Sample records for disposal facility permit

  1. State waste discharge permit application: 200 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility (Project W-049H)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    As part of the original Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Concent Order negotiations, US DOE, US EPA and the Washington State Department of Ecology agreed that liquid effluent discharges to the ground to the Hanford Site are subject to permitting in the State Waste Discharge Permit Program (SWDP). This document constitutes the SWDP Application for the 200 Area TEDF stream which includes the following streams discharged into the area: Plutonium Finishing Plant waste water; 222-S laboratory Complex waste water; T Plant waste water; 284-W Power Plant waste water; PUREX chemical Sewer; B Plant chemical sewer, process condensate, steam condensate; 242-A-81 Water Services waste water.

  2. State waste discharge permit application for the 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility and the State-Approved Land Disposal Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Application is being made for a permit pursuant to Chapter 173--216 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), to discharge treated waste water and cooling tower blowdown from the 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF) to land at the State-Approved Land Disposal Site (SALDS). The ETF is located in the 200 East Area and the SALDS is located north of the 200 West Area. The ETF is an industrial waste water treatment plant that will initially receive waste water from the following two sources, both located in the 200 Area on the Hanford Site: (1) the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility (LERF) and (2) the 242-A Evaporator. The waste water discharged from these two facilities is process condensate (PC), a by-product of the concentration of waste from DSTs that is performed in the 242-A Evaporator. Because the ETF is designed as a flexible treatment system, other aqueous waste streams generated at the Hanford Site may be considered for treatment at the ETF. The origin of the waste currently contained in the DSTs is explained in Section 2.0. An overview of the concentration of these waste in the 242-A Evaporator is provided in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 describes the LERF, a storage facility for process condensate. Attachment A responds to Section B of the permit application and provides an overview of the processes that generated the wastes, storage of the wastes in double-shell tanks (DST), preliminary treatment in the 242-A Evaporator, and storage at the LERF. Attachment B addresses waste water treatment at the ETF (under construction) and the addition of cooling tower blowdown to the treated waste water prior to disposal at SALDS. Attachment C describes treated waste water disposal at the proposed SALDS.

  3. WPCF Underground Injection Control Disposal Permit Evaluation...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    WPCF Underground Injection Control Disposal Permit Evaluation and Fact Sheet Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Report: WPCF Underground Injection...

  4. Integrated Disposal Facility Risk Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MANN, F. M.

    2003-06-03T23:59:59.000Z

    An environmental risk assessment associated with the disposal of projected Immobilized Low-Activity Waste, solid wastes and failed or decommissioned melters in an Integrated Disposal Facility was performed. Based on the analyses all performance objectives associated with the groundwater, air, and intruder pathways were met.

  5. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities (Massachusetts)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These sections articulate rules for the maintenance and operation of solid waste disposal facilities, as well as site assignment procedures. Applications for site assignment will be reviewed by the...

  6. Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application, 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application documentation consists of both Part A and a Part B permit application documentation. An explanation of the Part A revisions associated with this treatment and storage unit, including the current revision, is provided at the beginning of the Part A section. Once the initial Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit is issued, the following process will be used. As final, certified treatment, storage, and/or disposal unit-specific documents are developed, and completeness notifications are made by the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology, additional unit-specific permit conditions will be incorporated into the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit through the permit modification process. All treatment, storage, and/or disposal units that are included in the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application will operate under interim status until final status conditions for these units are incorporated into the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit. The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application, 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility contains information current as of May 1, 1993.

  7. Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, PUREX storage tunnels

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Haas, C. R.

    1997-09-08T23:59:59.000Z

    The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (document number DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. The scope of the Unit-Specific Portion is limited to Part B permit application documentation submitted for individual, `operating` treatment, storage, and/or disposal units, such as the PUREX Storage Tunnels (this document, DOE/RL-90-24).

  8. Hanford Facility dangerous waste permit application, liquid effluent retention facility and 200 area effluent treatment facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coenenberg, J.G.

    1997-08-15T23:59:59.000Z

    The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to 10 be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (document 11 number DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. The scope of the 12 Unit-Specific Portion is limited to Part B permit application documentation 13 submitted for individual, `operating` treatment, storage, and/or disposal 14 units, such as the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility and 200 Area Effluent 15 Treatment Facility (this document, DOE/RL-97-03). 16 17 Both the General Information and Unit-Specific portions of the Hanford 18 Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application address the content of the Part B 19 permit application guidance prepared by the Washington State Department of 20 Ecology (Ecology 1987 and 1996) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 21 (40 Code of Federal Regulations 270), with additional information needs 22 defined by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments and revisions of 23 Washington Administrative Code 173-303. For ease of reference, the Washington 24 State Department of Ecology alpha-numeric section identifiers from the permit 25 application guidance documentation (Ecology 1996) follow, in brackets, the 26 chapter headings and subheadings. A checklist indicating where information is 27 contained in the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility and 200 Area Effluent 28 Treatment Facility permit application documentation, in relation to the 29 Washington State Department of Ecology guidance, is located in the Contents 30 Section. 31 32 Documentation contained in the General Information Portion is broader in 33 nature and could be used by multiple treatment, storage, and/or disposal units 34 (e.g., the glossary provided in the General Information Portion). Wherever 35 appropriate, the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility and 200 Area Effluent 36 Treatment Facility permit application documentation makes cross-reference to 37 the General Information Portion, rather than duplicating text. 38 39 Information provided in this Liquid Effluent Retention Facility and 40 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility permit application documentation is 41 current as of June 1, 1997.

  9. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Hazardous Waste Facility Permit...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Waste Analysis Plan The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Waste Analysis Plan This...

  10. Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, general information portion

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hays, C.B.

    1998-05-19T23:59:59.000Z

    The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (document number DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. Both the General Information and Unit-Specific portions of the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application address the content of the Part B permit application guidance prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 1996) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (40 Code of Federal Regulations 270), with additional information needed by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments and revisions of Washington Administrative Code 173-303. Documentation contained in the General Information Portion is broader in nature and could be used by multiple treatment, storage, and/or disposal units (e.g., the glossary provided in this report).

  11. Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    none,

    1991-09-18T23:59:59.000Z

    This document, Set 2, the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Part B Permit Application, consists of 15 chapters that address the content of the Part B checklists prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 1987) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (40 CFR 270), with additional information requirements mandated by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 and revisions of WAC 173-303. For ease of reference, the Washington State Department of Ecology checklist section numbers, in brackets, follow the chapter headings and subheadings. This permit application contains umbrella- type'' documentation with overall application to the Hanford Facility. This documentation is broad in nature and applies to all TSD units that have final status under the Hanford Facility Permit.

  12. Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities: A Handbook

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NWCC Siting Work Group

    2002-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This handbook has been written for individuals and groups involved in evaluating wind projects: decision-makers and agency staff at all levels of government, wind developers, interested parties and the public. Its purpose is to help stakeholders make permitting wind facility decisions in a manner which assures necessary environmental protection and responds to public needs.

  13. Conceptual Design Report: Nevada Test Site Mixed Waste Disposal Facility Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Management

    2009-01-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Environmental cleanup of contaminated nuclear weapons manufacturing and test sites generates radioactive waste that must be disposed. Site cleanup activities throughout the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) complex are projected to continue through 2050. Some of this waste is mixed waste (MW), containing both hazardous and radioactive components. In addition, there is a need for MW disposal from other mission activities. The Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision designates the Nevada Test Site (NTS) as a regional MW disposal site. The NTS has a facility that is permitted to dispose of onsite- and offsite-generated MW until November 30, 2010. There is not a DOE waste management facility that is currently permitted to dispose of offsite-generated MW after 2010, jeopardizing the DOE environmental cleanup mission and other MW-generating mission-related activities. A mission needs document (CD-0) has been prepared for a newly permitted MW disposal facility at the NTS that would provide the needed capability to support DOE's environmental cleanup mission and other MW-generating mission-related activities. This report presents a conceptual engineering design for a MW facility that is fully compliant with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and DOE O 435.1, 'Radioactive Waste Management'. The facility, which will be located within the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) at the NTS, will provide an approximately 20,000-cubic yard waste disposal capacity. The facility will be licensed by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP).

  14. Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, low-level burial grounds

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Engelmann, R.H.

    1997-08-12T23:59:59.000Z

    The Hanford Facility Dangerous Plaste Permit Application is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (document number DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. The scope of the Unit-Specific Portion is limited to Part B permit application documentation submitted for individual, `operating` treatment, storage, and/or disposal units, such as the Low-Level Burial Grounds (this document, DOE/RL-88-20).

  15. NMDOT Application for Permit to Install Utility Facilities Within...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- OtherOther: NMDOT Application for Permit to Install Utility Facilities Within Public ROWLegal Published NA Year Signed or Took...

  16. Los Alamos National Laboratory Hazardous Waste Facility Permit...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Draft Community Relations Plan CommentSuggestion Form Instructions for completing the form: Please reference the section in the plan that your...

  17. Application for Permit to Construct Access Driveway Facilities...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Application for Permit to Construct Access Driveway Facilities on Highway Right of Way DOI Not Provided Check for DOI availability: http:crossref.org Online Internet link...

  18. Composite analysis E-area vaults and saltstone disposal facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, J.R.

    1997-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents the Composite Analysis (CA) performed on the two active Savannah River Site (SRS) low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities. The facilities are the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility and the E-Area Vaults (EAV) Disposal Facility. The analysis calculated potential releases to the environment from all sources of residual radioactive material expected to remain in the General Separations Area (GSA). The GSA is the central part of SRS and contains all of the waste disposal facilities, chemical separations facilities and associated high-level waste storage facilities as well as numerous other sources of radioactive material. The analysis considered 114 potential sources of radioactive material containing 115 radionuclides. The results of the CA clearly indicate that continued disposal of low-level waste in the saltstone and EAV facilities, consistent with their respective radiological performance assessments, will have no adverse impact on future members of the public.

  19. Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, general information portion. Revision 3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sonnichsen, J.C.

    1997-08-21T23:59:59.000Z

    For purposes of the Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, the US Department of Energy`s contractors are identified as ``co-operators`` and sign in that capacity (refer to Condition I.A.2. of the Dangerous Waste Portion of the Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit). Any identification of these contractors as an ``operator`` elsewhere in the application is not meant to conflict with the contractors` designation as co-operators but rather is based on the contractors` contractual status with the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office. The Dangerous Waste Portion of the initial Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit, which incorporated five treatment, storage, and/or disposal units, was based on information submitted in the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application and in closure plan and closure/postclosure plan documentation. During 1995, the Dangerous Waste Portion was modified twice to incorporate another eight treatment, storage, and/or disposal units; during 1996, the Dangerous Waste Portion was modified once to incorporate another five treatment, storage, and/or disposal units. The permit modification process will be used at least annually to incorporate additional treatment, storage, and/or disposal units as permitting documentation for these units is finalized. The units to be included in annual modifications are specified in a schedule contained in the Dangerous Waste Portion of the Hanford Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit. Treatment, storage, and/or disposal units will remain in interim status until incorporated into the Permit. The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (this document, DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. The scope of the Unit-Specific Portion is limited to individual operating treatment, storage, and/or disposal units for which Part B permit application documentation has been, or is anticipated to be, submitted. Documentation for treatment, storage, and/or disposal units undergoing closure, or for units that are, or are anticipated to be, dispositioned through other options, will continue to be submitted by the Permittees in accordance with the provisions of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. However, the scope of the General Information Portion includes information that could be used to discuss operating units, units undergoing closure, or units being dispositioned through other options. Both the General Information and Unit-Specific portions of the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application address the contents of the Part B permit application guidance documentation prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with additional information needs defined by revisions of Washington Administrative Code 173-303 and by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments. Documentation contained in the General Information Portion is broader in nature and could be used by multiple treatment, storage, and/or disposal units (i.e., either operating units, units undergoing closure, or units being dispositioned through other options).

  20. Addendum to the composite analysis for the E-Area Vaults and Saltstone Disposal Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, J.R.

    2000-03-13T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents the composite analysis performed on the two active SRS low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. The facilities are the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility and the E-Area Vaults Disposal Facility.

  1. Upgrades to meet LANL SF, 121-2011, hazardous waste facility permit requirements

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    French, Sean B [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Johns - Hughes, Kathryn W [Los Alamos National Laboratory

    2011-01-21T23:59:59.000Z

    Members of San IIdefonso have requested information from LANL regarding implementation of the revision to LANL's Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (the RCRA Permit). On January 26, 2011, LANL staff from the Waste Disposition Project and the Environmental Protection Division will provide a status update to Pueblo members at the offices of the San IIdefonso Department of Environmental and Cultural Preservation. The Waste Disposition Project presentation will focus on upgrades and improvements to LANL waste management facilities at TA-50 and TA-54. The New Mexico Environment Department issued LANL's revised Hazardous Waste Facility permit on November 30, 2010 with a 30-day implementation period. The Waste Disposition Project manages and operates four of LANL's permitted facilities; the Waste Characterization, Reduction and Repackaging Facility (WCRRF) at TA-SO, and Area G, Area L and the Radioassay and Nondestructive Testing facility (RANT) at TA-54. By implementing a combination of permanent corrective action activities and shorter-term compensatory measures, WDP was able to achieve functional compliance on December 30, 2010 with new Permit requirements at each of our facilities. One component of WOP's mission at LANL is centralized management and disposition of the Laboratory's hazardous and mixed waste. To support this mission objective, WOP has undertaken a project to upgrade our facilities and equipment to achieve fully compliant and efficient waste management operations. Upgrades to processes, equipment and facilities are being designed to provide defense-in-depth beyond the minimum, regulatory requirements where worker safety and protection of the public and the environment are concerned. Upgrades and improvements to enduring waste management facilities and operations are being designed so as not to conflict with future closure activities at Material Disposal Area G and Material Disposal Area L.

  2. FY 2006 ANNUAL REVIEW-SALTSTONE DISPOSAL FACILITY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Crapse, K; Benjamin Culbertson, B

    2007-03-15T23:59:59.000Z

    The Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) consists of two disposal units, Vaults 1 and 4, described in the Performance Assessment (PA) (WSRC 1992). The FY06 PA Annual Review concludes that both vaults contain much lower levels of radionuclides (curies) than that allowed by the PA. The PA controls established to govern waste operations and monitor disposal facility performance are determined to be adequate.

  3. RCRA Permit for a Hazardous Waste Management Facility, Permit Number NEV HW0101, Annual Summary/Waste Minimization Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arnold, Patrick [NSTec] [NSTec

    2014-02-14T23:59:59.000Z

    This report summarizes the EPA identification number of each generator from which the Permittee received a waste stream, a description and quantity of each waste stream in tons and cubic feet received at the facility, the method of treatment, storage, and/or disposal for each waste stream, a description of the waste minimization efforts undertaken, a description of the changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually received, any unusual occurrences, and the results of tank integrity assessments. This Annual Summary/Waste Minimization Report is prepared in accordance with Section 2.13.3 of Permit Number NEV HW0101.

  4. Washington Environmental Permit Handbook - Dangerous Waste Treatment...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Washington Environmental Permit Handbook - Dangerous Waste Treatment Storage Disposal Facility New Permit Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web...

  5. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Regional Facility Act (Pennsylvania)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This act establishes a low-level radioactive waste disposal regional facility siting fund that requires nuclear power reactor constructors and operators to pay to the Department of Environmental...

  6. Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Public Comments to Community...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    1 SECTION COMMENT POST? 2.0 & 4.0 1. Fix broken links on pages 3 and 4 for the HWA permit. Yes 2.0 2. Revise a sentence on page 4 to: "Limits on LANL waste facilities may be...

  7. Application for a Permit to Operate a Class III Solid Waste Disposal Site at the Nevada Test Site Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Programs

    2010-09-14T23:59:59.000Z

    The NTS solid waste disposal sites must be permitted by the state of Nevada Solid Waste Management Authority (SWMA). The SWMA for the NTS is the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Federal Facilities (NDEP/BFF). The U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) as land manager (owner), and National Security Technologies (NSTec), as operator, will store, collect, process, and dispose all solid waste by means that do not create a health hazard, a public nuisance, or cause impairment of the environment. NTS disposal sites will not be included in the Nye County Solid Waste Management Plan. The NTS is located approximately 105 kilometers (km) (65 miles [mi]) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada (Figure 1). The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is the federal lands management authority for the NTS, and NSTec is the Management and Operations contractor. Access on and off the NTS is tightly controlled, restricted, and guarded on a 24-hour basis. The NTS has signs posted along its entire perimeter. NSTec is the operator of all solid waste disposal sites on the NTS. The Area 5 RWMS is the location of the permitted facility for the Solid Waste Disposal Site (SWDS). The Area 5 RWMS is located near the eastern edge of the NTS (Figure 2), approximately 26 km (16 mi) north of Mercury, Nevada. The Area 5 RWMS is used for the disposal of low-level waste (LLW) and mixed low-level waste. Many areas surrounding the RWMS have been used in conducting nuclear tests. A Notice of Intent to operate the disposal site as a Class III site was submitted to the state of Nevada on January 28, 1994, and was acknowledged as being received in a letter to the NNSA/NSO on August 30, 1994. Interim approval to operate a Class III SWDS for regulated asbestiform low-level waste (ALLW) was authorized on August 12, 1996 (in letter from Paul Liebendorfer to Runore Wycoff), with operations to be conducted in accordance with the ''Management Plan for the Disposal of Low-Level Waste with Regulated Asbestos Waste.'' A requirement of the authorization was that on or before October 9, 1999, a permit was required to be issued. Because of NDEP and NNSA/NSO review cycles, the final permit was issued on April 5, 2000, for the operation of the Area 5 Low-Level Waste Disposal Site, utilizing Pit 7 (P07) as the designated disposal cell. The original permit applied only to Pit 7, with a total design capacity of 5,831 cubic yards (yd{sup 3}) (157,437 cubic feet [ft{sup 3}]). NNSA/NSO is expanding the SWDS to include the adjacent Upper Cell of Pit 6 (P06), with an additional capacity of 28,037 yd{sup 3} (756,999 ft{sup 3}) (Figure 3). The proposed total capacity of ALLW in Pit 7 and P06 will be approximately 33,870 yd{sup 3} (0.9 million ft{sup 3}). The site will be used for the disposal of regulated ALLW, small quantities of low-level radioactive hydrocarbon-burdened (LLHB) media and debris, LLW, LLW that contains PCB Bulk Product Waste greater than 50 ppm that leaches at a rate of less than 10 micrograms of PCB per liter of water, and small quantities of LLHB demolition and construction waste (hereafter called permissible waste). Waste containing free liquids, or waste that is regulated as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or state-of-generation hazardous waste regulations, will not be accepted for disposal at the site. The only waste regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that will be accepted at the disposal site is regulated asbestos-containing materials (RACM). The term asbestiform is used throughout this document to describe this waste. Other TSCA waste (i.e., polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) will not be accepted for disposal at the SWDS. The disposal site will be used as a depository of permissible waste generated both on site and off site. All generators designated by NNSA/NSO will be eligible to dispose regulated ALLW at the Asbestiform Low-Level Waste Disposal Site in accordance with the U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) 325

  8. Integrated Disposal Facility FY2011 Glass Testing Summary Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pierce, Eric M.; Bacon, Diana H.; Kerisit, Sebastien N.; Windisch, Charles F.; Cantrell, Kirk J.; Valenta, Michelle M.; Burton, Sarah D.; Westsik, Joseph H.

    2011-09-29T23:59:59.000Z

    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was contracted by Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the engineered portion of the disposal facility (e.g., source term). Vitrifying the low-activity waste at Hanford is expected to generate over 1.6 x 10{sup 5} m{sup 3} of glass (Certa and Wells 2010). The volume of immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW) at Hanford is the largest in the DOE complex and is one of the largest inventories (approximately 8.9 x 10{sup 14} Bq total activity) of long-lived radionuclides, principally {sup 99}Tc (t{sub 1/2} = 2.1 x 10{sup 5}), planned for disposal in a low-level waste (LLW) facility. Before the ILAW can be disposed, DOE must conduct a performance assessment (PA) for the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) that describes the long-term impacts of the disposal facility on public health and environmental resources. As part of the ILAW glass testing program PNNL is implementing a strategy, consisting of experimentation and modeling, in order to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the glass waste form in support of future IDF PAs. The purpose of this report is to summarize the progress made in fiscal year (FY) 2011 toward implementing the strategy with the goal of developing an understanding of the long-term corrosion behavior of low-activity waste glasses.

  9. Acceptance test procedure: RMW Land Disposal Facility Project W-025

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Roscha, V. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States)

    1994-12-12T23:59:59.000Z

    This ATP establishes field testing procedures to demonstrate that the electrical/instrumentation system functions as intended by design for the Radioactive Mixed Waste Land Disposal Facility. Procedures are outlined for the field testing of the following: electrical heat trace system; transducers and meter/controllers; pumps; leachate storage tank; and building power and lighting.

  10. Support of the Iraq nuclear facility dismantlement and disposal program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coates, Roger [International Atomic Energy Agency - IAEA, Wagramer Strasse 5, P.O. Box 100 - 1400 Vienna (Austria); Cochran, John; Danneels, Jeff [Sandia National Laboratories (United States); Chesser, Ronald; Phillips, Carlton; Rogers, Brenda [Center for Environmental Radiation Studies, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409 (United States)

    2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Available in abstract form only. Full text of publication follows: Iraq's former nuclear facilities contain large quantities of radioactive materials and radioactive waste. The Iraq Nuclear Facility Dismantlement and Disposal Program (the Iraq NDs Program) is a new program to decontaminate and permanently dispose of radioactive wastes in Iraq. The NDs Program is led by the Government of Iraq, under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) auspices, with guidance and assistance from a number of countries. The U.S. participants include Texas Tech University and Sandia National Laboratories. A number of activities are ongoing under the broad umbrella of the Iraq NDs Program: drafting a new nuclear law that will provide the legal basis for the cleanup and disposal activities; assembly and analysis of existing data; characterization of soil contamination; bringing Iraqi scientists to the world's largest symposium on radioactive waste management; touring U.S. government and private sector operating radwaste disposal facilities in the U.S., and hosting a planning workshop on the characterization and cleanup of the Al-Tuwaitha Nuclear Facility. (authors)

  11. Geosynthetic Clay Liner applications in waste disposal facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McGrath, L.T.; Creamer, P.D. [RMT, Inc., Madison, WI (United States)

    1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs) are becoming a popular alternative to compacted clay barrier layers, and represent the state of the art in waste disposal facility design. They possess many of the same qualities of compacted clay barrier layers while occupying only a small fraction of the airspace. This is a very attractive feature to waste disposal facility owners and operators. There are many manufacturers of GCLs in the marketplace, providing numerous products that can be used in a wide variety of applications. Designing for the constructing with a GCL an be a challenging task; stability issues must be evaluated, selecting the appropriate product should be considered, comprehensive specifications are needed to ensure proper product selection and installation, and steps must be taken during installation to prevent damage to the GCL. Perhaps most importantly, state regulatory agencies must be convinced that GCLs will provide long-term protection equivalent to a clay barrier layer. This paper will discuss design considerations, specification guidelines, installation criteria, construction quality assurance guidelines and regulatory issues pertaining to GCL. The paper will also present three brief case histories of relevant GCL applications in waste disposal facility design and construction. The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate that GCLs are a viable alternative to compacted clay barrier layers and to provide useful information in designing, specifying and installing them in waste disposal facilities.

  12. Low-level radioactive mixed waste land disposal facility -- Permanent disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Erpenbeck, E.G.; Jasen, W.G.

    1993-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Radioactive mixed waste (RMW) disposal at US Department of Energy (DOE) facilities is subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). Westinghouse Hanford Company, in Richland, Washington, has completed the design of a radioactive mixed waste land disposal facility, which is based on the best available technology compliant with RCRA. When completed, this facility will provide permanent disposal of solid RMW, after treatment, in accordance with the Land Disposal Restrictions. The facility includes a double clay and geosynthetic liner with a leachate collection system to minimize potential leakage of radioactive or hazardous constituents from the landfill. The two clay liners will be capable of achieving a permeability of less than 1 {times} 10{sup {minus}7} cm/s. The two clay liners, along with the two high density polyethylene (HDPE) liners and the leachate collection and removal system, provide a more than conservative, physical containment of any potential radioactive and/or hazardous contamination.

  13. Integrated Disposal Facility FY 2012 Glass Testing Summary Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pierce, Eric M.; Kerisit, Sebastien N.; Krogstad, Eirik J.; Burton, Sarah D.; Bjornstad, Bruce N.; Freedman, Vicky L.; Cantrell, Kirk J.; Snyder, Michelle MV; Crum, Jarrod V.; Westsik, Joseph H.

    2013-03-29T23:59:59.000Z

    PNNL is conducting work to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the engineered portion of the disposal facility for Hanford immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW). Before the ILAW can be disposed, DOE must conduct a performance assessment (PA) for the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) that describes the long-term impacts of the disposal facility on public health and environmental resources. As part of the ILAW glass testing program, PNNL is implementing a strategy, consisting of experimentation and modeling, to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the glass waste form in support of future IDF PAs. Key activities in FY12 include upgrading the STOMP/eSTOMP codes to do near-field modeling, geochemical modeling of PCT tests to determine the reaction network to be used in the STOMP codes, conducting PUF tests on selected glasses to simulate and accelerate glass weathering, developing a Monte Carlo simulation tool to predict the characteristics of the weathered glass reaction layer as a function of glass composition, and characterizing glasses and soil samples exhumed from an 8-year lysimeter test. The purpose of this report is to summarize the progress made in fiscal year (FY) 2012 and the first quarter of FY 2013 toward implementing the strategy with the goal of developing an understanding of the long-term corrosion behavior of LAW glasses.

  14. Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility Complex Waste Acceptance Criteria

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    W. Mahlon Heileson

    2006-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Idaho Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Disposal Facility (ICDF) has been designed to accept CERCLA waste generated within the Idaho National Laboratory. Hazardous, mixed, low-level, and Toxic Substance Control Act waste will be accepted for disposal at the ICDF. The purpose of this document is to provide criteria for the quantities of radioactive and/or hazardous constituents allowable in waste streams designated for disposal at ICDF. This ICDF Complex Waste Acceptance Criteria is divided into four section: (1) ICDF Complex; (2) Landfill; (3) Evaporation Pond: and (4) Staging, Storage, Sizing, and Treatment Facility (SSSTF). The ICDF Complex section contains the compliance details, which are the same for all areas of the ICDF. Corresponding sections contain details specific to the landfill, evaporation pond, and the SSSTF. This document specifies chemical and radiological constituent acceptance criteria for waste that will be disposed of at ICDF. Compliance with the requirements of this document ensures protection of human health and the environment, including the Snake River Plain Aquifer. Waste placed in the ICDF landfill and evaporation pond must not cause groundwater in the Snake River Plain Aquifer to exceed maximum contaminant levels, a hazard index of 1, or 10-4 cumulative risk levels. The defined waste acceptance criteria concentrations are compared to the design inventory concentrations. The purpose of this comparison is to show that there is an acceptable uncertainty margin based on the actual constituent concentrations anticipated for disposal at the ICDF. Implementation of this Waste Acceptance Criteria document will ensure compliance with the Final Report of Decision for the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center, Operable Unit 3-13. For waste to be received, it must meet the waste acceptance criteria for the specific disposal/treatment unit (on-Site or off-Site) for which it is destined.

  15. Performance assessment for the class L-II disposal facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1997-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This draft radiological performance assessment (PA) for the proposed Class L-II Disposal Facility (CIIDF) on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) has been prepared to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the US Department of Energy Order 5820.2A. This PA considers the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes (LLW) over the operating life of the facility and the long-term performance of the facility in providing protection to public health and the environment. The performance objectives contained in the order require that the facility be managed to accomplish the following: (1) Protect public health and safety in accordance with standards specified in environmental health orders and other DOE orders. (2) Ensure that external exposure to the waste and concentrations of radioactive material that may be released into surface water, groundwater, soil, plants, and animals results in an effective dose equivalent (EDE) that does not exceed 25 mrem/year to a member of the public. Releases to the atmosphere shall meet the requirements of 40 CFR Pt. 61. Reasonable effort should be made to maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to the general environment as low as reasonably achievable. (1) Ensure that the committed EDEs received by individual who inadvertently may intrude into the facility after the loss of active institutional control (100 years) will not exceed 100 mrem/year for continuous exposure of 500 mrem for a single acute exposure. (4) Protect groundwater resources, consistent with federal, state, and local requirements.

  16. RCRA Permit for a Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit Number NEV HW0101 Annual Summary/Waste Minimization Report Calendar Year 2011

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Restoration

    2012-02-16T23:59:59.000Z

    This report summarizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identification number of each generator from which the Permittee received a waste stream; a description and quantity of each waste stream in tons and cubic feet received at the facility; the method of treatment, storage, and/or disposal for each waste stream; a description of the waste minimization efforts undertaken; a description of the changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually received; any unusual occurrences; and the results of tank integrity assessments. This Annual Summary/Waste Minimization Report is prepared in accordance with Section 2.13.3 of Permit Number NEV HW0101.

  17. RCRA Permit for a Hazardous Waste Management Facility Permit Number NEV HW0101 Annual Summary/Waste Minimization Report Calendar Year 2012, Nevada National Security Site, Nevada

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arnold, P. M.

    2013-02-21T23:59:59.000Z

    This report summarizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identification number of each generator from which the Permittee received a waste stream, a description and quantity of each waste stream in tons and cubic feet received at the facility, the method of treatment, storage, and/or disposal for each waste stream, a description of the waste minimization efforts undertaken, a description of the changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually received, any unusual occurrences, and the results of tank integrity assessments. This Annual Summary/Waste Minimization Report is prepared in accordance with Section 2.13.3 of Permit Number NEV HW0101, issued 10/17/10.

  18. Developing operating procedures for a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sutherland, A.A.; Miner, G.L.; Grahn, K.F.; Pollard, C.G. [Rogers and Associates Engineering Corp., Salt Lake City, UT (United States)

    1993-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document is intended to assist persons who are developing operating and emergency procedures for a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. It provides 25 procedures that are considered to be relatively independent of the characteristics of a disposal facility site, the facility design, and operations at the facility. These generic procedures should form a good starting point for final procedures on their subjects for the disposal facility. In addition, this document provides 55 annotated outlines of other procedures that are common to disposal facilities. The annotated outlines are meant as checklists to assist the developer of new procedures.

  19. Integrated Disposal Facility FY2010 Glass Testing Summary Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pierce, Eric M.; Bacon, Diana H.; Kerisit, Sebastien N.; Windisch, Charles F.; Cantrell, Kirk J.; Valenta, Michelle M.; Burton, Sarah D.; Serne, R Jeffrey; Mattigod, Shas V.

    2010-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was contracted by Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the engineered portion of the disposal facility (e.g., source term). Vitrifying the low-activity waste at Hanford is expected to generate over 1.6 × 105 m3 of glass (Puigh 1999). The volume of immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW) at Hanford is the largest in the DOE complex and is one of the largest inventories (approximately 0.89 × 1018 Bq total activity) of long-lived radionuclides, principally 99Tc (t1/2 = 2.1 × 105), planned for disposal in a low-level waste (LLW) facility. Before the ILAW can be disposed, DOE must conduct a performance assessement (PA) for the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) that describes the long-term impacts of the disposal facility on public health and environmental resources. As part of the ILAW glass testing program PNNL is implementing a strategy, consisting of experimentation and modeling, in order to provide the technical basis for estimating radionuclide release from the glass waste form in support of future IDF PAs. The purpose of this report is to summarize the progress made in fiscal year (FY) 2010 toward implementing the strategy with the goal of developing an understanding of the long-term corrosion behavior of low-activity waste glasses. The emphasis in FY2010 was the completing an evaluation of the most sensitive kinetic rate law parameters used to predict glass weathering, documented in Bacon and Pierce (2010), and transitioning from the use of the Subsurface Transport Over Reactive Multi-phases to Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases computer code for near-field calculations. The FY2010 activities also consisted of developing a Monte Carlo and Geochemical Modeling framework that links glass composition to alteration phase formation by 1) determining the structure of unreacted and reacted glasses for use as input information into Monte Carlo calculations, 2) compiling the solution data and alteration phases identified from accelerated weathering tests conducted with ILAW glass by PNNL and Viteous State Laboratory/Catholic University of America as well as other literature sources for use in geochemical modeling calculations, and 3) conducting several initial calculations on glasses that contain the four major components of ILAW-Al2O3, B2O3, Na2O, and SiO2.

  20. RCRA Part A and Part B Permit Application for Waste Management Activities at the Nevada Test Site: Proposed Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (MWSU)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Management

    2010-07-19T23:59:59.000Z

    The proposed Mixed Waste Storage Unit (MWSU) will be located within the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC). Existing facilities at the RWMC will be used to store low-level mixed waste (LLMW). Storage is required to accommodate offsite-generated LLMW shipped to the Nevada Test Site (NTS) for disposal in the new Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (MWDU) currently in the design/build stage. LLMW generated at the NTS (onsite) is currently stored on the Transuranic (TRU) Pad (TP) in Area 5 under a Mutual Consent Agreement (MCA) with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Federal Facilities (NDEP/BFF). When the proposed MWSU is permitted, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will ask that NDEP revoke the MCA and onsite-generated LLMW will fall under the MWSU permit terms and conditions. The unit will also store polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste and friable and non-friable asbestos waste that meets the acceptance criteria in the Waste Analysis Plan (Exhibit 2) for disposal in the MWDU. In addition to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements, the proposed MWSU will also be subject to Department of Energy (DOE) orders and other applicable state and federal regulations. Table 1 provides the metric conversion factors used in this application. Table 2 provides a list of existing permits. Table 3 lists operational RCRA units at the NTS and their respective regulatory status.

  1. Low-level radioactive waste disposal facility closure

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    White, G.J.; Ferns, T.W.; Otis, M.D.; Marts, S.T.; DeHaan, M.S.; Schwaller, R.G.; White, G.J. (EG and G Idaho, Inc., Idaho Falls, ID (USA))

    1990-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Part I of this report describes and evaluates potential impacts associated with changes in environmental conditions on a low-level radioactive waste disposal site over a long period of time. Ecological processes are discussed and baselines are established consistent with their potential for causing a significant impact to low-level radioactive waste facility. A variety of factors that might disrupt or act on long-term predictions are evaluated including biological, chemical, and physical phenomena of both natural and anthropogenic origin. These factors are then applied to six existing, yet very different, low-level radioactive waste sites. A summary and recommendations for future site characterization and monitoring activities is given for application to potential and existing sites. Part II of this report contains guidance on the design and implementation of a performance monitoring program for low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. A monitoring programs is described that will assess whether engineered barriers surrounding the waste are effectively isolating the waste and will continue to isolate the waste by remaining structurally stable. Monitoring techniques and instruments are discussed relative to their ability to measure (a) parameters directly related to water movement though engineered barriers, (b) parameters directly related to the structural stability of engineered barriers, and (c) parameters that characterize external or internal conditions that may cause physical changes leading to enhanced water movement or compromises in stability. Data interpretation leading to decisions concerning facility closure is discussed. 120 refs., 12 figs., 17 tabs.

  2. Responding to regulatory permitting requirements and notices of deficiencies for open burning/open detonation (OB/OD) treatment facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Murphy, K.D.; Rajic, P.I.; Tope, T.J. [Radian Corp., Oak Ridge, TN (United States); Dandeneau, M. [HQ ACC/CEVC, Langley AFB, VA (United States); Johnson, M.B. [Army Dugway Proving Ground, UT (United States)

    1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Manufacturers and users of energetic material [i.e., propellants, explosives, pyrotechnics (PEP)] generate unserviceable, obsolete, off-specification, and damaged items that are characterized as reactive waste. These items must be safely treated and disposed of or reclaimed/recycled, thereby controlling existing waste inventories at manageable levels. The most commonly used disposal and treatment method, particularly at US Department of Defense (DoD) installations, is open burning/open detonation (OB/OD). However, regulatory constraints and the inability of operators to obtain permits required for treating these waste has led to the recent reductions and limited use of OB/OD treatment at many installations. The discussion herein includes human health and environmental protection concerns that must be addressed in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subpart X permit applications. Determining the potential impacts of OB/OD on these areas of concern was performed using data obtained from the Dugway Proving Grounds Propellant, Explosive and Pyrotechnic Thermal Treatment Evaluation and Test Facility, commonly referred to as the BangBox. Specifically, data from the testing of munition items in the BangBox facility were used to support waste characterization, air modeling, and risk assessments required to resolve notice of deficiencies and prepare permit applications for OB/OD facilities at US Air Force (USAF) installations.

  3. 300 area TEDF permit compliance monitoring plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BERNESKI, L.D.

    1998-11-20T23:59:59.000Z

    This document presents the permit compliance monitoring plan for the 300 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility (TEDF). It addresses the compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Lands Sewer Outfall Lease.

  4. [Composite analysis E-area vaults and saltstone disposal facilities]. PORFLOW and FACT input files

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, J.R.

    1997-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This diskette contains the PORFLOW and FACT input files described in Appendix B of the accompanying report `Composite Analysis E-Area Vaults and Saltstone Disposal Facilities`.

  5. Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility Complex Compliance Demonstration for DOE Order 435.1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Simonds, J.

    2007-11-06T23:59:59.000Z

    This compliance demonstration document provides an analysis of the Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility (ICDF) Complex compliance with DOE Order 435.1. The ICDF Complex includes the disposal facility (landfill), evaporation pond, administration facility, weigh scale, and various staging/storage areas. These facilities were designed and constructed to be compliant with DOE Order 435.1, Resource Conservation and Recovery act Subtitle C, and Toxic Substances Control Act polychlorinated biphenyl design and construction standards. The ICDF Complex is designated as the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) facility for the receipt, staging/storage, treatment, and disposal of INL Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) waste streams.

  6. International low level waste disposal practices and facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Nutt, W.M. (Nuclear Engineering Division)

    2011-12-19T23:59:59.000Z

    The safe management of nuclear waste arising from nuclear activities is an issue of great importance for the protection of human health and the environment now and in the future. The primary goal of this report is to identify the current situation and practices being utilized across the globe to manage and store low and intermediate level radioactive waste. The countries included in this report were selected based on their nuclear power capabilities and involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. This report highlights the nuclear waste management laws and regulations, current disposal practices, and future plans for facilities of the selected international nuclear countries. For each country presented, background information and the history of nuclear facilities are also summarized to frame the country's nuclear activities and set stage for the management practices employed. The production of nuclear energy, including all the steps in the nuclear fuel cycle, results in the generation of radioactive waste. However, radioactive waste may also be generated by other activities such as medical, laboratory, research institution, or industrial use of radioisotopes and sealed radiation sources, defense and weapons programs, and processing (mostly large scale) of mineral ores or other materials containing naturally occurring radionuclides. Radioactive waste also arises from intervention activities, which are necessary after accidents or to remediate areas affected by past practices. The radioactive waste generated arises in a wide range of physical, chemical, and radiological forms. It may be solid, liquid, or gaseous. Levels of activity concentration can vary from extremely high, such as levels associated with spent fuel and residues from fuel reprocessing, to very low, for instance those associated with radioisotope applications. Equally broad is the spectrum of half-lives of the radionuclides contained in the waste. These differences result in an equally wide variety of options for the management of radioactive waste. There is a variety of alternatives for processing waste and for short term or long term storage prior to disposal. Likewise, there are various alternatives currently in use across the globe for the safe disposal of waste, ranging from near surface to geological disposal, depending on the specific classification of the waste. At present, there appears to be a clear and unequivocal understanding that each country is ethically and legally responsible for its own wastes, in accordance with the provisions of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. Therefore the default position is that all nuclear wastes will be disposed of in each of the 40 or so countries concerned with nuclear power generation or part of the fuel cycle. To illustrate the global distribution of radioactive waste now and in the near future, Table 1 provides the regional breakdown, based on the UN classification of the world in regions illustrated in Figure 1, of nuclear power reactors in operation and under construction worldwide. In summary, 31 countries operate 433 plants, with a total capacity of more than 365 gigawatts of electrical energy (GW[e]). A further 65 units, totaling nearly 63 GW(e), are under construction across 15 of these nations. In addition, 65 countries are expressing new interest in, considering, or actively planning for nuclear power to help address growing energy demands to fuel economic growth and development, climate change concerns, and volatile fossil fuel prices. Of these 65 new countries, 21 are in Asia and the Pacific region, 21 are from the Africa region, 12 are in Europe (mostly Eastern Europe), and 11 in Central and South America. However, 31 of these 65 are not currently planning to build reactors, and 17 of those 31 have grids of less than 5 GW, which is said to be too small to accommodate most of the reactor designs available. For the remaining 34 countries actively planning reactors, as of September 2010: 14 indicate a strong intention to precede w

  7. Preliminary Closure Plan for the Immobilized Low Activity Waste (ILAW) Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BURBANK, D.A.

