are approximately
6.7 meters (22 feet) deep. The other dimensions are adjusted
to maximize use of burial space. The engineered low-level trenches
have sloped sides and floor, allowing rainwater to flow to a collection
sump. Once the trench is full of boxes, it is backfilled and
covered with a minimum of 1.8 meters (6 feet) of soil. Soil
that is suspected to be contaminated and cannot economically be
demonstrated to be uncontaminated (i.e., suspect soil) is used
as backfill material in engineered low-level trenches. To date
three engineered low-level trenches have been filled and a fourth
trench is currently receiving only suspect soils (Hess
1995b).
Greater confinement disposal
boreholes have been augered to a depth of about 9.1 meters (30
feet) and are lined with fiberglass (with the exception of one
borehole which is lined with steel). The boreholes are encased
within a 0.3-meter (1-foot) thick concrete annulus. Waste in
the borehole is stabilized by grouting around the waste to fill
voids. After the boreholes are filled, clay caps are placed over
them. Each greater confinement disposal
borehole is monitored for leaching of radionuclides into the surrounding
medium. Existing boreholes have reached capacity, and construction
of additional boreholes is not anticipated.
Greater confinement disposal engineered trenches are constructed of reinforced concrete and consist of four cells. A trench is approximately 30 meters (100 feet) long and 15 meters (50 feet) wide with four cells each 8 meters (25 feet) long and 15 meters (50 feet) wide with a disposal capacity of approximately 850 cubic meters (30,000 cubic feet) per cell. When a cell is not being used, steel covers are placed over it to minimize rainwater intrusion. Additionally, drainage channels direct water away from the trench. The trench has a leachate collection system to collect rainwater that may enter the cells (WSRC 1993b). The greater confinement disposal engineered trench has a capacity of 3,400 cubic meters (1.2´105 cubic feet) and is filled to 75 percent of capacity. There is 850 cubic meters (30,000 cubic feet) of capacity remaining. DOE discontinued disposal of low-level waste in this engineered trench on March 31, 1995, and has no future plans to use the remaining capacity or construct additional engineered trenches (Hess 1995b).
Slit trenches are 6.1 to 9.4 meters
(20 to 30 feet) wide, 6.7 meters (22 feet) deep, and up to 300 meters
(985 feet) long (WSRC 1994b). Shortly after waste is placed in
a slit trench, it is covered with soil to control
radiation exposure and to reduce the
potential for spread of contamination through airborne releases
(WSRC 1993b, 1994b). Once a trench is filled with waste, it is
backfilled with a minimum of 1.8 to 2.4 meters (6 to 8 feet)
of soil to reduce surface radiation dose
rates to less than 5 millirem per hour, to reduce the potential
for spread of contamination, and to minimize plant and animal
intrusion into the waste (WSRC 1993b). For analysis purposes
in the eis, it is assumed that a slit trench has a nominal capacity
of approximately 1,100 cubic meters (38,852 cubic feet) based
upon trench dimensions of 6.1 meters (20 feet) wide, 6.1 meters
(20 feet) deep, and 30 meters (100 feet) long.
DOE discontinued disposal of containerized low-level
waste in the greater confinement disposal
engineered trench and an engineered low-level trench on March
31, 1995. In September 1994, DOE began to use concrete vaults
referred to as the low-activity waste vaults for disposal of containerized
low-activity waste. In February 1995, DOE began to use concrete
vaults referred to as intermediate-level waste vaults for disposal
of intermediate-activity waste (Hess 1995b ).
Naval reactor core barrels and reactor components
are stored on gravel pads in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal
Facility. The gravel pads have a total storage capacity of 697
square meters (7,500 square feet). If DOE determines that reactor
component containers satisfy the performance objectives of DOE
Order 5820.2A, these component containers would also be sent to
shallow land disposal (WSRC 1994l).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Table B.27-1 presents low-level waste management
activities for shallow land disposal.
29 trenches | |||
25 trenches | 73 trenches | 644 trenches | |
37 trenches | 58 trenches | 371 trenches | |
45 trenches | 123 trenches | 576 trenches |
a. Source: Hess (1995a).
b. To convert to cubic feet, multiply by 35.31.
Under the no-action alternative, DOE would send suspect soils,
naval hardware, and stabilized residuals from treatment of radioactive
PCBs to shallow land disposal.
For each waste forecast of alternative A, DOE would send stabilized
ash and blowdown from the Consolidated Incineration
Facility and waste listed
under the no-action alternative to shallow land disposal.
Under alternative B - expected and maximum waste forecasts, DOE
would send For wastes from the non-alpha vitrification
facility, stabilized residuals
from the offsite smelter and metal melt, and waste listed under
alternative A to shallow land disposal.
