RemoteHandled Transuranic Waste Disposition Discussion

1
Remote-Handled Transuranic Waste Disposition
Discussion

• Meeting of the National Governors Association
• April 12, 2001

2
Topics To Be Discussed

• Definition of RH TRU Waste
• Volume of RH TRU at DOE sites
• Regulatory strategy for disposal of RH TRU at the
  Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
• Requirements and considerations for approval
• RH shipping casks
• Small Quantity Sites (SQS) strategy
• Current schedule

3
Definition of RH TRU Waste

• TRU waste is waste containing more than 100
  nanocuries of alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes
  per gram with half-lives greater than 20 years
• RH TRU waste has an outer surface dose rate of
  greater than 200 millirem per hour
• Homogeneous solids, debris, soil, and gravel

4
Volume of RH TRU at DOE Sites(Stored and
Projected)
Hanford 900 m3
KAPL
INEEL 85 m3
10.5 m3
WV (2)
479 m3
ANL-W 54.5 m3
BAPL
3 m3
20.8 m3
BCL
ANL-E 77 m3
GE Vallecitos (1)
11.8 m3
LANL
ORNL
ETEC 8.7 m3
123.5 m3
2253.5 m3
SNL 25.5 m3
Source The National TRU Waste Management Plan,
Revision 2 (December 2000) (1) Waste may not be
of defense origin compliance with LWA
requirement will need to be demonstrated prior to
disposal at WIPP.(2) Waste is commercial and
does not meet the LWA requirement for disposal at
WIPP.
5
Regulatory Strategy for Disposalof RH TRU at WIPP

• Characterization program to be proposed to the
  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and New
  Mexico Environment Department (NMED) is
  performance-based, responsive to
• ALARA requirements
• Joint EPA/NRC guidance
• NAS recommendations
• Acceptable Knowledge is the focus of the
  program, where available, to meet Compliance
  Certification, Land Withdrawal Act and RCRA
  requirements
• This strategy may require EPA rule-making and
  NMED Class 3 permit hearings

6
Requirements and Considerations forEPA and NMED
Regulatory Approval

• DOE to submit RH characterization program to EPA
  that meets WIPP Land Withdrawal Act and 40 CFR
  191/194 requirements, and EPA approves via 40 CFR
  194.8 process
• New Mexico Environment Department must approve
  modification to the WIPP Hazardous Waste Facility
  Permit
• DOE to submit to NMED
• RH Facility Modification Request
• RH Waste Analysis Plan
• NMED issues draft and final permit allowing RH
  TRU waste storage and disposal

7
Requirements and Considerations for EPA and NMED
Regulatory Approval (cont.)

• Informally discussed draft RH TRU
  characterization process document and supporting
  position papers with EPA, March 14, 2001
• Two permit modification requests to be submitted
  to NMED, summer of 2001
• Independent review of performance-based approach
  by NAS or outside organization is expected

8
RH Shipping Casks

• RH-72B
• Outer thermal shield
• Inner/outer containment vessels with impact
  limiters
• 12 feet long 3.5 feet diameter
• 1-7/8 inch lead liner

• CNS 10-160B
• Carbon steel- and lead-shielded shipping cask
• Steel-encased, rigid polyurethane foam impact
  liners on top and bottom
• Cavity height 77 inch diameter 68 inch
• Wall thickness 4 in. including 1.875 inch lead

9
Small Quantity Site Strategy

• Ship directly to WIPP is the preferred option
• Where there are site closure considerations, DOE
  is continuing to examine intersite transfers
• Feedback requested from State representatives on
  moving forward with contingency planning for
  sites with closure schedules.

10
BACKUP SLIDES
11
Battelle Columbus Laboratory Summary

• Shipments of 25 m3 of RH TRU waste (100-120
  drums) must start by September 2001 to support
  site closure schedule
• TRU waste must be removed from current hot cell
  building so that DD can proceed- Need to move
  offsite or into a new storage building
• Activities required for new building include NEPA
  action, license amendment, RCRA permit, design,
  and construction
• Cost of permitting, NEPA analysis, design,
  construction, and critical path delays 10-15
  Million (one years)
• Decision about new storage building needed by
  June 1, 2001
• Oak Ridge and Hanford considered as receiving
  sites
• Ohio EPA has had previous conversations with
  counterparts in both Tennessee and Washington
  state
• Tennessee sent a letter in February 2001 to DOE
  stating they did not support receipt of RH TRU
  waste from offsite until Oak Ridge begins
  shipping RH TRU to WIPP
• State of Washington has also sent a letter (March
  2001) stating they did not support receipt of RH
  TRU waste from offsite until Hanford begins
  shipping RH TRU to WIPP
• Oak Ridge scheduled to begin shipments of RH TRU
  to WIPP in January 2003
• Hanford scheduled to begin shipments of RH TRU to
  WIPP in 2011-2015 timeframe

12
Energy Technology Engineering Center Summary

• Shipment of RH TRU waste (up to 8.7 m3) must
  start by September 2002 to support site closure
  schedule
• Waste must be removed from Radioactive Materials
  Handling Facility before DD can begin
• CH waste must also be removed
• Current schedules for RH permit modification
  supports ETECs closure schedule
• Need to finalize decisions on ETEC RH TRU in
  early CY 2002

13
Argonne National Laboratory - East Summary

• RH waste in inventory will be shipped directly to
  WIPP when permit modifications approved -
  currently schedule in FY 2003
• RH waste generated in future (post-2006) will
  also be shipped to WIPP directly
• Mobile Vendor Units will be deployed onsite to
  characterize contact-handled (CH) waste
• CH characterization schedule to be completed in
  December 2001

14
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Summary

• Oak Ridge has large quantity of RH sludges
  requiring treatment before shipping to WIPP
• Foster-Wheeler contract in place to perform all
  treatment and necessary characterization for
  disposal at WIPP
• Shipments of RH TRU scheduled to begin in January
  2003
• Oak Ridge has smaller amounts of CH TRU that are
  scheduled to be shipped to WIPP beginning in FY
  2004

15
HALFPACT CASK
16
SCHEMATIC OF THE RH-72B CASK
17
R H - 72B CASK