    2000-08-31T23:59:59.000Z

    This document describes the preliminary plans for closure of the Immobilized Low-Activity Waste (ILAW) disposal facility to be built by the Office of River Protection at the Hanford site in southeastern Washington. The facility will provide near-surface disposal of up to 204,000 cubic meters of ILAW in engineered trenches with modified RCRA Subtitle C closure barriers.

  8. Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Public Comments to Community...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    PMRs, semi-annual meetings (e.g., CMRR and storm water permit meetings), Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board meetings, RACER, New Mexico Community Foundation FEED...

  9. Corrective action management unit application for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Evans, G.C.

    1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) is to accept both CERCLA (EPA-regulated) and RCRA (Ecology-regulated) remediation waste. The ERDF is considered part of the overall remediation strategy on the Hanford Site, and as such, determination of ERDF viability has followed both RCRA and CERCLA decision making processes. Typically, determination of the viability of a unit, such as the ERDF, would occur as part of record of decision (ROD) or permit modification for each remediation site before construction of the ERDF. However, because construction of the ERDF may take a significant amount of time, it is necessary to begin design and construction of the ERDF before final RODs/permit modifications for the remediation sites. This will allow movement of waste to occur quickly once the final remediation strategy for the RCRA and CERCLA past-practice units is determined. Construction of the ERDF is a unique situation relative to Hanford Facility cleanup, requiring a Hanford Facility specific process be developed for implementing the ERDF that would satisfy both RCRA and CERCLA requirements. While the ERDF will play a significant role in the remediation process, initiation of the ERDF does not preclude the evaluation of remedial alternatives at each remediation site. To facilitate this, the January 1994 amendment to the Tri-Party Agreement recognizes the necessity for the ERDF, and the Tri-Party Agreement states: ``Ecology, EPA, and DOE agree to proceed with the steps necessary to design, approve, construct, and operate such a ... facility.`` The Tri-Party Agreement requires the DOE-RL to prepare a comprehensive ``package`` for the EPA and Ecology to consider in evaluating the ERDF. The package is to address the criteria listed in 40 CFR 264.552(c) for corrective action management unit (CAMU) designation and a CERCLA ROD. This CAMU application is submitted as part of the Tri-Party Agreement-required information package.

  10. Conceptual Design Report for Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; David Duncan; Joan Connolly; Margaret Hinman; Charles Marcinkiewicz; Gary Mecham

    2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This conceptual design report addresses development of replacement remote-handled low-level waste disposal capability for the Idaho National Laboratory. Current disposal capability at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex is planned until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This conceptual design report includes key project assumptions; design options considered in development of the proposed onsite disposal facility (the highest ranked alternative for providing continued uninterrupted remote-handled low level waste disposal capability); process and facility descriptions; safety and environmental requirements that would apply to the proposed facility; and the proposed cost and schedule for funding, design, construction, and operation of the proposed onsite disposal facility.

  11. Preliminary Safety Design Report for Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Timothy Solack; Carol Mason

    2012-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A new onsite, remote-handled low-level waste disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled low-level waste disposal for remote-handled low-level waste from the Idaho National Laboratory and for nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled low-level waste in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This preliminary safety design report supports the design of a proposed onsite remote-handled low-level waste disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization, by discussing site characteristics that impact accident analysis, by providing the facility and process information necessary to support the hazard analysis, by identifying and evaluating potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled low-level waste, and by discussing the need for safety features that will become part of the facility design.

  12. Closure Strategy for a Waste Disposal Facility with Multiple Waste Types and Regulatory Drivers at the Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    L. Desotell; D. Wieland; V. Yucel; G. Shott; J. Wrapp

    2008-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy, National Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) is planning to close the 92-Acre Area of the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), which is about 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. Closure planning for this facility must take into account the regulatory requirements for a diversity of waste streams, disposal and storage configurations, disposal history, and site conditions. This paper provides a brief background of the Area 5 RWMS, identifies key closure issues, and presents the closure strategy. Disposals have been made in 25 shallow excavated pits and trenches and 13 Greater Confinement Disposal (GCD) boreholes at the 92-Acre Area since 1961. The pits and trenches have been used to dispose unclassified low-level waste (LLW), low-level mixed waste (LLMW), and asbestiform waste, and to store classified low-level and low-level mixed materials. The GCD boreholes are intermediate-depth disposal units about 10 feet (ft) in diameter and 120 ft deep. Classified and unclassified high-specific activity LLW, transuranic (TRU), and mixed TRU are disposed in the GCD boreholes. TRU waste was also disposed inadvertently in trench T-04C. Except for three disposal units that are active, all pits and trenches are operationally covered with 8-ft thick alluvium. The 92-Acre Area also includes a Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (MWDU) operating under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Interim Status, and an asbestiform waste unit operating under a state of Nevada Solid Waste Disposal Site Permit. A single final closure cover is envisioned over the 92-Acre Area. The cover is the evapotranspirative-type cover that has been successfully employed at the NTS. Closure, post-closure care, and monitoring must meet the requirements of the following regulations: U.S. Department of Energy Order 435.1, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 191, Title 40 CFR Part 265, Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 444.743, RCRA requirements as incorporated into NAC 444.8632, and the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO). A grouping of waste disposal units according to waste type, location, and similarity in regulatory requirements identified six closure units: LLW Unit, Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 111 under FFACO, Asbestiform LLW Unit, Pit 3 MWDU, TRU GCD Borehole Unit, and TRU Trench Unit. The closure schedule of all units is tied to the closure schedule of the Pit 3 MWDU under RCRA.

  13. Preliminary Hazard Analysis for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; Mike Lehto

    2010-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The need for remote handled low level waste (LLW) disposal capability has been identified. A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal capability for remote-handled LLW that is generated as part of the nuclear mission of the Idaho National Laboratory and from spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This document supports the conceptual design for the proposed remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization and by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW.

  14. Preliminary Hazard Analysis for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; Mike Lehto

    2010-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The need for remote handled low level waste (LLW) disposal capability has been identified. A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal capability for remote-handled LLW that is generated as part of the nuclear mission of the Idaho National Laboratory and from spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This document supports the conceptual design for the proposed remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization and by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW.

  15. Conceptual Safety Design Report for the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2010-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal for remote-handled LLW from the Idaho National Laboratory and for spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This conceptual safety design report supports the design of a proposed onsite remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization, by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW, by evaluating consequences of postulated accidents, and by discussing the need for safety features that will become part of the facility design.

  16. Conceptual Safety Design Report for the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2010-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal for remote-handled LLW from the Idaho National Laboratory and for spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This conceptual safety design report supports the design of a proposed onsite remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization, by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW, by evaluating consequences of postulated accidents, and by discussing the need for safety features that will become part of the facility design.

  17. Environmental Permitting of a Low-BTU Coal Gasification Facility

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Murawczyk, C.; Stewart, J. T.

    1983-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    that merits serious consideration since only relatively small modifications to the existing oil or gas burner system may be required, and boiler derating can be minimized. The environmental permitting and planning process for a low-Btu coal gasification...

  18. Environmental Permitting of a Low-BTU Coal Gasification Facility 

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Murawczyk, C.; Stewart, J. T.

    1983-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    that merits serious consideration since only relatively small modifications to the existing oil or gas burner system may be required, and boiler derating can be minimized. The environmental permitting and planning process for a low-Btu coal gasification...

  19. NOMINATION FOR THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE (PMI) PROJECT OF THE YEAR AWARD INTEGRATED DISPOSAL FACILITY (IDF)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MCLELLAN, G.W.

    2007-02-07T23:59:59.000Z

    CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. (CH2M HILL) is pleased to nominate the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) project for the Project Management Institute's consideration as 2007 Project of the Year, Built for the U.S, Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of River Protection (ORP) at the Hanford Site, the IDF is the site's first Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-compliant disposal facility. The IDF is important to DOE's waste management strategy for the site. Effective management of the IDF project contributed to the project's success. The project was carefully managed to meet three Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) milestones. The completed facility fully satisfied the needs and expectations of the client, regulators and stakeholders. Ultimately, the project, initially estimated to require 48 months and $33.9 million to build, was completed four months ahead of schedule and $11.1 million under budget. DOE directed construction of the IDF to provide additional capacity for disposing of low-level radioactive and mixed (i.e., radioactive and hazardous) solid waste. The facility needed to comply with federal and Washington State environmental laws and meet TPA milestones. The facility had to accommodate over one million cubic yards of the waste material, including immobilized low-activity waste packages from the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP), low-level and mixed low-level waste from WTP failed melters, and alternative immobilized low-activity waste forms, such as bulk-vitrified waste. CH2M HILL designed and constructed a disposal facility with a redundant system of containment barriers and a sophisticated leak-detection system. Built on a 168-area, the facility's construction met all regulatory requirements. The facility's containment system actually exceeds the state's environmental requirements for a hazardous waste landfill. Effective management of the IDF construction project required working through highly political and legal issues as well as challenges with permitting, scheduling, costs, stakeholders and technical issues. To meet the customer's needs and deadlines, the project was managed with conscientious discipline and application of sound project management principles in the Project Management Institute's Project Management Body of Knowledge. Several factors contributed to project success. Extensive planning and preparation were conducted, which was instrumental to contract and procurement management. Anticipating issues and risks, CH2M HILL prepared well defined scope and expectations, particularly for safety. To ensure worker safety, the project management team incorporated CH2M HILL's Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) into the project and included safety requirements in contracting documents and baseline planning. The construction contractor DelHur Industries, Inc. adopted CH2M HILL's safety program to meet the procurement requirement for a comparable ISMS safety program. This project management approach contributed to an excellent safety record for a project with heavy equipment in constant motion and 63,555 man-hours worked. The project manager worked closely with ORP and Ecology to keep them involved in project decisions and head off any stakeholder or regulatory concerns. As issues emerged, the project manager addressed them expeditiously to maintain a rigorous schedule. Subcontractors and project contributors were held to contract commitments for performance of the work scope and requirements for quality, budget and schedule. Another element of project success extended to early and continual involvement of all interested in the project scope. Due to the public sensitivity of constructing a landfill planned for radioactive waste as well as offsite waste, there were many stakeholders and it was important to secure their agreement on scope and time frames. The project had multiple participants involved in quality assurance surveillances, audits and inspections, including the construction contractor, CH2M HILL, ORP, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and independent certified quality assurance an

  20. CHARACTERIZATION OF CORE SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM THE SALTSTONE DISPOSAL FACILITY

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cozzi, A.; Duncan, A.

    2010-01-28T23:59:59.000Z

    During the month of September 2008, grout core samples were collected from the Saltstone Disposal Facility, Vault 4, cell E. This grout was placed during processing campaigns in December 2007 from Deliquification, Dissolution and Adjustment Batch 2 salt solution. The 4QCY07 Waste Acceptance Criteria sample collected on 11/16/07 represents the salt solution in the core samples. Core samples were retrieved to initiate the historical database of properties of emplaced Saltstone and to demonstrate the correlation between field collected and laboratory prepared samples. Three samples were collected from three different locations. Samples were collected using a two-inch diameter concrete coring bit. In April 2009, the core samples were removed from the evacuated sample container, inspected, transferred to PVC containers, and backfilled with nitrogen. Samples furthest from the wall were the most intact cylindrically shaped cored samples. The shade of the core samples darkened as the depth of coring increased. Based on the visual inspection, sample 3-3 was selected for all subsequent analysis. The density and porosity of the Vault 4 core sample, 1.90 g/cm{sup 3} and 59.90% respectively, were comparable to values achieved for laboratory prepared samples. X-ray diffraction analysis identified phases consistent with the expectations for hydrated Saltstone. Microscopic analysis revealed morphology features characteristic of cementitious materials with fly ash and calcium silicate hydrate gel. When taken together, the results of the density, porosity, x-ray diffraction analysis and microscopic analysis support the conclusion that the Vault 4, Cell E core sample is representative of the expected waste form.

  1. Life-Cycle Cost Study for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility in Texas

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    B. C. Rogers; P. L. Walter (Rogers and Associates Engineering Corporation); R. D. Baird

    1999-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report documents the life-cycle cost estimates for a proposed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility near Sierra Blanca, Texas. The work was requested by the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority and performed by the National Low-Level Waste Management Program with the assistance of Rogers and Associates Engineering Corporation.

  2. Managing commercial low-level radioactive waste beyond 1992: Transportation planning for a LLW disposal facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Quinn, G.J. [Wastren, Inc. (United States)

    1992-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This technical bulletin presents information on the many activities and issues related to transportation of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) to allow interested States to investigate further those subjects for which proactive preparation will facilitate the development and operation of a LLW disposal facility. The activities related to transportation for a LLW disposal facility are discussed under the following headings: safety; legislation, regulations, and implementation guidance; operations-related transport (LLW and non-LLW traffic); construction traffic; economics; and public involvement.

  3. Recycled Water Reuse Permit Renewal Application for the Central Facilities Area Sewage Treatment Plant

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mike Lewis

    2014-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This renewal application for a Recycled Water Reuse Permit is being submitted in accordance with the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act 58.01.17 “Recycled Water Rules” and the Municipal Wastewater Reuse Permit LA-000141-03 for continuing the operation of the Central Facilities Area Sewage Treatment Plant located at the Idaho National Laboratory. The permit expires March 16, 2015. The permit requires a renewal application to be submitted six months prior to the expiration date of the existing permit. For the Central Facilities Area Sewage Treatment Plant, the renewal application must be submitted by September 16, 2014. The information in this application is consistent with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality’s Guidance for Reclamation and Reuse of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater and discussions with Idaho Department of Environmental Quality personnel.

  4. CONTAINMENT OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE AT THE DOE SALTSTONE DISPOSAL FACILITY

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jordan, J.; Flach, G.

    2012-03-29T23:59:59.000Z

    As facilities look for permanent storage of toxic materials, they are forced to address the long-term impacts to the environment as well as any individuals living in affected area. As these materials are stored underground, modeling of the contaminant transport through the ground is an essential part of the evaluation. The contaminant transport model must address the long-term degradation of the containment system as well as any movement of the contaminant through the soil and into the groundwater. In order for disposal facilities to meet their performance objectives, engineered and natural barriers are relied upon. Engineered barriers include things like the design of the disposal unit, while natural barriers include things like the depth of soil between the disposal unit and the water table. The Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina is an example of a waste disposal unit that must be evaluated over a timeframe of thousands of years. The engineered and natural barriers for the SDF allow it to meet its performance objective over the long time frame. Some waste disposal facilities are required to meet certain standards to ensure public safety. These type of facilities require an engineered containment system to ensure that these requirements are met. The Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS) is an example of this type of facility. The facility is evaluated based on a groundwater pathway analysis which considers long-term changes to material properties due to physical and chemical degradation processes. The facility is able to meet these performance objectives due to the multiple engineered and natural barriers to contaminant migration.

  5. Permitted Mercury Storage Facility Notifications | Department of Energy

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagementOPAM5Parabolic Trough ParabolicPerformance Audit ofPermitted

  6. Hanford facility dangerous waste Part A, Form 3 and Part B permit application documentation, Central Waste Complex (WA7890008967)(TSD: TS-2-4)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Saueressig, D.G.

    1998-05-20T23:59:59.000Z

    The Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application is considered to be a single application organized into a General Information Portion (document number DOE/RL-91-28) and a Unit-Specific Portion. The scope of the Unit-Specific Portion is limited to Part B permit application documentation submitted for individual, operating, treatment, storage, and/or disposal units, such as the Central Waste Complex (this document, DOE/RL-91-17). Both the General Information and Unit-Specific portions of the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application address the content of the Part B permit application guidance prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology 1996) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (40 Code of Federal Regulations 270), with additional information needed by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments and revisions of Washington Administrative Code 173-303. For ease of reference, the Washington State Department of Ecology alpha-numeric section identifiers from the permit application guidance documentation (Ecology 1996) follow, in brackets, the chapter headings and subheadings. A checklist indicating where information is contained in the Central Waste Complex permit application documentation, in relation to the Washington State Department of Ecology guidance, is located in the Contents section. Documentation contained in the General Information Portion is broader in nature and could be used by multiple treatment, storage, and/or disposal units (e.g., the glossary provided in the General Information Portion). Wherever appropriate, the Central Waste Complex permit application documentation makes cross-reference to the General Information Portion, rather than duplicating text. Information provided in this Central Waste Complex permit application documentation is current as of May 1998.

  7. Hazard Classification of the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyd D. Christensen

    2012-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Battelle Energy Alliance (BEA) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is constructing a new facility to replace remote-handled low-level radioactive waste disposal capability for INL and Naval Reactors Facility operations. Current disposal capability at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) will continue until the facility is full or closed for remediation (estimated at approximately fiscal year 2015). Development of a new onsite disposal facility is the highest ranked alternative and will provide RH-LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate RH-LLW for the foreseeable future. As a part of establishing a safety basis for facility operations, the facility will be categorized according to DOE-STD-1027-92. This classification is important in determining the scope of analyses performed in the safety basis and will also dictate operational requirements of the completed facility. This paper discusses the issues affecting hazard classification in this nuclear facility and impacts of the final hazard categorization.

  8. Permits

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level:Energy: Grid Integration Redefining What's Possible for RenewableSpeedingBiomassPPPO WebsitePalmsthe PriceOptimizationUSING CRonOther Permits

  9. Groundwater impact assessment report for the 1325-N Liquid Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alexander, D.J.; Johnson, V.G.

    1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In 1943 the Hanford Site was chosen as a location for the Manhattan Project to produce plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. The 100-N Area at Hanford was used from 1963 to 1987 for a dual-purpose, plutonium production and steam generation reactor and related operational support facilities (Diediker and Hall 1987). In November 1989, the reactor was put into dry layup status. During operations, chemical and radioactive wastes were released into the area soil, air, and groundwater. The 1325-N LWDF was constructed in 1983 to replace the 1301-N Liquid Waste Disposal Facility (1301-N LWDF). The two facilities operated simultaneously from 1983 to 1985. The 1301-N LWDF was retired from use in 1985 and the 1325-N LWDF continued operation until April 1991, when active discharges to the facility ceased. Effluent discharge to the piping system has been controlled by administrative means. This report discusses ground water contamination resulting from the 1325-N Liquid Waste Disposal facility.

  10. Grout disposal facility vault exhauster: Technical background document on demonstration of best available control technology for toxics

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Glissmeyer, J.A.; Glantz, C.S. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States); Rittman, P.D. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States)

    1994-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Grout Disposal Facility (GDF) is currently operated on the US Department of Energy`s Hanford Site. The GDF is located near the east end of the Hanford Site`s 200 East operations area, and is used for the treatment and disposal of low-level radioactive liquid wastes. In the grout treatment process, selected radioactive wastes from double-shell tanks are mixed with grout-forming solids; the resulting grout slurry is pumped to near-surface concrete vaults for solidification and permanent disposal. As part of this treatment process, small amounts of toxic particles and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) may be released to the atmosphere through the GDF`s exhaust system. This analysis constitutes a Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (T-BACT) study, as required in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 173-460) to support a Notice of Construction for the operation of the GDF exhaust system at a modified flow rate that exceeds the previously permitted value. This report accomplishes the following: assesses the potential emissions from the GDF; estimates air quality impacts to the public from toxic air pollutants; identifies control technologies that could reduce GDF emissions; evaluates impacts of the control technologies; and recommends appropriate emissions controls.

  11. Application for Permit to Operate a Class II Solid Waste Disposal Site at the Nevada Test Site - U10c Disposal Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Programs

    2010-03-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The Nevada Test Site (NTS) is located approximately 105 km (65 mi) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) is the federal lands management authority for the NTS and National Security Technologies LLC (NSTec) is the Management and Operations contractor. Access on and off the NTS is tightly controlled, restricted, and guarded on a 24-hour basis. The NTS is posted with signs along its entire perimeter. NSTec is the operator of all solid waste disposal sites on the NTS. The site will be used for the disposal of refuse, rubbish, garbage, sewage sludge, pathological waste, Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM), industrial solid waste, hydrocarbon-burdened soil, hydrocarbon-burdened demolition and construction waste, and other inert waste (hereafter called permissible waste). Waste containing free liquids or regulated under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) will not be accepted for disposal at the site. Waste regulated under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), excluding Polychlorinated Biphenyl [PCB], Bulk Product Waste (see Section 6.2.5) and ACM (see Section 6.2.2.2) will not be accepted for disposal at the site. The disposal site will be used as the sole depository of permissible waste which is: (1) Generated by entities covered under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Hazardous Waste Generator Identification Number for the NTS; (2) Generated at sites identified in the Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO); (3) Sensitive records and media, including documents, vugraphs, computer disks, typewriter ribbons, magnetic tapes, etc., generated by NNSA/NSO or its contractors; (4) ACM generated by NNSA/NSO or its contractors according to Section 6.2.2.2, as necessary; (5) Hydrocarbon-burdened soil and solid waste from areas covered under the EPA Hazardous Waste Generator Identification Number for the NTS; (6) Other waste on a case-by-case concurrence by NDEP/BFF. The generator of permissible waste is responsible for preparing documentation related to waste acceptance criteria, waste characterization, and load verification. Waste and Water (WW) personnel are responsible for operating the disposal site and reviewing documentation to determine if the waste is acceptable.

  12. Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility Complex Compliance Demonstration for DOE Order 435.1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    J. Simonds

    2006-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This compliance demonstration document provides an analysis of the Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility (ICDF) Complex compliance with DOE Order 435.1. The ICDF Complex includes the disposal facility (landfill), evaporation pond, admin facility, weigh scale, decon building, treatment systems, and various staging/storage areas. These facilities were designed and are being constructed to be compliant with DOE Order 435.1, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C, and Toxic Substances Control Act polychlorinated biphenyl design and construction standards. The ICDF Complex is designated as the central Idaho National Laboratory (INL) facilityyy for the receipt, staging/storage, treatment, and disposal of INL Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) waste streams. This compliance demonstration document discusses the conceptual site model for the ICDF Complex area. Within this conceptual site model, the selection of the area for the ICDF Complex is discussed. Also, the subsurface stratigraphy in the ICDF Complex area is discussed along with the existing contamination beneath the ICDF Complex area. The designs for the various ICDF Complex facilities are also included in this compliance demonstration document. These design discussions are a summary of the design as presented in the Remedial Design/Construction Work Plans for the ICDF landfill and evaporation pond and the Staging, Storage, Sizing, and Treatment Facility. Each of the major facilities or systems is described including the design criteria.

  13. Evaluation of Low-Level Waste Disposal Receipt Data for Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Area 54, Area G Disposal Facility - Fiscal Year 2011

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    French, Sean B. [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Shuman, Robert [WPS: WASTE PROJECTS AND SERVICES

    2012-04-17T23:59:59.000Z

    The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Laboratory) generates radioactive waste as a result of various activities. Operational or institutional waste is generated from a wide variety of research and development activities including nuclear weapons development, energy production, and medical research. Environmental restoration (ER), and decontamination and decommissioning (D and D) waste is generated as contaminated sites and facilities at LANL undergo cleanup or remediation. The majority of this waste is low-level radioactive waste (LLW) and is disposed of at the Technical Area 54 (TA-54), Area G disposal facility. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 (DOE, 2001) requires that radioactive waste be managed in a manner that protects public health and safety, and the environment. To comply with this order, DOE field sites must prepare and maintain site-specific radiological performance assessments for LLW disposal facilities that accept waste after September 26, 1988. Furthermore, sites are required to conduct composite analyses that account for the cumulative impacts of all waste that has been (or will be) disposed of at the facilities and other sources of radioactive material that may interact with the facilities. Revision 4 of the Area G performance assessment and composite analysis was issued in 2008 (LANL, 2008). These analyses estimate rates of radionuclide release from the waste disposed of at the facility, simulate the movement of radionuclides through the environment, and project potential radiation doses to humans for several on-site and off-site exposure scenarios. The assessments are based on existing site and disposal facility data and on assumptions about future rates and methods of waste disposal. The accuracy of the performance assessment and composite analysis depends upon the validity of the data used and assumptions made in conducting the analyses. If changes in these data and assumptions are significant, they may invalidate or call into question certain aspects of the analyses. For example, if the volumes and activities of waste disposed of during the remainder of the disposal facility's lifetime differ significantly from those projected, the doses projected by the analyses may no longer apply. DOE field sites are required to implement a performance assessment and composite analysis maintenance program. The purpose of this program is to ensure the continued applicability of the analyses through incremental improvement of the level of understanding of the disposal site and facility. Site personnel are required to conduct field and experimental work to reduce the uncertainty in the data and models used in the assessments. Furthermore, they are required to conduct periodic reviews of waste receipts, comparing them to projected waste disposal rates. The radiological inventory for Area G was updated in conjunction with Revision 4 of the performance assessment and composite analysis (Shuman, 2008). That effort used disposal records and other sources of information to estimate the quantities of radioactive waste that have been disposed of at Area G from 1959, the year the facility started receiving waste on a routine basis, through 2007. It also estimated the quantities of LLW that will require disposal from 2008 through 2044, the year in which it is assumed that disposal operations at Area G will cease. This report documents the fourth review of Area G disposal receipts since the inventory was updated and examines information for waste placed in the ground during fiscal years (FY) 2008 through 2011. The primary objective of the disposal receipt review is to ensure that the future waste inventory projections developed for the performance assessment and composite analysis are consistent with the actual types and quantities of waste being disposed of at Area G. Toward this end, the disposal data that are the subject of this review are used to update the future waste inventory projections for the disposal facility. These projections are compared to the future inventory projections that were develope

  14. National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Strategy for the Remote-Handled Low-level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Peggy Hinman

    2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) needs to have disposal capability for remote-handled low level waste (LLW) generated at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) at the time the existing disposal facility is full or must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the INL Subsurface Disposal Area in approximately the year 2017.

  15. Disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear research facilities

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Maxeiner, H; Kolbe, E

    2003-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Swiss radioactive wastes originate from nuclear power plants (NPP) and from medicine (e.g. radiation sources), industry (e.g. fire detectors) and research (e.g. CERN, PSI). Their conditioning, characterisation and documentation has to meet the demands given by the Swiss regulatory authorities including all information needed for a safe disposal in future repositories. For NPP wastes, arisings as well as the processes responsible for the buildup of short and long lived radionuclides are well known, and the conditioning procedures are established. The radiological inventories are determined on a routinely basis using a combined system of measurements and calculational programs. For waste from research, the situation is more complicated. The wide spectrum of different installations combined with a poorly known history of primary and secondary radiation results in heterogeneous waste sorts with radiological inventories quite different from NPP waste and difficult to measure long lived radionuclides. In order to c...

  16. Application for a Permit to Operate a Class III Solid Waste Disposal Site at the Nevada National Security Site Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Programs

    2010-10-04T23:59:59.000Z

    The Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) is located approximately 105 km (65 mi) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. The U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) is the federal lands management authority for the NNSS and National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec) is the Management and Operations contractor. Access on and off the NNSS is tightly controlled, restricted, and guarded on a 24-hour basis. The NNSS is posted with signs along its entire perimeter. NSTec is the operator of all solid waste disposal sites on the NNSS. The Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) is the location of the permitted facility for the Solid Waste Disposal Site (SWDS). The Area 5 RWMS is located near the eastern edge of the NNSS (Figure 1), approximately 26 km (16 mi) north of Mercury, Nevada. The Area 5 RWMS is used for the disposal of low-level waste (LLW) and mixed low-level waste. Many areas surrounding the RWMS have been used in conducting nuclear tests. The site will be used for the disposal of regulated Asbestiform Low-Level Waste (ALLW), small quantities of low-level radioactive hydrocarbon-burdened (LLHB) media and debris, LLW, LLW that contains Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Bulk Product Waste greater than 50 ppm that leaches at a rate of less than 10 micrograms of PCB per liter of water, and small quantities of LLHB demolition and construction waste (hereafter called permissible waste). Waste containing free liquids, or waste that is regulated as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or state-of-generation hazardous waste regulations, will not be accepted for disposal at the site. Waste regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that will be accepted at the disposal site is regulated asbestos-containing materials (RACM) and PCB Bulk Product Waste greater than 50 ppm that leaches at a rate of less than 10 micrograms of PCB per liter of water. The term asbestiform is used throughout this document to describe RACM. The disposal site will be used as a depository of permissible waste generated both on site and off site. All generators designated by NNSA/NSO will be eligible to dispose regulated ALLW at the Asbestiform Low-Level Waste Disposal Site in accordance with the DOE/NV-325, Nevada National Security Site Waste Acceptance Criteria (NNSSWAC, current revision). Approval will be given by NNSA/NSO to generators that have successfully demonstrated through process knowledge (PK) and/or sampling and analysis that the waste is low-level, contains asbestiform material, or contains PCB Bulk Product Waste greater than 50 ppm that leaches at a rate of less than 10 micrograms of PCB per liter of water, or small quantities of LLHB demolition and construction waste and does not contain prohibited waste materials. Each waste stream will be approved through the Radioactive Waste Acceptance Program (RWAP), which ensures that the waste meets acceptance requirements outlined in the NNSSWAC.

  17. Waste disposal technology transfer matching requirement clusters for waste disposal facilities in China

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dorn, Thomas, E-mail: thomas.dorn@uni-rostock.de [University of Rostock, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Department Waste Management, Justus-v.-Liebig-Weg 6, 18059 Rostock (Germany); Nelles, Michael, E-mail: michael.nelles@uni-rostock.de [University of Rostock, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Department Waste Management, Justus-v.-Liebig-Weg 6, 18059 Rostock (Germany); Flamme, Sabine, E-mail: flamme@fh-muenster.de [University of Applied Sciences Muenster, Corrensstrasse 25, 48149 Muenster (Germany); Jinming, Cai [Hefei University of Technology, 193 Tunxi Road, 230009 Hefei (China)

    2012-11-15T23:59:59.000Z

    Highlights: Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer We outline the differences of Chinese MSW characteristics from Western MSW. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer We model the requirements of four clusters of plant owner/operators in China. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer We examine the best technology fit for these requirements via a matrix. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Variance in waste input affects result more than training and costs. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer For China technology adaptation and localisation could become push, not pull factors. - Abstract: Even though technology transfer has been part of development aid programmes for many decades, it has more often than not failed to come to fruition. One reason is the absence of simple guidelines or decision making tools that help operators or plant owners to decide on the most suitable technology to adopt. Practical suggestions for choosing the most suitable technology to combat a specific problem are hard to get and technology drawbacks are not sufficiently highlighted. Western counterparts in technology transfer or development projects often underestimate or don't sufficiently account for the high investment costs for the imported incineration plant; the differing nature of Chinese MSW; the need for trained manpower; and the need to treat flue gas, bunker leakage water, and ash, all of which contain highly toxic elements. This article sets out requirements for municipal solid waste disposal plant owner/operators in China as well as giving an attribute assessment for the prevalent waste disposal plant types in order to assist individual decision makers in their evaluation process for what plant type might be most suitable in a given situation. There is no 'best' plant for all needs and purposes, and requirement constellations rely on generalisations meaning they cannot be blindly applied, but an alignment of a type of plant to a type of owner or operator can realistically be achieved. To this end, a four-step approach is suggested and a technology matrix is set out to ease the choice of technology to transfer and avoid past errors. The four steps are (1) Identification of plant owner/operator requirement clusters; (2) Determination of different municipal solid waste (MSW) treatment plant attributes; (3) Development of a matrix matching requirement clusters to plant attributes; (4) Application of Quality Function Deployment Method to aid in technology localisation. The technology transfer matrices thus derived show significant performance differences between the various technologies available. It is hoped that the resulting research can build a bridge between technology transfer research and waste disposal research in order to enhance the exchange of more sustainable solutions in future.

  18. Non-radioactive disposal facility -- Bioremediation horizontal well installation project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kupar, J.; Hasek, M.

    1998-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Sanitary Landfill Corrective Action Plan proposes a two pronged approach to remediation. The first part of the total remediation strategy is the placement of a RCRA style closure cap to provide source control of contaminants into the groundwater. The second part of the proposed remediation package is a phased approach primarily using an in situ bioremediation system for groundwater clean up of the Constituents of Concern (COCs) that exceed their proposed Alternate Concentration Limits (ACL). The phased in approach of groundwater clean up will involve operation of the in situ bioremediation system, followed by evaluation of the Phase 1 system and, if necessary, additional phased remediation strategies. This document presents pertinent information on operations, well locations, anticipated capture zones, monitoring strategies, observation wells and other information which will allow a decision on the acceptability of the remedial strategy as an interim corrective action prior to permit application approval. The proposed interim phase of the remediation program will position two horizontal bioremediation wells such that the respective zones of influence will intersect the migration path for the highest concentrations of each plume.

  19. Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, 325 hazardous waste treatment units. Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1997-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report contains the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application for the 325 Hazardous Waste Treatment Units (325 HWTUs) which consist of the Shielded Analytical Laboratory, the 325 Building, and the 325 Collection/Loadout Station Tank. The 325 HWTUs receive, store, and treat dangerous waste generated by Hanford Facility programs. Routine dangerous and/or mixed waste treatment that will be conducted in the 325 HWTUs will include pH adjustment, ion exchange, carbon absorption, oxidation, reduction, waste concentration by evaporation, precipitation, filtration, solvent extraction, solids washing, phase separation, catalytic destruction, and solidification/stabilization.

  20. ANNUAL SUMMARY OF THE INTEGRATED DISPOSAL FACILITY PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FOR 2004

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    MANN, F M

    2005-02-09T23:59:59.000Z

    As required by the US. Department of Energy (DOE) order on radioactive waste management (DOE 1999a) and as implemented by the ''Maintenance Plan for the Hanford Immobilized Low-Activity Tank Waste Performance Assessment'' (Mann 2004), an annual summary of the adequacy of the Hanford Immobilized Low-Activity Tank Waste Performance Assessment (ILAW PA) is necessary in each year in which a performance assessment is not issued. A draft version of the 2001 ILAW PA was sent to the DOE Headquarters (DOE/HQ) in April 2001 for review and approval. The DOE approved (DOE 2001) the draft version of the 2001 ILAW PA and issued a new version of the Hanford Site waste disposal authorization statement (DAS). Based on comments raised during the review, the draft version was revised and the 2001 ILAW PA was formally issued (Mann et al. 2001). The DOE (DOE 2003a) has reviewed the final 2001 ILAW PA and concluded that no changes to the DAS were necessary. Also as required by the DOE order, annual summaries have been generated and approved. The previous annual summary (Mann 2003b) noted the change of mission from ILAW disposal to the disposal of a range of solid waste types, including ILAW. DOE approved the annual summary (DOE 2003c), noting the expanded mission. Considering the results of data collection and analysis, the conclusions of the 2001 ILAW PA remain valid as they pertain to ILAW disposal. The new data also suggest that impacts from the disposal of the other solid waste will be lower than initially estimated in the ''Integrated Disposal Facility Risk Assessment'' (Mann 2003a). A performance assessment for the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) will be issued in the summer of 2005.

  1. Near-Field Hydrology Data Package for the Integrated Disposal Facility 2005 Performance Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meyer, Philip D.; Saripalli, Prasad; Freedman, Vicky L.

    2004-06-25T23:59:59.000Z

    CH2MHill Hanford Group, Inc. (CHG) is designing and assessing the performance of an Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) to receive immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW), Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Wastes (LLW/MLLW), and the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) melters used to vitrify the ILAW. The IDF Performance Assessment (PA) assesses the performance of the disposal facility to provide a reasonable expectation that the disposal of the waste is protective of the general public, groundwater resources, air resources, surface water resources, and inadvertent intruders. The PA requires prediction of contaminant migration from the facilities, which is expected to occur primarily via the movement of water through the facilities and the consequent transport of dissolved contaminants in the pore water of the vadose zone. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) assists CHG in its performance assessment activities. One of PNNL’s tasks is to provide estimates of the physical, hydraulic, and transport properties of the materials comprising the disposal facilities and the disturbed region around them. These materials are referred to as the near-field materials. Their properties are expressed as parameters of constitutive models used in simulations of subsurface flow and transport. In addition to the best-estimate parameter values, information on uncertainty in the parameter values and estimates of the changes in parameter values over time are required to complete the PA. These parameter estimates and information were previously presented in a report prepared for the 2001 ILAW PA. This report updates the parameter estimates for the 2005 IDF PA using additional information and data collected since publication of the earlier report.

  2. Radiological performance assessment for the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, J.R.; Fowler, J.R. [Westinghouse Savannah River Co., Aiken, SC (United States)

    1992-12-18T23:59:59.000Z

    This radiological performance assessment (RPA) for the Savannah River Site (SRS) Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) was prepared in accordance with the requirements of Chapter III of the US Department of Energy Order 5820.2A. The Order specifies that an RPA should provide reasonable assurance that a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility will comply with the performance objectives of the Order. The performance objectives require that: (1) exposures of the general public to radioactivity in the waste or released from the waste will not result in an effective dose equivalent of 25 mrem per year; (2) releases to the atmosphere will meet the requirements of 40 CFR 61; (3) inadvertent intruders will not be committed to an excess of an effective dose equivalent of 100 mrem per year from chronic exposure, or 500 mrem from a single acute exposure; and (4) groundwater resources will be protected in accordance with Federal, State and local requirements.

  3. Decommissioning and waste disposal methods for an uranium mill facility in Spain

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Santiago, J.L. [ENRESA, Madrid (Spain); Sanchez, M. [INITEC, Madrid (Spain)

    1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    In the south of Spain on the outskirts of the town of Andujar an inactive uranium mill tailings pile is being stabilized in place. Mill equipment, buildings and process facilities have been dismantled and demolished and the resulting metal wastes and debris will be placed in the pile. The tailings mass is being reshaped by flattening the sideslopes and a cover system will be placed over the pile. This paper describes the technical procedures used for the remediation and closure of the Andujar mill site and in particular discusses the approaches used for the dismantling and demolition of the processing facilities and the disposal of the metal wastes and demolition debris.

  4. Model training curriculum for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tyner, C.J.; Birk, S.M.

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document is to assist in the development of the training programs required to be in place for the operating license for a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. It consists of an introductory document and four additional appendixes of individual training program curricula. This information will provide the starting point for the more detailed facility-specific training programs that will be developed as the facility hires and trains new personnel and begins operation. This document is comprehensive and is intended as a guide for the development of a company- or facility-specific program. The individual licensee does not need to use this model training curriculum as written. Instead, this document can be used as a menu for the development, modification, or verification of customized training programs.

  5. Performance Assessment for the Idaho National Laboratory Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Annette L. Schafer; A. Jeffrey Sondrup; Arthur S. Rood

    2012-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This performance assessment for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility at the Idaho National Laboratory documents the projected radiological dose impacts associated with the disposal of low-level radioactive waste at the facility. This assessment evaluates compliance with the applicable radiological criteria of the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for protection of the public and the environment. The calculations involve modeling transport of radionuclides from buried waste to surface soil and subsurface media, and eventually to members of the public via air, groundwater, and food chain pathways. Projections of doses are calculated for both offsite receptors and individuals who inadvertently intrude into the waste after site closure. The results of the calculations are used to evaluate the future performance of the low-level radioactive waste disposal facility and to provide input for establishment of waste acceptance criteria. In addition, one-factor-at-a-time, Monte Carlo, and rank correlation analyses are included for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. The comparison of the performance assessment results to the applicable performance objectives provides reasonable expectation that the performance objectives will be met

  6. First Commercial US Mixed Waste Vitrification Facility: Permits, Readiness Reviews, and Delisting of Final Wasteform

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pickett, J.B. [Westinghouse Savannah River Company, AIKEN, SC (United States); Norford, S.W.; Diener, G.A.

    1998-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Westinghouse Savannah River Co. (WSRC) contracted GTS Duratek (Duratek) to construct and operate the first commercial vitrification facility to treat an F-006 mixed (radioactive/hazardous) waste in the United States. The permits were prepared and submitted to the South Carolina state regulators by WSRC - based on a detailed design by Duratek. Readiness Assessments were conducted by WSRC and Duratek at each major phase of the operation (sludge transfer, construction, cold and radioactive operations, and a major restart) and approved by the Savannah River Department of Energy prior to proceeding. WSRC prepared the first `Upfront Delisting` petition for a vitrified mixed waste. Lessons learned with respect to the permit strategy, operational assessments, and delisting from this `privatization` project will be discussed.