For alternative B - minimum waste forecast, DOE would
dispose of the same waste as under alternative B expected and
maximum waste forecasts, except for vitrified wastes from the
non-alpha vitrification facility,
by shallow land disposal. The non-alpha
vitrification facility would not operate under the minimum waste
forecast alternative B due to insufficient waste volume to warrant
it.
Under alternative C, DOE would send waste listed
for alternative B - expected and maximum waste forecasts, except
for residuals from the offsite metal melt, and vitrified waste
from the alpha vitrification facility
to shallow land disposal.
B.28 SOIL SORT FACILITY
OBJECTIVE:
The soil sort facility would
provide a process to determine whether soils are contaminated
and segregate uncontaminated soils for reuse, reducing the volume
of soil that would require treatment and/or disposal.
DESCRIPTION:
The soil sort facility would
be a mobile assembly of standard sand-and-gravel handling equipment
coupled with instrumentation for monitoring radiation, which would
allow contaminated material transported along a conveyor system
to be diverted from uncontaminated material. The ability to locate
small particles of radioactive material dispersed throughout the
soil would allow contaminants to be isolated and removed. No
sorting of tritiated soils would be performed due
to the lack of effective monitoring.
DOE anticipates that a soil sort facility
sorting efficiency would yield a separation ratio of 60 percent
contaminated to 40 percent uncontaminated soils for
mixed waste soils and low-activity waste soils
and 40 percent contaminated to 60 percent uncontaminated
soils for suspect soils. Uncontaminated soils would be reused
onsite as backfill (Hess 1994b).
PROJECT -SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not construct
or operate the mobile soil sort facility.
The mobile soil sort facility
would be constructed and operated only for mixed waste
soils under alternative A. The facility would commence
operations in 2006.
Low-activity waste soil and suspect soil would be
segregated under alternative B. The facility would commence operations
in 1996. Because the nonalpha vitrification
facility would not be required
for the minimum waste forecast under alternative B, the soil sort
facility would also process mixed waste
soils under that scenario, beginning in 2006.
Under alternative C, the soil sort facility
would not operate because the mixed and low-level waste soils
would be treated at the non-alpha vitrification
facility, which includes a
soil sorting capability.
Under each alternative, estimated volumes of low-level
and mixed waste processed by the soil sort facility
are shown in Table B.281.
Table B.28-1. Estimated volumes of soil sorted for each alternative (cubic meters).a,b
| Facility not constructed | |||
| A | 23,873 m3 of mixed wastemixed waste soilssoils
1,257 m3 per year | 88,331 m3 of mixed wastemixed waste soilssoils 4,650 m3 per year | 440,060 m3 of mixed wastemixed waste soilssoils 23,161 m3 per year |
| B | 19,192 m3 of low-level waste soilssoils
322 to 2,806 m3 per year
23,873 m3 of mixed wastemixed waste soilssoils | 48,489 m3 of low-level waste soilssoils
294 to 2,542 m3 per year | 776,707 m3 of low-level waste soilssoils 2,193 to 31,906 m3 per year |
| C | Facility not constructed | Facility not constructed | Facility not constructed |
a. Source: Hess (1995a).
b. To convert to cubic feet, multiply by 35.31.
B.29 SUPERCOMPACTOR
OBJECTIVE:
DOE is pursuing treatment options to reduce the volume of low-level wastes to more efficiently use the disposal capacity of the low-level waste vaults. In the draft eis, DOE proposed to construct and operate an onsite supercompactor to accept equipment and additional job-control wastes that could not be compacted at the existing SRS compactor facilities. DOE has since determined that treatment capacity for many of these wastes is currently available through commercial vendors. Contracting with an offsite commercial vendor would allow DOE to obtain treatment capacity for its low-level wastes sooner than construction of an onsite facility (a contract could be executed by fiscal year 1996 as opposed to 2006 before beginning operations of an onsite facility). Details of the proposed commercial vendor treatments for low-level waste can be found in Appendix B.20. Although the commercial vendor treatment has replaced the onsite supercompactor in the proposed configuration for alternative B, DOE may need to develop onsite treatment capability in lieu of using commercial vendors in the future. Therefore, the waste volumes that could be treated in an onsite supercompactor facility and the associated impacts are presented in this appendix.
DESCRIPTION:
The supercompactor would be located in E-Area and
use high compression to exert significant pressure on compactible
waste. The compaction efficiency of existing compactors
is approximately 4 to 1, whereas the supercompactor could achieve
compaction efficiencies of 12 to 1, for job-control waste (Hess
1994a). The system would consist of the following: compaction
press, with mold to hold container during size reduction; hydraulic
module to operate the press and auxiliary components; ventilation
sub-system to control potentially radioactive dust generated during
compaction; conveyor system to load and unload containers; liquid
collection systems; sealed shipping container for final disposal;
and auxiliary components and features to prepare waste for supercompaction.
Liquid wastes from the supercompactor would be collected for
treatment at the Consolidated Incineration
Facility.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
In the draft eis, DOE proposed to construct and operate
an onsite supercompactor under alternative B. DOE proposed to
operate the facility from the years 2006 to 2024 to supercompact
low-level waste comprised of low-activity job-control waste, tritiated
job-control waste, and low-activity equipment.
Table B.29-1 presents annual and 30-year estimated volumes of low-level waste for the supercompactor facility as proposed under alternative B of the draft eis.
4,463 m3 per year | 5,699 m3 per year | 12,075 m3 per year | |
a. Source: Hess (1994b).
b. To convert to cubic feet, multiply by 35.31.
c. Details of the proposed commercial vendor treatments for low-level waste in the final eis are in Appendix B.20.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS:
The consequences of the supercompaction of low-level radioactive wastes at a new onsite facility were evaluated under alternative B of the draft eis. In the final eis, DOE has determined that treatment of low-level wastes can be obtained in a more timely and cost-effective manner by utilizing commercial vendors. Although it is not proposed as an action under any of the alternatives in the final eis, DOE may need to develop an onsite supercompaction facility in lieu of using commercial vendors in the future. The consequences associated with this onsite treatment activity are described in Table B.29-2, based on the waste volumes considered for supercompaction in the draft eis.
| 9,069 m3 to LAWc vault disposal | 13,129 m3 to LAW vault disposal | 32,392 m3 to LAW vault disposal |
| 2.46´10-5 millirem
1.23´10-11 probability of an excess fatal cancer
| 6.79´10-5 millirem
3.39´10-11 probability of an excess fatal cancer | 0.00293 millirem
1.47´10-9 probability of an excess fatal cancer |
| 9.58´10-4 person-rem
4.79´10-7 number of additional fatal cancers | 0.00266 person-rem
1.33´10-6 number of additional fatal cancers | 0.115 person-rem
5.76´10-5 number of additional fatal cancers |
| 5.84´10-4 millirem | 0.00161 millirem | 0.070 millirem |
| 2.92´10-10 probability of an excess fatal cancers | 8.05´10-10 probability of an excess fatal cancer | 3.50´10-8 probability of an excess fatal cancer |
| 0.0176 person-rem | 0.0484 person-rem | 2.09 person-rem |
| 8.79´10-9 probability of a n excess fatal cancer | 2.42´10-8 number of additional fatal cancers | 1.05´10-6 number of additional fatal cancers |
| 0.79 millirem | 1.00 millirem | 1.69 millirem |
| 3.16´10-7 probability of an excess fatal cancer | 4.00´10-7 probability of an excess fatal cancer | 6.77´10-7 probability of an excess fatal cancer |
| 5.53 person-rem | 7.00 person-rem | 18.6 person-rem |
| 0.00221 number of additional fatal cancers | 0.00280 number of additional fatal cancers | 0.00744 number of additional fatal cancers |
a. Source: Hess (1994b).
b. Compacted waste disposal volumes are for the entire 30-year analysis period.
c. LAW = low activity waste.
d. Average annual dose and probability of fatal cancer obtained by dividing the total dose during the period of interest in this eis and associated probability by the years of actual operation (i.e., 19 years).
e. Number of additional fatal cancers are per year of Consolidated IncinerationIncineration FacilityConsolidated Incineration Facility operation.
f. Direct exposure to involved workers is scaled to cesiumcesium-cesium-137. Direct exposure is normalized to the expected forecast average exposure provided by Hess (1994d).
g. Maximum exposure is assumed to be equal to the average worker exposure provided by Hess (1994d).
B.30 TRANSURANIC WASTE STORAGE PADS
OBJECTIVE:
The transuranic waste storage
pads provide retrievable
storage for nonmixed and mixed alpha waste (10
to 100 nanocuries per gram) and transuranic waste (greater than
100 nanocuries per gram). The waste stored on the transuranic
pads is generated at the Savannah River Technology
Center, F-Area laboratories, the 235-F Plutonium
Fabrication Facility, and the F- and H-Area separations facilities.
Future storage needs also include alpha and transuranic wastes
that would be generated by decontamination and decommissioning
and environmental restoration
activities.
DESCRIPTION:
Storage
The alpha and transuranic wastes
are packaged, handled, and stored according to the quantity of
nuclear material present and RCRA hazardous waste
constituents present (i.e., as mixed waste).
The waste is packaged in 55-gallon drums; carbon steel, concrete
or polyethylene boxes; concrete culverts; or special containers.