  7. Computer software design description for the Treated Effluent Disposal Facility (TEDF), Project L-045H, Operator Training Station (OTS)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Carter, R.L. Jr.

    1994-11-07T23:59:59.000Z

    The Treated Effluent Disposal Facility (TEDF) Operator Training Station (OTS) is a computer-based training tool designed to aid plant operations and engineering staff in familiarizing themselves with the TEDF Central Control System (CCS).

  8. HEU to LEU conversion and blending facility: UNH blending alternative to produce LEU oxide for disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is examining options for the disposition of surplus weapons-usable fissile materials and storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials. Disposition is a process of use or disposal of material that results in the material being converted to a form that is substantially and inherently more proliferation-resistant than is the original form. Examining options for increasing the proliferation resistance of highly enriched uranium (HEU) is part of this effort. This report provides data to be used in the environmental impact analysis for the uranyl nitrate hexahydrate blending option to produce oxide for disposal. This the Conversion and Blending Facility (CBF) alternative will have two missions (1) convert HEU materials into HEU uranyl nitrate (UNH) and (2) blend the HEU uranyl nitrate with depleted and natural assay uranyl nitrate to produce an oxide that can be stored until an acceptable disposal approach is available. The primary emphasis of this blending operation will be to destroy the weapons capability of large, surplus stockpiles of HEU. The blended LEU product can only be made weapons capable again by the uranium enrichment process. The blended LEU will be produced as a waste suitable for storage or disposal.

  9. Program Plan for Revision of the Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility Performance Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, James R.

    2005-12-07T23:59:59.000Z

    Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) and the Saltstone Project, are embarking on the next revision to the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) performance assessment (PA). This program plan has been prepared to outline the general approach, scope, schedule and resources for the PA revision. The plan briefly describes the task elements of the PA process. It discusses critical PA considerations in the development of conceptual models and interpretation of results. Applicable quality assurance (QA) requirements are identified and the methods for implementing QA for both software and documentation are described. The plan identifies project resources supporting the core team and providing project oversight. Program issues and risks are identified as well as mitigation of those risks. Finally, a preliminary program schedule has been developed and key deliverables identified. A number of significant changes have been implemented since the last PA revision resulting in a new design for future SDF disposal units. This revision will encompass the existing and planned disposal units, PA critical radionuclides and exposure pathways important to SDF performance. An integrated analysis of the overall facility layout, including all disposal units, will be performed to assess the impact of plume overlap on PA results. Finally, a rigorous treatment of uncertainty will be undertaken using probabilistic simulations. This analysis will be reviewed and approved by DOE-SR, DOE-HQ and potentially the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This revision will be completed and ready for the start of the DOE review at the end of December 2006. This work supports a Saltstone Vault 2 fee-bearing milestone. This milestone includes completion of the Vault 2 module of the PA revision by the end of FY06.

  10. Annual Hanford Site Environmental Permitting Status Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    HOMAN, N.A.

    2000-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The information contained in, and/or referenced in, this Annual Hanford Site Environmental Permitting Status Report addresses Permit Condition II.W (Other Permits and/or Approvals) of the Dangerous Waste Portion of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WA7890008967). Condition II.W specifies that the Permittees are responsible for obtaining all other applicable federal, state, and local permits authorizing the development and operation of the Hanford Facility. This status report also addresses Permit Condition I.E.22, as interpreted in Section 12.1.25 of the Hanford Facility Dangerous Waste Permit Application, General Information Portion (DOE/RL-91-28, Rev. 4), that states this report will be prepared annually and a copy of this report will be placed in the Facility Operating Record, General Information file by October 1 of each year.

  11. A process for establishing a financial assurance plan for LLW disposal facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, P. [EG and G Idaho, Inc., Idaho Falls, ID (United States). National Low-Level Waste Management Program

    1993-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document describes a process by which an effective financial assurance program can be developed for new low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities. The report identifies examples of activities that might cause financial losses and the types of losses they might create, discusses mechanisms that could be used to quantify and ensure against the various types of potential losses identified and describes a decision process to formulate a financial assurance program that takes into account the characteristics of both the potential losses and available mechanisms. A sample application of the concepts described in the report is provided.

  12. Saltstone Disposal Facility Mechanically Stabilized Earth Vault Closure Cap Degradation: Sensitivity Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    PHIFER, MARK

    2004-03-19T23:59:59.000Z

    As part of the current Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) Performance Assessment (PA) revision, Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) vault closure cap degradation mechanisms and their impact upon filtration through the MSE vault closure cap were evaluated for the base case land use scenario (i.e. institutional control to pine forest). The degradation mechanisms evaluated included pine forest succession, erosion, and colloidal clay migration (Phifer 2003). Infiltration through the upper hydraulic barrier layer of the closure cap as determined by this evaluation will be utilized as the infiltration input to subsequent PORFLOW vadose zone contaminant transport modeling, which will also be performed as part of the PA revision.

  13. Sandia National Laboratories support of the Iraq Nuclear Facility Dismantlement and Disposal Program.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cochran, John Russell; Danneels, Jeffrey John

    2009-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Because of past military operations, lack of upkeep and looting there are now enormous radioactive waste problems in Iraq. These waste problems include destroyed nuclear facilities, uncharacterized radioactive wastes, liquid radioactive waste in underground tanks, wastes related to the production of yellow cake, sealed radioactive sources, activated metals and contaminated metals that must be constantly guarded. Iraq currently lacks the trained personnel, regulatory and physical infrastructure to safely and securely manage these facilities and wastes. In 2005 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) agreed to organize an international cooperative program to assist Iraq with these issues. Soon after, the Iraq Nuclear Facility Dismantlement and Disposal Program (the NDs Program) was initiated by the U.S. Department of State (DOS) to support the IAEA and assist the Government of Iraq (GOI) in eliminating the threats from poorly controlled radioactive materials. The Iraq NDs Program is providing support for the IAEA plus training, consultation and limited equipment to the GOI. The GOI owns the problems and will be responsible for implementation of the Iraq NDs Program. Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) is a part of the DOS's team implementing the Iraq NDs Program. This report documents Sandia's support of the Iraq NDs Program, which has developed into three principal work streams: (1) training and technical consultation; (2) introducing Iraqis to modern decommissioning and waste management practices; and (3) supporting the IAEA, as they assist the GOI. Examples of each of these work streams include: (1) presentation of a three-day training workshop on 'Practical Concepts for Safe Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste in Arid Settings;' (2) leading GOI representatives on a tour of two operating low level radioactive waste disposal facilities in the U.S.; and (3) supporting the IAEA's Technical Meeting with the GOI from April 21-25, 2008. As noted in the report, there was significant teaming between the various participants to best help the GOI. On-the-ground progress is the focus of the Iraq NDs Program and much of the work is a transfer of technical and practical skills and knowledge that Sandia uses day-to-day. On-the-ground progress was achieved in July of 2008 when the GOI began the physical cleanup and dismantlement of the Active Metallurgical Testing Laboratory (LAMA) facility at Al Tuwaitha, near Baghdad.

  14. The Vapor Plume at Material Disposal Are C in Relation to Pajarito Corridor Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Masse, William B. [Los Alamos National Laboratory

    2012-04-02T23:59:59.000Z

    A vapor plume made up of volatile organic compounds is present beneath Material Disposal Area C (MDA C) at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The location and concentrations within the vapor plume are discussed in relation to existing and planned facilities and construction activities along Pajarito Road (the 'Pajarito Corridor') and in terms of worker health and safety. This document provides information that indicates that the vapor plume does not pose a threat to the health of LANL workers nor will it pose a threat to workers during construction of proposed facilities along Pajarito Road. The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Laboratory) monitors emissions, effluents, and environmental media to meet environmental compliance requirements, determine actions to protect the environment, and monitor the long-term health of the local environment. LANL also studies and characterizes 'legacy' waste from past Laboratory operations to make informed decisions regarding eventual corrective actions and the disposition of that waste. Starting in 1969, these activities have been annually reported in the LANL Environmental Report (formerly Environmental Surveillance Report), and are detailed in publicly accessible technical reports meeting environmental compliance requirements. Included among the legacy sites being investigated are several formerly used material disposal areas (MDAs) set aside by the Laboratory for the general on-site disposal of waste from mission-related activities. One such area is MDA C located in Technical Area 50 (TA-50), which was used for waste disposal between 1948 and 1974. The location of TA-50 is depicted in Figure 1. The present paper uses a series of maps and cross sections to address the public concerns raised about the vapor plume at MDA C. As illustrated here, extensive sampling and data interpretation indicate that the vapor plume at MDA C does not pose a threat to the health of LANL workers nor will it pose a threat to workers during construction of the proposed facilities and utility trenches. The public cannot be directly exposed to the vapor plume beneath MDA C because Pajarito Road is closed to the public.

  15. Inadvertent Intruder Analysis For The Portsmouth On-Site Waste Disposal Facility (OSWDF)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, Frank G.; Phifer, Mark A.

    2014-01-22T23:59:59.000Z

    The inadvertent intruder analysis considers the radiological impacts to hypothetical persons who are assumed to inadvertently intrude on the Portsmouth OSWDF site after institutional control ceases 100 years after site closure. For the purposes of this analysis, we assume that the waste disposal in the OSWDF occurs at time zero, the site is under institutional control for the next 100 years, and inadvertent intrusion can occur over the following 1,000 year time period. Disposal of low-level radioactive waste in the OSWDF must meet a requirement to assess impacts on such individuals, and demonstrate that the effective dose equivalent to an intruder would not likely exceed 100 mrem per year for scenarios involving continuous exposure (i.e. chronic) or 500 mrem for scenarios involving a single acute exposure. The focus in development of exposure scenarios for inadvertent intruders was on selecting reasonable events that may occur, giving consideration to regional customs and construction practices. An important assumption in all scenarios is that an intruder has no prior knowledge of the existence of a waste disposal facility at the site. Results of the analysis show that a hypothetical inadvertent intruder at the OSWDF who, in the worst case scenario, resides on the site and consumes vegetables from a garden established on the site using contaminated soil (chronic agriculture scenario) would receive a maximum chronic dose of approximately 7.0 mrem/yr during the 1000 year period of assessment. This dose falls well below the DOE chronic dose limit of 100 mrem/yr. Results of the analysis also showed that a hypothetical inadvertent intruder at the OSWDF who, in the worst case scenario, excavates a basement in the soil that reaches the waste (acute basement construction scenario) would receive a maximum acute dose of approximately 0.25 mrem/yr during the 1000 year period of assessment. This dose falls well below the DOE acute dose limit of 500 mrem/yr. Disposal inventory constraints based on the intruder analysis are well above conservative estimates of the OSWDF inventory and, based on intruder disposal limits; about 7% of the disposal capacity is reached with the estimated OSWDF inventory.

  16. Application for Permit to Operate a Class III Solid Waste Disposal Site at the Nevada Test Site - U10c Disposal Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Programs

    2010-08-05T23:59:59.000Z

    The NTS is located approximately 105 km (65 mi) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. NNSA/NSO is the federal lands management authority for the NTS and NSTec is the Management & Operations contractor. Access on and off the NTS is tightly controlled, restricted, and guarded on a 24-hour basis. The NTS is posted with signs along its entire perimeter. NSTec is the operator of all solid waste disposal sites on the NTS. The U10C Disposal Site is located in the northwest corner of Area 9 at the NTS (Figure 1) and is located in a subsidence crater created by two underground nuclear events, one in October 1962 and another in April 1964. The disposal site opened in 1971 for the disposal of rubbish, refuse, pathological waste, asbestos-containing material, and industrial solid waste. A Notice of Intent form to operate the disposal site as a Class II site was submitted to the state of Nevada on January 26, 1994, and was acknowledged in a letter to the DOE on February 8, 1994. It operated as a state of Nevada Class II Solid Waste Disposal Site (SWDS) until it closed on October 5, 1995, for retrofit as a Class III SWDS. The retrofit consisted of the installation of a minimum four-foot compacted soil layer to segregate the different waste types and function as a liner to inhibit leachate and water flow into the lower waste zone. Five neutron monitoring tubes were installed in this layer to monitor possible leachate production and water activity. Upon acceptance of the installed barrier and approval of an Operating Plan by NDEP/BFF, the site reopened in January 1996 as a Class III SWDS for the disposal of industrial solid waste and other inert waste.

  17. Annual Report for Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Area 54, Area G Disposal Facility - Fiscal Year 2011

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    French, Sean B. [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Shuman, Rob [WPS: WASTE PROJECTS AND SERVICES

    2012-05-22T23:59:59.000Z

    As a condition to the Disposal Authorization Statement issued to Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or the Laboratory) on March 17, 2010, a comprehensive performance assessment and composite analysis maintenance program must be implemented for the Technical Area 54, Area G disposal facility. Annual determinations of the adequacy of the performance assessment and composite analysis are to be conducted under the maintenance program to ensure that the conclusions reached by those analyses continue to be valid. This report summarizes the results of the fiscal year 2011 annual review for Area G. Revision 4 of the Area G performance assessment and composite analysis was issued in 2008 and formally approved in 2009. These analyses are expected to provide reasonable estimates of the long-term performance of Area G and, hence, the disposal facility's ability to comply with Department of Energy (DOE) performance objectives. Annual disposal receipt reviews indicate that smaller volumes of waste will require disposal in the pits and shafts at Area G relative to what was projected for the performance assessment and composite analysis. The future inventories are projected to decrease modestly for the pits but increase substantially for the shafts due to an increase in the amount of tritium that is projected to require disposal. Overall, however, changes in the projected future inventories of waste are not expected to compromise the ability of Area G to satisfy DOE performance objectives. The Area G composite analysis addresses potential impacts from all waste disposed of at the facility, as well as other sources of radioactive material that may interact with releases from Area G. The level of knowledge about the other sources included in the composite analysis has not changed sufficiently to call into question the validity of that analysis. Ongoing environmental surveillance activities are conducted at, and in the vicinity of, Area G. However, the information generated by many of these activities cannot be used to evaluate the validity of the performance assessment and composite analysis models because the monitoring data collected are specific to operational releases or address receptors that are outside the domain of the performance assessment and composite analysis. In general, applicable monitoring data are supportive of some aspects of the performance assessment and composite analysis. Several research and development (R and D) efforts have been initiated under the performance assessment and composite analysis maintenance program. These investigations are designed to improve the current understanding of the disposal facility and site, thereby reducing the uncertainty associated with the projections of the long-term performance of Area G. The status and results of R and D activities that were undertaken in fiscal year 2011 are discussed in this report. Special analyses have been conducted to determine the feasibility of disposing of specific waste streams, to address proposed changes in disposal operations, and to consider the impacts of changes to the models used to conduct the performance assessment and composite analysis. These analyses are described and the results of the evaluations are summarized in this report. The Area G disposal facility consists of Material Disposal Area (MDA) G and the Zone 4 expansion area. To date, all disposal operations at Area G have been confined to MDA G. Material Disposal Area G is scheduled to undergo final closure in 2015; disposal of waste in the pits and shafts is scheduled to end in 2013. In anticipation of the closure of MDA G, plans are being made to ship the majority of the waste generated at LANL to off-site locations for disposal. It is not clear at this time if waste that will be disposed of at LANL will be placed in Zone 4 or if disposal operations will move to a new location at the Laboratory. Separately, efforts to optimize the final cover used in the closure of MDA G are underway; a final cover design different than that adopted for the performance assessment and composite analy

  18. An Evaluation of Long-Term Performance of Liner Systems for Low-Level Waste Disposal Facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arthur S. Rood; Annette L. Schafer; A. Jeffrey Sondrup

    2011-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Traditional liner systems consisting of a geosynthetic membrane underlying a waste disposal facility coupled with a leachate collection system have been proposed as a means of containing releases of low-level radioactive waste within the confines of the disposal facility and thereby eliminating migration of radionuclides into the vadose zone and groundwater. However, this type of hydraulic containment liner system is only effective as long as the leachate collection system remains functional or an overlying cover limits the total infiltration to the volumetric pore space of the disposal system. If either the leachate collection system fails, or the overlying cover becomes less effective during the 1,000’s of years of facility lifetime, the liner may fill with water and release contaminated water in a preferential or focused manner. If the height of the liner extends above the waste, the waste will become submerged which could increase the release rate and concentration of the leachate. If the liner extends near land surface, there is the potential for contamination reaching land surface creating a direct exposure pathway. Alternative protective liner systems can be engineered that eliminate radionuclide releases to the vadose zone during operations and minimizing long term migration of radionuclides from the disposal facility into the vadose zone and aquifer. Non-traditional systems include waste containerization in steel or composite materials. This type of system would promote drainage of clean infiltrating water through the facility without contacting the waste. Other alternatives include geochemical barriers designed to transmit water while adsorbing radionuclides beneath the facility. Facility performance for a hypothetical disposal facility has been compared for the hydraulic and steel containerization liner alternatives. Results were compared in terms of meeting the DOE Order 435.1 low-level waste performance objective of 25 mrem/yr all-pathways dose during the 1) institutional control period (0-100 years), compliance period (0-1000 years) and post-compliance period (>1000 years). Evaluation of the all pathway dose included the dose from ingestion and irrigation of contaminated groundwater extracted from a well 100 meters downgradient, in addition to the dose received from direct contact of radionuclides deposited near the surface resulting from facility overflow. Depending on the disposal facility radionuclide inventory, facility design, cover performance, and the location and environment where the facility is situated, the dose from exposure via direct contact of near surface deposited radionuclides can be much greater than the dose received via transport to the groundwater and subsequent ingestion.

  19. Class 1 Permit Modification Notification Addition of Structures within Technical Area 54, Area G, Pad 11, Dome 375 Los Alamos National Laboratory Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, July 2012

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vigil-Holterman, Luciana R. [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Lechel, Robert A. [Los Alamos National Laboratory

    2012-08-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this letter is to notify the New Mexico Environment Department-Hazardous Waste Bureau (NMED-HWB) of a Class 1 Permit Modification to the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Hazardous Waste Facility Permit issued to the Department of Energy (DOE) and Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS) in November 2010. The modification adds structures to the container storage unit at Technical Area (TA) 54 Area G, Pad 11. Permit Section 3.1(3) requires that changes to the location of a structure that does not manage hazardous waste shall be changed within the Permit as a Class 1 modification without prior approval in accordance with Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40 (40 CFR), {section}270.42(a)(1). Structures have been added within Dome 375 located at TA-54, Area G, Pad 11 that will be used in support of waste management operations within Dome 375 and the modular panel containment structure located within Dome 375, but will not be used as waste management structures. The Class 1 Permit Modification revises Figure 36 in Attachment N, Figures; and Figure G.12-1 in Attachment G.12, Technical Area 54, Area G, Pad 11 Outdoor Container Storage Unit Closure Plan. Descriptions of the structures have also been added to Section A.4.2.9 in Attachment A, TA - Unit Descriptions; and Section 2.0 in Attachment G.12, Technical Area 54, Area G, Pad 11 Outdoor Container Storage Unit Closure Plan. Full description of the permit modification and the necessary changes are included in Enclosure 1. The modification has been prepared in accordance with 40 CFR {section}270.42(a)(l). This package includes this letter and an enclosure containing a description of the permit modification, text edits of the Permit sections, and the revised figures (collectively LA-UR-12-22808). Accordingly, a signed certification page is also enclosed. Three hard copies and one electronic copy of this submittal will be delivered to the NMED-HWB.

  20. Centrifuge modeling of radioactive waste migration through backfill in a near surface disposal facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gurumoorthy, C.; Kusakabe, O. [Geotechnical Engineering Division, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama Meguroku, Tokyo 1528552 (Japan)

    2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Investigations on the performance of backfill barrier in Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) for radioactive wastes are important to ensure the long term safety of such disposal option. Favorable condition to delay migration of radionuclides from disposed waste to far fields is diffusion process. However, advective dispersion/diffusion mechanism plays an important role due to changes in backfill over a period of time. In order to understand these mechanisms, detailed laboratory experiments are usually conducted for developing mathematical models to assess the behaviour of backfill. However, these experiments are time consuming and suffer with the limitations due to material complexity. Also, there are constraints associated with validation of theoretical predictions due to intricacy of boundary conditions as well as the time scale is quite different as compared to the time required for completion of the processes in the field. Keeping in view these aspects, centrifuge modeling technique has been adopted by various researchers to model and understand various geo-environment problems in order to provide a link between the real life situation termed as the 'Prototype' and its model, which is exposed to a higher gravitational field. An attempt has been made in this paper to investigate the feasibility of this technique to model advective dispersion/diffusion mechanism of radionuclides through saturated Bentonite-Sand (B:S) backfill. Various stages of centrifuge modeling are highlighted. Column tests were conducted in the centrifuge to evaluate the hydraulic conductivity of B:S mixture under prototype NSDF stress conditions. Results showed that steady state hydraulic conductivity under saturated conditions was 2.86 10{sup -11} m/sec. Studies indicate the feasibility of centrifuge modeling technique and usefulness to model advective diffusion of radionuclides through B:S backfill. (authors)

  1. Geochemical Data Package for the 2005 Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Krupka, Kenneth M.; Serne, R JEFFREY.; Kaplan, D I.

    2004-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

    CH2M HILL Hanford Group, Inc. (CH2M HILL) is designing and assessing the performance of an integrated disposal facility (IDF) to receive low-level waste (LLW), mixed low-level waste (MLLW), immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW), and failed or decommissioned melters. The CH2M HILL project to assess the performance of this disposal facility is the Hanford IDF Performance Assessment (PA) activity. The goal of the Hanford IDF PA activity is to provide a reasonable expectation that the disposal of the waste is protective of the general public, groundwater resources, air resources, surface-water resources, and inadvertent intruders. Achieving this goal will require prediction of contaminant migration from the facilities. This migration is expected to occur primarily via the movement of water through the facilities, and the consequent transport of dissolved contaminants in the vadose zone to groundwater where contaminants may be re-introduced to receptors via drinking water wells or mixing in the Columbia River. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) assists CH2M HILL in their performance assessment activities. One of the PNNL tasks is to provide estimates of the geochemical properties of the materials comprising the IDF, the disturbed region around the facility, and the physically undisturbed sediments below the facility (including the vadose zone sediments and the aquifer sediments in the upper unconfined aquifer). The geochemical properties are expressed as parameters that quantify the adsorption of contaminants and the solubility constraints that might apply for those contaminants that may exceed solubility constraints. The common parameters used to quantify adsorption and solubility are the distribution coefficient (Kd) and the thermodynamic solubility product (Ksp), respectively. In this data package, we approximate the solubility of contaminants using a more simplified construct, called the solution concentration limit, a constant value. The Kd values and solution concentration limits for each contaminant are direct inputs to subsurface flow and transport codes used to predict the performance of the IDF system. In addition to the best-estimate Kd values, a reasonable conservative value and a range are provided. The data package does not list estimates for the range in solubility limits or their uncertainty. However, the data package does provide different values for both the Kd values and solution concentration limits for different spatial zones in the IDF system and does supply time-varying Kd values for the cement solidified waste. The Kd values and solution concentration limits presented for each contaminant were previously presented in a report prepared by Kaplan and Serne (2000) for the 2001 ILAW PA, and have been updated to include applicable data from investigations completed since the issuance of that report and improvements in our understanding of the geochemistry specific to Hanford. A discussion is also included of the evolution of the Kd values recommended from the original 1999 ILAW PA through the 2001 ILAW and 2003 Supplement PAs to the current values to be used for the 2005 IDF PA for the key contaminants of concern: Cr(VI), nitrate, 129I, 79Se, 99Tc, and U(VI). This discussion provides the rationale for why certain Kd have changed with time.

  2. Standard Guide for Evaluating Disposal Options for Concrete from Nuclear Facility Decommissioning

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia

    2002-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    1.1 This standard guide defines the process for developing a strategy for dispositioning concrete from nuclear facility decommissioning. It outlines a 10-step method to evaluate disposal options for radioactively contaminated concrete. One of the steps is to complete a detailed analysis of the cost and dose to nonradiation workers (the public); the methodology and supporting data to perform this analysis are detailed in the appendices. The resulting data can be used to balance dose and cost and select the best disposal option. These data, which establish a technical basis to apply to release the concrete, can be used in several ways: (1) to show that the release meets existing release criteria, (2) to establish a basis to request release of the concrete on a case-by-case basis, (3) to develop a basis for establishing release criteria where none exists. 1.2 This standard guide is based on the “Protocol for Development of Authorized Release Limits for Concrete at U.S. Department of Energy Sites,” (1) from ...

  3. Comparative approaches to siting low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Newberry, W.F.

    1994-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report describes activities in nine States to select site locations for new disposal facilities for low-level radioactive waste. These nine States have completed processes leading to identification of specific site locations for onsite investigations. For each State, the status, legal and regulatory framework, site criteria, and site selection process are described. In most cases, States and compact regions decided to assign responsibility for site selection to agencies of government and to use top-down mapping methods for site selection. The report discusses quantitative and qualitative techniques used in applying top-down screenings, various approaches for delineating units of land for comparison, issues involved in excluding land from further consideration, and different positions taken by the siting organizations in considering public acceptance, land use, and land availability as factors in site selection.

  4. HEU to LEU conversion and blending facility: Metal blending alternative to produce LEU oxide for disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    US DOE is examining options for disposing of surplus weapons-usable fissile materials and storage of all weapons-usable fissile materials. The nuclear material is converted to a form more proliferation- resistant than the original form. Blending HEU (highly enriched uranium) with less-enriched uranium to form LEU has been proposed as a disposition option. Five technologies are being assessed for blending HEU. This document provides data to be used in environmental impact analysis for the HEU-LEU disposition option that uses metal blending with an oxide waste product. It is divided into: mission and assumptions, conversion and blending facility descriptions, process descriptions and requirements, resource needs, employment needs, waste and emissions from plant, hazards discussion, and intersite transportation.

  5. Fissile Material Disposition Program: Deep Borehole Disposal Facility PEIS data input report for direct disposal. Direct disposal of plutonium metal/plutonium dioxide in compound metal canisters. Version 3.0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wijesinghe, A.M.; Shaffer, R.J.

    1996-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

    The US Department of Energy (DOE) is examining options for disposing of excess weapons-usable nuclear materials [principally plutonium (Pu) and highly enriched uranium (HEU)] in a form or condition that is substantially and inherently more difficult to recover and reuse in weapons production. This report is the data input report for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The PEIS examines the environmental, safety, and health impacts of implementing each disposition alternative on land use, facility operations, and site infrastructure; air quality and noise; water, geology, and soils; biotic, cultural, and paleontological resources; socioeconomics; human health; normal operations and facility accidents; waste management; and transportation. This data report is prepared to assist in estimating the environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of a Deep Borehole Disposal Facility, an alternative currently included in the PEIS. The facility projects under consideration are, not site specific. This report therefore concentrates on environmental, safety, and health impacts at a generic site appropriate for siting a Deep Borehole Disposal Facility.

  6. Waste Disposal (Illinois)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This article lays an outline of waste disposal regulations, permits and fees, hazardous waste management and underground storage tank requirements.

  7. Report for the HWMA/RCRA Post Closure Permit for the INTEC Waste Calcining Facility at the INL Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Idaho Cleanup Project

    2006-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Waste Calcining Facility (WCF) is located at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center. In 1998, the WCF was closed under an approved Hazardous Waste Management Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (HWMA/RCRA) Closure Plan. Vessels and spaces were grouted and then covered with a concrete cap. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality issued a final HWMA/RCRA post-closure permit on September 15, 2003, with an effective date of October 16, 2003. This permit sets forth procedural requirements for groundwater characterization and monitoring, maintenance, and inspections of the WCF to ensure continued protection of human health and the environment. The post-closure permit also includes semiannual reporting requirements under Permit Conditions III.H. and I.U. These reporting requirements have been combined into this single semiannual report.

  8. 300 area TEDF NPDES Permit Compliance Monitoring Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Loll, C.M.

    1995-09-05T23:59:59.000Z

    This document presents the 300 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility (TEDF) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Compliance Monitoring Plan (MP). The MP describes how ongoing monitoring of the TEDF effluent stream for compliance with the NPDES permit will occur. The MP also includes Quality Assurance protocols to be followed.

  9. Stormwater Permits (Vermont)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Stormwater permits are required for the construction of a new generation facility, the reconstruction or expansion of a facility, the operation of a generation facility which discharges stormwater...

  10. Disposing of Waste in ICCBL/NSRB Screening Facility The rules outlined below are applicable for most projects, but the screening facility

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Mitchison, Tim

    or at iccb_screen@hms.harvard.edu Solid Biological Waste Small sharps container (located on benchtop of here after proper treatment (see below). When box is 2/3 full, please notify staff. BSL2 waste binsDisposing of Waste in ICCBL/NSRB Screening Facility The rules outlined below are applicable

  11. U.A.C. R315-3: Application and Permit Procedures for Hazardous...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    U.A.C. R315-3: Application and Permit Procedures for Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library...

  12. EIS-0110: Central Waste Disposal Facility for Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Oak Ridge Reservation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This EIS assesses the environmental impacts of alternatives for the disposal of low-level waste and by-product materials generated by the three major plants on the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). In addition to the no-action alternative, two classes of alternatives are evaluated: facility design alternatives and siting alternatives.

  13. Superfund Policy Statements and Guidance Regarding Disposition of Radioactive Waste in Non-NRC Licensed Disposal Facilities - 13407

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Walker, Stuart [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (United States)] [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (United States)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This talk will discuss EPA congressional testimony and follow-up letters, as well as letters to other stakeholders on EPA's perspectives on the disposition of radioactive waste outside of the NRC licensed disposal facility system. This will also look at Superfund's historical practices, and emerging trends in the NRC and agreement states on waste disposition. (author)

  14. Linking RESRAD-OFFSITE and HYDROGEOCHEM Model for Performance Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility - 13429

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lin, Wen-Sheng [Hydrotech Research Institute, National Taiwan University, Taiwan (China)] [Hydrotech Research Institute, National Taiwan University, Taiwan (China); Yu, Charley; Cheng, Jing-Jy; Kamboj, Sunita; Gnanapragasam, Emmanuel [Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439 (United States)] [Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439 (United States); Liu, Chen-Wuing [Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan (China)] [Department of Bioenvironmental Systems Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taiwan (China); Li, Ming-Hsu [Institute of Hydrological and Oceanic Sciences, National Central University, Taiwan (China)] [Institute of Hydrological and Oceanic Sciences, National Central University, Taiwan (China)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Performance assessments are crucial steps for the long-term radiological safety requirements of low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility. How much concentration of radionuclides released from the near-field to biosphere and what radiation exposure levels of an individual can influence on the satisfactory performance of the LLW disposal facility and safety disposal environment. Performance assessment methodology for the radioactive waste disposal consists of the reactive transport modeling of safety-concerned radionuclides released from the near-field to the far-field, and the potential exposure pathways and the movements of radionuclides through the geosphere, biosphere and man of which the accompanying dose. Therefore, the integration of hydrogeochemical transport model and dose assessment code, HYDROGEOCHEM code and RESRAD family of codes is imperative. The RESRAD family of codes such as RESRAD-OFFSITE computer code can evaluate the radiological dose and excess cancer risk to an individual who is exposed while located within or outside the area of initial (primary) contamination. The HYDROGEOCHEM is a 3-D numerical model of fluid flow, thermal, hydrologic transport, and biogeochemical kinetic and equilibrium reactions in saturated and unsaturated media. The HYDROGEOCHEM model can also simulate the crucial geochemical mechanism, such as the effect of redox processes on the adsorption/desorption, hydrogeochemical influences on concrete degradation, adsorption/desorption of radionuclides (i.e., surface complexation model) between solid and liquid phase in geochemically dynamic environments. To investigate the safety assessment of LLW disposal facility, linking RESRAD-OFFSITE and HYDROGEOCHEM model can provide detailed tools of confidence in the protectiveness of the human health and environmental impact for safety assessment of LLW disposal facility. (authors)

  15. Environmental effects of dredging. Documentation of the settle module for ADDAMS: Design of confined disposal facilities for solids retention and initial storage. Technical notes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hayes, D.F.; Schroeder, P.R.

    1992-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This technical note documents the SETTLE computer program which facilitates the design of a confined disposal facility (CDF) to retain solids, provide initial storage, and meet effluent discharge limitations for suspended solids during a dredged matenal disposal operation. Detailed information can be found in Engineer Manual 1110-2-5027, Confined Dredged Material Disposal. SETTLE is a part of the Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Management System (ADDAMS).

  16. Safety Assessment for the Kozloduy National Disposal Facility in Bulgaria - 13507

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Biurrun, E.; Haverkamp, B. [DBE TECHNOLOGY GmbH, Eschenstr. 55, D-31224 Peine (Germany)] [DBE TECHNOLOGY GmbH, Eschenstr. 55, D-31224 Peine (Germany); Lazaro, A.; Miralles, A. [Westinghouse Electric Spain SAR, Padilla 17, E-28006 Madrid (Spain)] [Westinghouse Electric Spain SAR, Padilla 17, E-28006 Madrid (Spain); Stefanova, I. [SERAW, 52 A Dimitrov Blvd, 6 Fl., 1797 Sofia (Bulgaria)] [SERAW, 52 A Dimitrov Blvd, 6 Fl., 1797 Sofia (Bulgaria)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Due to the early decommissioning of four Water-Water Energy Reactors (WWER) 440-V230 reactors at the Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) near the city of Kozloduy in Bulgaria, large amounts of low and intermediate radioactive waste will arise much earlier than initially scheduled. In or-der to manage the radioactive waste from the early decommissioning, Bulgaria has intensified its efforts to provide a near surface disposal facility at Radiana with the required capacity. To this end, a project was launched and assigned in international competition to a German-Spanish consortium to provide the complete technical planning including the preparation of the Intermediate Safety Assessment Report. Preliminary results of operational and long-term safety show compliance with the Bulgarian regulatory requirements. The long-term calculations carried out for the Radiana site are also a good example of how analysis of safety assessment results can be used for iterative improvements of the assessment by pointing out uncertainties and areas of future investigations to reduce such uncertainties in regard to the potential radiological impact. The computer model used to estimate the long-term evolution of the future repository at Radiana predicted a maximum total annual dose for members of the critical group, which is carried to approximately 80 % by C-14 for a specific ingestion pathway. Based on this result and the outcome of the sensitivity analysis, existing uncertainties were evaluated and areas for reasonable future investigations to reduce these uncertainties were identified. (authors)

  17. Disposal Of Irradiated Cadmium Control Rods From The Plumbrook Reactor Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Posivak, E.J.; Berger, S.R.; Freitag, A.A. [WMG, Inc., Peekskill, NY (United States)

    2008-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Innovative mixed waste disposition from NASA's Plum Brook Reactor Facility was accomplished without costly repackaging. Irradiated characteristic hardware with contact dose rates as high as 8 Sv/hr was packaged in a HDPE overpack and stored in a Secure Environmental Container during earlier decommissioning efforts, awaiting identification of a suitable pathway. WMG obtained regulatory concurrence that the existing overpack would serve as the macro-encapsulant per 40CFR268.45 Table 1.C. The overpack vent was disabled and the overpack was placed in a stainless steel liner to satisfy overburden slumping requirements. The liner was sealed and placed in shielded shoring for transport to the disposal site in a US DOT Type A cask. Disposition via this innovative method avoided cost, risk, and dose associated with repackaging the high dose irradiated characteristic hardware. In conclusion: WMG accomplished what others said could not be done. Large D and D contractors advised NASA that the cadmium control rods could only be shipped to the proposed Yucca mountain repository. NASA management challenged MOTA to find a more realistic alternative. NASA and MOTA turned to WMG to develop a methodology to disposition the 'hot and nasty' waste that presumably had no path forward. Although WMG lead a team that accomplished the 'impossible', the project could not have been completed with out the patient, supportive management by DOE-EM, NASA, and MOTA. (authors)

  18. Annual Groundwater Detection Monitoring Report for the Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility (2008)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lorie Cahn

    2009-07-31T23:59:59.000Z

    This report presents the data collected for groundwater detection monitoring at the Idaho Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Disposal Facility (ICDF) during calendar year 2008. The detection-monitoring program developed for the ICDF groundwater-monitoring wells is applicable to six wells completed in the uppermost portion of the Snake River Plain Aquifer. Five wells downgradient of the ICDF and one well upgradient. The ICDF detection-monitoring program was established to meet the substantive requirements of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 264.97 and 264.98, which are applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements under CERCLA. Semiannal groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for indicator parameters in March and September. The indicator parameters focus on constituents that are found in higher concentrations in ICDF leachate than in groundwater (bicarbonate alkalinity, sulfate, U-233, and U-238). The only detection monitoring limits that were exceeded were for bicarbonate alkalinity. Bicarbonate alkalinity is naturally occuring in groundwater. Bicarbonate alkalinity found in ICDF detection monitoring wells is not a result of waste migration from the ICDF landfill or the evaporation pond. The U.S. Department of Energy will continue with detection monitoring for the ICDF, which is semiannual sampling for indicator parameters.

  19. Annual Groundwater Detection Monitoring Report for the Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility (2008)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lorie Cahn

    2009-07-31T23:59:59.000Z

    This report presents the data collected for groundwater detection monitoring at the Idaho Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) Disposal Facility (ICDF) during calendar year 2008. The detection-monitoring program developed for the ICDF groundwater-monitoring wells is applicable to six wells completed in the uppermost portion of the Snake River Plain Aquifer ? five wells downgradient of the ICDF and one well upgradient. The ICDF detection-monitoring program was established to meet the substantive requirements of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 264.97 and 264.98, which are applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements under CERCLA. Semiannual groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for indicator parameters in March and September. The indicator parameters focus on constituents that are found in higher concentrations in ICDF leachate than in groundwater (bicarbonate alkalinity, sulfate, U-233, U-234, and U-238). The only detection monitoring limits that were exceeded were for bicarbonate alkalinity. Bicarbonate alkalinity is naturally occurring in groundwater. Bicarbonate alkalinity found in ICDF detection monitoring wells is not a result of waste migration from the ICDF landfill or the evaporation pond. The U.S. Department of Energy will continue with detection monitoring for the ICDF, which is semiannual sampling for indicator parameters.

  20. Annual Hanford Site Environmental Permitting status report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    SONNICHSEN, J.C.

    1999-10-18T23:59:59.000Z

    The information contained in, and/or referenced in, this Annual Hanford Site Environmental Permitting Status Report addresses Permit Condition II.W (Other Permits and/or Approvals) of the Dangerous Waste Portion of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit for the Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Dangerous Waste, issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WA7890008967). Condition II.W specifies that the Permittees are responsible for obtaining all other applicable federal, state, and local permits authorizing the development and operation of the Hanford Facility. Condition II.W further specifies that the Permittees are to use their best efforts to obtain such permits. For the purposes of this Permit Condition, ''best efforts'' mean submittal of documentation and/or approval(s) in accordance with schedules specified in applicable regulations, or as determined through negotiations with the applicable regulatory agencies.

  1. Characterization of 618-11 solid waste burial ground, disposed waste, and description of the waste generating facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hladek, K.L.

    1997-10-07T23:59:59.000Z

    The 618-11 (Wye or 318-11) burial ground received transuranic (TRTJ) and mixed fission solid waste from March 9, 1962, through October 2, 1962. It was then closed for 11 months so additional burial facilities could be added. The burial ground was reopened on September 16, 1963, and continued operating until it was closed permanently on December 31, 1967. The burial ground received wastes from all of the 300 Area radioactive material handling facilities. The purpose of this document is to characterize the 618-11 solid waste burial ground by describing the site, burial practices, the disposed wastes, and the waste generating facilities. This document provides information showing that kilogram quantities of plutonium were disposed to the drum storage units and caissons, making them transuranic (TRU). Also, kilogram quantities of plutonium and other TRU wastes were disposed to the three trenches, which were previously thought to contain non-TRU wastes. The site burial facilities (trenches, caissons, and drum storage units) should be classified as TRU and the site plutonium inventory maintained at five kilograms. Other fissile wastes were also disposed to the site. Additionally, thousands of curies of mixed fission products were also disposed to the trenches, caissons, and drum storage units. Most of the fission products have decayed over several half-lives, and are at more tolerable levels. Of greater concern, because of their release potential, are TRU radionuclides, Pu-238, Pu-240, and Np-237. TRU radionuclides also included slightly enriched 0.95 and 1.25% U-231 from N-Reactor fuel, which add to the fissile content. The 618-11 burial ground is located approximately 100 meters due west of Washington Nuclear Plant No. 2. The burial ground consists of three trenches, approximately 900 feet long, 25 feet deep, and 50 feet wide, running east-west. The trenches constitute 75% of the site area. There are 50 drum storage units (five 55-gallon steel drums welded together) buried in three rows in the northeast comer. In addition, five eight-foot diameter caissons are located at the west end of the center row of the drum storage units. Initially, wastes disposed to the caissons and drum storage units were from the 325 and 327 building hot cells. Later, a small amount of remote-handled (RH) waste from the 309 building Plutonium Recycle Test Reactor (PRTR) cells, and the newly built 324 building hot cells, was disposed at the site.