DOE packages job-control waste in 55-gallon drums
with carbon filter vents. The drums are assayed following packaging
and categorized as less than or greater than 0.5 curies per package.
The drums that are less than 0.5 curies per drum are placed directly
on the transuranic pads for storage. The drums with greater than
0.5 curies are placed inside concrete culverts (because of the
radiological activity) before being placed on the transuranic
pads. The bulk waste is packaged in carbon steel, concrete, or
polyethylene boxes or special containers where internal shielding
may be used for greater than 0.5 curies per package. Transuranic
waste that has a surface dose rate of
greater than 200 millirem per hour per container is handled remotely.
Remote-handled waste is packaged in concrete culverts for storage
at the transuranic waste storage pads.
The remotehandled waste comprises a very small percentage
of the overall transuranic waste at SRS.
There are currently 19 transuranic waste
storage pads in E-Area.
Each pad is a reinforced concrete slab that slopes to the center
and drains to one end where a sump is located. Pads' 1 and 2
dimensions are
15 meters by 38 meters (50 feet by 125 feet) and Pads' 14 through
19 are 18 meters by 49 meters (60 feet by 160 feet) (WSRC 1994k).
Pads 1 through 5 are full of waste containers and
covered with 0.3 meter (1 foot) of soil, a polyvinyl chloride
top, and an additional 0.9 meter (3 feet) of soil which is seeded
with grass. The mounds over Pads 1 through 4 are coated with
an asphalt spray to control erosion. Pad 6 is full
of waste containers and partially mounded by earth. The mounded
soil provides shielding from the stored radionuclides and protects
the waste from weather and human intrusion.
Pads 7 through 13, 18 and 19 are open-access pads
with various types of containers configured without aisles. Pads
14 through 17 have weather enclosures to provide protection from
rain for the stored waste drums until treatment and disposal.
The enclosures are leak-proof with ultraviolet light protection,
high wind load resistance, and no center supports. These pads
would store only drums of waste. Pads 18 and 19 store only
boxes of nonmixed transuranic waste at
this time (WSRC 1994k).
Reconfiguration
Pads 7 through 13 have no aisles because SRS has
been granted a variance to RCRA aisle spacing and labeling requirements
until the containers are accessible. Pads 14 through 17 are not
part of the variance and DOE has committed to providing aisles
between the waste stored on these pads by 1998.
DOE would implement an alpha and
transuranic waste
storage strategy to reconfigure the containers on Pads 7 through
17 to meet RCRA interim status storage requirements, where applicable,
and maximize the available space on the transuranic waste pads
for future storage. DOE would transfer the non-alpha mixed wastes
(i.e., wastes with less than 10 nanocuries per gram of transuranics)
currently stored on the transuranic pads to other storage pads
to provide additional space for alpha and transuranic wastes.
The new configuration would include placing containers, other
than drums, stacked one high on Pads 7 through 13 and stacking
drums three high on Pads 14 through 17. As a result, DOE anticipates
needing the space on Pads 18 and 19 to make up for the loss in
storage capacity from providing aisles on Pads 14 through 17.
As part of the storage strategy DOE is evaluating the use of
reactor buildings as storage locations for the alpha and transuranic
waste, but technical and regulatory considerations associated
with the use of those facilities have not yet been addressed.
Therefore, this eis analysis assumes only pad storage for the
alpha and transuranic waste (WSRC 1994m).
Retrieval
The retrieval portion of the facility's operations involve the removal of 55- or 83-gallon transuranic drums from the mounded Pads 2 through 6. The transuranic waste drums stored on these pads are about to reach their 20-year storage life based on the calculations for the mounded storage configuration (WSRC 1994m). The retrieval program would be conducted with equipment designed to extract the drums from the mounds.
The earthen mounds cover a close array of 55-gallon
drums, stacked two high, sitting on the concrete pad. A weather
enclosure would be erected over the pad prior to initiating retrieval.
The soil would be removed from the mounds, exposing the drums.
Each drum would be individually removed from the stack. The
drums would be vented and purged of any gases that may have generated
from waste material decomposition as a result of radiological
contamination. The vented drums would then be placed in an overpack
container fitted with a carbon composite filter to prevent future
gas accumulation. Pads 2 through 6 would remain in service for
transuranic waste storage following the
retrieval operation. Pad 1 would not be retrieved because the
waste is stored inside concrete culverts that are expected to
provide adequate storage during the 30-year analysis period (WSRC
1994m).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS:
Under the no-action alternative, the transuranic
waste storage pads
would store the nonmixed and mixed alpha waste
and transuranic waste. The retrieval operation would begin in
1997 or 1998, and waste would be rearranged to conform with RCRA
requirements and to maximize storage space on the existing pads.
In 1998, additional pads would be needed to increase
the storage capacity. A total of 19 additional pads would be
required by the year 2024 (Hess 1995a).