  2. Development of Risk Insights for Regulatory Review of a Near-Surface Disposal Facility for Radioactive Waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Esh, D.W.; Ridge, A.C.; Thaggard, M. [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T7J8, Washington, DC 20555 (United States)

    2006-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Section 3116 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA) requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to consult with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) about non-High Level Waste (HLW) determinations. In its consultative role, NRC performs technical reviews of DOE's waste determinations but does not have regulatory authority over DOE's waste disposal activities. The safety of disposal is evaluated by comparing predicted disposal facility performance to the performance objectives specified in NRC regulations for the disposal of low-level waste (10 CFR Part 61 Subpart C). The performance objectives contain criteria for protection of the public, protection of inadvertent intruders, protection of workers, and stability of the disposal site after closure. The potential radiological dose to receptors typically is evaluated with a performance assessment (PA) model that simulates the release of radionuclides from the disposal site, transport of radionuclides through the environment, and exposure of potential receptors to residual contamination for thousands of years. This paper describes NRC's development and use of independent performance assessment modeling to facilitate review of DOE's non-HLW determination for the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) at the Savannah River Site. NRC's review of the safety of near-surface disposal of radioactive waste at the SDF was facilitated and focused by risk insights developed with an independent PA model. The main components of NRC's performance assessment model are presented. The development of risk insights that allow the staff to focus review efforts on those areas that are most important to satisfying the performance objectives is discussed. Uncertainty analysis was performed of the full stochastic model using genetic variable selection algorithms. The results of the uncertainty analysis were then used to guide the development of simulations of other scenarios to understand the key risk drivers and risk limiters of the SDF. Review emphasis was placed on those aspects of the disposal system that were expected to drive performance: the physical and chemical performance of the cementitious wasteform and concrete vaults. Refinement of the modeling of the degradation and release from the cementitious wasteform had a significant effect on the predicted dose to a member of the public. (authors)

  3. P\\procedure\\EU#13 Page 1 of 3 TITLE ANNUAL FACILITY PERMIT

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Fernandez, Eduardo

    such as water management districts, state agencies, or federal agencies. ATTACHMENT "A" Department of an individual permit for each alteration of an existing electrical, gas, mechanical, plumbing or interior non

  4. Overview on backfill materials and permeable reactive barriers for nuclear waste disposal facilities.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Moore, Robert Charles; Hasan, Ahmed Ali Mohamed; Holt, Kathleen Caroline; Hasan, Mahmoud A. (Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority, Cairo, Egypt)

    2003-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A great deal of money and effort has been spent on environmental restoration during the past several decades. Significant progress has been made on improving air quality, cleaning up and preventing leaching from dumps and landfills, and improving surface water quality. However, significant challenges still exist in all of these areas. Among the more difficult and expensive environmental problems, and often the primary factor limiting closure of contaminated sites following surface restoration, is contamination of ground water. The most common technology used for remediating ground water is surface treatment where the water is pumped to the surface, treated and pumped back into the ground or released at a nearby river or lake. Although still useful for certain remediation scenarios, the limitations of pump-and-treat technologies have recently been recognized, along with the need for innovative solutions to ground-water contamination. Even with the current challenges we face there is a strong need to create geological repository systems for dispose of radioactive wastes containing long-lived radionuclides. The potential contamination of groundwater is a major factor in selection of a radioactive waste disposal site, design of the facility, future scenarios such as human intrusion into the repository and possible need for retrieving the radioactive material, and the use of backfills designed to keep the radionuclides immobile. One of the most promising technologies for remediation of contaminated sites and design of radioactive waste repositories is the use of permeable reactive barriers (PRBs). PRBs are constructed of reactive material(s) to intercept and remove the radionuclides from the water and decontaminate the plumes in situ. The concept of PRBs is relatively simple. The reactive material(s) is placed in the subsurface between the waste or contaminated area and the groundwater. Reactive materials used thus far in practice and research include zero valent iron, hydroxyapatite, magnesium oxide, and others. As the contaminant moves through the reactive material, the contaminant is either sorbed by the reactive material or chemically reacts with the material to form a less harmful substance. Because of the high risk associated with failure of a geological repository for nuclear waste, most nations favor a near-field multibarrier engineered system using backfill materials to prevent release of radionuclides into the surrounding groundwater.

  5. Proceedings of the tenth annual DOE low-level waste management conference: Session 3: Disposal technology and facility development

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1988-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document contains ten papers on various aspects of low-level radioactive waste management. Topics include: design and construction of a facility; alternatives to shallow land burial; the fate of tritium and carbon 14 released to the environment; defense waste management; engineered sorbent barriers; remedial action status report; and the disposal of mixed waste in Texas. Individual papers were processed separately for the data base. (TEM)

  6. Proposed On-Site Disposal Facility (OSDF) at the Paducah Gaseous...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    risks associated with worker safety and the environment (e.g., resource consumption, air pollution, air dispersal) that may be associated with exhumation and re-disposal of...

  7. SALTSTONE DISPOSAL FACILITY: DETERMINATION OF THE PROBABLE MAXIMUM WATER TABLE ELEVATION

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hiergesell, R

    2005-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A coverage depicting the configuration of the probable maximum water table elevation in the vicinity of the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) was developed to support the Saltstone program. This coverage is needed to support the construction of saltstone vaults to assure that they remain above the maximum elevation of the water table during the Performance Assessment (PA) period of compliance. A previous investigation to calculate the historical high water table beneath the SDF (Cook, 1983) was built upon to incorporate new data that has since become available to refine that estimate and develop a coverage that could be extended to the perennial streams adjacent to the SDF. This investigation incorporated the method used in the Cook, 1983 report to develop an estimate of the probable maximum water table for a group of wells that either existed at one time at or near the SDF or which currently exist. Estimates of the probable maximum water table at these wells were used to construct 2D contour lines depicting this surface beneath the SDF and extend them to the nearby hydrologic boundaries at the perennial streams adjacent to the SDF. Although certain measures were implemented to assure that the contour lines depict a surface above which the water table will not rise, the exact elevation of this surface cannot be known with complete certainty. It is therefore recommended that the construction of saltstone vaults incorporate a vertical buffer of at least 5-feet between the base of the vaults and the depicted probable maximum water table elevation. This should provide assurance that the water table under the wet extreme climatic condition will never rise to intercept the base of a vault.

  8. Enhancing RESRAD-OFFSITE for Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessment

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Abstract: The RESRAD-OFFSITE code was developed to evaluate the radiological dose and excess cancer risk to an individual who is exposed while located within or outside the area of initial (primary) contamination. The primary contamination, which is the source of all releases modeled by the code, is assumed to be a layer of soil. The code considers the release of contamination from the source to the atmosphere, to surface runoff, and to groundwater. The radionuclide leaching was modeled as a first order (without transport) release using radionuclide distribution coefficient and infiltration rate calculated from water balance (precipitation, surface runoff, evapotranspiration, etc.). Recently, a new source term model was added the RESRAD-OFFSITE code so that it can be applied to the evaluation of Low Level Waste (LLW) disposal facility performance assessment. This new improved source term model include (1) first order with transport, (2) equilibrium desorption (rinse) release, and (3) uniform release (constant dissolution). With these new source release options, it is possible to simulate both uncontainerized (soil) contamination and containerized (waste drums) contamination. A delay time in the source release was also added to the code. This allows modeling the LLW container degradation as a function of time. The RESRAD-OFFSITE code also allows linking to other codes using improved flux and concentration input options. Additional source release model such as diffusion release may be added later. In addition, radionuclide database with 1252 radionuclides (ICRP 107) and the corresponding dose coefficients (DCFPAK 3.02) and the Department of Energy’s new gender- and age-averaged Reference Person dose coefficients (DOE-STD-1196-2011) which is based on the US census data will be added to the next version of RESRAD-OFFSITE code

  9. Public perception of odour and environmental pollution attributed to MSW treatment and disposal facilities: A case study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    De Feo, Giovanni, E-mail: g.defeo@unisa.it [Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Salerno, via Ponte don Melillo 1, 84084 Fisciano (Italy); De Gisi, Sabino [Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Salerno, via Ponte don Melillo 1, 84084 Fisciano (Italy); Williams, Ian D. [Waste Management Research Group, Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ (United Kingdom)

    2013-04-15T23:59:59.000Z

    Highlights: ? Effects of closing MSW facilities on perception of odour and pollution studied. ? Residents’ perception of odour nuisance considerably diminished post closure. ? Odour perception showed an association with distance from MSW facilities. ? Media coverage increased knowledge about MSW facilities and how they operate. ? Economic compensation possibly affected residents’ views and concerns. - Abstract: If residents’ perceptions, concerns and attitudes towards waste management facilities are either not well understood or underestimated, people can produce strong opposition that may include protest demonstrations and violent conflicts such as those experienced in the Campania Region of Italy. The aim of this study was to verify the effects of the closure of solid waste treatment and disposal facilities (two landfills and one RDF production plant) on public perception of odour and environmental pollution. The study took place in four villages in Southern Italy. Identical questionnaires were administered to residents during 2003 and after the closure of the facilities occurred in 2008. The residents’ perception of odour nuisance considerably diminished between 2003 and 2009 for the nearest villages, with odour perception showing an association with distance from the facilities. Post closure, residents had difficulty in identifying the type of smell due to the decrease in odour level. During both surveys, older residents reported most concern about the potentially adverse health impacts of long-term exposure to odours from MSW facilities. However, although awareness of MSW facilities and concern about potentially adverse health impacts varied according to the characteristics of residents in 2003, substantial media coverage produced an equalisation effect and increased knowledge about the type of facilities and how they operated. It is possible that residents of the village nearest to the facilities reported lower awareness of and concern about odour and environmental pollution because the municipality received economic compensation for their presence.

  10. Geohydrologic evaluation for the 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility State-Approved Land Disposal Site: Addendum to WAC 173-240 Engineering Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ballantyne, N.A.

    1993-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides a geohydrologic evaluation for the disposal of liquid effluent from the 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF) at the Hanford Site. This work forms an addendum to the engineering report that supports the completion of the ETF.

  11. Safety aspects related to the operation of the Cabril L/ILW disposal facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ruiz, M.C. [Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear, Madrid (Spain); Alonso, J.A. [ENRESA, Madrid (Spain). Safety and Licensing Dept.

    1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    In October 1992 the Spanish Ministry of Industry granted the operating permit to the Centro de Almacenamiento de El Cabril (C.A. El Cabril). The Annex 1 to this permit contains the limits and conditions related to safety and to radiological health protection, set by nuclear regulatory authority, the Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear (CSN). The main aspects of the operation regulated in the permit as well as their technical basis and practical meaning are discussed in this paper.

  12. Implementation of the Clean Air Act, Title V operating permit program requirements for the U.S. DOE Oak Ridge Reservation facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Humphreys, M.P. [Dept. of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, TN (United States). Environmental Protection Div.

    1998-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a new permit program requiring major sources and sources subject to Title III (Hazardous Air Pollutants) to obtain a state operating permit. Historically, most states have issued operating permits for individual emission units. Under the Title V permit program, a single permit will be issued for all of the emission units at the facility much like the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. The permit will specify all reporting, monitoring, and record-keeping requirements for the facility. Sources required to obtain permits include (a) major sources that emit 100 tons per year or more of any criteria air contaminant, (b) any source subject to the HAP provisions of Title III, (c) any source subject to the acid rain provisions of Title IV, (d) any source subject to New Source Performance Standards, and (e) any source subject to new source review under the nonattainment or Prevention of Significant Deterioration provisions. The State of Tennessee Title V Operating Permit Program was approved by EPA on August 28, 1996. This paper will provide details of initiatives underway at US Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR) Facilities for implementation of requirements under the Title V Operating Permit Program. The ORR encompasses three DOE Facilities: the Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), and the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP). The Y-12 Plant manufactures component parts for the national nuclear weapons program; the ORNL is responsible for research and development activities including nuclear engineering, engineering technologies, and the environmental sciences; and the ETTP conducts a variety of research and development activities and is the home of a mixed waste incinerator. Each of the three DOE Facilities is considered a major source under Title V of the CAA.

  13. DISTRIBUTION COEFICIENTS (KD) GENERATED FROM A CORE SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM THE SALTSTONE DISPOSAL FACILITY

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Almond, P.; Kaplan, D.

    2011-04-25T23:59:59.000Z

    Core samples originating from Vault 4, Cell E of the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) were collected in September of 2008 (Hansen and Crawford 2009, Smith 2008) and sent to SRNL to measure chemical and physical properties of the material including visual uniformity, mineralogy, microstructure, density, porosity, distribution coefficients (K{sub d}), and chemical composition. Some data from these experiments have been reported (Cozzi and Duncan 2010). In this study, leaching experiments were conducted with a single core sample under conditions that are representative of saltstone performance. In separate experiments, reducing and oxidizing environments were targeted to obtain solubility and Kd values from the measurable species identified in the solid and aqueous leachate. This study was designed to provide insight into how readily species immobilized in saltstone will leach from the saltstone under oxidizing conditions simulating the edge of a saltstone monolith and under reducing conditions, targeting conditions within the saltstone monolith. Core samples were taken from saltstone poured in December of 2007 giving a cure time of nine months in the cell and a total of thirty months before leaching experiments began in June 2010. The saltstone from Vault 4, Cell E is comprised of blast furnace slag, class F fly ash, portland cement, and Deliquification, Dissolution, and Adjustment (DDA) Batch 2 salt solution. The salt solution was previously analyzed from a sample of Tank 50 salt solution and characterized in the 4QCY07 Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) report (Zeigler and Bibler 2009). Subsequent to Tank 50 analysis, additional solution was added to the tank solution from the Effluent Treatment Project as well as from inleakage from Tank 50 pump bearings (Cozzi and Duncan 2010). Core samples were taken from three locations and at three depths at each location using a two-inch diameter concrete coring bit (1-1, 1-2, 1-3; 2-1, 2-2, 2-3; 3-1, 3-2, 3-3) (Hansen and Crawford 2009). Leaching experiments were conducted with a section of core sample 3-2. All cores from location 3 were drilled without using water. Core sample 3-2 was drilled from approximately six inches to a depth of approximately 13 inches. Approximately six inches of the core was removed but it broke into two pieces during removal from the bit. At the time of drilling, core material appeared olive green in color (Smith 2008). The fact that the samples were cored as olive green and were received after storage with a gray outer layer is indicative that some oxidation had occurred prior to leaching studies.

  14. Saltstone Disposal Facility Closure Cap Configuration and Degradation Base Case: Institutional Control to Pine Forest Scenario

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Phifer, M.A.

    2004-03-19T23:59:59.000Z

    The Performance Assessment (PA) for the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) is currently under revision. As part of the PA revision and as documented herein, the closure cap configuration has been reevaluated and closure cap degradation mechanisms and their impact upon infiltration through the closure cap have been evaluated for the institutional control to pine forest, land use scenario. This land use scenario is considered the base case land use scenario. This scenario assumes a 100-year institutional control period following final SDF closure during which the closure cap is maintained. At the end of institutional control, it is assumed that a pine forest succeeds the cap's original bamboo cover. Infiltration through the upper hydraulic barrier layer of the closure cap as determined by this evaluation will be utilized as the infiltration input to subsequent PORFLOW vadose zone contaminant transport modeling, which will also be performed as part of the PA revision. The impacts of pine forest succession, erosion, and colloidal clay migration as degradation mechanisms on the hydraulic properties of the closure cap layers over time have been estimated and the resulting infiltration through the closure cap has been evaluated. The primary changes caused by the degradation mechanisms that result in increased infiltration are the formation of holes in the upper GCL by pine forest succession and the reduction in the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the drainage layers due to colloidal clay migration into the layers. Erosion can also result in significant increases in infiltration if it causes the removal of soil layers, which provide water storage for the promotion of evapotranspiration. For this scenario, infiltration through the upper GCL was estimated at approximately 0.29 inches/year under initial intact conditions, it increased to approximately 11.6 inches/year at year 1000 in nearly a linear fashion, and it approached an asymptote of around 14.1 inches/year at year 1800 and thereafter. At year 1800, it was estimated that holes covered approximately 0.3 percent of the GCL due to root penetration, and that this resulted in an infiltration near that of typical background infiltration (i.e. as though the GCL were not there at all). This demonstrated that a very small area of holes essentially controlled the hydraulic performance of the GCL.

  15. ALL-PATHWAYS DOSE ANALYSIS FOR THE PORTSMOUTH ON-SITE WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Smith, F.; Phifer, M.

    2014-04-10T23:59:59.000Z

    A Portsmouth On-Site Waste Disposal Facility (OSWDF) All-Pathways analysis has been conducted that considers the radiological impacts to a resident farmer. It is assumed that the resident farmer utilizes a farm pond contaminated by the OSWDF to irrigate a garden and pasture and water livestock from which food for the resident farmer is obtained, and that the farmer utilizes groundwater from the Berea sandstone aquifer for domestic purposes (i.e. drinking water and showering). As described by FBP 2014b the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model (Schroeder et al. 1994) and the Surface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP) model (White and Oostrom 2000, 2006) were used to model the flow and transport from the OSWDF to the Points of Assessment (POAs) associated with the 680-ft elevation sandstone layer (680 SSL) and the Berea sandstone aquifer. From this modeling the activity concentrations radionuclides were projected over time at the POAs. The activity concentrations were utilized as input to a GoldSimTM (GTG 2010) dose model, described herein, in order to project the dose to a resident farmer over time. A base case and five sensitivity cases were analyzed. The sensitivity cases included an evaluation of the impacts of using a conservative inventory, an uncased well to the Berea sandstone aquifer, a low waste zone uranium distribution coefficient (Kd), different transfer factors, and reference person exposure parameters (i.e. at 95 percentile). The maximum base case dose within the 1,000 year assessment period was projected to be 1.5E-14 mrem/yr, and the maximum base case dose at any time less than 10,000 years was projected to be 0.002 mrem/yr. The maximum projected dose of any sensitivity case was approximately 2.6 mrem/yr associated with the use of an uncased well to the Berea sandstone aquifer. This sensitivity case is considered very unlikely because it assumes leakage from the location of greatest concentration in the 680 SSL in to the Berea sandstone aquiver over time and does not conform to standard private water well construction practices. The bottom-line is that all predicted doses from the base case and five sensitivity cases fall well below the DOE all-pathways 25 mrem/yr Performance Objective.

  16. Material Disposal Areas

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Permit in its next request for permit modification. MDA V MDA V is categorized as a radiological facility. It consists of three historic wastewater absorption beds that...

  17. ENGINEERED NEAR SURFACE DISPOSAL FACILITY OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX FOR SOLID RADWASTE MANAGEMENT AT CHERNOBYL NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ziehm, Ronny; Pichurin, Sergey Grigorevich

    2003-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

    As a part of the turnkey project ''Industrial Complex for Solid Radwaste Management (ICSRM) at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (ChNPP)'' an Engineered Near Surface Disposal Facility (ENSDF, LOT 3) will be built on the VEKTOR site within the 30 km Exclusion Zone of the ChNPP. This will be performed by RWE NUKEM GmbH, Germany, and it governs the design, licensing support, fabrication, assembly, testing, inspection, delivery, erection, installation and commissioning of the ENSDF. The ENSDF will receive low to intermediate level, short lived, processed/conditioned wastes from the ICSRM Solid Waste Processing Facility (SWPF, LOT 2), the ChNPP Liquid Radwaste Treatment Plant (LRTP) and the ChNPP Interim Storage Facility for RBMK Fuel Assemblies (ISF). The ENSDF has a capacity of 55,000 m{sup 3}. The primary functions of the ENSDF are: to receive, monitor and record waste packages, to load the waste packages into concrete disposal units, to enable capping and closure of the disposal unit s, to allow monitoring following closure. The ENSDF comprises the turnkey installation of a near surface repository in the form of an engineered facility for the final disposal of LILW-SL conditioned in the ICSRM SWPF and other sources of Chernobyl waste. The project has to deal with the challenges of the Chernobyl environment, the fulfillment of both Western and Ukrainian standards, and the installation and coordination of an international project team. It will be shown that proven technologies and processes can be assembled into a unique Management Concept dealing with all the necessary demands and requirements of a turnkey project. The paper emphasizes the proposed concepts for the ENSDF and their integration into existing infrastructure and installations of the VEKTOR site. Further, the paper will consider the integration of Western and Ukrainian Organizations into a cohesive project team and the requirement to guarantee the fulfillment of both Western standards and Ukrainian regulations and licensing requirements. The paper provides information on the output of the Detail Design and will reflect the progress of the design work.

  18. Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis for Power Burst Facility (PER-620) Final End State and PBF Vessel Disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    B. C. Culp

    2007-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Preparation of this engineering evaluation/cost analysis is consistent with the joint U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Policy on Decommissioning of Department of Energy Facilities Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, (DOE and EPA 1995) which establishes the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act non-time critical removal action process as an approach for decommissioning. The scope of this engineering evaluation/cost analysis is to evaluate alternatives and recommend a preferred alternative for the final end state of the PBF and the final disposal location for the PBF vessel.

  19. RCRA Part A Permit Application for Waste Management Activities at the Nevada Test Site, Part B Permit Application Hazardous Waste Storage Unit, Nevada Test Site, and Part B Permit Application - Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit (EODU)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Programs

    2010-06-17T23:59:59.000Z

    The Area 5 Hazardous Waste Storage Unit (HWSU) was established to support testing, research, and remediation activities at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), a large-quantity generator of hazardous waste. The HWSU, located adjacent to the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS), is a prefabricated, rigid steel-framed, roofed shelter used to store hazardous nonradioactive waste generated on the NTS. No offsite generated wastes are managed at the HWSU. Waste managed at the HWSU includes the following categories: Flammables/Combustibles; Acid Corrosives; Alkali Corrosives; Oxidizers/Reactives; Toxics/Poisons; and Other Regulated Materials (ORMs). A list of the regulated waste codes accepted for storage at the HWSU is provided in Section B.2. Hazardous wastes stored at the HWSU are stored in U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) compliant containers, compatible with the stored waste. Waste transfer (between containers) is not allowed at the HWSU and containers remain closed at all times. Containers are stored on secondary containment pallets and the unit is inspected monthly. Table 1 provides the metric conversion factors used in this application. Table 2 provides a list of existing permits. Table 3 lists operational Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) units at the NTS and their respective regulatory status.

  20. Issues in the review of a license application for an above grade low-level radioactive waste disposal facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ringenberg, J.D. [Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Quality, NE (United States)

    1993-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In December 1987, Nebraska was selected by the Central Interstate Compact (CIC) Commission as the host state for the construction of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. After spending a year in the site screening process, the Compact`s developer, US Ecology, selected three sites for detailed site characterization. These sites were located in Nemaha, Nuckolls and Boyd Counties. One year later the Boyd County site was selected as the preferred site and additional site characterization studies were undertaken. On July 29, 1990, US Ecology submitted a license application to the Nebraska Department of Environmental Control (now Department of Environmental Quality-NDEQ). This paper will present issues that the NDEQ has dealt with since Nebraska`s selection as the host state for the CIC facility.

  1. Operating Permits (New Jersey)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The owner or operator of a facility subject to this article shall obtain and maintain an operating permit for the facility. The owner or operator of a facility subject to this article shall ensure...

  2. Wind Energy Permitting Standards

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    All wind facilities larger than 0.5 megawatts (MW) that begin construction after July 1, 2010, must obtain a permit from any county in which the facility is located. Facilities must also obtain...

  3. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Municipal solid waste disposal facility criteria updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module provides a summary of the regulatory criteria for municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) and provides the statutory authority under RCRA and the Clean Water Act (CWA) directing EPA to develop the MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR Part 258. It gives the part 258 effective date and the compliance dates for providing demonstrations to satisfy individual regulatory requirements. It identifies the types of facilities that qualify for the small landfill exemption. It explains the requirements of each subpart of part 258 as they apply to states with EPA-approved MSWLF permit programs and states without approved permit programs. It compares the MSWLF environmental performance standards described in part 258 to the corresponding requirements for hazardous waste TSDFs in part 264, which are generally more stringent.

  4. Annual Hanford Site environmental permitting status report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Sonnichsen, J.C.

    1998-09-17T23:59:59.000Z

    The information contained and/or referenced in this Annual Hanford Site Environmental Permitting Status Report (Status Report) addresses the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) of 1971 and Condition II.W. of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 Permit, Dangerous Waste Portion (DW Portion). Condition II.W. of the RCRA Permit specifies the Permittees are responsible for all other applicable federal, state, and local permits for the development and operation of the Hanford Facility. Condition II.W. of the RCRA Permit specifies that the Permittees are to use their best efforts to obtain such permits. For the purposes of permit condition, `best efforts` means submittal of documentation and/or approval(s) in accordance with schedules specified in applicable regulations, or as determined through negotiations with the applicable regulatory agencies. This Status Report includes information on all existing and anticipated environmental permitting. Environmental permitting required by RCRA, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, and non-RCRA permitting (solid waste handling, Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987, Washington State waste discharge, and onsite sewage system) is addressed. Information on RCRA and non-RCRA is current as of July 31, 1998. For the purposes of RCRA and the State of Washington Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1976 [as administered through the Dangerous Waste Regulations, Washington Active Code (WAC) 173-303], the Hanford Facility is considered a single facility. As such, the Hanford Facility has been issued one US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/State Identification Number (WA7890008967). This EPA/State identification number encompasses over 60 treatment, storage, and/or disposal (TSD) units. The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has been delegated authority by the EPA to administer the RCRA, including mixed waste authority. The RCRA permitting approach for the Hanford Facility is addressed in the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement). Pursuant to the Tri-Party Agreement, a single RCRA permit was issued by Ecology and the EPA to cover the Hanford Facility. The RCRA Permit, through the permit modification process, eventually will incorporate all TSD units.

  5. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Permits and interim status (40 cfr part 270) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Owners/operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste must obtain an operating permit, as required by Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The module presents an overview of the RCRA permitting process and the requirements that apply to TSDFs operating under interim status until a permit is issued. The regulations governing the permit process are found in 40 CFR Parts 124 through 270.

  6. TPDES General Permit No. TXR150000

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    individual permit. This permit does not authorize the discharge or land disposal of any wastewater from concrete batch plants at regulated construction sites. Authorization for...

  7. RCRA Part A and Part B Permit Application for Waste Management Activities at the Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NSTec Environmental Protection and Technical Services

    2009-09-30T23:59:59.000Z

    This permit application provides facility information on the design, processes, and security features associated with the proposed Mixed Waste Disposal Unit. The unit will receive and dispose of onsite and offsite containerized low-level mixed waste (LLMW) that has an approved U.S. Department of Energy nexus.

  8. Siting of low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities in Texas

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Isenhower, Daniel Bruce

    1982-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    University property was evaluated for suitability for disposal of low-level radioactive waste. This site was evaluated to demonstrate, briefly, the site characterization process and to determine the ability of the statewide study to accurately predict... these boreholes. Literature review was an additional method employed to characterize the site. The results of this site characterization reveal that a more extensive investigation would be necessary to completely evaluate the site and that the state- wide...

  9. Potential for selenium migration at a lignite power plant solid waste disposal facility

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Hall, Steven Douglas

    1986-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    . All groundwater that recharges on the disposal site is slightly saline and flows east, probably discharging into the Gibbons Creek Reservoir. Selenium, arsenic, boron, iron, manganese, and sulfate in the lignite waste effluent exceed either EPA... ( 1975) drinking water standards or EPA (1973) recommended livestock water standards. Since the natural groundwater contains higher concentrations of selenium, iron, manganese, and sulfate than the waste effluent, only arsenic and boron should...

  10. Z-Area Saltstone Disposal Facility Groundwater Monitoring Report (1998 Annual Report)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wells, D.

    1999-04-27T23:59:59.000Z

    In accordance with SRS Z-Area Saltstone Industrial Solid Waste Permit, wells ZBG-1, ZBG-1A and ZBG-2 are monitored for the parameters listed in this document. Sampling was done during the first and third quarters of 1998. Additional Analyses were also run. The analytical results appear in Appendix 1.

  11. Environmental effects of dredging. Documentation of the dyecon module for ADDAMS: Determining the hydraulic retention and efficiency of confined disposal facilities. Technical note

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hayes, D.F.; Schroeder, P.R.; Engler, R.M.; Patin, T.R.

    1992-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This technical note describes procedures for determining mean hydraulic retention time and efficiency of a confined disposal facility (CDF) from a dye tracer slug test. These parameters are required to properly design a CDF for solids retention and for effluent quality considerations. Detailed information on conduct and analysis of dye tracer studies can be found in Engineer Manual 1110-2-5027, Confined Dredged Material Disposal. This technical note documents the DYECON computer program which facilitates the analysis of dye tracer concentration data and computes the hydraulic efficiency of a CDF as part of the Automated Dredging and Disposal Alternatives Management System (ADDAMS).

  12. RESULTS FOR THE MAY 19, 2010 INADVERTENT TRANSFER TO THE SALTSTONE DISPOSAL FACILITY SLURRY: SAMPLE ANALYTICAL RESULTS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Reigel, M.; Cozzi, A.

    2010-08-17T23:59:59.000Z

    This report details the chemical analysis results for the characterization of the May 19, 2010 inadvertent transfer from the Saltstone Production Facility (SPF) to the Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF). On May 19, 2010, the Saltstone Processing Facility (SPF) inadvertently transferred approximately 1800 gallons of untreated low-level salt solution from the salt feed tank (SFT) to Cell F of Vault 4. The transfer was identified and during safe configuration shutdown, approximately 70 gallons of SFT material was left in the Saltstone hopper. After the shutdown, the material in the hopper was undisturbed, while the SFT has received approximately 1400 gallons of drain water from the Vault 4 bleed system. The drain water path from Vault 4 to the SFT does not include the hopper (Figure 1); therefore it was determined that the material remaining in the hopper was the most representative sample of the salt solution transferred to the vault. To complete item No.5 of Reference 1, Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) was asked to analyze the liquid sample retrieved from the hopper for pH, and metals identified by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). SRNL prepared a report to complete item No.5 and determine the hazardous nature of the transfer. Waste Solidification Engineering then instructed SRNL to provide a more detailed analysis of the slurried sample to assist in the determination of the portion of Tank 50 waste in the hopper sample.

  13. Assessment of Geochemical Environment for the Proposed INL Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D. Craig Cooper

    2011-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Conservative sorption parameters have been estimated for the proposed Idaho National Laboratory Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility. This analysis considers the influence of soils, concrete, and steel components on water chemistry and the influence of water chemistry on the relative partitioning of radionuclides over the life of the facility. A set of estimated conservative distribution coefficients for the primary media encountered by transported radionuclides has been recommended. These media include the vault system, concrete-sand-gravel mix, alluvium, and sedimentary interbeds. This analysis was prepared to support the performance assessment required by U.S. Department of Energy Order 435.1, 'Radioactive Waste Management.' The estimated distribution coefficients are provided to support release and transport calculations of radionuclides from the waste form through the vadose zone. A range of sorption parameters are provided for each key transport media, with recommended values being conservative. The range of uncertainty has been bounded through an assessment of most-likely-minimum and most-likely-maximum distribution coefficient values. The range allows for adequate assessment of mean facility performance while providing the basis for uncertainty analysis.

  14. Saltstone Disposal Facility Mechanically Stabilized Earth Vault Closure Cap Degradation Base Case: Institutional Control To Pine Forest Scenario

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Phifer, MA

    2004-03-19T23:59:59.000Z

    As part of the current Saltstone Disposal Facility (SDF) Performance Assessment (PA) revision, the closure cap configuration was reevaluated and closure cap degradation mechanisms and their impact upon infiltration through the closure cap was evaluated for the existing SDF concrete vaults (i.e. vaults 1 and 4) for the base case land use scenario (i.e. institutional control to pine forest scenario) and documented in Phifer and Nelson (2003). The closure cap configuration was modified from a compacted kaolin barrier layer concept to a geosynthetic clay layer (GCL) barrier layer concept. The degradation mechanisms developed included pine forest succession, erosion, and colloidal clay migration. These degradation mechanisms resulted in changes in the hydraulic properties of the closure cap layers and resulting increases in infiltration through the closure cap over time.

  15. Recommended Method To Account For Daughter Ingrowth For The Portsmouth On-Site Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessment Modeling

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Phifer, Mark A.; Smith, Frank G. III

    2013-06-21T23:59:59.000Z

    A 3-D STOMP model has been developed for the Portsmouth On-Site Waste Disposal Facility (OSWDF) at Site D as outlined in Appendix K of FBP 2013. This model projects the flow and transport of the following radionuclides to various points of assessments: Tc-99, U-234, U-235, U-236, U-238, Am-241, Np-237, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240, Th-228, and Th-230. The model includes the radioactive decay of these parents, but does not include the associated daughter ingrowth because the STOMP model does not have the capability to model daughter ingrowth. The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) provides herein a recommended method to account for daughter ingrowth in association with the Portsmouth OSWDF Performance Assessment (PA) modeling.

  16. RCRA, superfund and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (40 cfr parts 264/265, subparts a-e) updated July 1996

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The management of hazardous waste at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) plays a large and critical role in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulatory scheme. The training module presents an overview of the general TSDF standards found in 40 CFR Parts 264/265, Subparts A through E.

  17. Closure Strategy for a Waste Disposal Facility with Multiple Waste Types and Regulatory Drivers at the Nevada Test Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D. Wieland, V. Yucel, L. Desotell, G. Shott, J. Wrapp

    2008-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) plans to close the waste and classified material storage cells in the southeast quadrant of the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS), informally known as the '92-Acre Area', by 2011. The 25 shallow trenches and pits and the 13 Greater Confinement Disposal (GCD) borings contain various waste streams including low-level waste (LLW), low-level mixed waste (LLMW), transuranic (TRU), mixed transuranic (MTRU), and high specific activity LLW. The cells are managed under several regulatory and permit programs by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Although the specific closure requirements for each cell vary, 37 closely spaced cells will be closed under a single integrated monolayer evapotranspirative (ET) final cover. One cell will be closed under a separate cover concurrently. The site setting and climate constrain transport pathways and are factors in the technical approach to closure and performance assessment. Successful implementation of the integrated closure plan requires excellent communication and coordination between NNSA/NSO and the regulators.

  18. User`s Manual for the SOURCE1 and SOURCE2 Computer Codes: Models for Evaluating Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Source Terms (Version 2.0)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Icenhour, A.S.; Tharp, M.L.

    1996-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The SOURCE1 and SOURCE2 computer codes calculate source terms (i.e. radionuclide release rates) for performance assessments of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities. SOURCE1 is used to simulate radionuclide releases from tumulus-type facilities. SOURCE2 is used to simulate releases from silo-, well-, well-in-silo-, and trench-type disposal facilities. The SOURCE codes (a) simulate the degradation of engineered barriers and (b) provide an estimate of the source term for LLW disposal facilities. This manual summarizes the major changes that have been effected since the codes were originally developed.

  19. Fall Semiannual Report for the HWMA/RCRA Post Closure Permit for the INTEC Waste Calcining Facility at the INL Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    D. F. Gianotto

    2007-01-12T23:59:59.000Z

    The Waste Calcining Facility (WCF) is located at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center. In 1998, the WCF was closed under an approved Hazardous Waste Management Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (HWMA/RCRA) Closure Plan. Vessels and spaces were grouted and then covered with a concrete cap. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality issued a final HWMA/RCRA post-closure permit on September 15, 2003, with an effective date of October 16, 2003. This permit sets forth procedural requirements for groundwater characterization and monitoring, maintenance, and inspections of the WCF to ensure continued protection of human health and the environment.

  20. Fall 2010 Semiannual (III.H. and I.U.) Report for the HWMA/RCRA Post Closure Permit for the INTEC Waste Calcining Facility and the CPP 601/627/640 Facility at the INL Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boehmer, Ann

    2010-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Waste Calcining Facility is located at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center. In 1999, the Waste Calcining Facility was closed under an approved Hazardous Waste Management Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (HWMA/RCRA) Closure Plan. Vessels and spaces were grouted and then covered with a concrete cap. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality issued a final HWMA/RCRA post-closure permit on September 15, 2003, with an effective date of October 16, 2003. This permit sets forth procedural requirements for groundwater characterization and monitoring, maintenance, and inspections of the Waste Calcining Facility to ensure continued protection of human health and the environment. The post closure permit also includes semiannual reporting requirements under Permit Conditions III.H. and I.U. These reporting requirements have been combined into this single semiannual report, as agreed between the Idaho Cleanup Project and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. The Permit Condition III.H. portion of this report includes a description and the results of field methods associated with groundwater monitoring of the Waste Calcining Facility. Analytical results from groundwater sampling, results of inspections and maintenance of monitoring wells in the Waste Calcining Facility groundwater monitoring network, and results of inspections of the concrete cap are summarized. The Permit Condition I.U. portion of this report includes noncompliances not otherwise required to be reported under Permit Condition I.R. (advance notice of planned changes to facility activity which may result in a noncompliance) or Permit Condition I.T. (reporting of noncompliances which may endanger human health or the environment). This report also provides groundwater sampling results for wells that were installed and monitored as part of the Phase 1 post-closure period of the landfill closure components in accordance with HWMA/RCRA Landfill Closure Plan for the CPP-601 Deep Tanks System Phase 1. These monitoring wells are intended to monitor for the occurrence of contaminants of concern in the perched water beneath and adjacent to the CPP-601/627/640 Landfill. The wells were constructed to satisfy requirements of the HWMA/RCRA Post-Closure Plan for the CPP 601/627/640 Landfill.

  1. Update on cavern disposal of NORM-contaminated oil field wastes.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Veil, J. A.

    1998-09-22T23:59:59.000Z

    Some types of oil and gas production and processing wastes contain naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). If NORM is present at concentrations above regulatory levels in oil field waste, the waste requires special disposal practices. The existing disposal options for wastes containing NORM are limited and costly. Argonne National Laboratory has previously evaluated the feasibility, legality, risk and economics of disposing of nonhazardous oil field wastes, other than NORM waste, in salt caverns. Cavern disposal of nonhazardous oil field waste, other than NORM waste, is occurring at four Texas facilities, in several Canadian facilities, and reportedly in Europe. This paper evaluates the legality, technical feasibility, economics, and human health risk of disposing of NORM-contaminated oil field wastes in salt caverns as well. Cavern disposal of NORM waste is technically feasible and poses a very low human health risk. From a legal perspective, a review of federal regulations and regulations from several states indicated that there are no outright prohibitions against NORM disposal in salt caverns or other Class II wells, except for Louisiana which prohibits disposal of radioactive wastes or other radioactive materials in salt domes. Currently, however, only Texas and New Mexico are working on disposal cavern regulations, and no states have issued permits to allow cavern disposal of NORM waste. On the basis of the costs currently charged for cavern disposal of nonhazardous oil field waste (NOW), NORM waste disposal in caverns is likely to be cost competitive with existing NORM waste disposal methods when regulatory agencies approve the practice.

  2. Chemical modeling of arsenic(III, V) and selenium(IV, VI) adsorption by soils surrounding ash disposal facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goldberg, S.; Hyun, S.; Lee, L.S. [USDA, Riverside, CA (United States). US Salinity Laboratory

    2008-11-15T23:59:59.000Z

    Leachate derived from coal ash disposal facilities is a potential anthropogenic source of As and Se to the environment. To establish a practical framework for predicting attenuation and transport of As and Se in ash leachates, the adsorption of As(III), As(V), Se(IV), and Se(VI) had been characterized in prior studies for 18 soils obtained downgradient from ash landfill sites and representing a wide range of soil properties. The constant capacitance model was applied for the first time to describe As(III), As(V), Se(IV), and Se(VI) adsorption on soils as a function of equilibrium solution As(III), As(V), Se(IV), and Se(VI) concentrations. Prior applications of the model had been restricted to describing Se(IV) and As(V) adsorption by soils as a function of solution pH. The constant capacitance model was applied for the first time to describe As(III) and Se(VI) adsorption by soils. The model was able to describe adsorption of these ions on all soils as a function of solution ion concentration by optimizing only one adjustable parameter, the anion surface complexation constant. This chemical model represents an advancement over adsorption isotherm equation approaches that contain two empirical adjustable parameters. Incorporation of these anion surface complexation constants obtained with the constant capacitance model into chemical speciation transport models will allow simulation of soil solution anion concentrations under diverse environmental and agricultural conditions.

  3. RH-LLW Disposal Facility Project CD-2/3 to Design/Build Proposal Reconciliation Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Annette L. Schafer

    2012-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A reconciliation plan was developed and implemented to address potential gaps and responses to gaps between the design/build vendor proposals and the Critical Decision-2/3 approval request package for the Remote-Handled Low Level Waste Disposal Facility Project. The plan and results of the plan implementation included development of a reconciliation team comprised of subject matter experts from Battelle Energy Alliance and the Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office, identification of reconciliation questions, reconciliation by the team, identification of unresolved/remaining issues, and identification of follow-up actions and subsequent approvals of responses. The plan addressed the potential for gaps to exist in the following areas: • Department of Energy Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management,” requirements, including the performance assessment, composite analysis, monitoring plan, performance assessment/composite analysis maintenance plan, and closure plan • Environmental assessment supporting the National Environmental Policy Act • Nuclear safety • Safeguards and security • Emplacement operations • Requirements for commissioning • General project implementation. The reconciliation plan and results of the plan implementation are provided in a business-sensitive project file. This report provides the reconciliation plan and non-business sensitive summary responses to identified gaps.

  4. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Permits and interim status (40 CFR part 270) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module presents an overview of the RCRA permitting process and the requirements that apply to treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) operating under interim status until a permit is issued. It lists the types of activities that do and do not require a permit. It provides CFR cites for definitions of existing hazardous waste facility and new hazardous waste facility and identifies CFR sections relevant to Part A and Part B permit information requirements and describes the difference between them. It outlines steps in the process from interim status to receipt of permit. It identifies the differences among permit modification classes, and lists the special forms of permits. It lists the permit-by-rule applications, status and eligibility requirements for interim status and the conditions for termination of interim status and lists the conditions for changes during interim status.

  5. Louisiana Title V General Permits

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boyer, B.E.; Neal, T.L.

    1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 requires federal operating permits for all major sources of air pollution. In 1992, Title 40, Part 70 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 70) codified the law s requirements. These federal regulations, entitled Operating Permit Program, define the minimum requirements for state administered operating permit programs. The intent of Title V is to put into one document all requirements of an operating permit. General Permits for oil and gas facilities may be preferred if the facility can comply with all permit requirements. If greater flexibility than allowed by the General Permit is required, then the facility should apply for an individual Title V permit. General Permits are designed to streamline the permitting process, shorten the time it takes to obtain approval for initial and modified permits. The advantages of the General Permit include reduced paperwork and greater consistency because the permits are standardized. There should be less uncertainty because permit requirements will be known at the time of application. Approval times for Initial and modified General Permits should be reduced. Lengthy public notice procedures (and possible hearings) will be required for only the initial approval of the General Permit and not for each applicant to the permit. A disadvantage of General Permits is reduced flexibility since the facility must comply with the requirements of a standardized permit.

  6. Issues and Recommendations Arising from the Idaho National Laboratory Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Composite Analysis - 13374

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rood, Arthur S.; Schafer, Annette L.; Sondrup, A. Jeff [Idaho National Laboratory, Battelle Energy Alliance, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID 83401-2107 (United States)] [Idaho National Laboratory, Battelle Energy Alliance, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID 83401-2107 (United States)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Development of the composite analysis (CA) for the Idaho National Laboratory's (INLs) proposed remote-handled (RH) low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility has underscored the importance of consistency between analyses conducted for site-specific performance assessments (PAs) for LLW disposal facilities, sites regulated by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) [1], and residual decontamination and decommissioning (D and D) inventories. Consistency is difficult to achieve because: 1) different legacy sources and compliance time-periods were deemed important for each of the sites evaluated at INL (e.g., 100 years for CERCLA regulated facilities vs. 1,000 years for LLW disposal facilities regulated under U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1 [2]); 2) fate and transport assumptions, parameters, and models have evolved through time at the INL including the use of screening-level parameters vs. site-specific values; and 3) evaluation objectives for the various CERCLA sites were inconsistent with those relevant to either the PA or CA including the assessment of risk rather than effective dose. The proposed single site-wide CA approach would provide needed consistency, allowing ready incorporation of new information and/or facilities in addition to being cost effective in terms of preparation of CAs and review by the DOE. A single site-wide CA would include a central database of all existing INL sources, including those from currently operating LLW facilities, D and D activities, and those from the sites evaluated under CERCLA. The framework presented for the INL RH-LLW disposal facility allows for development of a single CA encompassing air and groundwater impacts. For groundwater impacts, a site-wide MODFLOW/MT3D-MS model was used to develop unit-response functions for all potential sources providing responses for a grid of receptors. Convolution and superposition of the response functions are used to compute groundwater concentrations. A similar approach could be applied for the air pathway where air emissions are stored in a central database and air concentrations for unit releases could be scaled to actual releases. (authors)

  7. Summary of Conceptual Models and Data Needs to Support the INL Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Performance Assessment and Composite Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    A. Jeff Sondrup; Annette L. Schafter; Arthur S. Rood

    2010-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    An overview of the technical approach and data required to support development of the performance assessment, and composite analysis are presented for the remote handled low-level waste disposal facility on-site alternative being considered at Idaho National Laboratory. Previous analyses and available data that meet requirements are identified and discussed. Outstanding data and analysis needs are also identified and summarized. The on-site disposal facility is being evaluated in anticipation of the closure of the Radioactive Waste Management Complex at the INL. An assessment of facility performance and of the composite performance are required to meet the Department of Energy’s Low-Level Waste requirements (DOE Order 435.1, 2001) which stipulate that operation and closure of the disposal facility will be managed in a manner that is protective of worker and public health and safety, and the environment. The corresponding established procedures to ensure these protections are contained in DOE Manual 435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual (DOE M 435.1-1 2001). Requirements include assessment of (1) all-exposure pathways, (2) air pathway, (3) radon, and (4) groundwater pathway doses. Doses are computed from radionuclide concentrations in the environment. The performance assessment and composite analysis are being prepared to assess compliance with performance objectives and to establish limits on concentrations and inventories of radionuclides at the facility and to support specification of design, construction, operation and closure requirements. Technical objectives of the PA and CA are primarily accomplished through the development of an establish inventory, and through the use of predictive environmental transport models implementing an overarching conceptual framework. This document reviews the conceptual model, inherent assumptions, and data required to implement the conceptual model in a numerical framework. Available site-specific data and data sources are then addressed. Differences in required analyses and data are captured as outstanding data needs.

  8. 300 Area TEDF NPDES Permit Compliance Monitoring Plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Loll, C.M.

    1994-10-13T23:59:59.000Z

    This monitoring plan describes the activities and methods that will be employed at the 300 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility (TEDF) in order to ensure compliance with the National Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Included in this document are a brief description of the project, the specifics of the sampling effort, including the physical location and frequency of sampling, the support required for sampling, and the Quality Assurance (QA) protocols to be followed in the sampling procedures.

  9. Industrial Permit

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Protection Obeying Environmental Laws Industrial Permit Industrial Permit The Industrial Permit authorizes the Laboratory to discharge point-source effluents under the...

  10. Prevention of significant deterioration permit application for the Fueled Clad Fabrication System, the Radioisotope Power Systems Facility, and the Fuel Assembly Area

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1989-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This New Source Review'' has been submitted by the US Department of Energy-Richland Operations Office (PO Box 550, Richland, Washington 99352), pursuant to WAC 173-403-050 and in compliance with the Department of Ecology Guide to Processing A Prevention Of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit'' for three new sources of radionuclide emissions at the Hanford Site in Washington State. The three new sources, the Fueled Clad Fabrication System (FCFS), the Radioisotope Power Systems Facility (RPSF), and the Fuel Assembly Area (FAA), will be located in one facility, the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility (FMEF) of the 400 Area. The FMEF was originally designed to provide for post-irradiation examination and fabrication of breeder reactor fuels. These FMEF missions were cancelled before the introduction of any fuel materials or any irradiated material. The current plans are to use the facility to fabricate power supplies for use in space applications and to produce Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) fuel and target assemblies. The FCFS and the RPSF will produce materials and assemblies for application in space. The FAA project will produce FFTF fuel and target assemblies. The FCFS and the RPSF will share the same building, stack, and, in certain cases, the same floor space. Given this relationship, these systems will be dealt with separately to the extent possible. The FAA is a comparatively independent operation though it will share the FMEF complex.

  11. Chapter 38 Hazardous Waste Permitting Process (Kentucky)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This administrative regulation establishes the general provisions for storage, treatment, recycling, or disposal of hazardous waste. It provides information about permits and specific requirements...

  12. Health assessment for Royal Hardage Industrial Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facility, Criner, Oklahoma, Region 6. CERCLIS No. OKD000400093. Final report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1988-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Royal Hardage Industrial Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facility (Hardage/Criner) National Priorities List Site is located in Criner, McClain County, Oklahoma. The site is located in an agricultural area. There are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and several heavy metals present in the groundwater and soil, and VOCs in surface water and sediment. The Record of Decision signed November 1986 selected several remedial actions which included excavation of the primary source material and separation of the wastes for treatment, solids to be disposed of in an on-site landfill that meets Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requirements, organic liquids to be incinerated, and inorganic liquids to be treated by other means as necessary. The site is currently in the remedial-design phase.

  13. Plutonium Equivalent Inventory for Belowground Radioactive Waste at the Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Area 54, Area G Disposal Facility - Fiscal Year 2011

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    French, Sean B. [Los Alamos National Laboratory; Shuman, Rob [WPS: WASTE PROJECTS AND SERVICES

    2012-04-18T23:59:59.000Z

    The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) generates radioactive waste as a result of various activities. Many aspects of the management of this waste are conducted at Technical Area 54 (TA-54); Area G plays a key role in these management activities as the Laboratory's only disposal facility for low-level radioactive waste (LLW). Furthermore, Area G serves as a staging area for transuranic (TRU) waste that will be shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant for disposal. A portion of this TRU waste is retrievably stored in pits, trenches, and shafts. The radioactive waste disposed of or stored at Area G poses potential short- and long-term risks to workers at the disposal facility and to members of the public. These risks are directly proportional to the radionuclide inventories in the waste. The Area G performance assessment and composite analysis (LANL, 2008a) project long-term risks to members of the public; short-term risks to workers and members of the public, such as those posed by accidents, are addressed by the Area G Documented Safety Analysis (LANL, 2011a). The Documented Safety Analysis uses an inventory expressed in terms of plutonium-equivalent curies, referred to as the PE-Ci inventory, to estimate these risks. The Technical Safety Requirements for Technical Area 54, Area G (LANL, 2011b) establishes a belowground radioactive material limit that ensures the cumulative projected inventory authorized for the Area G site is not exceeded. The total belowground radioactive waste inventory limit established for Area G is 110,000 PE-Ci. The PE-Ci inventory is updated annually; this report presents the inventory prepared for 2011. The approach used to estimate the inventory is described in Section 2. The results of the analysis are presented in Section 3.

  14. General Air Permits (Louisiana)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Any source, including a temporary source, which emits or has the potential to emit any air contaminant requires an air permit. Facilities with potential emissions less than 5 tons per year of any...

  15. B Plant treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) units inspection plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Beam, T.G.

    1996-04-26T23:59:59.000Z

    This inspection plan is written to meet the requirements of WAC 173-303 for operations of a TSD facility. Owners/operators of TSD facilities are required to inspection their facility and active waste management units to prevent and/or detect malfunctions, discharges and other conditions potentially hazardous to human health and the environment. A written plan detailing these inspection efforts must be maintained at the facility in accordance with Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Chapter 173-303, ``Dangerous Waste Regulations`` (WAC 173-303), a written inspection plan is required for the operation of a treatment, storage and disposal (TSD) facility and individual TSD units. B Plant is a permitted TSD facility currently operating under interim status with an approved Part A Permit. Various operational systems and locations within or under the control of B Plant have been permitted for waste management activities. Included are the following TSD units: Cell 4 Container Storage Area; B Plant Containment Building; Low Level Waste Tank System; Organic Waste Tank System; Neutralized Current Acid Waste (NCAW) Tank System; Low Level Waste Concentrator Tank System. This inspection plan complies with the requirements of WAC 173-303. It addresses both general TSD facility and TSD unit-specific inspection requirements. Sections on each of the TSD units provide a brief description of the system configuration and the permitted waste management activity, a summary of the inspection requirements, and details on the activities B Plant uses to maintain compliance with those requirements.

  16. Spring 2009 Semiannual (III.H. and I.U.) Report for the HWMA/RCRA Post-Closure Permit for the INTEC Waste Calcining Facility at the INL Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Boehmer, Ann M.

    2009-05-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The Waste Calcining Facility is located at the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center. In 1999, the Waste Calcining Facility was closed under and approved Hazardous Waste Management Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Closure plan. Vessels and spaces were grouted and then covered with a concrete cap. This permit sets forth procedural requirements for groundwater characterization and monitoring, maintenance, and inspections of the Waste Calcining Facility to ensure continued protection of human health and the environment.

  17. Storm Water Discharge Permits (Wisconsin)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Wisconsin's storm water runoff regulations include permitting requirements for construction sites and industrial facilities, including those processing or extracting coal or gas. The purpose of the...

  18. Compliance matrix for the mixed waste disposal facilities, trenches 31 and 34, burial ground 218-W-5. Revision 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Johnson, K.D.

    1995-05-03T23:59:59.000Z

    This document provides a listing of applicable regulatory requirements to the Mixed Waste Disposal trenches. After the listing of regulations to be followed is a listing of documents that show how the regulations are being implemented and followed for the Mixed Waste trenches.

  19. Dredged and Fill Material Disposal (North Dakota)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This chapter provides regulations for the disposal of dredged and fill material. Any entity desiring to dispose of such material must first obtain a permit, and the State Engineer has the...

  20. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Municipal solid waste disposal facility criteria, updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module provides a summary of the regulatory criteria for municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs). It provides the statutory authority under RCRA and the Clean Water Act (CWA) directing EPA to develop the MSWLF criteria in 40 CFR Part 258. It also provides the Part 258 effective date and the compliance dates for providing demonstrations to satisfy individual regulatory requirements. It identifies the types of facilities that qualify for the small landfill exemption. It explains the requirements of each subpart of Part 258 as they apply to states with EPA-approved MSWLF permit programs and states without approved permit programs. It compares the MSWLF environmental performance standards described in Part 258 to the corresponding requirements for hazardous waste TSDFs in Part 264, which are generally more stringent.

  1. Solar and Wind Permitting Laws

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    New Jersey has enacted three separate laws addressing local permitting practices for solar and wind energy facilities. The first deals with solar and wind facilities located in industrial-zoned...

  2. Fissile Material Disposition Program: Deep borehole disposal Facility PEIS date input report for immobilized disposal. Immobilized disposal of plutonium in coated ceramic pellets in grout with canisters. Version 3.0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wijesinghe, A.M.; Shaffer, R.J.

    1996-01-15T23:59:59.000Z

    Following President Clinton`s Non-Proliferation Initiative, launched in September, 1993, an Interagency Working Group (IWG) was established to conduct a comprehensive review of the options for the disposition of weapons-usable fissile materials from nuclear weapons dismantlement activities in the United States and the former Soviet Union. The IWG review process will consider technical, nonproliferation, environmental budgetary, and economic considerations in the disposal of plutonium. The IWG is co-chaired by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Security Council. The Department of Energy (DOE) is directly responsible for the management, storage, and disposition of all weapons-usable fissile material. The Department of Energy has been directed to prepare a comprehensive review of long-term options for Surplus Fissile Material (SFM) disposition, taking into account technical, nonproliferation, environmental, budgetary, and economic considerations.

  3. Offsite commercial disposal of oil and gas exploration and production waste :availability, options, and cost.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Puder, M. G.; Veil, J. A.

    2006-09-05T23:59:59.000Z

    A survey conducted in 1995 by the American Petroleum Institute (API) found that the U.S. exploration and production (E&P) segment of the oil and gas industry generated more than 149 million bbl of drilling wastes, almost 18 billion bbl of produced water, and 21 million bbl of associated wastes. The results of that survey, published in 2000, suggested that 3% of drilling wastes, less than 0.5% of produced water, and 15% of associated wastes are sent to offsite commercial facilities for disposal. Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) collected information on commercial E&P waste disposal companies in different states in 1997. While the information is nearly a decade old, the report has proved useful. In 2005, Argonne began collecting current information to update and expand the data. This report describes the new 2005-2006 database and focuses on the availability of offsite commercial disposal companies, the prevailing disposal methods, and estimated disposal costs. The data were collected in two phases. In the first phase, state oil and gas regulatory officials in 31 states were contacted to determine whether their agency maintained a list of permitted commercial disposal companies dedicated to oil. In the second stage, individual commercial disposal companies were interviewed to determine disposal methods and costs. The availability of offsite commercial disposal companies and facilities falls into three categories. The states with high oil and gas production typically have a dedicated network of offsite commercial disposal companies and facilities in place. In other states, such an infrastructure does not exist and very often, commercial disposal companies focus on produced water services. About half of the states do not have any industry-specific offsite commercial disposal infrastructure. In those states, operators take their wastes to local municipal landfills if permitted or haul the wastes to other states. This report provides state-by-state summaries of the types of offsite commercial disposal facilities that are found in each state. In later sections, data are presented by waste type and then by disposal method.

  4. General Conditions Applicable to Water Discharge Permits and Procedures and Criteria for Issuing Water Discharge Permits (Connecticut)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These regulations describe permit and facility requirements for facilities which discharge wastewater. Facility construction, expansion, alteration, production increases, or process modifications...

  5. RCRA corrective action permit requirements and modifications under proposed Subpart S rule. RCRA Information Brief

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coalgate, J.

    1993-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Corrective action is required under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sections 3004(u) and(v) which were added by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). In response to HSWA, the US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) proposed a comprehensive corrective action program under 40 CFR 264 Subpart S [55 FR 30798, July 27, 1990]. Although Subpart S is still only proposed, it is being implemented by the EPA Regions until the rule is finalized. Proposed Subpart S corrective action applies to releases to any media from any solid waste management unit (SWMU) at a treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF). Corrective action requirements under proposed Subpart S are imposed through permit conditions or, for interim status facilities, through a RCRA Section 3008(h) order. In general, upon initial regulation of a TSDF, the owner or operator submits a Part A permit application, notifying the regulatory agency of waste management activities. The Part A consists of a form containing general information about the facility, the unit(s) affected, and the wastes managed in the units. Part B of the permit application provides detailed information on the facility, the units affected, and the waste managed. The Part B permit application may consist of several volumes of information. Proposed Subpart S requirements, would be contained in the Part B permit application. The Part B permit application proposes requirements and conditions intended to respond to the various RCRA requirements for permitted units. This submittal initiates the negotiation process for regulated SWMUS, whereby the requirements and conditions for unit operation are established. The term of the permit is typically 5 or 10 years, after which a permit renewal or issuance of a new permit is required. This Information Brief provides information on the permit requirements and process under proposed Subpart S.

  6. Melter Disposal Strategic Planning Document

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BURBANK, D.A.

    2000-09-25T23:59:59.000Z

    This document describes the proposed strategy for disposal of spent and failed melters from the tank waste treatment plant to be built by the Office of River Protection at the Hanford site in Washington. It describes program management activities, disposal and transportation systems, leachate management, permitting, and safety authorization basis approvals needed to execute the strategy.

  7. Submission of Notice of Termination of Coverage Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit No. CAS000002 for WDID No. 201C349114, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Ignition Facility Construction Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Brunckhorst, K

    2009-04-21T23:59:59.000Z

    This is the completed Notice of Termination of Coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. Construction activities at the National Ignition Facility Construction Project at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are now complete. The Notice of Termination includes photographs of the completed construction project and a vicinity map.

  8. Environmental Radio-Analytical Research in the Field of a New LILW Disposal Facility in Hungary - 12401

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Janovics, Robert; Bihari, Arpad; Major, Zoltan; Molnar, Mihaly; Palcsu, Laszlo; Papp, Laszlo [Institute of Nuclear Research of the HAS, Debrecen (Hungary); Veres, Mihaly [Isotoptech Co. Ltd., Debrecen (Hungary); Barnabas, Istvan; Laszlo, Zoltan [Public Agency for Radioactive Waste Management, Paks (Hungary)

    2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The new Hungarian National Radioactive Waste Repository was established in the granite of the Moragy Block Mountains (Bataapati) to store low and intermediate level radioactive waste originating from Paks Nuclear Power Plant. Before the start of the operation of the facility the environmental characteristics of the site and its vicinity, i.e. the so-called zero level was determined. The determination of the zero level is inevitable as the evaluation of the measurement data in the course of the operation of nuclear facilities should mainly be related to this zero level. In the course of the monitoring activity environmental elements, i.e. air, soil, water (springs, streams, precipitation, fall-out, wash-out, plant and animal samples were investigated from several points of view. From the samples radiocarbon, tritium, Sr-90, gamma emitters, gross alpha, gross beta, and field gamma measurements were carried out. Results reported show that the state preceding the operation of the facility can approximately be considered as the Hungarian background data. (authors)

  9. Pre-title I safety evaluation for the retrieval operations of transuranic waste drums in the Solid Waste Disposal Facility. Revision 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rabin, M.S.

    1992-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Phase I of the Transuranic (TRU) Waste Facility Line Item Project includes the retrieval and safe storage of the pad drums that are stored on TRU pads 2-6 in the Solid Waste Disposal Facility (SWDF). Drums containing TRU waste were placed on these pads as early as 1974. The pads, once filled, were mounded with soil. The retrieval activities will include the excavation of the soil, retrieval of the pad drums, placing the drums in overpacks (if necessary) and venting and purging the retrieved drums. Once the drums have been vented and purged, they will be transported to other pads within the SWDF or in a designated area until they are eventually treated as necessary for ultimate shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico. This safety evaluation provides a bounding assessment of the radiological risk involved with the drum retrieval activities to the maximally exposed offsite individual and the co-located worker. The results of the analysis indicate that the risk to the maximally exposed offsite individual and the co-located worker using maximum frequencies and maximum consequences are within the acceptance criteria defined in WSRC Procedural Manual 9Q. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate the incremental risk from the SWDF due to the retrieval activities for use as design input only. As design information becomes available, this evaluation can be revised to satisfy the safety analysis requirements of DOE Orders 4700 and 5480.23.

  10. Technical assistance to Ohio closure sites; Technologies to address leachate from the on-site disposal facility at Fernald Environmental Management Project, Ohio

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hazen, Terry

    2002-08-26T23:59:59.000Z

    On August 6-7, 2002, a Technical Assistance Team (''Team'') from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Subsurface Contaminants Focus Area (SCFA) met with Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP) personnel in Ohio to assess approaches to remediating uranium-contaminated leachate from the On-Site Disposal Facility (OSDF). The Team was composed of technical experts from national labs, technology centers, and industry and was assembled in response to a request from the FEMP Aquifer Restoration Project. Dave Brettschneider of Fluor Fernald, Inc., requested that a Team of experts be convened to review technologies for the removal of uranium in both brine ion exchange regeneration solution from the Advanced Wastewater Treatment facility and in the leachate from the OSDF. The Team was asked to identify one or more technologies for bench-scale testing as a cost effective alternative to remove uranium so that the brine regeneration solution from the Advanced Waste Water Treatment facility and the leachate from the OSDF can be discharged without further treatment. The Team was also requested to prepare a recommended development and demonstration plan for the alternative technologies. Finally, the Team was asked to make recommendations on the optimal technical solution for field implementation. The Site's expected outcomes for this effort are schedule acceleration, cost reduction, and better long-term stewardship implementation. To facilitate consideration of the most appropriate technologies, the Team was divided into two groups to consider the brine and the leachate separately, since they represent different sources with different constraints on solutions, e.g., short-term versus very long-term and concentrated versus dilute contaminant matrices. This report focuses on the technologies that are most appropriate for the leachate from the OSDF. Upon arriving at FEMP, project personnel asked the Team to concentrate its efforts on evaluating potential technologies and strategies to reduce uranium concentration in the leachate.

  11. Disposal of NORM-Contaminated Oil Field Wastes in Salt Caverns

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Blunt, D.L.; Elcock, D.; Smith, K.P.; Tomasko, D.; Viel, J.A.; and Williams, G.P.

    1999-01-21T23:59:59.000Z

    In 1995, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fossil Energy, asked Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) to conduct a preliminary technical and legal evaluation of disposing of nonhazardous oil field waste (NOW) into salt caverns. That study concluded that disposal of NOW into salt caverns is feasible and legal. If caverns are sited and designed well, operated carefully, closed properly, and monitored routinely, they can be a suitable means of disposing of NOW (Veil et al. 1996). Considering these findings and the increased U.S. interest in using salt caverns for NOW disposal, the Office of Fossil Energy asked Argonne to conduct further research on the cost of cavern disposal compared with the cost of more traditional NOW disposal methods and on preliminary identification and investigation of the risks associated with such disposal. The cost study (Veil 1997) found that disposal costs at the four permitted disposal caverns in the United States were comparable to or lower than the costs of other disposal facilities in the same geographic area. The risk study (Tomasko et al. 1997) estimated that both cancer and noncancer human health risks from drinking water that had been contaminated by releases of cavern contents were significantly lower than the accepted risk thresholds. Since 1992, DOE has funded Argonne to conduct a series of studies evaluating issues related to management and disposal of oil field wastes contaminated with naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM). Included among these studies were radiological dose assessments of several different NORM disposal options (Smith et al. 1996). In 1997, DOE asked Argonne to conduct additional analyses on waste disposal in salt caverns, except that this time the wastes to be evaluated would be those types of oil field wastes that are contaminated by NORM. This report describes these analyses. Throughout the remainder of this report, the term ''NORM waste'' is used to mean ''oil field waste contaminated by NORM''.

  12. Permitting plan for the immobilized low-activity waste project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Deffenbaugh, M.L.

    1997-09-04T23:59:59.000Z

    This document addresses the environmental permitting requirements for the transportation and interim storage of the Immobilized Low-Activity Waste (ILAW) produced during Phase 1 of the Hanford Site privatization effort. Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) Milestone M-90 establishes a new major milestone, and associated interim milestones and target dates, governing acquisition and/or modification of facilities necessary for: (1) interim storage and disposal of Tank Waste Remediation Systems (TWRS) immobilized low-activity tank waste (ILAW) and (2) interim storage of TWRS immobilized HLW (IHLW) and other canistered high-level waste forms. Low-activity waste (LAW), low-level waste (LLW), and high-level waste (HLW) are defined by the TWRS, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) DOE/EIS-0189, August 1996 (TWRS, Final EIS). By definition, HLW requires permanent isolation in a deep geologic repository. Also by definition, LAW is ``the waste that remains after separating from high-level waste as much of the radioactivity as is practicable that when solidified may be disposed of as LLW in a near-surface facility according to the NRC regulations.`` It is planned to store/dispose of (ILAW) inside four empty vaults of the five that were originally constructed for the Group Program. Additional disposal facilities will be constructed to accommodate immobilized LLW packages produced after the Grout Vaults are filled. The specifications for performance of the low-activity vitrified waste form have been established with strong consideration of risk to the public. The specifications for glass waste form performance are being closely coordinated with analysis of risk. RL has pursued discussions with the NRC for a determination of the classification of the Hanford Site`s low-activity tank waste fraction. There is no known RL action to change law with respect to onsite disposal of waste.

  13. Experiment Hazard Class 15.2 - USDA Soil Permit

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    shipment, and disposal of regulated soil samples. A copy of the current APS USDA Soil Permit must accompany all samples. A copy of the home institution's soil permit is required...

  14. Construction Permits and Fees (New Mexico)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Industries that wish to build or modify facilities that emit air pollutants (emissions) into the air must obtain an air quality permit prior to constructing. Thus, these permits are called...

  15. Depleted uranium disposal options.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Biwer, B. M.; Ranek, N. L.; Goldberg, M.; Avci, H. I.

    2000-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF{sub 6}) has been produced in the United States since the 1940s as part of both the military program and the civilian nuclear energy program. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is the agency responsible for managing most of the depleted UF{sub 6} that has been produced in the United States. The total quantity of depleted UF{sub 6} that DOE has to or will have to manage is approximately 700,000 Mg. Studies have been conducted to evaluate the various alternatives for managing this material. This paper evaluates and summarizes the alternative of disposal as low-level waste (LLW). Results of the analysis indicate that UF{sub 6} needs to be converted to a more stable form, such as U{sub 3}O{sub 8}, before disposal as LLW. Estimates of the environmental impacts of disposal in a dry environment are within the currently applicable standards and regulations. Of the currently operating LLW disposal facilities, available information indicates that either of two DOE facilities--the Hanford Site or the Nevada Test Site--or a commercial facility--Envirocare of Utah--would be able to dispose of up to the entire DOE inventory of depleted UF{sub 6}.

  16. Removal site evaluation report L-area rubble pile (131-3L) gas cylinder disposal facility (131-2L)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Palmer, E.R. [Westinghouse Savannah River Company, AIKEN, SC (United States); Mason, J.T.

    1997-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This Removal Site Evaluation Report (RSER) is prepared in accordance with Sections 300.410 and 300.415 of the National Contingency Plan and Section XIV of the Savannah River Site (SRS) Federal Facility Agreement (FFA). The purpose of this investigation is to report information concerning conditions at the L-Area Rubble Pile (LRP) (131-3L) and the L-Area Gas Cylinder Disposal Facility (LGCDF) (131- 2L) sufficient to assess the threat posed to human health and the environment. This investigation also assesses the need for additional Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) actions. The scope of this investigation included a review of files, limited sampling efforts, and visits to the area. An investigation of the LRP (1131-3L) indicates the presence of semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), metals, and asbestos. Potential contaminants in the waste piles could migrate into the secondary media (soils and groundwater), and the presence of some of the contaminants in the piles poses an exposure threat to site works. The Department of Energy (DOE), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) discussed the need for a removal action at the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facility Investigation/Remedial Investigation (RFI/RI) work plan scoping meetings on the waste unit, and agreed that the presence of the waste piles limits the access to secondary media for sampling, and the removal of the piles would support future characterization of the waste unit. In addition, the DOE, EPA, and SCDHEC agreed that the proposed removal action for the LRP (131-3L) would be documented in the RFI/RI work plan. The LGCDF (131-2L) consists of a backfilled pit containing approximately 28 gas cylinders. The gas cylinders were supposed to have been vented prior to burial; however, there is a potential that a number of the cylinders are still pressurized. (Abstract Truncated)

  17. Wastewater Construction and Operation Permits (Iowa)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These regulations describe permit requirements for the construction and operation of facilities treating wastewater, and provide separation distances from other water sources.

  18. Update on onshore disposal of offshore drilling wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Veil, J. A.

    1999-11-29T23:59:59.000Z

    The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing effluent limitations guidelines to govern discharges of cuttings from wells drilled using synthetic-based muds. To support this rulemaking, Argonne National Laboratory was asked by EPA and the US Department of Energy (DOE) to collect current information about those onshore commercial disposal facilities that are permitted to receive offshore drilling wastes. Argonne contacted state officials in Louisiana, Texas, California and Alaska to obtain this information. The findings, collected during October and November 1999, are presented by state.

  19. Definitive design report: Design report project W-025, Radioactive Mixed Waste (RMW) Land Disposal Facility NON-DRAG-OFF. Revision 1, Volume 1 and 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Roscha, V.

    1994-11-29T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this report is to describe the definitive design of the Radioactive Mixed Waste (RMW) Non-Drag-Off disposal facility, Project W-025. This report presents a n of the major landfill design features and a discussion of how each of the criteria is addressed in the design. The appendices include laboratory test results, design drawings, and individual analyses that were conducted in support of the design. Revision 1 of this document incorporates design changes resulting from an increase in the required operating life of the W-025 landfill from 2 to 20 years. The rationale for these design changes is described in Golder Associates Inc. 1991a. These changes include (1) adding a 1.5-foot-thick layer of compacted admix directory-under the primary FML on the floor of the landfill to mitigate the effects of possible stress cracking in the primary flexible membrane liner (FML), and (2) increasing the operations layer thickness from two to three feet over the entire landfill area, to provide additional protection for the secondary admix layer against mechanical damage and the effects of freezing and desiccation. The design of the W-025 Landfill has also been modified in response to the results of the EPA Method 9090 chemical compatibility testing program (Golder Associates Inc. 1991b and 1991c), which was completed after the original design was prepared. This program consisted of testing geosynthetic materials and soil/bentonite admix with synthetic leachate having the composition expected during the life of the W-025 Landfill., The results of this program indicated that the polyester geotextile originally specified for the landfill might be susceptible to deterioration. On this basis, polypropylene geotextiles were substituted as a more chemically-resistant alternative. In addition, the percentage of bentonite in the admix was increased to provide sufficiently low permeability to the expected leachate.

  20. Integrated Disposal Facility - Hanford Site

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC)Integrated Codes | National Nuclear Security Administration Facebook Twitter

  1. Estimating Groundwater Concentrations from Mass Releases to the Aquifer at Integrated Disposal Facility and Tank Farm Locations Within the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bergeron, Marcel P.; Freeman, Eugene J.

    2005-06-09T23:59:59.000Z

    This report summarizes groundwater-related numerical calculations that will support groundwater flow and transport analyses associated with the scheduled 2005 performance assessment of the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) at the Hanford Site. The report also provides potential supporting information to other ongoing Hanford Site risk analyses associated with the closure of single-shell tank farms and related actions. The IDF 2005 performance assessment analysis is using well intercept factors (WIFs), as outlined in the 2001 performance assessment of the IDF. The flow and transport analyses applied to these calculations use both a site-wide regional-scale model and a local-scale model of the area near the IDF. The regional-scale model is used to evaluate flow conditions, groundwater transport, and impacts from the IDF in the central part of the Hanford Site, at the core zone boundary around the 200 East and 200 West Areas, and along the Columbia River. The local-scale model is used to evaluate impacts from transport of contaminants to a hypothetical well 100 m downgradient from the IDF boundaries. Analyses similar to the regional-scale analysis of IDF releases are also provided at individual tank farm areas as additional information. To gain insight on how the WIF approach compares with other approaches for estimating groundwater concentrations from mass releases to the unconfined aquifer, groundwater concentrations were estimated with the WIF approach for two hypothetical release scenarios and compared with similar results using a calculational approach (the convolution approach). One release scenario evaluated with both approaches (WIF and convolution) involved a long-term source release from immobilized low-activity waste glass containing 25,550 Ci of technetium-99 near the IDF; another involved a hypothetical shorter-term release of {approx}0.7 Ci of technetium over 600 years from the S-SX tank farm area. In addition, direct simulation results for both release scenarios were provided to compare with the results of the WIF and convolution approaches.

  2. Rules and Regulations for the Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Waste (Nebraska)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These regulations, promulgated by the Department of Environmental Quality, contain provisions pertaining to the disposal of low-level radioactive waste, disposal facilities, and applicable fees.

  3. Hanford Dangerous Waste Permit

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOEThe Bonneville Power AdministrationField8,Dist.NewofGeothermal848 UnlimitedIntegrated Disposal Facility Operating

  4. Hanford Dangerous Waste Permit

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOEThe Bonneville Power AdministrationField8,Dist.NewofGeothermal848 UnlimitedIntegrated Disposal Facility

  5. Waste-to-energy permitting sourcebook

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Longwell, D.; Wegrecki, A.; Williams, D. (Bechtel Group, Inc., San Francisco, CA (United States))

    1992-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Environmental issues, regulatory processes and approvals important in obtaining a permit to construct and/or operate a waste-to-energy (WTE) facility are identified and discussed. Environmental issues include: (1) air emission levels, their control and potential impacts, (2) ash leachability, treatment, and disposal, (3) potential health risks from emissions, and (4) other issues such as need/benefit and public perception of WTE. Laws, regulations and approvals that can affect project development are identified and listed, and potential regulatory trends are discussed. A general permit acquisition plan is also presented. An analysis of environmental and regulatory data obtained from the literature, regulatory agencies, and specific projects is presented. California and Massachusetts, both with regulations generally more stringent than federal regulations and considered environmentally conservative, were selected for detailed state regulatory review. Two project case histories (Commerce Refuse-to-Energy (RTE) Project in California and SEMASS WTE Project in Massachusetts) were selected to illustrate: (1) how regulations are actually applied to a project, (2) project-specific permit and operating conditions, and (3) project-specific environmental issues. Modern WTE plots employ state-of-the-art air emission control technologies and strategies to reduce air emission is to levels below regulatory requirements and to reduce estimated health risks to within EPA's acceptable risk range. WTE ash leachate can exhibit hazardous waste characteristics, primarily lead and cadmium. However, modern landfills utilize liners and leachate collection systems to prevent infiltration of leachate into the groundwater supply. Modern WTE plants employ dry systems and have zero process wastewater discharge.

  6. RCRA/UST, superfund, and EPCRA hotline training module. Introduction to: Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (40 CFR parts 264/265, subparts A-E) updated as of July 1995

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The module presents an overview of the general treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF) standards found in 40 CFR parts 264/265, subparts A through E. It identifies and explains each exclusion from parts 264/265, and provides definitions of excluded units, such as wastewater treatment unit and elementary neutralization unit. It locates and describes the requirements for waste analysis and personnel training. It also describes the purpose of a contingency plan and lists the emergency notification procedures. It describes manifest procedures and responsibilities, and lists the unmanifested waste reporting requirements.

  7. OAR 340-120 - Additional Siting and Permitting Requirements for...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    and Disposal Facilities Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Legal Document- RegulationRegulation: OAR 340-120 - Additional Siting and...

  8. Hazardous Waste Facilities Siting (Connecticut)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These regulations describe the siting and permitting process for hazardous waste facilities and reference rules for construction, operation, closure, and post-closure of these facilities.

  9. Biomass Anaerobic Digestion Facilities and Biomass Gasification Facilities (Indiana)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Indiana Department of Environmental Management requires permits before the construction or expansion of biomass anaerobic digestion or gasification facilities.

  10. Water Permits (Louisiana)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Water Permits Division authorizes permits administered under the Water Quality Regulations. Louisiana's Water Quality Regulations require permits for the discharge of pollutants from any point...

  11. Disposal rabbit

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Lewis, L.C.; Trammell, D.R.

    1983-10-12T23:59:59.000Z

    A disposable rabbit for transferring radioactive samples in a pneumatic transfer system comprises aerated plastic shaped in such a manner as to hold a radioactive sample and aerated such that dissolution of the rabbit in a solvent followed by evaporation of the solid yields solid waste material having a volume significantly smaller than the original volume of the rabbit.

  12. Disposable rabbit

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Lewis, Leroy C. (Idaho Falls, ID); Trammell, David R. (Rigby, ID)

    1986-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A disposable rabbit for transferring radioactive samples in a pneumatic transfer system comprises aerated plastic shaped in such a manner as to hold a radioactive sample and aerated such that dissolution of the rabbit in a solvent followed by evaporation of the solid yields solid waste material having a volume significantly smaller than the original volume of the rabbit.

  13. Application for Presidential Permit OE Docket No. PP-399 MATL LLP

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Application to rescind Presidential Permit held by Montana Alberta Tie Ltd. and issue a permit to MATL covering the same international transmission facilities.

  14. Regulatory Guidance Letter 96-01 SUBJECT: Use of Nationwide Permit Number 23 for

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    and conditions of nationwide permit 23, will require evaluation under standard permit procedures administration, operation, and maintenance. 3. Maintenance dredging and debris disposal where no new depths modification, suspension, or revocation procedures. Development of local procedures to streamline coordination

  15. RRC - Supplemental Application Information for Permit to Maintain...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Supplemental Application Information for Permit to Maintain and Use a Commercial Oil and Gas Waste Disposal Pit Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library...

  16. Wind Energy Permitting Standards (North Carolina)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    North Carolina has statewide permitting requirements for wind energy facilities. Any wind turbine or collection of wind turbines located within a half mile of each other with a collective rated...

  17. State Surface Water Discharge Permits (New Hampshire)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Rules apply to the discharge of all pollutants from a point source to surface waters of the state. The rule does not apply to facilities that require both a state discharge permit and a federal...