For each waste forecast, alternatives A, B, and C
would be identical to the no-action except that the amount of
additional waste storage capacity would vary according to the
transuranic and alpha waste treatment and disposal
activities proposed for each alternative. Table B.30-1 presents
the number of transuranic waste storage
pads required for each alternative.
|
| |||
a. Source: Hess (1995a).
B.31 TRANSURANIC WASTE CHARACTERIZATION/ CERTIFICATION FACILITY
OBJECTIVES:
The transuranic waste characterization/certification
facility
would provide extensive containerized waste processing and certification
capabilities. The facility would have the ability to open various
containers (e.g., boxes, culverts, or drums); assay, examine,
sort, decontaminate the alpha and transuranic wastes; reduce large
wastes to 55-gallon-drum size; weld; and certify containers for
disposal.
DESCRIPTION:
A transuranic waste characterization/certification
facility
would characterize and certify nonmixed and mixed alpha (10 to
100 nanocuries per gram) and transuranic wastes (greater
than 100 nanocuries per gram). The facility would begin
operation in 2007. The facility would prepare transuranic and
alpha waste for treatment, macroencapsulate
mixed alpha waste, and certify transuranic and alpha waste for
disposal.
The transuranic waste characterization/certification
facility
would be located in EArea adjacent to the alpha vitrification
facility. The facility would
use nondestructive assay and examination techniques to characterize
the waste, open transuranic boxes, reduce the size of the waste,
repackage waste in 55gallon drums for direct disposal or
processing by the alpha vitrification facility, and perform a
second nondestructive assay and examination to confirm packaging.
A 30 percent reduction in waste volume would be realized
during repackaging except for transuranic waste to be disposed
of at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
under alternative A. Nondestructive assays (before and after
repackaging) would be performed using alpha and neutron detectors.
Nondestructive examinations (before and after repackaging) would
be performed by real-time x-ray, much like the machines in airports,
to identify the contents of the drum. The facility would also
have the ability to vent and purge drums that had been stored
in culverts and were not vented and purged during drum retrieval
activities (Hess 1994a).
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ACTIONS
Under the no-action alternative, the facility would
be not constructed.
Under alternative A, the transuranic waste
characterization/certification facility
would segregate the alpha and transuranic waste according to the
following four waste categories:
- nonmixed alpha waste
- mixed alpha waste
- plutonium-238 transuranic waste
- plutonium-239 transuranic
waste
A 30 percent reduction in alpha waste
and transuranic waste processed after
2018 and kept in storage at SRS would be realized. No reduction
would be realized for transuranic waste processed for disposal
at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(2008 - 2018).
The second nondestructive assay and examination would
be performed on vented drums to determine if the waste form (i.e.,
nonmixed and mixed alpha waste, or plutonium-238
or -239 transuranic waste) meets the applicable
waste acceptance criteria. In
alternative A, waste could be certified as packaged; repackaged
and certified; or repackaged, treated (encapsulated), and certified
for disposal. A drum of waste, regardless of its waste category,
could be rejected from the second nondestructive assay and examination
and be reprocessed in the transuranic waste characterization/certification
facility
so the waste form meets the waste acceptance criteria of the appropriate
disposal facility.
The nonmixed alpha waste would
be repackaged and disposed of at the low-activity waste vaults.
Most of the mixed alpha waste would be considered hazardous debris
in accordance with RCRA land disposal restrictions. DOE would
request a treatability variance to
macroencapsulate the mixed alpha waste that was not classified
as hazardous debris. The mixed alpha waste would be macroencapsulated
in steel drums by welding on the lids and sent to RCRA-permitted
disposal.
Transuranic waste is identical
in composition to alpha waste but has a higher
activity (greater than
100 nanocuries per gram) from radiological contamination. The
waste would be categorized solely on the dominant radioisotope
content (i.e., plutonium-238 or -239) for shipping
purposes. DOE would package the transuranic waste
to meet the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
waste acceptance criteria.
In alternative B, the alpha and transuranic waste would initially be segregated into four categories as in alternative A. In addition, the mixed alpha waste and plutonium-238 transuranic wastes would be further divided into metallic and nonmetallic waste subcategories. The metallic mixed alpha waste would be macroencapsulated and sent to RCRA-permitted disposal vaults. The plutonium-238 transuranic waste metal would be packaged for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. The nonmetallic mixed alpha and plutonium-238 transuranic waste would be sent to the alpha vitrification facility for treatment. The nonmixed alpha waste would be repackaged and disposed at the low-activity waste vaults. Plutonium-239 waste would be segregated into high- and low-activity fractions. High-activity plutonium-239 transuranic waste would be sent to the alpha-vitrification facility for treatment. Low-activity plutonium-239 transuranic wastes would be packaged to meet the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant waste acceptance criteria. In alternative B, approximately one-third of the transuranic and alpha waste would be repackaged and sent to the alpha vitrification facility for further treatment.