  18. Application to Amend Presidential Permit OE Docket No. PP-022...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    to construct, operate and maintain electric transmission facilities at the U.S. - Canada Border: Federal Register Notice Application to Amend Presidential Permit OE Docket No....

  19. Application for Presidential Permit OE Docket No. PP-257 Emera...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    maintain electric transmission facilities at the U.S. - Canada Border. Application for Presidential Permit OE Docket No. PP-257 Emera Energy Services, Inc. More Documents &...

  20. Application for presidential permit OE Docket No. PP-299 Sea...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    facilities at the U.S-Canada border. - Federal Register Notice Application for presidential permit OE Docket No. PP-299 Sea Breeze Pacific Regional Transmission System...

  1. Application for presidential permit OE Docket No. PP-362 Champlain...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    and maintain electric transmission facilities at the U.S. - Canada Border. FINAL TDI Presidential Permit Application. January 25, 2010 More Documents & Publications EIS-0447:...

  2. Application for Presidential Permit OE Docket No. PP-366 Twin...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    maintain electric transmission facilities at the U.S. - Canada Border. Application for Presidential Permit OE Docket No. PP-366 Twin Rivers Paper Company, Inc. More Documents &...

  3. Negotiating Title V and non-Title V permits

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Erbes, R.E. [Kleinfelder, Inc., Parker, CO (United States); MacDougall, C.R. [Kleinfelder, Inc., Pleasanton, CA (United States)

    1998-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The Title V Operating Permits program has been extended over many more years than originally anticipated when the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments were first legislated. In fact, the regulatory program is still being refined even as facilities complete and submit their Title V permit applications. Likewise, it is clear that the agency review of the Title V permit applications will probably take considerably longer than originally anticipated. Finally, when the agency does complete the review, it is equally clear that there will need to be a significant amount of negotiating on the part of the facility to arrive at a simplified permit that is operationally feasible. This paper presents a number of suggestions for what the facility should be doing between the time the permit application is first submitted and the agency responds with a draft permit. The suggestions are designed to help simplify the permit and enhance flexibility. In addition, the paper presents permit negotiating techniques and points out the pitfalls that will be encountered if the facility does not take action prior to receiving the draft Title V permit. This paper suggests that the facility should internally evaluate how the permit application impacts facility operations prior to the agency doing so. It also suggests that the facility should contact the agency early and amend the permit application to take advantage of increasing regulatory flexibility. By taking these steps, and properly negotiating the permit terms and conditions; the facility will achieve a much better permit, and will hopefully be able to avoid the regulatory burdens and delays associated with re-opening the permit during the next 5 to 8 years (from the time of permit application submittal).

  4. DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL ECONOMICS By Jay R. Lund,1

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pasternack, Gregory B.

    DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL ECONOMICS By Jay R. Lund,1 Associate Member, ASCE ABSTRACT: Recent difficulties in siting dredged material disposal facilities are increasing interests in alternative disposal or reuse of dredged material and the possible adverse consequences of any increases in the generation

  5. Disposability Assessment: Aluminum-Based Spent Nuclear Fuel Forms

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Vinson, D.W.

    1998-11-06T23:59:59.000Z

    This report provides a technical assessment of the Melt-Dilute and Direct Al-SNF forms in disposable canisters with respect to meeting the requirements for disposal in the Mined Geologic Disposal System (MGDS) and for interim dry storage in the Treatment and Storage Facility (TSF) at SRS.

  6. Chapter 47 Solid Waste Facilities (Kentucky)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This chapter establishes the permitting standards for solid waste sites or facilities, the standards applicable to all solid waste sites or facilities, and the standards for certification of...

  7. Waste Disposal Site and Radioactive Waste Management (Iowa)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This section describes the considerations of the Commission in determining whether to approve the establishment and operation of a disposal site for nuclear waste. If a permit is issued, the...

  8. Presidential Permits | Department of Energy

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    Presidential Permits Below is a listing of all the presidential permits grouped by Canada and Mexico. View the Presidental Permits - Mexico View the Presidential Permits -...

  9. Air permitting guidelines for combustion turbine projects

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Macak, J.J. III [Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc., Elmhurst, IL (United States); Schott, G.A. [Westinghouse Electric Corp., Orlando, FL (United States). Power Generation Business Unit

    1997-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Before construction can begin on a new combustion turbine facility, an air permit must be obtained. The air permitting process is generally the critical path permit, often taking in excess of one year to receive final approval. Careful consideration and understanding of combustion turbine operational characteristics and air pollutant emissions will expedite the air permitting process. The purpose of this paper is to identify key issues related to combustion turbine operation that will aid in the preparation of air permit applications. However, before applying for an air permit, a pre-application meeting should be held with the regulatory agency to present an overview of the proposed project, as well as develop the requisite protocols to begin the process.

  10. Risk analyses for disposing nonhazardous oil field wastes in salt caverns

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tomasko, D.; Elcock, D.; Veil, J.; Caudle, D.

    1997-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Salt caverns have been used for several decades to store various hydrocarbon products. In the past few years, four facilities in the US have been permitted to dispose nonhazardous oil field wastes in salt caverns. Several other disposal caverns have been permitted in Canada and Europe. This report evaluates the possibility that adverse human health effects could result from exposure to contaminants released from the caverns in domal salt formations used for nonhazardous oil field waste disposal. The evaluation assumes normal operations but considers the possibility of leaks in cavern seals and cavern walls during the post-closure phase of operation. In this assessment, several steps were followed to identify possible human health risks. At the broadest level, these steps include identifying a reasonable set of contaminants of possible concern, identifying how humans could be exposed to these contaminants, assessing the toxicities of these contaminants, estimating their intakes, and characterizing their associated human health risks. The contaminants of concern for the assessment are benzene, cadmium, arsenic, and chromium. These were selected as being components of oil field waste and having a likelihood to remain in solution for a long enough time to reach a human receptor.

  11. Alcohol Services Category #1 # Permit Application Category #2

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Powers, Robert

    Alcohol Services Category #1 # Permit Application Category #2 Category #3 Facility to be Used If an outdoor event, attach UNL Police approved licensed area plan to Permit Request. This individual may TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED ALCOHOL SERVICES PERMIT FOR EACH EVENT. THE APPROVED CATERER IS RESPONSIBLE

  12. SCFA lead lab technical assistance at Oak Ridge Y-12 national security complex: Evaluation of treatment and characterization alternatives of mixed waste soil and debris at disposal area remedial action DARA solids storage facility (SSF)

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Hazen, Terry

    2002-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    TREATMENT AND CHARACTERIZATION ALTERNATIVES OF MIXED WASTE SOIL AND DEBRIS AT DISPOSAL AREA REMEDIAL ACTION (DARA) SOLIDSTreatment and Characterization Alternatives for Mixed Waste Soil and Debris at Disposal Area Remedial Action (DARA) Solids

  13. WIPP Documents - Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (RCRA)

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOnItemResearch >Internship Program TheSiteEureka AnalyticsLarge fileHazardous Waste

  14. Has operating permitting really changed with Title V? Reflecting on the Title V operating permit program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goldstein, D.R.; Cressman, A.W.

    1999-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Now that some state regulatory agencies are reviewing Title V permit applications and issuing permits, evaluation of the process can be made in comparison with the original goals of the Title V permitting program. In addition, assessment of the terms and conditions that are being incorporated into permits, the nature of draft permits that are issued to facilities for comment, and the extent and type of negotiation that have been conducted with agencies to develop successful Title V permits, will be helpful for facilities that are currently undergoing application review. In working with a Fortune 500 surface coating company, fourteen Title V permit applications were developed and submitted for plants located in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Illinois, Georgia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana and southern California. Draft permits have been issued for several of the plants, and differences in the terms and conditions, testing requirements, and permit format and structure have been noted between states. One of the issued permits required modification, and the process was one of the first for this state agency.

  15. Air emissions assessment and air quality permitting for a municipal waste landfill treating municipal sewage sludge

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Koehler, J. [Woodward-Clyde International -- Americas, Oakland, CA (United States)

    1998-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper presents a case study into the air quality permitting of a municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill in the San Francisco Bay Area undergoing a proposed expansion in operations to increase the life of the landfill. The operations of this facility include MSW landfilling, the treatment and disposal of municipal sewage sludge, the aeration of petroleum-contaminated soils, the construction of a new on-site plant to manufacture soil amendment products from waste wood and other organic material diverted from the landfill, and the installation of a vaporator to create steam from leachate for injection into the landfill gas flare. The emissions assessment for each project component relied upon interpretation of source tests from similar operations, incorporation of on-site measurements into emissions models and mass balances, and use of AP-42 procedures for emissions sources such as wind-blown dust, material handling and transfer operations, and fugitive landfill gas. Air permitting issues included best available control technology (BACT), emission offset thresholds, new source performance standards (NSPS), potential air toxics health risk impacts, and compliance with federal Title V operating permit requirements. With the increasing difficulties of siting new landfills, increasing pressures to reduce the rate of waste placement into existing landfills, and expanding regulatory requirements on landfill operations, experiences similar to those described in this paper are likely to increase in the future as permitting scenarios become more complex.

  16. Auxiliary analyses in support of performance assessment of a hypothetical low-level waste facility: Two-phase flow and contaminant transport in unsaturated soils with application to low-level radioactive waste disposal. Volume 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Binning, P. [Newcastle Univ., NSW (Australia); Celia, M.A.; Johnson, J.C. [Princeton Univ., NJ (United States). Dept. of Civil Engineering and Operations Research

    1995-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A numerical model of multiphase air-water flow and contaminant transport in the unsaturated zone is presented. The multiphase flow equations are solved using the two-pressure, mixed form of the equations with a modified Picard linearization of the equations and a finite element spatial approximation. A volatile contaminant is assumed to be transported in either phase, or in both phases simultaneously. The contaminant partitions between phases with an equilibrium distribution given by Henry`s Law or via kinetic mass transfer. The transport equations are solved using a Galerkin finite element method with reduced integration to lump the resultant matrices. The numerical model is applied to published experimental studies to examine the behavior of the air phase and associated contaminant movement under water infiltration. The model is also used to evaluate a hypothetical design for a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. The model has been developed in both one and two dimensions; documentation and computer codes are available for the one-dimensional flow and transport model.

  17. DISCOUNTED EVENT PERMIT REQUEST

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    DISCOUNTED EVENT PERMIT REQUEST Discounted daily parking rates are available for CSM events where or the daily scratch off permits: COMMUTER LOTS: $3.00 / day GENERAL LOTS: $4.00 / day Please e-mail or drop

  18. Solar Construction Permitting Standards

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Owners of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and solar water heating systems in Colorado are required to obtain a building permit before their systems may be installed. Permits are handled at the l...

  19. Solar Construction Permitting Standards

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Owners of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems and solar water heating systems in Arizona are required to obtain a building permit before their systems may be installed. Permits are handled at the...

  20. Solar Permitting Law (Oregon)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    With the passage of HB 3516 in June 2011, solar permit application approval is a "ministerial function", provided a system meets certain guidelines. To qualify for this simplified permitting...

  1. WPCF Underground Injection Control Disposal Permit Evaluation and Fact

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro IndustriesTown of Ladoga,planningFlowmeterUtah:InformationInformation WC 26WHLSheet |

  2. Nevada Industrial Solid Waste Disposal Site Permit Application | Open

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere I Geothermal Pwer PlantMunhall, Pennsylvania: EnergyEnergyPPCR) JumpAir QualityBureauProperties Webpage |

  3. RRC - Injection/Disposal Well Permitting, Testing, and Monitoring manual |

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere I GeothermalPotentialBiopowerSolidGenerationMethodInformationeNevada <REC SolarRFMD

  4. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: Part B Permit application [for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)]. Volume 5, Revision 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    This report, part of the permit application for the WIPP facility, presents engineering drawings and engineering change orders for the facility. (CBS)

  5. Specialized Disposal Sites for Different Reprocessing Plant Wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Forsberg, Charles W. [Nuclear Science and Technology Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, P.O. Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN, 37831 (United States); Driscoll, Michael J. [Department of Nuclear Science and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139 (United States)

    2007-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Once-through fuel cycles have one waste form: spent nuclear fuel (SNF). In contrast, the reprocessed SNF yields multiple wastes with different chemical, physical, and radionuclide characteristics. The different characteristics of each waste imply that there are potential cost and performance benefits to developing different disposal sites that match the disposal requirements of different waste. Disposal sites as defined herein may be located in different geologies or in a single repository containing multiple sections, each with different characteristics. The paper describes disposal options for specific wastes and the potential for a waste management system that better couples various reprocessing plant wastes with disposal facilities. (authors)

  6. Disposal Activities and the Unique Waste Streams at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arnold, P.

    2012-10-31T23:59:59.000Z

    This slide show documents waste disposal at the Nevada National Security Site. Topics covered include: radionuclide requirements for waste disposal; approved performance assessment (PA) for depleted uranium disposal; requirements; program approval; the Waste Acceptance Review Panel (WARP); description of the Radioactive Waste Acceptance Program (RWAP); facility evaluation; recent program accomplishments, nuclear facility safety changes; higher-activity waste stream disposal; and, large volume bulk waste streams.

  7. Hazardous Waste Transporter Permits (Connecticut)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Transportation of hazardous wastes into or through the State of Connecticut requires a permit. Some exceptions apply. The regulations provide information about obtaining permits and other permit...

  8. UK FT PDU Facility Draft EA

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    gas TSDF treatment, storage, and disposal facility UK University of Kentucky U.S. United States USC United States Code USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency...

  9. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (RHLLW) Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of fiscal year 2015). Development of a new onsite disposal facility, the highest ranked alternative, will provide necessary remote handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability.

  10. CENSUS AND STATISTICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SOIL AND WATER QUALITY AT ABANDONED AND OTHER CENTRALIZED AND COMMERCIAL DRILLING-FLUID DISPOSAL SITES IN LOUISIANA, NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA, AND TEXAS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Alan R. Dutton; H. Seay Nance

    2003-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Commercial and centralized drilling-fluid disposal (CCDD) sites receive a portion of spent drilling fluids for disposal from oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) operations. Many older and some abandoned sites may have operated under less stringent regulations than are currently enforced. This study provides a census, compilation, and summary of information on active, inactive, and abandoned CCDD sites in Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, intended as a basis for supporting State-funded assessment and remediation of abandoned sites. Closure of abandoned CCDD sites is within the jurisdiction of State regulatory agencies. Sources of data used in this study on abandoned CCDD sites mainly are permit files at State regulatory agencies. Active and inactive sites were included because data on abandoned sites are sparse. Onsite reserve pits at individual wells for disposal of spent drilling fluid are not part of this study. Of 287 CCDD sites in the four States for which we compiled data, 34 had been abandoned whereas 54 were active and 199 were inactive as of January 2002. Most were disposal-pit facilities; five percent were land treatment facilities. A typical disposal-pit facility has fewer than 3 disposal pits or cells, which have a median size of approximately 2 acres each. Data from well-documented sites may be used to predict some conditions at abandoned sites; older abandoned sites might have outlier concentrations for some metal and organic constituents. Groundwater at a significant number of sites had an average chloride concentration that exceeded nonactionable secondary drinking water standard of 250 mg/L, or a total dissolved solids content of >10,000 mg/L, the limiting definition for underground sources of drinking water source, or both. Background data were lacking, however, so we did not determine whether these concentrations in groundwater reflected site operations. Site remediation has not been found necessary to date for most abandoned CCDD sites; site assessments and remedial feasibility studies are ongoing in each State. Remediation alternatives addressed physical hazards and potential for groundwater transport of dissolved salt and petroleum hydrocarbons that might be leached from wastes. Remediation options included excavation of wastes and contaminated adjacent soils followed by removal to permitted disposal facilities or land farming if sufficient on-site area were available.

  11. CCS Project Permit Acquisition Protocols

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lee, Si-Yong; Zaluski, Wade; Matthews, Vince; McPherson, Brian

    2013-06-30T23:59:59.000Z

    Geologic carbon storage projects require a vast range of permits prior to deployment. These include land-access permits, drilling permits, seismic survey permits, underground injection control permits, and any number of local and state permits, depending on the location of the project. For the “Characterization of Most Promising Sequestration Formations in the Rocky Mountain Region” (RMCCS) project in particular, critical permits included site access permits, seismic survey permits, and drilling permits for the characterization well. Permits for these and other activities were acquired either prior to or during the project.

  12. Will new disposal regulations undo decades of progress?

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ward, J. [John Ward Inc. (United States)

    2009-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In 1980, the Belville Amendments to RCRA instructed EPA to 'conduct a detailed and comprehensive study and submit a report' to Congress on the 'adverse effects on human health and the environment, if any, of the disposal and utilization' of coal ash. In both 1988 and 1999, EPA submitted reports to Congress and recommended coal ash should not be regulated as hazardous waste. After the failure of a Tennesse power plant's coal ash disposal facility, EPA will be proposing new disposal regulations.

  13. Remedial Action and Waste Disposal Conduct of OperationsMatrix

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    M. A. Casbon.

    1999-05-24T23:59:59.000Z

    This Conduct of Operations (CONOPS) matrix incorporates the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) CONOPS matrix (BHI-00746, Rev. 0). The ERDF CONOPS matrix has been expanded to cover all aspects of the RAWD project. All remedial action and waste disposal (RAWD) operations, including waste remediation, transportation, and disposal at the ERDF consist of construction-type activities as opposed to nuclear power plant-like operations. In keeping with this distinction, the graded approach has been applied to the developmentof this matrix.

  14. Operating limit evaluation for disposal of uranium enrichment plant wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lee, D.W.; Kocher, D.C.; Wang, J.C.

    1996-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A proposed solid waste landfill at Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) will accept wastes generated during normal plant operations that are considered to be non-radioactive. However, nearly all solid waste from any source or facility contains small amounts of radioactive material, due to the presence in most materials of trace quantities of such naturally occurring radionuclides as uranium and thorium. This paper describes an evaluation of operating limits, which are protective of public health and the environment, that would allow waste materials containing small amounts of radioactive material to be sent to a new solid waste landfill at PGDP. The operating limits are expressed as limits on concentrations of radionuclides in waste materials that could be sent to the landfill based on a site-specific analysis of the performance of the facility. These limits are advantageous to PGDP and DOE for several reasons. Most importantly, substantial cost savings in the management of waste is achieved. In addition, certain liabilities that could result from shipment of wastes to a commercial off-site solid waste landfill are avoided. Finally, assurance that disposal operations at the PGDP landfill are protective of public health and the environment is provided by establishing verifiable operating limits for small amounts of radioactive material; rather than relying solely on administrative controls. The operating limit determined in this study has been presented to the Commonwealth of Kentucky and accepted as a condition to be attached to the operating permit for the solid waste landfill.

  15. Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility Lessons Learned

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Caulfield, R.

    2012-07-12T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of lessons learned is to identify insight gained during a project – successes or failures – that can be applied on future projects. Lessons learned can contribute to the overall success of a project by building on approaches that have worked well and avoiding previous mistakes. Below are examples of lessons learned during ERDF’s ARRA-funded expansion project.

  16. On-Site Disposal Facility Inspection Report

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    X HS7 East drain at Cell 23 X Callery pear and others X HS8 East drain at Cell 34 X Canada thistle in rocks X HS9 East drain at Cell 45 X Honeysuckle and others X HS10 East...

  17. Treated Effluent Disposal Facility - Hanford Site

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of ScienceandMesa del SolStrengthening a solidSynthesisAppliances »Contact-InformationFuelsTravelTreated

  18. On-Site Disposal Facility Inspection Report

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn AprilA groupTuba City, Arizona,Site Operations Guide Doc. No.GS05:or _^rOak

  19. On-Site Disposal Facility Inspection Report

    Office of Legacy Management (LM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742EnergyOn AprilA groupTuba City, Arizona,Site Operations Guide Doc. No.GS05:or _^rOak72.1 06/14

  20. Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility - Hanford Site

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOE Office of Science (SC) Environmental Assessments (EA) / Environmental ImpactSmith's Marketplace

  1. Radionuclide limits for vault disposal at the Savannah River Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, J.R.

    1992-02-04T23:59:59.000Z

    The Savannah River Site is developing a facility called the E-Area Vaults which will serve as the new radioactive waste disposal facility beginning early in 1992. The facility will employ engineered below-grade concrete vaults for disposal and above-grade storage for certain long-lived mobile radionuclides. This report documents the determination of interim upper limits for radionuclide inventories and concentrations which should be allowed in the disposal structures. The work presented here will aid in the development of both waste acceptance criteria and operating limits for the E-Area Vaults. Disposal limits for forty isotopes which comprise the SRS waste streams were determined. The limits are based on total facility and vault inventories for those radionuclides which impact groundwater, and or waste package concentrations for those radionuclides which could affect intruders.

  2. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act (Pennsylvania)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This act provides a comprehensive strategy for the siting of commercial low-level waste compactors and other waste management facilities, and to ensure the proper transportation, disposal and...

  3. Annual report of 1995 groundwater monitoring data for the Kerr Hollow Quarry and Chestnut Ridge Sediment Disposal Basin, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1996-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Kerr Hollow Quarry (KHQ) and the Chestnut Ridge Sediment Disposal Basin (CRSDB) are inactive waste management sites located at the Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant. The KHQ and CRSDB are regulated as treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) facilities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The facilities were granted interim status in calendar year (CY) 1986 under Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) Hazardous Waste Management Rule 1200-1-11-.05. Historical environmental monitoring data and baseline characterization under interim status indicated that releases of contaminants to groundwater had not occurred; thus, the detection monitoring was implemented at the sites until either clean closure was completed or post-closure permits were issued. The CRSDB was closed in Cy 1989 under a TDEC-approved RCRA closure plan. A revised RCRA PCPA for the CRSDB was submitted by DOE personnel to TDEC staff in September 1994. A final post-closure permit was issued by the TDEC on September 18, 1995. Closure activities at KHQ under RCRA were completed in October 1993. The Record of Decision will also incorporate requirements of the RCRA post-closure permit once it is issued by the TDEC.

  4. Section 6 -Facilities Usage and Maintenance A. Facilities Usage and Maintenance

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Pantaleone, Jim

    Section 6 - Facilities Usage and Maintenance A. Facilities Usage and Maintenance 1 be held financially responsible. Financial responsibility extends to abandoned belongings, excessive is not permitted under any circumstances. Storage facilities are provided in most student housing units for storing

  5. Application for presidential permit OE Docket No. PP-304 Generadora...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    and maintain electric transmission facilities at the U.S-Mexico border. Application for presidential permit OE Docket No. PP-304 Generadora Del Desierto SA DE CV More Documents &...

  6. The Texas Solution to the Nation's Disposal Needs for Irradiated Hardware - 13337

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Britten, Jay M. [Waste Control Specialists LLC, Andrews, TX 79714 (United States)] [Waste Control Specialists LLC, Andrews, TX 79714 (United States)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The closure of the disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina, to out-of-compact states in 2008 left commercial nuclear power plants without a disposal option for Class B and C irradiated hardware. In 2012, Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS) opened a highly engineered facility specifically designed and built for the disposal of Class B and C waste. The WCS facility is the first Interstate Compact low-level radioactive waste disposal facility to be licensed and operated under the Low-level Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended in 1985. Due to design requirements of a modern Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) facility, traditional methods for disposal were not achievable at the WCS site. Earlier methods primarily utilized the As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) concept of distance to accomplish worker safety. The WCS method required the use of all three ALARA concepts of time, distance, and shielding to ensure the safe disposal of this highly hazardous waste stream. (authors)

  7. Norfolk Southern boxcar blocking/bracing plan for the mixed waste disposal initiative project. Environmental Restoration Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Seigler, R.S.

    1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The US Department of Energy`s (DOE) Environmental Restoration and Waste Management programs will dispose of mixed waste no longer deemed useful. This project is one of the initial activities used to help meet this goal. The project will transport the {approximately}46,000 drums of existing stabilized mixed waste located at the Oak Ridge K-25 Site and presently stored in the K-31 and K-33 buildings to an off-site commercially licensed and permitted mixed waste disposal facility. Shipping and disposal of all {approximately}46,000 pond waste drums ({approximately}1,000,000 ft{sup 3} or 55,000 tons) is scheduled to occur over a period of {approximately}5--10 years. The first shipment of stabilized pond waste should transpire some time during the second quarter of FY 1994. Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., proposes to line each of the Norfolk Southem boxcars with a prefabricated, white, 15-mm low-density polyethylene (LDPE) liner material. To avoid damaging the bottom of the polyethylene floor liner, a minimum .5 in. plywood will be nailed to the boxcars` nailable metal floor. At the end of the Mixed Waste Disposal Initiative (MWDI) Project workers at the Envirocare facility will dismantle and dispose of all the polyethylene liner and plywood materials. Envirocare of Utah, Inc., located in Clive, Utah, will perform a health physic survey and chemically and radiologically decontaminate, if necessary, each of the rail boxcars prior to them being released back to Energy Systems. Energy Systems will also perform a health physic survey and chemically and radiologically decontaminate, if necessary, each of the rail boxcars prior to them being released back to Norfolk Southem Railroad.

  8. Storm Water Individual Permit.

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    information meeting to discuss the biannual update on the NPDES Storm Water Individual Permit. Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:30 p.m. Cities of Gold Conference Center 10 Cities of...

  9. Direct Discharge Permit (Vermont)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    A direct discharge permit is required if a project involves the discharge of pollutants to state waters. For generation purposes, this involves the withdrawal of surface water for cooling purposes...

  10. Water Use Permitting (Wisconsin)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Withdrawers in the Great Lakes Basin who withdraw water in quantities that average 100,000 gallons per day or more in any 30-day period are required to get a water use permit. Two types of water...

  11. Solar Construction Permitting Standards

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Two bills signed in 2012 place limits on the fees that cities, counties, cities and counties, and charter cities can charge for a solar permit. AB 1801 specifies that a local government cannot base...

  12. Immobilized low-level waste disposal options configuration study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mitchell, D.E.

    1995-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report compiles information that supports the eventual conceptual and definitive design of a disposal facility for immobilized low-level waste. The report includes the results of a joint Westinghouse/Fluor Daniel Inc. evaluation of trade-offs for glass manufacturing and product (waste form) disposal. Though recommendations for the preferred manufacturing and disposal option for low-level waste are outside the scope of this document, relative ranking as applied to facility complexity, safety, remote operation concepts and ease of retrieval are addressed.

  13. Washington Environmental Permit Handbook - Geothermal Drilling Permit |

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro IndustriesTown ofNationwide PermitInformationIsland: Energy ResourcesProcess |Open Energy

  14. "Regulatory Side-by-Side Governing Permitting of Cross-Border...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    of Cross-Border Electricity Transmission Facilities between the United States and Canada" Now Available "Regulatory Side-by-Side Governing Permitting of Cross-Border...

  15. Application for presidential permit OE Docket No. PP-230-4 Internation...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    and maintain electric transmission facilities at the U.S-Canada border. Application for presidential permit OE Docket No. 230-4 International Transmission Company More Documents...

  16. Request for interim approval to operate Trench 94 of the 218-E-12B Burial Ground as a chemical waste landfill for disposal of polychlorinated biphenyl waste in submarine reactor compartments. Revision 2

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cummins, G.D.

    1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This request is submitted to seek interim approval to operate a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 chemical waste landfill for the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste. Operation of a chemical waste landfill for disposal of PCB waste is subject to the TSCA regulations of 40 CFR 761. Interim approval is requested for a period not to exceed 5 years from the date of approval. This request covers only the disposal of small 10 quantities of solid PCB waste contained in decommissioned, defueled submarine reactor compartments (SRC). In addition, the request applies only to disposal 12 of this waste in Trench 94 of the 218-E-12B Burial Ground (Trench 94) in the 13 200 East Area of the US Department of Energy`s (DOE) Hanford Facility. Disposal of this waste will be conducted in accordance with the Compliance 15 Agreement (Appendix H) between the DOE Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) and 16 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10. During the 5-year interim approval period, the DOE-RL will submit an application seeking final 18 approval for operation of Trench 94 as a chemical waste landfill, including 19 any necessary waivers, and also will seek a final dangerous waste permit from 20 the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) for disposal of lead 21 shielding contained in the SRCS.

  17. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Poultry Farm Daily Disposal Methods 0;Disposal: Science and Theory First Composter in Delaware · Delmarva was of the first daily composting · 120 in USA over next 10 years #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Composting Procedure · Mixture ­ 1 ½ to 2

  18. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Table of Contents · Disposal options emergency mortality composting procedure · Use of composting during outbreaks #12;Disposal: Science and disinfection of farms and surveillance around affected flocks. " USDA APHIS VS EMD, 2007 #12;Disposal: Science

  19. 1999 Annual Mixed Waste Management Facility Groundwater Correction - Action Report (Volumes I, II, and III)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chase, J.

    2000-06-14T23:59:59.000Z

    This Corrective Action Report (CAR) for the Mixed Waste Management Facility (MWMF) is being prepared to comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Permit Number SC1 890 008 989, dated October 31, 1999. This CAR compiles and presents all groundwater sampling and monitoring activities that are conducted at the MWMF. As set forth in previous agreements with South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), all groundwater associated with the Burial Ground Complex (BGC) (comprised of the MWMF, Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility, and Old Radioactive Waste Burial Ground) will be addressed under this RCRA Permit. This CAR is the first to be written for the MWMF and presents monitoring activities and results as an outcome of Interim Status and limited Permitted Status activities. All 1999 groundwater monitoring activities were conducted while the MWMF was operated during Interim Status. Changes to the groundwater monitoring program were made upon receipt of the RCRA Permit, where feasible. During 1999, 152 single-screened and six multi-screened groundwater monitoring wells at the BGC monitored groundwater quality in the uppermost aquifer as required by the South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (SCHWMR), settlement agreements 87-52-SW and 91-51-SW, and RCRA Permit SC1 890 008 989. However, overall compliance with the recently issued RCRA Permit could not be implemented until the year 2000 due to the effective date of the RCRA Permit and scheduling of groundwater monitoring activities. Changes have been made to the groundwater monitoring network to meet Permit requirements for all 2000 sampling events.

  20. Aerosol can waste disposal device

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    O'Brien, Michael D. (Las Vegas, NV); Klapperick, Robert L. (Las Vegas, NV); Bell, Chris (Las Vegas, NV)

    1993-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Disclosed is a device for removing gases and liquid from containers. The ice punctures the bottom of a container for purposes of exhausting gases and liquid from the container without their escaping into the atmosphere. The device includes an inner cup or cylinder having a top portion with an open end for receiving a container and a bottom portion which may be fastened to a disposal or waste container in a substantially leak-proof manner. A piercing device is mounted in the lower portion of the inner cylinder for puncturing the can bottom placed in the inner cylinder. An outer cylinder having an open end and a closed end fits over the top portion of the inner cylinder in telescoping engagement. A force exerted on the closed end of the outer cylinder urges the bottom of a can in the inner cylinder into engagement with the piercing device in the bottom of the inner cylinder to form an opening in the can bottom, thereby permitting the contents of the can to enter the disposal container.

  1. Aerosol can waste disposal device

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    O'Brien, M.D.; Klapperick, R.L.; Bell, C.

    1993-12-21T23:59:59.000Z

    Disclosed is a device for removing gases and liquid from containers. The device punctures the bottom of a container for purposes of exhausting gases and liquid from the container without their escaping into the atmosphere. The device includes an inner cup or cylinder having a top portion with an open end for receiving a container and a bottom portion which may be fastened to a disposal or waste container in a substantially leak-proof manner. A piercing device is mounted in the lower portion of the inner cylinder for puncturing the can bottom placed in the inner cylinder. An outer cylinder having an open end and a closed end fits over the top portion of the inner cylinder in telescoping engagement. A force exerted on the closed end of the outer cylinder urges the bottom of a can in the inner cylinder into engagement with the piercing device in the bottom of the inner cylinder to form an opening in the can bottom, thereby permitting the contents of the can to enter the disposal container. 7 figures.

  2. The use of protective barriers to deter inadvertent human intrusion into a mined geologic facility for the disposal of radioactive waste: A review of previous investigations and potential concepts

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tolan, T.L. [Tolan, Beeson and Associates, Kennewick, WA (United States)

    1993-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Sandia National Laboratories is evaluating the feasibility of developing protective barrier system for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) to thwart inadvertent human intrusion into this radioactive-waste disposal system for a period of 9,900 years after assumed loss of active institutional controls. The protective barrier system would be part of a series of enduring passive institutional controls whose long-term function will be to reduce the likelihood of inadvertent human activities (e.g., exploratory drilling for resources) that could disrupt the WIPP disposal system.

  3. Low-level waste inventory, characteristics, generation, and facility assessment for treatment, storage, and disposal alternatives considered in the US Department of Energy waste management programmatic environmental impact statement

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Goyette, M.L.; Dolak, D.A.

    1996-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report provides technical support information for use in analyzing environmental impacts associated with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) low-level radioactive waste (LLW) management alternatives in the Waste-Management (WM) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). Waste loads treated and disposed of for each of the LLW alternatives considered in the DOE WM PEIS are presented. Waste loads are presented for DOE Waste Management (WM) wastes, which are generated from routine operations. Radioactivity concentrations and waste quantities for treatment and disposal under the different LLW alternatives are described for WM waste. 76 refs., 14 figs., 42 tabs.

  4. Disposal of drilling fluids

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bryson, W.R.

    1983-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Prior to 1974 the disposal of drilling fluids was not considered to be much of an environmental problem. In the past, disposal of drilling fluids was accomplished in various ways such as spreading on oil field lease roads to stabilize the road surface and control dust, spreading in the base of depressions of sandy land areas to increase water retention, and leaving the fluid in the reserve pit to be covered on closure of the pit. In recent years, some states have become concerned over the indescriminate dumping of drilling fluids into pits or unauthorized locations and have developed specific regulations to alleviate the perceived deterioration of environmental and groundwater quality from uncontrolled disposal practices. The disposal of drilling fluids in Kansas is discussed along with a newer method or treatment in drilling fluid disposal.

  5. Conceptual Design Report for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    David Duncan

    2011-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This conceptual design report addresses development of replacement remote-handled low-level waste disposal capability for the Idaho National Laboratory. Current disposal capability at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex is planned until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This conceptual design report includes key project assumptions; design options considered in development of the proposed onsite disposal facility (the highest ranked alternative for providing continued uninterrupted remote-handled low level waste disposal capability); process and facility descriptions; safety and environmental requirements that would apply to the proposed facility; and the proposed cost and schedule for funding, design, construction, and operation of the proposed onsite disposal facility.

  6. Conceptual Design Report for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; David Duncan; Joan Connolly; Margaret Hinman; Charles Marcinkiewicz; Gary Mecham

    2011-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This conceptual design report addresses development of replacement remote-handled low-level waste disposal capability for the Idaho National Laboratory. Current disposal capability at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex is planned until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This conceptual design report includes key project assumptions; design options considered in development of the proposed onsite disposal facility (the highest ranked alternative for providing continued uninterrupted remote-handled low level waste disposal capability); process and facility descriptions; safety and environmental requirements that would apply to the proposed facility; and the proposed cost and schedule for funding, design, construction, and operation of the proposed onsite disposal facility.

  7. Optimizing operational flexibility and enforcement liability in Title V permits

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McCann, G.T. [Rust Environment and Infrastructure Inc., Greenville, SC (United States)

    1997-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Now that most states have interim or full approval of the portions of their state implementation plans (SIPs) implementing Title V (40 CFR Part 70) of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), most sources which require a Title V permit have submitted or are well on the way to submitting a Title V operating permit application. Numerous hours have been spent preparing applications to ensure the administrative completeness of the application and operational flexibility for the facility. Although much time and effort has been spent on Title V permit applications, the operating permit itself is the final goal. This paper outlines the major Federal requirements for Title V permits as given in the CAAA at 40 CFR 70.6, Permit Content. These Federal requirements and how they will effect final Title V permits and facilities will be discussed. This paper will provide information concerning the Federal requirements for Title V permits and suggestions on how to negotiate a Title V permit to maximize operational flexibility and minimize enforcement liability.

  8. Final Safety Evaluation Report to license the construction and operation of a facility to receive, store, and dispose of 11e.(2) byproduct material near Clive, Utah (Docket No. 40-8989)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSER) summarizes the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff`s review of Envirocare of Utah, Inc.`s (Envirocare`s) application for a license to receive, store, and dispose of uranium and thorium byproduct material (as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) at a site near Clive, Utah. Envirocare proposes to dispose of high-volume, low-activity Section 11e.(2) byproduct material in separate earthen disposal cells on a site where the applicant currently disposes of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM), low-level waste, and mixed waste under license by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. The NRC staff review of the December 23, 1991, license application, as revised by page changes dated July 2 and August 10, 1992, April 5, 7, and 10, 1993, and May 3, 6, 7, 11, and 21, 1993, has identified open issues in geotechnical engineering, water resources protection, radon attenuation, financial assurance, and radiological safety. The NRC will not issue a license for the proposed action until Envirocare adequately resolves these open issues.

  9. Permit application modifications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This document contains the Permit Application Modifications for the Y-12 Industrial Landfill V site on the Oak Ridge Reservation. These modifications include the assessment of stability of the proposed Landfill V under static and loading conditions. Analyses performed include the general slope stability, veneer stability of the bottom liner and cover system, and a liquefaction potential assessment of the foundation soils.

  10. Montana Water Quality Permit Application, Nondegradation Authorization...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    LibraryAdd to library PermittingRegulatory Guidance - Supplemental Material: Montana Water Quality Permit Application, Nondegradation Authorization, and Permit FeesPermitting...

  11. RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL IN GRANITE

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Witherspoon, P.A.

    2010-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL IN GRANITE Paul A. WitherspoonRADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL IN GRANITE Paul A. Wither spoona repository site in granite are to evaluate the suitability

  12. Effect of Title V air permitting on pipeline operations

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Bost, R.C.; Donnan, G.T. [ERM-Southwest, Inc., Houston, TX (United States)

    1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Pursuant to the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the US Environmental Protection Agency has promulgated what are known as Title V permitting requirements for major sources of air pollutants, including pipeline operations. In contrast to most existing air permitting programs, the new Title V regulations will require periodic certification of compliance with applicable air regulations. In the same way that water dischargers report their own discharge violations to regulatory agencies pursuant to the NPDES permitting system, Title V permittees must implement an acceptable monitoring program and similarly report violations of permit conditions or applicable air regulations. Only those facilities whose potential emissions are less than or can be controlled to be less than certain regulatory limits will be exempt from standard Title V permitting. If a facility`s throughput or the concentration levels of certain volatile toxic levels in a particular crude or natural gas were to exceed corresponding regulatory limits, then the facility could be in violation. If an operator were to expand a field, then the changes in the gathering system and emission levels could constitute a violation. Constraints on operations can be avoided by careful strategizing of an operator`s Title V permit application.

  13. Subseabed Disposal Program Plan. Volume I. Overview

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None

    1981-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The primary objective of the Subseabed Disposal Program (SDP) is to assess the scientific, environmental, and engineering feasibility of disposing of processed and packaged high-level nuclear waste in geologic formations beneath the world's oceans. High-level waste (HLW) is considered the most difficult of radioactive wastes to dispose of in oceanic geologic formations because of its heat and radiation output. From a scientific standpoint, the understanding developed for the disposal of such HLW can be used for other nuclear wastes (e.g., transuranic - TRU - or low-level) and materials from decommissioned facilities, since any set of barriers competent to contain the heat and radiation outputs of high-level waste will also contain such outputs from low-level waste. If subseabed disposal is found to be feasible for HLW, then other factors such as cost will become more important in considering subseabed emplacement for other nuclear wastes. A secondary objective of the SDP is to develop and maintain a capability to assess and cooperate with the seabed nuclear waste disposal programs of other nations. There are, of course, a number of nations with nuclear programs, and not all of these nations have convenient access to land-based repositories for nuclear waste. Many are attempting to develop legislative and scientific programs that will avoid potential hazards to man, threats to other ocean uses, and marine pollution, and they work together to such purpose in meetings of the international NEA/Seabed Working Group. The US SDP, as the first and most highly developed R and D program in the area, strongly influences the development of subseabed-disposal-related policy in such nations.

  14. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Foam Used in Actual Outbreak · Water #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Water Based Foam Culling Demo · First large scale comparison · Two:46 (m:s) #12;Disposal: Science and Theory WV H5N2 AIV 2007 · AIV positive turkeys ­ 25,000 turkey farm

  15. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Opciones para la producción de espuma espuma · Sistemas de boquilla #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Requisitos estimados: · Tiempo: 2 a 3 compactas ­ Equipo de respuesta propio de la industria Espuma de aire comprimido #12;Disposal: Science

  16. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Use of Composting · Composting has ­ British Columbia 2009 #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Initial farm linked to NY LBM · Two additional and pile procedure Delmarva 2004 #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Delmarva 2004 · Composting used

  17. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Las recomendaciones de campo se la espuma #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Múltiples especies de aves pueden despoblarse con espuma cesación #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Dentro de una especie, pueden existir variaciones ­ Los ánades

  18. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Foaming Options · Compressed Air Foam Systems (CAFS) · Foam Blower · Foam Generator · Nozzle Systems #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Compressed ­ Industry owned response team #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Commercial CAFS for Poultry · Poultry

  19. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Procedimiento básico ­ Desarrollar una pila de carcasas y lecho. Compostaje masivo de emergencia #12;Disposal: Science and Theory de emergencia #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Desarrollar planes antes de que ocurra una

  20. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory 0 20 40 60 80 100 Compostaje #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Delmarva fue de las primeras granjas en realizar el compostaje de en EE.UU. en los próximos 10 años. Pionera en compostaje en Delaware #12;Disposal: Science and Theory

  1. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Compostaje de aves de corralRouchey et al., 2005) Investigación previa #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Se ha evaluado y documentado el, bovino Investigación previa #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Experimento nro. 1 Impacto de la espuma en

  2. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Composting · Composting is defined drop #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Composting · Optimal composting ­ Carbon to nitrogen ratio (C;Disposal: Science and Theory Compost Composition · A variety of supplemental carbon materials have been

  3. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Opciones para la eliminación · ¿Qué compostaje durante brotes de enfermedades Lista de contenido #12;Disposal: Science and Theory "Ante un brote brotes de IIAP #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · En 2004, se despoblaron 100 millones de aves en todo el

  4. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Brief History of Foam 2004 ­ Bud and foam 2009 ­ No advantage for gas #12;Disposal: Science and Theory What is foam? · What is fire fighting system. #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Foam Composition · Foam can include ­ Mixture of surfactants

  5. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · El compostaje se ha usado como Virginia (2007) ­ British Columbia (2009) Uso del compostaje #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Primera apilamiento Delmarva (2004) #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · El compostaje se usó para proteger una densa

  6. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Mass Emergency Composting · Basic ­ Create carcass and litter windrow #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Mass Emergency Composting · Basic cover ­ Clean and disinfect house ­ Sample for virus again #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Mass

  7. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory 2004 ­ Participación de Bud Malone y la espuma 2009 ­ Ninguna ventaja para el gas Breve historia de la espuma #12;Disposal: Science sistema de boquilla ¿Qué es la espuma? #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · La espuma puede incluir: ­ Una

  8. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Gassing is a preferred #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Carbon Dioxide Gassing · Carbon dioxide (CO2) one of the standard sensitivity time #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Argon-CO2 gas depopulation evaluated under laboratory

  9. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Foam Generator Setup · Drop off foam generator cart at one end of house #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Foam Generator Setup · Trailer parked generator attached to hose #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Foam Generation Begins · Team of two to operate

  10. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Summary · Foam is currently a viable ­ Foam application directly to cage #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Legal Status of Foam · Procedure depopulation, culling, and euthanasia #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Acknowledgements · USDA AICAP2 · USDA

  11. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2012-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  12. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2011-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility, the highest ranked alternative, will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  13. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility, the highest ranked alternative, will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  14. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2012-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  15. Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project Code of Record

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    S.L. Austad, P.E.; L.E. Guillen, P.E.; C. W. McKnight, P.E.; D. S. Ferguson, P.E.

    2014-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Project addresses an anticipated shortfall in remote-handled LLW disposal capability following cessation of operations at the existing facility, which will continue until it is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). Development of a new onsite disposal facility will provide necessary remote-handled LLW disposal capability and will ensure continuity of operations that generate remote-handled LLW. This report documents the Code of Record for design of a new LLW disposal capability. The report is owned by the Design Authority, who can authorize revisions and exceptions. This report will be retained for the lifetime of the facility.

  16. Hanford Dangerous Waste Permit

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOEThe Bonneville Power AdministrationField8,Dist.NewofGeothermal848 UnlimitedIntegrated Disposal

  17. Hanford Dangerous Waste Permit

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOEThe Bonneville Power AdministrationField8,Dist.NewofGeothermal848 UnlimitedIntegrated DisposalWaste Treatment and

  18. Low-Level Waste Disposal Alternatives Analysis Report

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Timothy Carlson; Kay Adler-Flitton; Roy Grant; Joan Connolly; Peggy Hinman; Charles Marcinkiewicz

    2006-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report identifies and compares on-site and off-site disposal options for the disposal of contract-handled and remote-handled low-level waste generated by the Idaho National Laboratory and its tenants. Potential disposal options are screened for viability by waste type resulting in a short list of options for further consideration. The most crediable option are selected after systematic consideration of cost, schedule constraints, and risk. In order to holistically address the approach for low-level waste disposal, options are compiled into comprehensive disposal schemes, that is, alternative scenarios. Each alternative scenario addresses the disposal path for all low-level waste types over the period of interest. The alternative scenarios are compared and ranked using cost, risk and complexity to arrive at the recommended approach. Schedule alignment with disposal needs is addressed to ensure that all waste types are managed appropriately. The recommended alternative scenario for the disposal of low-level waste based on this analysis is to build a disposal facility at the Idaho National Laboratory Site.

  19. Comparison of low-level waste disposal programs of DOE and selected international countries

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Meagher, B.G. [Lockheed Idaho Technologies Co., Idaho Falls, ID (United States); Cole, L.T. [Cole and Associates (United States)

    1996-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this report is to examine and compare the approaches and practices of selected countries for disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) with those of the US Department of Energy (DOE). The report addresses the programs for disposing of wastes into engineered LLW disposal facilities and is not intended to address in-situ options and practices associated with environmental restoration activities or the management of mill tailings and mixed LLW. The countries chosen for comparison are France, Sweden, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The countries were selected as typical examples of the LLW programs which have evolved under differing technical constraints, regulatory requirements, and political/social systems. France was the first country to demonstrate use of engineered structure-type disposal facilities. The UK has been actively disposing of LLW since 1959. Sweden has been disposing of LLW since 1983 in an intermediate-depth disposal facility rather than a near-surface disposal facility. To date, Canada has been storing its LLW but will soon begin operation of Canada`s first demonstration LLW disposal facility.

  20. Preliminary Hazard Analysis for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; Mike Lehto

    2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The need for remote handled low level waste (LLW) disposal capability has been identified. A new onsite, remote-handled LLW disposal facility has been identified as the highest ranked alternative for providing continued, uninterrupted remote-handled LLW disposal capability for remote-handled LLW that is generated as part of the nuclear mission of the Idaho National Laboratory and from spent nuclear fuel processing activities at the Naval Reactors Facility. Historically, this type of waste has been disposed of at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the Subsurface Disposal Area (approximately at the end of Fiscal Year 2017). This document supports the conceptual design for the proposed remote-handled LLW disposal facility by providing an initial nuclear facility hazard categorization and by identifying potential hazards for processes associated with onsite handling and disposal of remote-handled LLW.

  1. Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites (Iowa)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These sections contain information on fees and monitoring relevant to operators of hazardous waste disposal sites.

  2. 3DD - Three Dimensional Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel - 12449

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dvorakova, Marketa; Slovak, Jiri [Radioactive Waste Repository Authority (RAWRA), Prague (Czech Republic)

    2012-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Three dimensional disposal is being considered as a way in which to store long-term spent nuclear fuel in underground disposal facilities in the Czech Republic. This method involves a combination of the two most common internationally recognised disposal methods in order to practically apply the advantages of both whilst, at the same time, eliminating their weaknesses; the method also allows easy removal in case of potential re-use. The proposed method for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel will reduce the areal requirements of future deep geological repositories by more than 30%. It will also simplify the container handling process by using gravitational forces in order to meet requirements concerning the controllability of processes and ensuring operational and nuclear safety. With regard to the issue of the efficient potential removal of waste containers, this project offers an ingenious solution which does not disrupt the overall stability of the original disposal complex. (authors)

  3. Coastal Permit Program Rules (New Jersey)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Coastal Permit Program Rules provide the processes for permit reviews. They include details on what activities need permits; the qualifications for general permits or permits-by-rule; the...

  4. Portland's Residential Solar Permitting Guide

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This program guide outlines the application and review procedures for obtaining the necessary permit(s) to install a solar energy system for a new or existing residential building. The guide also...

  5. Los Alamos National Laboratory opens new waste repackaging facility

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    brought a third waste repackaging facility online to increase its capability to process nuclear waste for permanent disposal. March 7, 2013 A view of the new box line facility...

  6. Hanford Site air operating permit application

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which amended the Federal Clean Air Act of 1977, required that the US Environmental Protection Agency develop a national Air Operating Permit Program, which in turn would require each state to develop an Air Operating Permit Program to identify all sources of ``regulated`` pollutants. Regulated pollutants include ``criteria`` pollutants (oxides of nitrogen, sulfur oxides, total suspended particulates, carbon monoxide, particulate matter greater than 10 micron, lead) plus 189 other ``Hazardous`` Air Pollutants. The Hanford Site, owned by the US Government and operated by the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, is located in southcentral Washington State and covers 560 square miles of semi-arid shrub and grasslands located just north of the confluence of the Snake and Yakima Rivers with the Columbia River. This land, with restricted public access, provides a buffer for the smaller areas historically used for the production of nuclear materials, waste storage, and waste disposal. About 6 percent of the land area has been disturbed and is actively used. The Hanford Site Air Operating Permit Application consists of more than 1,100 sources and in excess of 300 emission points. Before January 1995, the maintenance and operations contractor and the environmental restoration contractor for the US Department of Energy completed an air emission inventory on the Hanford Site. The inventory has been entered into a database so that the sources and emission points can be tracked and updated information readily can be retrieved. The Hanford Site Air Operating Permit Application contains information current as of April 19, 1995.

  7. Model operating permits for natural gas processing plants

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arend, C. [Hydro-Search, Inc., Houston, TX (United States)

    1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Major sources as defined in Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 that are required to submit an operating permit application will need to: Evaluate their compliance status; Determine a strategic method of presenting the general and specific conditions of their Model Operating Permit (MOP); Maintain compliance with air quality regulations. A MOP is prepared to assist permitting agencies and affected facilities in the development of operating permits for a specific source category. This paper includes a brief discussion of example permit conditions that may be applicable to various types of Title V sources. A MOP for a generic natural gas processing plant is provided as an example. The MOP should include a general description of the production process and identify emission sources. The two primary elements that comprise a MOP are: Provisions of all existing state and/or local air permits; Identification of general and specific conditions for the Title V permit. The general provisions will include overall compliance with all Clean Air Act Titles. The specific provisions include monitoring, record keeping, and reporting. Although Title V MOPs are prepared on a case-by-case basis, this paper will provide a general guideline of the requirements for preparation of a MOP. Regulatory agencies have indicated that a MOP included in the Title V application will assist in preparation of the final permit provisions, minimize delays in securing a permit, and provide support during the public notification process.

  8. Regulatory and Permitting Issues

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Larry Myer

    2005-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    As part of the West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (WESTCARB), Terralog Technologies USA, Inc., reviewed current state and federal regulations related to carbon dioxide capture and storage within geologic formations and enhanced carbon uptake in terrestrial ecosystems. We have evaluated and summarized the current and possible future permitting requirements for the six states that comprise the West Coast Regional Partnership. Four options exist for CO{sub 2} injection into appropriate geologic formations, including storage in: (1) oil and gas reservoirs, (2) saline formations, (3) unmineable coal beds, and (4) salt caverns. Terrestrial CO{sub 2} sequestration involves improved carbon conservation management (e.g. reduction of deforestation), carbon substitution (e.g., substitution for fossil fuel-based products, energy conservation through urban forestry, biomass for energy generation), and improved carbon storage management (e.g., expanding the storage of carbon in forest ecosystems). The primary terrestrial options for the West Coast Region include: (1) reforestation of under-producing lands (including streamside forest restoration), (2) improved forest management, (3) forest protection and conservation, and (4) fuel treatments for the reduction of risk of uncharacteristically severe fires (potentially with associated biomass energy generation). The permits and/or contracts required for any land-use changes/disturbances and biomass energy generation that may occur as part of WESTCARB's activities have been summarized for each state.

  9. Permitting plan for project W-236B, initial pretreatment module

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tollefson, K.S.

    1995-01-25T23:59:59.000Z

    The Tank Waste Remediation System pretreatment process mission is to separate high-level and low-level waste fractions. A comprehensive review of environmental regulations has indicated that several environmental reviews, permits, and approvals are required before construction and operation of the facility. This revised document provides a summary of permit application data requirements, alternative strategies for permit completion and approval, as well as the probability of success for each alternative for the Initial Pretreatment Module resulting from recent revisions to the Tri-Party Agreement.

  10. New Bedford Harbor Superfund Project, Acushnet River estuary engineering feasibility study of dredging and dredged-material disposal alternatives. Report 11. Evaluation of conceptual dredging and disposal alternatives. Technical report, August 1985-July 1988

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Averett, D.E.; Palermo, M.R.; Otis, M.J.; Rubinoff, P.B.

    1989-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report evaluates conceptual dredging and disposal alternatives for the Acushnet River Estuary, a part of the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site. Dredging for removal of the highly contaminated sediment and subsequent disposal in upland or nearshore confined disposal facilities or disposal in contaminated aquatic disposal facilities are alternative considered in the Engineering Feasibility Study of Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal Alternatives. Sediment testing and sediment-transport modeling performed as earlier tasks of the study form the basis for evaluation of the alternatives. The technical feasibility of conceptual design options is based on site availability, capacity, and characteristics and on sediment physical characteristics and dredged-material settling behavior as defined by laboratory testing. Contamination releases during dredging and disposal operations are estimated for each disposal option. A preliminary cost estimate for implementation of each option evaluated is alo presented.

  11. Combustion turbine emissions issues for air permit applications

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Macak, J.J. III; Schott, G.A. [Westinghouse Electric Corp., Orlando, FL (United States). Power Generation Projects Division

    1994-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    Power generation from combustion turbines continues to be a significant new energy source. These power projects may be either simple-cycle peaking units or combined-cycle applications in which exhaust heat is recovered to generate steam for export (cogeneration facility) and power generation (steam turbine generator). While combustion turbines represent one of the cleanest forms of power generation, regulatory agencies have identified them as significant sources of air pollution. Both new sources and existing combustion turbine installations are receiving increasing attention at federal, state, and local levels. Before construction can begin on a new combustion turbine facility, an air permit authorizing construction must first be obtained. The air permitting process is generally the ``critical path`` permit, often taking in excess of two years to receive the final approval. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 also impact existing units due to the non-attainment provisions of the Act and the Title 5 nationwide operating permit program. Careful consideration of combustion turbine operational characteristics and air pollutant emissions will expedite air permitting. This paper addresses specific issues related to combustion turbine emissions and the air permitting process. Guidelines for addressing many considerations are provided in order to secure an air permit that allows maximum flexibility in plant operation.

  12. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Initial Report for PCB Disposal Authorization (40 CFR {section} 761.75[c])

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Westinghouse TRU Solutions

    2002-03-19T23:59:59.000Z

    This initial report is being submitted pursuant to Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) {section} 761.75(c) to request authorization to allow the disposal of transuranic (TRU) wastes containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which are duly regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Approval of this initial report will not affect the disposal of TRU or TRU mixed wastes that do not contain PCBs. This initial report also demonstrates how the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) meets or exceeds the technical standards for a Chemical Waste Landfill. Approval of this request will allow the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to dispose of approximately 88,000 cubic feet (ft3) (2,500 cubic meters [m3]) of TRU wastes containing PCBs subject to regulation under the TSCA. This approval will include only those PCB/TRU wastes, which the TSCA regulations allow for disposal of the PCB component in municipal solid waste facilities or chemical waste landfills (e.g., PCB remediation waste, PC B articles, and bulk PCB product waste). Disposal of TRU waste by the DOE is congressionally mandated in Public Law 102-579 (as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Pub. L. 104-201, referred to as the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act [LWA]). Portions of the TRU waste inventory contain hazardous waste constituents regulated under 40 CFR Parts 260 through 279, and/or PCBs and PCB Items regulated under 40 CFR Part 761. Therefore, the DOE TRU waste program must address the disposal requirements for these hazardous waste constituents and PCBs. To facilitate the disposal of TRU wastes containing hazardous waste constituents, the owner/operators received a Hazardous Waste Facility Permit (HWFP) from the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) on October 27, 1999. The permit allows the disposal of TRU wastes subject to hazardous waste disposal requirements (TRU mixed waste). Informational copies of this permit and other referenced documents are available from the WIPP website. To facilitate the disposal of TRU wastes containing PCBs, the owner/operators are hereby submitting this initial report containing information required pursuant to the Chemical Waste Landfill Approval requirements in 40 CFR {section} 761.75(c). Although WIPP is defined as a miscellaneous unit and not a landfill by the New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act, WIPP meets or exceeds all applicable technical standards for chemical waste landfills by virtue of its design and programs as indicated in the Engineering Report (Attachment B). The layout of this initial report is consistent with requirements (i.e., Sections 2.0 through 12.0 following the sequence of 40 CFR {section} 761.75[c][i] -[ix] with sections added to discuss the Contingency and Training Plans; and Attachment B of this initial report addresses the requirements of 40 CFR {section} 761.75[b][1] through [9] in this order). This initial report includes a description of three proposed changes that will be subject to ''conditional approval.'' The first will allow the disposal of remote-handled (RH) PCB/TRU waste at WIPP. The second will allow the establishment of a central confirmation facility at WIPP. The third will allow for an increase in contact-handled Working Copy Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Initial Report for PCB Disposal Authorization DOE/WIPP 02-3196 (CH) waste storage capacities. These proposed changes are discussed further in Section 3.3 of this initial report. ''Conditional approval'' of these requests would allow these activities at WIPP contingent upon: - Approval of the HWFP modification (NMED) and Compliance Certification Application (CCA) change request (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) - Inspection of facility prior to implementing the change (if deemed necessary by the EPA) - Written approval from the EPA This initial report also includes the following three requests for waivers to the technical requirements for Chemical Waste Landfills pursuant to 40 CFR {section} 761.75(c)(4): - Hydrologic Conditions (40 CFR {section} 761.75[b][3]) - Monitoring Systems (40 CFR {sect

  13. The collision of Title III and Title V: A potential permitting and enforcement nightmare

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Facca, G.; Faler, M.

    1998-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA) mandated that all facilities classified as major were to obtain a Federal Title V operating permit. In addition, any facility, either major or minor, which emits certain chemicals or compounds above a specific single quantity limit or a total aggregate limit are subject to Title III requirements and are required to obtain a Title V permit as well. The problem with obtaining a Title V permit for Title III substances is there is limited data, at least for the utilities sources, on emission factors and emission rates for many of the Title III listed chemical compounds. In addition, the emission data that exists is very conservative, and if used, would show the facilities to be significant emitters of hazardous air emissions, while actual emissions are significantly less. This could lead a facility to applying for a Title V permit unnecessarily, a time consuming process at best. In Iowa, facilities submitted the first Title V permit applications in 1994. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is currently in the process of reviewing the submittals prior to issuing operating permits. Title III has not been addressed at all in the submittals and therefore will not be included in this round of finished permits that are to be issued. The outcome of this is that the Title V permits will have to be opened and amended to include the applicable Title III operating conditions and constraints. This paper will examine the areas where Title III and Title V collide and the potential permitting and enforcement issues that will have to be faced by the facilities that operate under these permits. This paper is based on the opinions of two of the three responsible parties (facilities and consultants) that are dealing with the potential permitting and enforcement wreckage before the collision occurs.

  14. Waste disposal package

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Smith, M.J.

    1985-06-19T23:59:59.000Z

    This is a claim for a waste disposal package including an inner or primary canister for containing hazardous and/or radioactive wastes. The primary canister is encapsulated by an outer or secondary barrier formed of a porous ceramic material to control ingress of water to the canister and the release rate of wastes upon breach on the canister. 4 figs.

  15. Radioactive waste disposal package

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Lampe, Robert F. (Bethel Park, PA)

    1986-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A radioactive waste disposal package comprising a canister for containing vitrified radioactive waste material and a sealed outer shell encapsulating the canister. A solid block of filler material is supported in said shell and convertible into a liquid state for flow into the space between the canister and outer shell and subsequently hardened to form a solid, impervious layer occupying such space.

  16. Develop an effective Title V operating permit

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Chadha, N.

    1997-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Under Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), thousands of industrial and government facilities are required to apply for a comprehensive operating permit that addresses all the emission sources at a site and the CAA regulations that apply to them. The new permitting requirements apply to major sources only--although there are several definitions of a major source under the Amended Act. Because Title V applicability is based on potential to emit (PTE) rather than actual emissions, even small and medium sources may initially be subject to this program. Unlike other regulations, Title V puts the burden of demonstrating continuous compliance on source owners and operators. Careful attention to detail is necessary during the application process because the Title V permit is inherently an enforcement fool for the EPA and the general public. Noncompliance can lead to citizen suits and fines up to $25,000 per day. Therefore, it is critical to negotiate an operating permit that does not adversely impact current operations yet provides flexibility for future modifications. Each state and local agency has its own application forms and regulatory interpretations. Areas of complexity include the classification of emission units, the approach for the PTE calculation, the separation of federal and state-enforceable requirements, and the relationship between Title V and other CAAA titles. This article summarizes some lessons learned based upon experiences in various states. (It does not attempt to resolve program uncertainties among jurisdictions.) The practical strategies presented can be used for developing (or modifying) Title V applications as well as during permit negotiations.

  17. Task technical plan: DWPF air permit/dispersion modeling

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lambert, D.P.

    1993-11-08T23:59:59.000Z

    This Task Technical Plan summarizes work required to project the benzene emissions from the Late Wash Facility (LWF) as well as update the benzene, mercury, and NO{sub x} emissions from the remainder of the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF). These calculations will reflect (1) the addition of the LWF and (2) the replacement of formic acid with nitric acid in the melter preparation process. The completed calculations will be used to assist DWPF in applying for the LWF Air Quality Permit.

  18. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Table of Contents · Why Depopulate? · Depopulation Methods · Basics of Foam · Types of Foam Equipment · Science Behind Foam · Implementing Foam Depopulation · Use of Foam in the Field · Conclusions #12;Disposal: Science and Theory "When HPAI outbreaks

  19. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · El compostaje se define como la: Science and Theory · Compostaje óptimo ­ Relación carbono/nitrógeno (C:N): 20:1 a 35:1 ­ Contenido de Compostaje #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Se ha utilizado satisfactoriamente una variedad de materiales

  20. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Se ubica el carretón con el enfriamiento Ventiladores de túnel de viento #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Se estaciona el remolque en uno: Science and Theory · Se usa un equipo de dos personas para hacer funcionar el sistema: ­ Operario del

  1. Disposal: Science and Theory Disposal: Science and Theory

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Benson, Eric R.

    Disposal: Science and Theory #12;Disposal: Science and Theory · Field recommendations based of activity ­ Corticosterone ­ EEG, ECG and motion studies · Large scale testing ­ Field scale units Science of Foam #12;Disposal: Science and Theory Cessation Time · Multiple bird species can be depopulated

  2. Waste Disposal Guide HOW TO PROPERLY DISPOSE OF WASTE MATERIALS

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Schaefer, Marcus

    Waste Disposal Guide HOW TO PROPERLY DISPOSE OF WASTE MATERIALS GENERATED AT DEPAUL UNIVERSITY.4 Hazardous Waste Defined p.5 Chemical Waste Procedure for Generating Departments p.6 o A of Containers p.8 o E. Disposal of Empty Containers p.8 o F. Storage of Waste Chemicals p.8,9 o G

  3. Broward County Online Solar Permitting (Florida)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Broward County now offers Go SOLAR Online Permitting*, for rooftop solar photovoltaic system permitting. This online permitting system may be used for residential or low commercial properties that...

  4. Washington Environmental Permit Handbook - NPDES Construction...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Washington Environmental Permit Handbook - NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library PermittingRegulatory...

  5. Presidential Permit Holders - Annual Reports | Department of...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    Permit Holders - Annual Reports Presidential Permit Holders - Annual Reports Presidential permit holders are responsible for reporting the gross amount electric energy which flows...

  6. Manor Farm Permit Fees from 1 March 2014 Staff permits

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Doran, Simon J.

    -Site: low * £18.42 per month Car Share Permit * £82.00 per annum 2 or more University motorists sharing: Permit Type £ Notes Essential Use £201.00 per annum Car Share £80.00 per annum 2 or more University motorists sharing SOUPS Permits £8.75 for an allocation of 5 Maximum of 120 in an academic year University

  7. Air Pollution Control Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    Regulations Provider Department of Environmental Conservation The Air Pollution Control Division of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation requires a permit...

  8. Portland's Commercial Solar Permitting Guide

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This program guide outlines the application and review procedures for obtaining the necessary permits to install a solar energy system on a new or existing commercial building.

  9. Operational Strategies for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Site in Egypt - 13513

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Mohamed, Yasser T. [Hot Laboratories and Waste Management Center, Atomic Energy Authority, 3 Ahmed El-Zomor St., El-Zohour District, Naser City, 11787, Cairo (Egypt)] [Hot Laboratories and Waste Management Center, Atomic Energy Authority, 3 Ahmed El-Zomor St., El-Zohour District, Naser City, 11787, Cairo (Egypt)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The ultimate aims of treatment and conditioning is to prepare waste for disposal by ensuring that the waste will meet the waste acceptance criteria of a disposal facility. Hence the purpose of low-level waste disposal is to isolate the waste from both people and the environment. The radioactive particles in low-level waste emit the same types of radiation that everyone receives from nature. Most low-level waste fades away to natural background levels of radioactivity in months or years. Virtually all of it diminishes to natural levels in less than 300 years. In Egypt, The Hot Laboratories and Waste Management Center has been established since 1983, as a waste management facility for LLW and ILW and the disposal site licensed for preoperational in 2005. The site accepts the low level waste generated on site and off site and unwanted radioactive sealed sources with half-life less than 30 years for disposal and all types of sources for interim storage prior to the final disposal. Operational requirements at the low-level (LLRW) disposal site are listed in the National Center for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Control NCNSRC guidelines. Additional procedures are listed in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility Standards Manual. The following describes the current operations at the LLRW disposal site. (authors)

  10. State Waste Discharge Permit application: 200-E Powerhouse Ash Pit

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Atencio, B.P.

    1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    As part of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order negotiations, the US Department and Energy, Richland Operations Office, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington State Department of Ecology agreed that liquid effluent discharges to the ground on the Hanford Site which affect groundwater or have the potential to affect groundwater would be subject to permitting under the structure of Chapter 173-216 (or 173-218 where applicable) of the Washington Administrative Code, the State Waste Discharge Permit Program. This document constitutes the State Waste Discharge Permit application for the 200-E Powerhouse Ash Pit. The 200-E Powerhouse Ash Waste Water discharges to the 200-E Powerhouse Ash Pit via dedicated pipelines. The 200-E Ash Waste Water is the only discharge to the 200-E Powerhouse Ash Pit. The 200-E Powerhouse is a steam generation facility consisting of a coal-handling and preparation section and boilers.

  11. State Waste Discharge Permit application: 200-W Powerhouse Ash Pit

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Atencio, B.P.

    1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    As part of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order negotiations; the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington State Department of Ecology agreed that liquid effluent discharges to the ground on the Hanford Site which affect groundwater or have the potential to affect groundwater would be subject to permitting under the structure of Chapter 173-216 (or 173-218 where applicable) of the Washington Administrative Code, the State Waste Discharge Permit Program. This document constitutes the State Waste Discharge Permit application for the 200-W Powerhouse Ash Pit. The 200-W Powerhouse Ash Waste Water discharges to the 200-W Powerhouse Ash Pit via dedicated pipelines. The 200-W Powerhouse Ash Waste Water is the only discharge to the 200-W Powerhouse Ash Pit. The 200-W Powerhouse is a steam generation facility consisting of a coal-handling and preparation section and boilers.

  12. Annual report of 1991 groundwater monitoring data for the Kerr Hollow Quarry and Chestnut Ridge Sediment Disposal Basin at the Y-12 Plant: Reporting and statistical evaluation of the subsequent year (sixth) data

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    McMahon, L.W. [Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (United States); Mercier, T.M. [H and R Technical Associates, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN (United States)] [comps.

    1992-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This annual report has historically been prepared to meet the annual reporting requirements of the Tennessee Department of and Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Hazardous Waste Management Regulation 1200-1-11-.05 (6)(e), for detection monitoring data collected on Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) wells in place around facilities which are accorded interim status. The regulatory authority for these units at the Y-12 Plant is currently in transition. A Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) with an effective date of January 1, 1992, has been negotiated with the Department of Energy (DOE) for the Oak Ridge Reservation. This agreement provides a framework for remediation of the Oak Ridge Reservation so that both RCRA and CERCLA requirements are integrated into the remediation process and provides for State, EPA, and DOE to proceed with CERCLA as the lead regulatory requirement and RCRA as an applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement. This report is presented for the RCRA certified wells for two interim status units at the Y-12 Plant. These units are Kerr Hollow Quarry and Chestnut Ridge Sediment Disposal Basin. Kerr Hollow is currently undergoing clean closure under RCRA. The Chestnut Ridge Sediment Disposal Basin (CRSDB) was closed in 1989 under a TDEC approved RCRA closure plan. The relevance of a RCRA Post-Closure Permit to either of these units is a matter of contention between DOE and TDEC since the FFA does not contemplate post-closure permits.

  13. Radium bearing waste disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Tope, W.G.; Nixon, D.A.; Smith, M.L.; Stone, T.J.; Vogel, R.A. [Fernald Environmental Restoration Management Corp., Cincinnati, OH (United States); Schofield, W.D. [Foster Wheeler Environmental Corp. (United States)

    1995-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Fernald radium bearing ore residue waste, stored within Silos 1 and 2 (K-65) and Silo 3, will be vitrified for disposal at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). A comprehensive, parametric evaluation of waste form, packaging, and transportation alternatives was completed to identify the most cost-effective approach. The impacts of waste loading, waste form, regulatory requirements, NTS waste acceptance criteria, as-low-as-reasonably-achievable principles, and material handling costs were factored into the recommended approach.

  14. State Water Permit Regulation (Arkansas)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    It is the purpose of this regulation to adopt standards applicable to the storage, discharge, or disposal of any waste which, if unregulated, will cause pollution of waters of the state or result...

  15. State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities - ApplicationRenewal for Encroachment Permit Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Form:...

  16. Overview of the Storm Water Individual Permit.pdf

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    the LANL Storm Water Individual Permit? Poster, Individual Permit for Storm Water, NPDES Permit No...

  17. Large Component Removal/Disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wheeler, D. M.

    2002-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper describes the removal and disposal of the large components from Maine Yankee Atomic Power Plant. The large components discussed include the three steam generators, pressurizer, and reactor pressure vessel. Two separate Exemption Requests, which included radiological characterizations, shielding evaluations, structural evaluations and transportation plans, were prepared and issued to the DOT for approval to ship these components; the first was for the three steam generators and one pressurizer, the second was for the reactor pressure vessel. Both Exemption Requests were submitted to the DOT in November 1999. The DOT approved the Exemption Requests in May and July of 2000, respectively. The steam generators and pressurizer have been removed from Maine Yankee and shipped to the processing facility. They were removed from Maine Yankee's Containment Building, loaded onto specially designed skid assemblies, transported onto two separate barges, tied down to the barges, th en shipped 2750 miles to Memphis, Tennessee for processing. The Reactor Pressure Vessel Removal Project is currently under way and scheduled to be completed by Fall of 2002. The planning, preparation and removal of these large components has required extensive efforts in planning and implementation on the part of all parties involved.

  18. State Waste Discharge Permit application: 400 Area Septic System

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    As part of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order negotiations, the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington State Department of Ecology agreed that liquid effluent discharges to the ground on the Hanford Site which affects groundwater or has the potential to affect groundwater would be subject to permitting under the structure of Chapter 173-216 (or 173-218 where applicable) of the Washington Administrative Code, the State Waste Discharge Permit Program. This document constitutes the State Waste Discharge Permit application for the 400 Area Septic System. The influent to the system is domestic waste water. Although the 400 Area Septic System is not a Public Owned Treatment Works, the Public Owned Treatment Works application is more applicable than the application for industrial waste water. Therefore, the State Waste Discharge Permit application for Public Owned Treatment Works Discharges to Land was used.

  19. Flexibility Premium in Marketable Permits

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Macrina, Andrea

    & solutions Problem: The problem of (air) pollution and the associated market failure had long been a part of Pollution Markets for permits Substitution Principle In a Nutshell The Premium The Model Solution Results Taschini London School of Economics Economics of Pollution Markets for permits Substitution Principle

  20. B Plant complex treatment, storage, and disposal units inspection plan

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Beam, T.G.

    1994-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Owners or operators of facilities that treat, store, and/or dispose of dangerous waste and/or mixed waste as defined by WAC 173-303, {open_quotes}Dangerous Waste Regulations,{close_quotes} must inspect their facilities to prevent malfunctions and deteriorations, operator errors, and discharges that may cause or lead to the release of hazardous waste constituents to the environment and/or cause a threat to human health. The WAC regulations require a written inspection schedule be developed, implemented, and kept at the facility.

  1. Radioactive waste material disposal

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Forsberg, C.W.; Beahm, E.C.; Parker, G.W.

    1995-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

    The invention is a process for direct conversion of solid radioactive waste, particularly spent nuclear fuel and its cladding, if any, into a solidified waste glass. A sacrificial metal oxide, dissolved in a glass bath, is used to oxidize elemental metal and any carbon values present in the waste as they are fed to the bath. Two different modes of operation are possible, depending on the sacrificial metal oxide employed. In the first mode, a regenerable sacrificial oxide, e.g., PbO, is employed, while the second mode features use of disposable oxides such as ferric oxide. 3 figs.

  2. Radioactive waste material disposal

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Forsberg, Charles W. (155 Newport Dr., Oak Ridge, TN 37830); Beahm, Edward C. (106 Cooper Cir., Oak Ridge, TN 37830); Parker, George W. (321 Dominion Cir., Knoxville, TN 37922)

    1995-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The invention is a process for direct conversion of solid radioactive waste, particularly spent nuclear fuel and its cladding, if any, into a solidified waste glass. A sacrificial metal oxide, dissolved in a glass bath, is used to oxidize elemental metal and any carbon values present in the waste as they are fed to the bath. Two different modes of operation are possible, depending on the sacrificial metal oxide employed. In the first mode, a regenerable sacrificial oxide, e.g., PbO, is employed, while the second mode features use of disposable oxides such as ferric oxide.

  3. Material Disposal Areas

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOEThe Bonneville PowerCherries 82981-1cnHighand Retrievals from a New 183-GHzMAR Os2010 TeppeiMaterial Disposal

  4. STAR Facility Tritium Accountancy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    R. J. Pawelko; J. P. Sharpe; B. J. Denny

    2007-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Safety and Tritium Applied Research (STAR) facility has been established to provide a laboratory infrastructure for the fusion community to study tritium science associated with the development of safe fusion energy and other technologies. STAR is a radiological facility with an administrative total tritium inventory limit of 1.5g (14,429 Ci) [1]. Research studies with moderate tritium quantities and various radionuclides are performed in STAR. Successful operation of the STAR facility requires the ability to receive, inventory, store, dispense tritium to experiments, and to dispose of tritiated waste while accurately monitoring the tritium inventory in the facility. This paper describes tritium accountancy in the STAR facility. A primary accountancy instrument is the tritium Storage and Assay System (SAS): a system designed to receive, assay, store, and dispense tritium to experiments. Presented are the methods used to calibrate and operate the SAS. Accountancy processes utilizing the Tritium Cleanup System (TCS), and the Stack Tritium Monitoring System (STMS) are also discussed. Also presented are the equations used to quantify the amount of tritium being received into the facility, transferred to experiments, and removed from the facility. Finally, the STAR tritium accountability database is discussed.

  5. STAR facility tritium accountancy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Pawelko, R. J.; Sharpe, J. P.; Denny, B. J. [Idaho National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID 83415 (United States)

    2008-07-15T23:59:59.000Z

    The Safety and Tritium Applied Research (STAR) facility has been established to provide a laboratory infrastructure for the fusion community to study tritium science associated with the development of safe fusion energy and other technologies. STAR is a radiological facility with an administrative total tritium inventory limit of 1.5 g (14,429 Ci) [1]. Research studies with moderate tritium quantities and various radionuclides are performed in STAR. Successful operation of the STAR facility requires the ability to receive, inventory, store, dispense tritium to experiments, and to dispose of tritiated waste while accurately monitoring the tritium inventory in the facility. This paper describes tritium accountancy in the STAR facility. A primary accountancy instrument is the tritium Storage and Assay System (SAS): a system designed to receive, assay, store, and dispense tritium to experiments. Presented are the methods used to calibrate and operate the SAS. Accountancy processes utilizing the Tritium Cleanup System (TCS), and the Stack Tritium Monitoring System (STMS) are also discussed. Also presented are the equations used to quantify the amount of tritium being received into the facility, transferred to experiments, and removed from the facility. Finally, the STAR tritium accountability database is discussed. (authors)

  6. Siting Study for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lisa Harvego; Joan Connolly; Lance Peterson; Brennon Orr; Bob Starr

    2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy has identified a mission need for continued disposal capacity for remote-handled low-level waste (LLW) generated at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). An alternatives analysis that was conducted to evaluate strategies to achieve this mission need identified two broad options for disposal of INL generated remote-handled LLW: (1) offsite disposal and (2) onsite disposal. The purpose of this study is to identify candidate sites or locations within INL boundaries for the alternative of an onsite remote handled LLW disposal facility and recommend the highest-ranked locations for consideration in the National Environmental Policy Act process. The study implements an evaluation based on consideration of five key elements: (1) regulations, (2) key assumptions, (3) conceptual design, (4) facility performance, and (5) previous INL siting study criteria, and uses a five-step process to identify, screen, evaluate, score, and rank 34 separate sites located across INL. The result of the evaluation is identification of two recommended alternative locations for siting an onsite remote-handled LLW disposal facility. The two alternative locations that best meet the evaluation criteria are (1) near the Advanced Test Reactor Complex and (2) west of the Idaho Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Disposal Facility.

  7. Project Execution Plan for the Remote Handled Low-Level Waste Disposal Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Danny Anderson

    2014-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    As part of ongoing cleanup activities at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), closure of the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) is proceeding under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 USC 9601 et seq. 1980). INL-generated radioactive waste has been disposed of at RWMC since 1952. The Subsurface Disposal Area (SDA) at RWMC accepted the bulk of INL’s contact and remote-handled low-level waste (LLW) for disposal. Disposal of contact-handled LLW and remote-handled LLW ion-exchange resins from the Advanced Test Reactor in the open pit of the SDA ceased September 30, 2008. Disposal of remote-handled LLW in concrete disposal vaults at RWMC will continue until the facility is full or until it must be closed in preparation for final remediation of the SDA (approximately at the end of fiscal year FY 2017). The continuing nuclear mission of INL, associated ongoing and planned operations, and Naval spent fuel activities at the Naval Reactors Facility (NRF) require continued capability to appropriately dispose of contact and remote handled LLW. A programmatic analysis of disposal alternatives for contact and remote-handled LLW generated at INL was conducted by the INL contractor in Fiscal Year 2006; subsequent evaluations were completed in Fiscal Year 2007. The result of these analyses was a recommendation to the Department of Energy (DOE) that all contact-handled LLW generated after September 30, 2008, be disposed offsite, and that DOE proceed with a capital project to establish replacement remote-handled LLW disposal capability. An analysis of the alternatives for providing replacement remote-handled LLW disposal capability has been performed to support Critical Decision-1. The highest ranked alternative to provide this required capability has been determined to be the development of a new onsite remote-handled LLW disposal facility to replace the existing remote-handled LLW disposal vaults at the SDA. Several offsite DOE and commercial disposal options exist for contact-handled LLW; however, offsite disposal options are either not currently available (i.e., commercial disposal facilities), practical, or cost-effective for all remote-handled LLW streams generated at INL. Offsite disposal of all INL and tenant-generated remote-handled waste is further complicated by issues associated with transporting highly radioactive waste in commerce; and infrastructure and processing changes at the generating facilities, specifically NRF, that would be required to support offsite disposal. The INL Remote-Handled LLW Disposal Project will develop a new remote handled LLW disposal facility to meet mission-critical, remote-handled LLW disposal needs. A formal DOE decision to proceed with the project has been made in accordance with the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC§ 4321 et seq.). Remote-handled LLW is generated from nuclear programs conducted at INL, including spent nuclear fuel handling and operations at NRF and operations at the Advanced Test Reactor. Remote-handled LLW also will be generated by new INL programs and from segregation and treatment (as necessary) of remote handled scrap and waste currently stored in the Radioactive Scrap and Waste Facility at the Materials and Fuels Complex.