In alternative C, the alpha and transuranic waste would initially be segregated into four categories as described in alternative A. Metal would be removed during sorting to decontaminate, recycle, and reuse. A third nondestructive assay and examination unit would certify decontaminated metal for reuse. Alpha and transuranic metal that could not be decontaminated would be repackaged in 55gallon drums, along with the other waste categories, to be sent to the alpha vitrification facility for treatment.
Table B.311 presents the volume of waste to be processed in the transuranic waste characterization/ certification facility for each alternative.
~ 1,219 m3/yr macroc = 26 m3/yr (315 m3 total) | ~ 1,681 m3/yr macro = 35 m3/yr (445 m3 total) | ~ 45,706 m3/yr macro = 13,118 m3/yr (158,160 m3 total) | |
~ 1,219 m3/yr macro = 32 m3/yr (358 m3 total) | ~ 1,681 m3/yr macro = 41 m3/yr (520 m3 total) | ~ 45,706 m3/yr macro = 4,251 m3/yr (51,250 m3 total) | |
~ 1,219 m3/yr macro = 0 | ~ 1,681 m3/yr macro = 0 | ~ 45,706 m3/yr macro = 0 |
a. Source: Hess (1995a).
b. To convert to cubic feet, multiply by 35.31.
c. Macroencapsulated.
B.32 References
Blankenhorn, J. A., 1995, Westinghouse Savannah River
Company, Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum, to M.
L. Hess, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina,
"CIF Utilization Percentages," April 26.
Boore, W. G., F. G. McNatt, R. K. Ryland, R. A. Scaggs,
E. D. Strother, and R. W. Wilson, 1986, Radioactive Waste Spill
and Cleanup on Storage Tank A, Savannah River Plant, Aiken,
South Carolina, DP-1722, E. I. du Pont deNemours and Co.,
Aiken, South Carolina.
Campbell, R. M., Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, 1994, Interoffice Memorandum with M. E.
O'Connor, Halliburton NUS Corporation, Aiken, South Carolina,
"Replacement High-Level Waste Evaporator Overheads,"
October 21.
Campbell, R. M., Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, 1994b, Interoffice Memorandum with M. E.
O'Connor, Halliburton NUS Corporation, Aiken, South Carolina,
"WMeis Document Request," October 5.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1980, Environmental
Impact Statement, Double Shell Tanks for Defense High-Level Radioactive
Waste Storage, DOE/eis-0062, Savannah River Operations Office,
Aiken, South Carolina.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1986a, Memorandum-to-File:
F/H Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF), H-Area, Savannah River
Plant (SRP) Compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), Aiken, South Carolina.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1986b, Supplement
to Memorandum-to-File: F/H Effluent Treatment Facility, H-Area,
Aiken, South Carolina.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1987, Final Environmental
Impact Statement Waste Management Activities for Groundwater Protection,
Savannah River Plant, DOE/eis-0120 Savannah River Operations
Office, Aiken, South Carolina, December.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1992, Environmental
Assessment, Consolidated Incineration Facility, Savannah River
Site, DOE/ea-0400, Office of Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994a, Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Defense Waste
Processing Facility, DOE/eis-0082-S, Savannah River Operations
Office, Aiken, South Carolina.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1994b, Environmental
Assessment, Treatment of M-Area Mixed Wastes at the Savannah River
Site, DOE/ea-0918, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken,
South Carolina, August 1994.
Dukes, M. D., 1994, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Letter to C. W. Richardson, South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia,
South Carolina, "Request for Exemption; Lead Melting Operations,
N-Area, Savannah River Site (U)," May 12.
ERDA (Energy Research and Development Administration),
1977, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Waste Management
Operations, Aiken, South Carolina, September.
Harvey, S. A., 1994, Bechtel Savannah River, Incorporated,
Aiken, South Carolina, Memorandum to M. N. Hoganson, Halliburton
NUS Corporation, Aiken, South Carolina, "CFC Recycling Units,"
October 6.
Hess, M. L., 1994a, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S.
Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken,
South Carolina, "Complete Set of Flow Sheets," ESH-NEP-94-0241,
November 15.
Hess, M. L., 1994b, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S.
Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken,
South Carolina, "Revised Spreadsheets Min Mixed Case 'C',"
plus complete set of spreadsheets ESH-NEP-94-0213, October 21.
Hess, M. L., 1994c, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina, "Canyon Solvent Disposition Planning," ESH-NEP-94-0120, September 13.
Hess, M. L., 1994d, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S.
Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, "Revised
Annual Worker Dose by Facility," ESH-NEP-94-0212, October
12.
Hess, M. L., 1994e, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S.
Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken,
South Carolina, "Storage and Disposal Capacities," ESHNEP-94-0226,
October 28.
Hess, M. L., 1994f, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S.
Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken,
South Carolina, "Tank Farm Volume Waste Forecast," ESH-NEP-94-0147,
September 27.
Hess, M. L., 1994g, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S.
Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken,
South Carolina, "NMPD Liquid Waste Forecast," ESH-NEP-94-0150,
September 28.
Hess, M. L., 1994h, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S.
Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken,
South Carolina, "Smelter Volume Reduction Factors,"
ESH-NEP-94-0185, October 10.
Hess, M. L., 1994i, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S.
Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken,
South Carolina, "WSRC Data Transmittal - Freon Recycle Units
Miscellaneous Information," ESH-NEP-94-0167, October 3.
Hess, M. L., 1994j, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S.
Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken,
South Carolina, "WSRC Data Transmittal - Description of Freon
Recycle Unit," ESH-NEP-94-0164, September 30.
Hess, M. L., 1994k, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S.
Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken,
South Carolina, "WSRC Data Transmittal - Waste Min/Decon
Systems," ESH-NEP-94-0155, September 29.
Hess, M. L., 1995a, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S.
Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken,
South Carolina, "Spreadsheets for Final eis," ESH-NEP-95-0090.
Hess, M. L., 1995b, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S.
Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken,
South Carolina, "WSRC Data Transmittal - Response to BRE
Questions on Vaults and CIF Fuel Oil Utilization," ESH-NEP-95-0076,
May 4.
Hess, M. L., 1995c, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to H. L. Pope, U.S.
Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken,
South Carolina, "WSRC Data Transmittal - LLW RPF Data Request,"
ESH-NEP-95-0067, April 14.
Main, C. T., Inc., 1991, Assessment Report Phase
II for the F- and HArea High-Level Radioactive Waste Tank
Farms, U.S. Department of Energy, Westinghouse Savannah River
Company, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina.
Miller, J. A., 1994a, Westinghouse Savannah River
Company, Aiken, South Carolina, Memorandum to L. C. Thomas, Westinghouse
Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina, "Decon Facility,"
October 3.
Miller, J. A., 1994b, Westinghouse Savannah River
Company, Aiken, South Carolina, Memorandum to L. C. Thomas, Westinghouse
Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina, "Decon Facility
Waste Information Clarification," October 10.
Miller, J. A., 1994c, Westinghouse Savannah River
Company, Aiken, South Carolina, Memorandum to L. C. Thomas, Westinghouse
Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina, "Decon Facility
(Additional Information)," October 4.
Mulholland, J. A., M. G. Robinson, N. E. Hertel,
H. M. Coward, and D. T. Nakahata, 1994, "Air Emissions Estimate
for the Savannah River Site Consolidated Incineration Facility,
Part 1: Metal and Radionuclide Emissions," GT/ERDA-94041-002,
Revision 2, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia,
November.
Nelson, R. W., 1993, Bechtel Savannah River, Incorporated,
Aiken, South Carolina, Memorandum to C. R. Hayes, Bechtel
Savannah River, Incorporated, Aiken, South Carolina, "Construction
Engineering Services Silver Recovery Project," May 5.
Odum, J. V., 1976, Soil Contamination Adjacent
to Waste Tank 8, DPSPU-76-11-4, E. I. du Pont deNemours
and Company, Aiken, South Carolina.
Poe, L., 1974, Leakage from Waste Tank 16,
DP-1358, E. I. du Pont deNemours and Co., Aiken, South Carolina.
Stewart, J., 1992, Power Services Utilization
Permit, Part B-Final Request for Utilities, Westinghouse Savannah
River Company, Aiken, South Carolina, November 11.
Todaro, C., 1994, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to D. T. Bignell,
Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina, "Effluent
Treatment Facility 30-Year Forecast," SWE-SWO-94-0200, May
2.
Wells, M. N., 1994, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, Interoffice Memorandum to P. L. Young,
"DWPF Seis Info Request," Halliburton NUS Corporation,
Aiken, South Carolina, May 23.
Wiggins, A. W., 1992, F/H Area Effluent Treatment
Facility Process Overview, Westinghouse Savannah River Company,
Aiken, South Carolina, November 4.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), No Date,
Photography Desktop Procedure Manual, Aiken, South Carolina.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1990a,
RCRA Part A Application for Hazardous Waste Permit, Tab
AD, Revision 0, September 25.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1990b,
Consolidated Incineration Facility Functional Performance Requirements,
OPSWMP904140, Aiken, South Carolina.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1991, F/H-Area High-Level Waste Radioactive Waste Tank Farms, As-Built Construction Permit Application for an Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility, Revision 0, Aiken, South Carolina.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1992a,
RCRA Part A Application for Hazardous Waste Permit, Tab
Z, Revision 7, June 1, Aiken, South Carolina.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1992b,
Savannah River Site Liquid Radioactive Waste Handling Facilities
Justification for Continued Operations, WSRC-RP-92-964, Aiken,
South Carolina.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1992c,
RFI/RI Workplan for Tank 37 Concentrate Transfer System Line
Leak, WSRC-RP-92-62, Revision 0, Aiken, South Carolina.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1992d,
Savannah River Site Interim Waste Management Program Plan,
FY 1991-1992, WSRC-TR-92-89, Aiken, South Carolina.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1992e,
RCRA Part A Application for Hazardous Waste Permit, Tab
M, Revision 8, Aiken, South Carolina, August 11.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1992f,
"Waste Minimization Program (Calendar Year 1993), Construction
Waste Minimization, Scrap Lead," Aiken, South Carolina.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1992g,
Air Quality Permit Modification Application, Aiken, South
Carolina, August 28.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1992h,
RCRA Part A Application for Hazardous Waste Permit, Tab
R Revision 7, June 1.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1993a,
RCRA Part A Application for Hazardous Waste Permit, Tab
AH Revision 9, February 16.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1993b,
Savannah River Site Waste Management Program Plan - FY 1993,
WSRC-TR-93-89, Aiken South Carolina, June.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1993c,
Savannah River Site Consolidated Incineration Facility Mission
Need and Capacity Review, Aiken, South Carolina.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1993d, 1992 RCRA Part B Permit Application Savannah River Site, Volume X, WSRC-IM-91-53, Revision 1, July 16.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1993e,
1992 RCRA Part B Permit Application - Savannah River Site,
Volume II, Book 1 of 1, Hazardous Waste Storage Facility, WSRCIM9153,
Aiken, South Carolina, September.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1993f,
F/H-Area High-Level Waste Removal Plan and Schedule as Required
by the Federal Facility Agreement for the Savannah River Site,
WSRCRP-93-1477, Revision 0, Aiken, South Carolina, November.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1993g,
Hazards Assessment Document of the New Waste Transfer Facility,
WSRC-TR-93-314, Aiken, South Carolina.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1993h,
1992 RCRA Part B Permit Application Savannah River Site,
Volume VI, Organic Waste Storage Tank, WSRC-IM-91-53, September.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1993i,
Construction Management Plan, Waste Minimization Program,
CMP 05-2.10-6, Revision 1, Aiken, South Carolina, November 22.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994a,
Solvent Storage Tanks (S23-S30) Interim Closure Plan, SWE-SWE-94-0279,
Aiken South Carolina.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994b,
Savannah River Site Solid Waste Forecast - FY94, WSRC-RP-94-206,
Aiken South Carolina, February.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994c,
Burial Ground Operations Safety Analysis Report Addendum E-Area,
WSRC-SA-5, Addendum 1, Aiken, South Carolina, April.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994d,
High-Level Waste System Process Interface Description,
X-ICD-G-00001, Predecisional Draft, Aiken, South Carolina.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994e,
High-Level Waste System Plan, HLWOVP94-0005,
Revision 2 (U), Aiken, South Carolina, January 14.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994f,
High-Level Waste Engineering Monthly Data Report, WSRC-RP-94-383-3,
Aiken, South Carolina, March.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994g,
HLW System Plan, HLW-OVP-94-0077, Revision 3 (U), Aiken,
South Carolina, May 31.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994h,
Savannah River Site Radionuclide Air Emissions Annual Report
for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant,
WSRCIM9426, Aiken, South Carolina.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994i,
Criteria for Acceptance of High-Level Waste into the 241-F/H
Tank Farms, X-SD-G-00001, Revision 0, Aiken, South Carolina,
March 31.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994j,
Application for Permit to Construct MArea Vendor Treatment
Facility, ESH-FSS-94-0354, Aiken, South Carolina, June.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994k,
Strategy Proposal for Interim Storage of Hazardous, Mixed and
Non-Mixed TRU and Low Level Mixed Wastes, WSRC-RP-94-767,
Revision 0, Aiken, South Carolina, August.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994l,
Solid Waste Management Plan (U), WSRCRP931448,
Revision 2, Aiken, South Carolina, March 29.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1994m,
RCRA Part A Application for Hazardous Waste Permit, Tab
N, Revision 13, Aiken, South Carolina, May 23.
WSRC (Westinghouse Savannah River Company), 1995,
SRS Proposed Site Treatment Plan, WSRCTR0608,
Aiken, South Carolina.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