  8. Disposal of Hanford site tank wastes

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kupfer, M.J.

    1993-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Between 1943 and 1986, 149 single-shell tanks (SSTs) and 28 double-shell tanks (DSTs) were built and used to store radioactive wastes generated during reprocessing of irradiated uranium metal fuel elements at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site in Southeastern Washington state. The 149 SSTs, located in 12 separate areas (tank farms) in the 200 East and 200 West areas, currently contain about 1.4 {times} 10{sup 5} m{sup 3} of solid and liquid wastes. Wastes in the SSTs contain about 5.7 {times} 10{sup 18} Bq (170 MCi) of various radionuclides including {sup 90}Sr, {sup 99}Tc, {sup 137}Cs, and transuranium (TRU) elements. The 28 DSTs also located in the 200 East and West areas contain about 9 {times} 10{sup 4} m{sup 3} of liquid (mainly) and solid wastes; approximately 4 {times} 10{sup 18}Bq (90 MCi) of radionuclides are stored in the DSTs. Important characteristics and features of the various types of SST and DST wastes are described in this paper. However, the principal focus of this paper is on the evolving strategy for final disposal of both the SST and DST wastes. Also provided is a chronology which lists key events and dates in the development of strategies for disposal of Hanford Site tank wastes. One of these strategies involves pretreatment of retrieved tank wastes to separate them into a small volume of high-level radioactive waste requiring, after vitrification, disposal in a deep geologic repository and a large volume of low-level radioactive waste which can be safely disposed of in near-surface facilities at the Hanford Site. The last section of this paper lists and describes some of the pretreatment procedures and processes being considered for removal of important radionuclides from retrieved tank wastes.

  9. Information related to low-level mixed waste inventory, characteristics, generation, and facility assessment for treatment, storage, and disposal alternatives considered in the U.S. Department of Energy Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Wilkins, B.D.; Dolak, D.A.; Wang, Y.Y.; Meshkov, N.K.

    1996-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report was prepared to support the analysis of risks and costs associated with the proposed treatment of low-level mixed waste (LLMW) under management of the US Department of Energy (DOE). The various waste management alternatives for treatment of LLMW have been defined in the DOE`s Office of Waste Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. This technical memorandum estimates the waste material throughput expected at each proposed LLMW treatment facility and analyzes potential radiological and chemical releases at each DOE site resulting from treatment of these wastes. Models have been developed to generate site-dependent radiological profiles and waste-stream-dependent chemical profiles for these wastes. Current site-dependent inventories and estimates for future generation of LLMW have been obtained from DOE`s 1994 Mixed Waste Inventory Report (MWIR-2). Using treatment procedures developed by the Mixed Waste Treatment Project, the MWIR-2 database was analyzed to provide waste throughput and emission estimates for each of the different waste types assessed in this report. Uncertainties in the estimates at each site are discussed for waste material throughputs and radiological and chemical releases.

  10. Solar Construction Permitting Standards (California)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Two bills signed in 2012 place limits on the fees that cities, counties, cities and counties, and charter cities can charge for a solar permit. AB 1801 specifies that a local government cannot base...

  11. Solar Permitting & Inspection Webinar Series

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)

    ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability U.S.A. and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Inc. (IREC) present a series of three webinars on Solar Permitting & Inspection. As part of the U...

  12. Class 1 Permit Modification Notification

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    Waste Bureau New Mexico Environment Department 2905 Rodeo Park Drive East, Bu il ding 1 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505-6303 JUL 0 5 2011 Subject: Notification of a Class 1 Permit...

  13. Well Permits (District of Columbia)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Well permits are required for the installation of wells in private and public space. Wells are defined as any trest hole, shaft, or soil excavation created by any means including, but not limited...

  14. Geological Disposal Concept Selection Aligned with a Voluntarism Process - 13538

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Crockett, Glenda; King, Samantha [Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Building 587, Curie Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RH (United Kingdom)] [Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Building 587, Curie Avenue, Harwell Oxford, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0RH (United Kingdom)

    2013-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The UK's Radioactive Waste Management Directorate (RWMD) is currently at a generic stage in its implementation programme. The UK site selection process is a voluntarist process and, as yet, no communities have decided to participate. RWMD has set out a process to describe how a geological disposal concept would be selected for the range of higher activity wastes in the UK inventory, including major steps and decision making points, aligned with the stages of the UK site selection process. A platform of information is being developed on geological disposal concepts at various stages of implementation internationally and, in order to build on international experience, RWMD is developing its approach to technology transfer. The UK has a range of different types of higher activity wastes with different characteristics; therefore a range of geological disposal concepts may be needed. In addition to identifying key aspects for considering the compatibility of different engineered barrier systems for different types of waste, RWMD is developing a methodology to determine minimum separation distances between disposal modules in a co-located geological disposal facility. RWMD's approach to geological disposal concept selection is intended to be flexible, recognising the long term nature of the project. RWMD is also committed to keeping alternative radioactive waste management options under review; an approach has been developed and periodic reviews of alternative options will be published. (authors)

  15. NPDES Individual Permit for Industrial Facilities - Mail Merge...

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    WATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY FROM FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS INDUSTRY......44 I. CONTENTS OF PLAN. ......

  16. Hawaii Permit Application for Solid Waste Management Facility | Open Energy

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are8COaBulkTransmissionSitingProcess.pdfGetec AG|Information OpenEI ReferenceNoise Forms and Links

  17. Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Fact Sheet | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are8COaBulkTransmissionSitingProcess.pdfGetec AG|Information OpenEIHas Been HappeningHaysville,Haywood

  18. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Hazardous Waste Facility Permit, Waste

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011 Strategic2Uranium Transferon theTed Donat AboutThe QuadrennialDepartmentat the

  19. Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Public Comments to Community Relations Plan

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOEThe Bonneville PowerCherries 82981-1cn SunnybankD.jpgHanford LEED&soilASTI-SORTI Comparison T.Hazardous Waste

  20. Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Public Comments to Community Relations Plan

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645U.S. DOEThe Bonneville PowerCherries 82981-1cn SunnybankD.jpgHanford LEED&soilASTI-SORTI Comparison T.Hazardous Waste

  1. Application for Permit to Construct Access Driveway Facilities on Highway

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are beingZealand Jump to:Ezfeedflag JumpID-fTriWildcatAntrim County, Michigan:Applewood,

  2. NMDOT Application for Permit to Install Utility Facilities Within Public

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere I Geothermal Pwer PlantMunhall, Pennsylvania: Energy Resources JumpNEF AdvisorsState of New Mexico ||ROW |

  3. Request for modification of 200 Area effluent treatment facility final delisting

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BOWMAN, R.C.

    1998-11-19T23:59:59.000Z

    A Delisting Petition submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in August 1993 addressed effluent to be generated at the 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility from treating Hanford Facility waste streams. This Delisting Petition requested that 71.9 million liters per year of treated effluent, bearing the designation 'F001' through 'F005', and/or 'F039' that is derived from 'F001' through 'F005' waste, be delisted. On June 13, 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published the final rule (Final Delisting), which formally excluded 71.9 million liters per year of 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility effluent from ''being listed as hazardous wastes'' (60 FR 31115 now promulgated in 40 CFR 261). Given the limited scope, it is necessary to request a modification of the Final Delisting to address the management of a more diverse multi-source leachate (F039) at the 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility. From past operations and current cleanup activities on the Hanford Facility, a considerable amount of both liquid and solid Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 regulated mixed waste has been and continues to be generated. Ultimately this waste will be treated as necessary to meet the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Land Disposal Restrictions. The disposal of this waste will be in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act--compliant permitted lined trenches equipped with leachate collection systems. These operations will result in the generation of what is referred to as multi-source leachate. This newly generated waste will receive the listed waste designation of F039. This waste also must be managed in compliance with the provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

  4. An Assessment of the Disposal of Petroleum Industry NORM in Nonhazardous Landfills

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Arnish, John J.; Blunt, Deborah, L.; Haffenden, Rebecca A.; Herbert, Jennifer; Pfingston, Manjula; Smith, Karen P.; Williams, Gustavious P.

    1999-10-12T23:59:59.000Z

    In this study, the disposal of radium-bearing NORM wastes in nonhazardous landfills in accordance with the MDEQ guidelines was modeled to evaluate potential radiological doses and resultant health risks to workers and the general public. In addition, the study included an evaluation of the potential doses and health risks associated with disposing of a separate NORM waste stream generated by the petroleum industry--wastes containing lead-210 (Pb-210) and its progeny. Both NORM waste streams are characterized in Section 3 of this report. The study also included reviews of (1) the regulatory constraints applicable to the disposal of NORM in nonhazardous landfills in several major oil and gas producing states (Section 2) and (2) the typical costs associated with disposing of NORM, covering disposal options currently permitted by most state regulations as well as the nonhazardous landfill option (Section 4).

  5. Costs for off-site disposal of nonhazardous oil field wastes: Salt caverns versus other disposal methods

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Veil, J.A.

    1997-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    According to an American Petroleum Institute production waste survey reported on by P.G. Wakim in 1987 and 1988, the exploration and production segment of the US oil and gas industry generated more than 360 million barrels (bbl) of drilling wastes, more than 20 billion bbl of produced water, and nearly 12 million bbl of associated wastes in 1985. Current exploration and production activities are believed to be generating comparable quantities of these oil field wastes. Wakim estimates that 28% of drilling wastes, less than 2% of produced water, and 52% of associated wastes are disposed of in off-site commercial facilities. In recent years, interest in disposing of oil field wastes in solution-mined salt caverns has been growing. This report provides information on the availability of commercial disposal companies in oil-and gas-producing states, the treatment and disposal methods they employ, and the amounts they charge. It also compares cavern disposal costs with the costs of other forms of waste disposal.

  6. Radioactive mixed waste disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Jasen, W.G.; Erpenbeck, E.G.

    1993-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Various types of waste have been generated during the 50-year history of the Hanford Site. Regulatory changes in the last 20 years have provided the emphasis for better management of these wastes. Interpretations of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) have led to the definition of radioactive mixed wastes (RMW). The radioactive and hazardous properties of these wastes have resulted in the initiation of special projects for the management of these wastes. Other solid wastes at the Hanford Site include low-level wastes, transuranic (TRU), and nonradioactive hazardous wastes. This paper describes a system for the treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) of solid radioactive waste.

  7. Salt disposal of heat-generating nuclear waste.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Leigh, Christi D. (Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, NM); Hansen, Francis D.

    2011-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report summarizes the state of salt repository science, reviews many of the technical issues pertaining to disposal of heat-generating nuclear waste in salt, and proposes several avenues for future science-based activities to further the technical basis for disposal in salt. There are extensive salt formations in the forty-eight contiguous states, and many of them may be worthy of consideration for nuclear waste disposal. The United States has extensive experience in salt repository sciences, including an operating facility for disposal of transuranic wastes. The scientific background for salt disposal including laboratory and field tests at ambient and elevated temperature, principles of salt behavior, potential for fracture damage and its mitigation, seal systems, chemical conditions, advanced modeling capabilities and near-future developments, performance assessment processes, and international collaboration are all discussed. The discussion of salt disposal issues is brought current, including a summary of recent international workshops dedicated to high-level waste disposal in salt. Lessons learned from Sandia National Laboratories' experience on the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and the Yucca Mountain Project as well as related salt experience with the Strategic Petroleum Reserve are applied in this assessment. Disposal of heat-generating nuclear waste in a suitable salt formation is attractive because the material is essentially impermeable, self-sealing, and thermally conductive. Conditions are chemically beneficial, and a significant experience base exists in understanding this environment. Within the period of institutional control, overburden pressure will seal fractures and provide a repository setting that limits radionuclide movement. A salt repository could potentially achieve total containment, with no releases to the environment in undisturbed scenarios for as long as the region is geologically stable. Much of the experience gained from United States repository development, such as seal system design, coupled process simulation, and application of performance assessment methodology, helps define a clear strategy for a heat-generating nuclear waste repository in salt.

  8. PERMITTING LEADERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ken Nemeth

    2002-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In accordance with the Southern States Energy Board (SSEB) proposal, as incorporated into NETL/DE-FC26-97FT34199, the objective of this agreement is to streamline the environmental technology permitting process site-to-site, state-to-state, and industry-to-industry to achieve remediation and waste processing faster, better and cheaper. SSEB is working with member Governors, legislators and regulators to build consensus on streamlining the permitting process for new and innovative technologies for addressing the legacy of environmental problems from 50 years of weapons research, development and production. This report reviews mechanisms whereby industry consortiums and the Department of Energy (DOE) have been working with State regulators and other officials in technology deployment decisions within the DOE complex. The historic development of relationships with State regulators is reviewed and the current nature of the relationships examined. The report contains observations from internal DOE reviews as well as recommendations from the General Accounting Office (GAO) and other external organizations. The report discusses reorganization initiatives leading up to a DOE Top-to-Bottom review of the Environmental Management (EM) Program and highlights points of consideration for maintaining effective linkages with State regulators. It notes how the proposed changes will place new demands upon the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and how NETL can leverage its resources by refocusing existing EM efforts specifically to states that have DOE facilities within their borders (host-states). Finally, the report discusses how SSEB's Permitting Leadership in the United States (PLUS) program can provide the foundation for elements of NETL's technical assistance program that are delivered to regulators and other decision- makers in host-states. As a regional compact commission, SSEB provides important direct linkages to regulators and stakeholders who need technical assistance to evaluate DOE's cleanup plans. In addition, the PLUS program has facilitated the involvement of key regulators from host-states beyond the Southern region.

  9. 1999 Report on Hanford Site land disposal restriction for mixed waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    BLACK, D.G.

    1999-03-25T23:59:59.000Z

    This report was submitted to meet the requirements of Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) Milestone M-26-011. This milestone requires the preparation of an annual report that covers characterization, treatment, storage, minimization, and other aspects of managing land-disposal-restricted mixed waste at the Hanford Facility.

  10. Laboratory Waste Disposal HAZARDOUS GLASS

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Sheridan, Jennifer

    Laboratory Waste Disposal HAZARDOUS GLASS Items that could cut or puncture skin or trash- can without any treatment. Hazardous Glass and Plastic: Items that can puncture, cut or scratch if disposed of in normal trash containers. Pasteur pipettes Other pipettes and tips (glass or plastic) Slides and cover

  11. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Part B Permit Application [for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)]. Chapter D, Appendix D1 (conclusion): Volume 3, Revision 1.0

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1992-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report, Part B (Vol. 3) of the permit application for the WIPP facility, contains information related to the site characterization of the facility, including geology, design, rock salt evaluations, maps, drawings, and shaft excavations. (CBS)

  12. Permitting of Consumptive Uses of Water (Florida)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Local water management districts are required to establish programs and regulations to provide for the permitting of consumptive uses of water. Such permitting programs are subject to the...

  13. Operating Permits and Emission Fees (New Mexico)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The New Mexico Environment Department's Air Quality Bureau processes permit applications for industries that emit pollutants to the air. The Permitting Section consists of three units, the Minor...

  14. Water Pollution Control Permit Regulations (Vermont)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These regulations outline the permits and permitting processes for point discharges to surface waters and outline the monitoring and reporting requirements.

  15. Petroleum Pipeline Eminent Domain Permit Procedures (Georgia)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Petroleum Pipeline Eminent Domain Permit Procedures serve to protect Georgia's natural and environmental resources by requiring permits be issued by the Director of the Environmental Protection...

  16. Presidential Permits - Procedures | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Procedures Presidential Permits - Procedures Executive Order 12038 states that, before a Presidential permit may be issued, the action must be found to be consistent with the...

  17. Unreviewed Disposal Question Evaluation: Waste Disposal In Engineered Trench #3

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hamm, L. L.; Smith, F. G. III; Flach, G. P.; Hiergesell, R. A.; Butcher, B. T.

    2013-07-29T23:59:59.000Z

    Because Engineered Trench #3 (ET#3) will be placed in the location previously designated for Slit Trench #12 (ST#12), Solid Waste Management (SWM) requested that the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) determine if the ST#12 limits could be employed as surrogate disposal limits for ET#3 operations. SRNL documented in this Unreviewed Disposal Question Evaluation (UDQE) that the use of ST#12 limits as surrogates for the new ET#3 disposal unit will provide reasonable assurance that Department of Energy (DOE) 435.1 performance objectives and measures (USDOE, 1999) will be protected. Therefore new ET#3 inventory limits as determined by a Special Analysis (SA) are not required.

  18. Engineering analysis for disposal of depleted uranium tetrafluoride (UF{sub 4}).

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Folga, S. M.; Kier, P. H.

    2001-06-22T23:59:59.000Z

    This report presents and evaluates options for disposing of depleted uranium in the chemical form of uranium tetrafluoride (UF{sub 4}). Two depleted uranium inventories are considered. One results from the original U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) inventory of 560,000 metric tons (te) of depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF{sub 6}); the other inventory is the original DOE inventory augmented by 145,000 te of depleted UF{sub 6} from the United States Enrichment Corporation. Preconceptual designs are included for three disposal options: disposal in a vault, disposal in an engineered trench, and disposal in a deep mine cavity. The disposal container is taken to be either a 30-gallon drum or a 55-gallon drum. Descriptions of the facilities associated with the three disposal options are provided. Staffing estimates for the construction and operation of the facilities are also provided. Wastes and emissions from the facilities during construction, operation, and maintenance have been estimated. Parametric studies have also been performed on the basis of 25% and 50% of the original inventory.

  19. Permit sellers, permit buyers S93 CLIMATE POLICY

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    : China and Canada's roles in a global low-carbon society CHRIS BATAILLE*, JIANJUN TU, MARK JACCARD Energy, the abatement cost schedules of China and Canada are compared, and implications considered for carbon permit, coupled with supplementary regulations to address market failures. Keywords: Canada; carbon trading; China

  20. Canastota Renewable Energy Facility Project

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Blake, Jillian; Hunt, Allen

    2013-12-13T23:59:59.000Z

    The project was implemented at the Madison County Landfill located in the Town of Lincoln, Madison County, New York. Madison County has owned and operated the solid waste and recycling facilities at the Buyea Road site since 1974. At the onset of the project, the County owned and operated facilities there to include three separate landfills, a residential solid waste disposal and recycled material drop-off facility, a recycling facility and associated administrative, support and environmental control facilities. This putrescible waste undergoes anaerobic decomposition within the waste mass and generates landfill gas, which is approximately 50% methane. In order to recover this gas, the landfill was equipped with gas collection systems on both the east and west sides of Buyea Road which bring the gas to a central point for destruction. In order to derive a beneficial use from the collected landfill gases, the County decided to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the future use of the generated gas.

  1. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act corrective measures study: Area 6 decontamination pond facility, corrective action unit no. 92

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1997-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Corrective Action Unit (CAU) No. 92, the Area 6 Decontamination Pond Facility (DPF), is an historic disposal unit located at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) in Nye County, Nevada (Figures 1 - 1, 1-2, and 1-3). The NTS is operated by the U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV), which has been required by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) to characterize the DPF under the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Part A Permit (NDEP, 1995) for the NTS and Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 265 (1996c). The DPF is prioritized in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO, 1996) but is governed by the permit. The DPF was characterized through sampling events in 1994, 1996, and 1997. The results of these sampling events are contained in the Final Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Industrial Site Environmental Restoration Site Characterization Report, Area 6 Decontamination Pond Facility, Revision I (DOE/NV, 1997). This Corrective Measures Study (CMS) for the Area 6 DPF has been prepared for the DOE/NV`s Environmental Restoration Project. The CMS has been developed to support the preparation of a Closure Plan for the DPF. Because of the complexities of the contamination and regulatory issues associated with the DPF, DOE/NV determined a CMS would be beneficial to the evaluation and selection of a closure alternative.

  2. LANSCE | Facilities

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    LINAC Outreach Affiliations Visiting LANSCE Facilities Isotope Production Facility Lujan Neutron Scattering Center MaRIE Proton Radiography Ultracold Neutrons Weapons Neutron...

  3. Transportation, Aging and Disposal Canister System Performance...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    This document provides specifications for selected system components of the Transportation, Aging and Disposal (TAD) canister-based system. Transportation, Aging and Disposal...

  4. Ethidium Bromide: Disposal, Decontamination, and Destruction

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Jia, Songtao

    Ethidium Bromide: Disposal, Decontamination, and Destruction Procedure: 8.03 Created: 2 #12;Ethidium Bromide: Disposal, Decontamination, and Destruction Procedure: 8.03 Created: 2

  5. Hanford Landfill Reaches 15 Million Tons Disposed - Waste Disposal...

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    ERDF comprises a series disposal areas called cells. Each pair of cells is 70 feet deep, 500 feet wide and 1,000 feet long at the base - large enough to hold about three million...

  6. Title I Disposal Site

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Mr. Bill; Von Till

    2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Office of Legacy Management and the Navajo Nation have been discussing an item specified in the Long Term Surveillance Plan (LTSP) for the Mexican Hat site for some time now, and we have come to a resolution on the matter. The LTSP specifies seep sampling at the site to confirm that the disposal cell is operating as designed. Typically, this is to be done for a specific time and then reevaluated, but, in this LTSP there is no time frame given. After 8 years of experience in sampling and observing these six seeps, it has been found that most are not flowing at all, and those that have any water running are so limited in flow that it is difficult to obtain a sample. In addition, several risk assessments have been performed over the years to evaluate the possible ecological risks associated with exposure to this seep water. The analysis indicates there would be no eco-risk based on the historic data to any wildlife or livestock. This information and a full analysis of the situation was submitted to the Navajo Nation for their consideration, and, in further discussions, they have agreed to limit the sampling to only making observations during the annual cell inspection, and if water is observed to be increased compared to historic observations, then sampling will resume. Their agreement to this change is noted in the enclosed copy of their letter to DOE dated July 25, 2006. I have enclosed a copy of this report,

  7. Permits

    Broader source: All U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office Webpages (Extended Search)

    program, under Title V of the Clean Air Act, streamlines the way authorities regulate air pollution by consolidating all air pollution control requirements into a single,...

  8. Parking Options 2011/12 Reserved Permits

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Parking Options 2011/12 Reserved Permits A Reserved permit is $275 this fiscal year and is only available to faculty and staff through payroll deduction. Individuals issued a Reserved permit may park is completely full someone is parked illegally and Parking Services should be notified. Reserved permit holders

  9. Ultimate disposal of low and medium radioactive waste in France

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ringeard, C. [National Radioactive Waste Management Agency, Fontenay aux Roses (France). Environmental, Safety, Quality Dept.

    1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The National Radioactive Waste Management Agency (ANDRA) has been entrusted with the long-term management of radioactive waste. This paper presents the methodology of safety assessment used by ANDRA for a land disposal facility of radioactive waste with short or medium half-life and with low or medium specific activity. This methodology was used in the design of ``the Centre de stockage de l`Aube``.

  10. Remediation of a Former USAF Radioactive Material Disposal Site

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hoffman, D. E.; Cushman, M; Tupyi, B.; Lambert, J.

    2003-02-25T23:59:59.000Z

    This paper describes the remediation of a low-level radiological waste burial site located at the former James Connally Air Force Base in Waco, Texas. Burial activities at the site occurred during the 1950's when the property was under the ownership of the United States Air Force. Included is a discussion of methods and strategies that were used to successfully exhume and characterize the wastes for proper disposal at offsite disposal facilities. Worker and environmental protection measures are also described. Information gained from this project may be used at other similar project sites. A total of nine burial tubes had been identified for excavation, characterization, and removal from the site. The disposal tubes were constructed of 4-ft lengths of concrete pipe buried upright with the upper ends flush with ground surface. Initial ground level observations of the burial tubes indicated that some weathering had occurred; however, the condition of the subsurface portions of the tubes was unknown. Soil excavation occurred in 1-foot lifts in order that the tubes could be inspected and to allow for characterization of the soils at each stage of the excavation. Due to the weight of the concrete pipe and the condition of the piping joints it was determined that special measures would be required to maintain the tubes intact during their removal. Special tube anchoring and handling methods were required to relocate the tubes from their initial positions to a staging area where they could be further characterized. Characterization of the disposal tubes was accomplished using a combination of gamma spectroscopy and activity mapping methods. Important aspects of the project included the use of specialized excavation and disposal tube reinforcement measures to maintain the disposal tubes intact during excavation, removal and subsequent characterization. The non-intrusive gamma spectroscopy and data logging methods allowed for effective characterization of the wastes while minimizing disposal costs. In addition, worker exposures were maintained ALARA as a result of the removal and characterization methods employed.

  11. Calcined solids storage facility closure study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Dahlmeir, M.M.; Tuott, L.C.; Spaulding, B.C. [and others] [and others

    1998-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The disposal of radioactive wastes now stored at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory is currently mandated under a {open_quotes}Settlement Agreement{close_quotes} (or {open_quotes}Batt Agreement{close_quotes}) between the Department of Energy and the State of Idaho. Under this agreement, all high-level waste must be treated as necessary to meet the disposal criteria and disposed of or made road ready to ship from the INEEL by 2035. In order to comply with this agreement, all calcined waste produced in the New Waste Calcining Facility and stored in the Calcined Solids Facility must be treated and disposed of by 2035. Several treatment options for the calcined waste have been studied in support of the High-Level Waste Environmental Impact Statement. Two treatment methods studied, referred to as the TRU Waste Separations Options, involve the separation of the high-level waste (calcine) into TRU waste and low-level waste (Class A or Class C). Following treatment, the TRU waste would be sent to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for final storage. It has been proposed that the low-level waste be disposed of in the Tank Farm Facility and/or the Calcined Solids Storage Facility following Resource Conservation and Recovery Act closure. In order to use the seven Bin Sets making up the Calcined Solids Storage Facility as a low-level waste landfill, the facility must first be closed to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) standards. This study identifies and discusses two basic methods available to close the Calcined Solids Storage Facility under the RCRA - Risk-Based Clean Closure and Closure to Landfill Standards. In addition to the closure methods, the regulatory requirements and issues associated with turning the Calcined Solids Storage Facility into an NRC low-level waste landfill or filling the bin voids with clean grout are discussed.

  12. Water pollution Control Permit Fee Schedules (West Virginia)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This rule establishes schedules of permit application fees and annual permit fees for state water pollution control permits and national pollutant discharge elimination system permits issued by the...

  13. Environmental Compliance at the West Valley Demonstration Project: The Vitrification Permitting Program

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    L. C. Salvatori; C. B. Banzer; W. T. Watters

    1996-05-28T23:59:59.000Z

    The major environmental laws that apply to the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) are the: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA). Regulations developed in accordance with these laws are administered by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through state and federal programs, and regulatory requirements such as permitting. The Environmental Permits & Reports (EP&R) Group of the Environmental Affairs (EA) Department has the primary responsibility for developing a site-wide permitting program for the WVDP and obtaining the necessary permits. This report discusses the permits and the permitting process associated with the Vitrification Facility (VF).

  14. Solid Waste Disposal Act (Texas)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is responsible for the regulation and management of municipal solid waste and hazardous waste. A fee is applied to all solid waste disposed in the...

  15. Facility Microgrids

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Ye, Z.; Walling, R.; Miller, N.; Du, P.; Nelson, K.

    2005-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Microgrids are receiving a considerable interest from the power industry, partly because their business and technical structure shows promise as a means of taking full advantage of distributed generation. This report investigates three issues associated with facility microgrids: (1) Multiple-distributed generation facility microgrids' unintentional islanding protection, (2) Facility microgrids' response to bulk grid disturbances, and (3) Facility microgrids' intentional islanding.

  16. Connecticut Rooftop Solar PV Permitting Guide

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Connecticut Rooftop Solar PV Permitting Guide is a compilation of best practices and resources for solar PV permitting. The guide includes a summary of current codes and regulations affecting solar PV, best practices for streamlining the municipal permitting process, and tools to assist municipalities in creating a streamlined permit process for residential solar PV. Resources include a solar PV permit application, a structural review worksheet, an inspection checklist, and a model solar zoning ordinance.

  17. Energy Generation Project Permitting (Vermont)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Vermont Energy Generation Siting Policy Commission is mandated to survey best practices for siting approval of electric generation projects (all facilities except for net- and group-net-metered...

  18. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Urabeck, F.J.; Phillips, K.E.

    1992-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Future disposal of dredged material in the Puget Sound estuary of the State of Washington is of major interest to Federal, state, and local governmental regulatory agencies, as well as those responsible for maintaining existing waterways and harbors. Elevated levels of toxic chemicals exist in bottom sediments of all the urban bays, with tumors and other biological abnormalities found in bottom fish associated with these water bodies. Public awareness of this situation has been heightened by extensive media coverage of recent government investigations of environmental conditions in Puget Sound. These investigations and public concerns have led to three ongoing regional planning efforts, all of which deal with Puget Sound water quality and marine bottom sediments. This paper reports on the Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis (PSDDA), a 3-year joint Federal-state study primarily focusing on unconfined, open-water disposal of material dredged from Federal and non-Federal navigation projects. Study objectives include (a) selection of unconfined, open-water disposal sites; (b) development of sampling, testing, and test interpretation procedures to be used in evaluating the suitability of dredged material for disposal in Puget Sound waters; and (c) formulation of disposal site management plans. Preliminary findings for each of these objectives are discussed for central Puget Sound, which includes the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett.

  19. Summary - Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility (ICDF) at Idaho National...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    beneficial to other DOE sites were identified: Automated monitoring of leachate collections systems and leak detection zones should be employed at all landfills operated by...

  20. Property and Facilities Division VEHICLE PURCHASING & DISPOSAL REQUISITION PF330

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Blows, Mark

    Driver's Airbag Dual Airbag Headlight Protectors Cargo Blind (Wagon) Leather Trim Metallic Paint Mud

  1. Enhancing RESRAD-OFFSITE for Low Level Waste Disposal Facility...

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    The RESRAD-OFFSITE code was developed to evaluate the radiological dose and excess cancer risk to an individual who is exposed while located within or outside the area of...

  2. Solid Waste Disposal Resource Recovery Facilities Act (South Carolina)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    This legislation authorizes local governing bodies to form joint agencies to advance the collection, transfer, processing of solid waste, recovery of resources, and sales of recovered resources in...

  3. Residue disposal from waste-to-energy facilities

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Walsh, P.; O'Leary, P.; Cross, F.

    1987-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    When considering a waste-to-energy project, some local officials believe that waste-to-energy is a complete alternative to landfilling. While these projects can reduce waste volume substantially, the process will still produce residues that must be properly handled in order to protect the environment. All systems produce fly ash and bottom ash, and some systems also produce wastewater. This article discusses alternative methods for addressing these residue control problems.

  4. D11 WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES FOR TRANSURANIC WASTE

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011AT&T,Office of Policy, OAPM | Department ofCommunications Infrastructure2 10 CFR Ch. X

  5. DOE Applauds Opening of Historic Disposal Facility | Department of Energy

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011AT&T,Office of Policy, OAPM | DepartmentIOffshore WindEnergy's FY2016 BudgetApplauds

  6. Operational Issues at the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility at

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagementOPAM PolicyOfEnergy Online1 March 27, 2012 Inside5Hanford |

  7. Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility at Idaho National Laboratory | Department of

    Broader source: Energy.gov (indexed) [DOE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742Energy ChinaofSchaefer To:Department ofOralGovernmentStandards forand OpportunitiesIan

  8. OAK RIDGE CERCLA DISPOSAL FACILITY ACHIEVES SAFETY MILESTONE | Department

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Indexed Site

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Google Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels DataDepartment of Energy Your Density Isn'tOrigin of Contamination in ManyDepartment of Order No. EA-212-AOAHU WIND INTEGRATION ANDof

  9. New Facility Will Test Disposal Cell Cover Renovation | Department of

    Energy Savers [EERE]

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are being directed offOCHCO2:Introduction toManagement ofConverDynNet-Zero Campus atEnergy New

  10. Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) Guidance

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are8COaBulkTransmissionSitingProcess.pdfGetec AG|Information OpenEIHas BeenLegal Document- OtherOther: Hazardous|

  11. Operational Issues at the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility at Hanford

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011 Strategic2 OPAM615_CostNSAR - T en Y earEnergy T H EaBuildingOperating

  12. 2009 Performance Assessment for the Saltstone Disposal Facility |

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 111 1,613Portsmouth Site »StrategicReferencesRobotics Engineer: Lonnie Love 107

  13. Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility at Idaho National Laboratory

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011 Strategic2 OPAM Flash2011-12Approved on 24 JulyE, EXEMPTION

  14. Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility Federal Review Group Manual

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011 Strategic2 OPAM Flash2011-12Approvedof6,Projects | Department

  15. Maintenance Guide for DOE Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011 Strategic2 OPAM Flash2011-12Approvedof6,Projects |MANAGEMENTMOJAVE MOJAVEDepartment of4 G

  16. Summary - Idaho CERCLA Disposal Facility (ICDF) at Idaho National Laboratory

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative1 First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2002; Level: National5Sales for4,645 3,625 1,006 492 742 33 1112011 Strategic2Uranium Transferon the Passing of AdmiraltheOil and Less CO2CausticNevadaINL,

  17. National Biomedical Tracer Facility: Project definition study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Heaton, R.; Peterson, E. [Los Alamos National Lab., NM (United States); Smith, P. [Smith (P.A.) Concepts and Designs (United States)

    1995-05-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The Los Alamos National Laboratory is an ideal institution and New Mexico is an ideal location for siting the National Biomedical Tracer Facility (NBTF). The essence of the Los Alamos proposal is the development of two complementary irradiation facilities that combined with our existing radiochemical processing hot cell facilities and waste handling and disposal facilities provide a low cost alternative to other proposals that seek to satisfy the objectives of the NBTF. We propose the construction of a 30 MeV cyclotron facility at the site of the radiochemical facilities, and the construction of a 100 MeV target station at LAMPF to satisfy the requirements and objectives of the NBTF. We do not require any modifications to our existing radiochemical processing hot cell facilities or our waste treatment and disposal facilities to accomplish the objectives of the NBTF. The total capital cost for the facility defined by the project definition study is $15.2 M. This cost estimate includes $9.9 M for the cyclotron and associated facility, $2.0 M for the 100 MeV target station at LAMPF, and $3.3 M for design.

  18. Use of engineered soils and other site modifications for low-level radioactive waste disposal

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-08-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires that low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities be designed to minimize contact between waste and infiltrating water through the use of site design features. The purpose of this investigation is to identify engineered barriers and evaluate their ability to enhance the long-term performance of an LLW disposal facility. Previously used barriers such as concrete overpacks, vaults, backfill, and engineered soil covers, are evaluated as well as state-of-the-art barriers, including an engineered sorptive soil layer underlying a facility and an advanced design soil cover incorporating a double-capillary layer. The purpose of this investigation is also to provide information in incorporating or excluding specific engineered barriers as part of new disposal facility designs. Evaluations are performed using performance assessment modeling techniques. A generic reference disposal facility design is used as a baseline for comparing the improvements in long-term performance offered by designs incorporating engineered barriers in generic and humid environments. These evaluations simulate water infiltration through the facility, waste leaching, radionuclide transport through the facility, and decay and ingrowth. They also calculate a maximum (peak annual) dose for each disposal system design. A relative dose reduction factor is calculated for each design evaluated. The results of this investigation are presented for concrete overpacks, concrete vaults, sorptive backfill, sorptive engineered soil underlying the facility, and sloped engineered soil covers using a single-capillary barrier and a double-capillary barrier. Designs using combinations of barriers are also evaluated. These designs include a vault plus overpacks, sorptive backfill plus overpacks, and overpack with vault plus sorptive backfill, underlying sorptive soil, and engineered soil cover.

  19. Washington Environmental Permit Handbook - Air Operating Permit | Open

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro IndustriesTown ofNationwide PermitInformationIsland: Energy ResourcesProcess | Open|

  20. Washington Environmental Permit Handbook - NPDES General Permit Coverage |

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro IndustriesTown ofNationwide PermitInformationIsland: Energy ResourcesProcess |OpenOpen

  1. Washington Environmental Permit Handbook - NPDES Individual Permit Coverage

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro IndustriesTown ofNationwide PermitInformationIsland: Energy ResourcesProcess |OpenOpen|

  2. Tank Waste Disposal Program redefinition

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Grygiel, M.L.; Augustine, C.A.; Cahill, M.A.; Garfield, J.S.; Johnson, M.E.; Kupfer, M.J.; Meyer, G.A.; Roecker, J.H. [Westinghouse Hanford Co., Richland, WA (United States); Holton, L.K.; Hunter, V.L.; Triplett, M.B. [Pacific Northwest Lab., Richland, WA (United States)

    1991-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The record of decision (ROD) (DOE 1988) on the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland Washington identifies the method for disposal of double-shell tank waste and cesium and strontium capsules at the Hanford Site. The ROD also identifies the need for additional evaluations before a final decision is made on the disposal of single-shell tank waste. This document presents the results of systematic evaluation of the present technical circumstances, alternatives, and regulatory requirements in light of the values of the leaders and constitutents of the program. It recommends a three-phased approach for disposing of tank wastes. This approach allows mature technologies to be applied to the treatment of well-understood waste forms in the near term, while providing time for the development and deployment of successively more advanced pretreatment technologies. The advanced technologies will accelerate disposal by reducing the volume of waste to be vitrified. This document also recommends integration of the double-and single-shell tank waste disposal programs, provides a target schedule for implementation of the selected approach, and describes the essential elements of a program to be baselined in 1992.

  3. Quality Services: Solid Wastes, Part 360: Solid Waste Management Facilities (New York)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    These regulations apply to all solid wastes with the exception of hazardous or radioactive waste. Proposed solid waste processing facilities are required to obtain permits prior to construction,...

  4. Solid Waste Regulation No. 8- Solid Waste Composting Facilities (Rhode Island)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Facilities which compost putrescible waste and/or leaf and yard waste are subject to these regulations. The regulations establish permitting, registration, and operational requirements for...

  5. Wastewater Regulations for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits, Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permits, State Permits, Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations and Water Quality Certification (Mississippi)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Wastewater Regulations for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits, Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permits, State Permits, Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations...

  6. Depleted uranium disposal options evaluation

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hertzler, T.J.; Nishimoto, D.D.; Otis, M.D. [Science Applications International Corp., Idaho Falls, ID (United States). Waste Management Technology Div.

    1994-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, has chartered a study to evaluate alternative management strategies for depleted uranium (DU) currently stored throughout the DOE complex. Historically, DU has been maintained as a strategic resource because of uses for DU metal and potential uses for further enrichment or for uranium oxide as breeder reactor blanket fuel. This study has focused on evaluating the disposal options for DU if it were considered a waste. This report is in no way declaring these DU reserves a ``waste,`` but is intended to provide baseline data for comparison with other management options for use of DU. To PICS considered in this report include: Retrievable disposal; permanent disposal; health hazards; radiation toxicity and chemical toxicity.

  7. The full fuel cycle of CO{sub 2} capture and disposal capture and disposal technology

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Saroff, L.

    1995-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    The overall objective of this study was to develop a methodology for the evaluation of the energy usage and cost both private and societal (external cost)for full fuel cycles. It was envisioned that other organizations could employ the methodology with minor alterations for a consistent means of evaluating full fuel cycles. The methodology has been applied to three fossil fuel electric generation processes each producing 500 MWe (net). These are: a Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) power plant burning natural gas with direct CO{sub 2} capture and disposal; an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant burning coal with direct CO{sub 2} capture and disposal; and a Pulverized Fuel (PC) power plant burning coal with a managed forest indirectly sequestering CO{sub 2}. The primary aim is to provide decision makers with information from which to derive policy. Thus, the evaluation reports total energy used, private costs to build the facility, emissions and burdens, and the valuation (externalities) of the impacts of the burdens. The energy usage, private costs including capture and disposal, and emissions are reported in this paper. The valuations and analysis of the impact of the plant on the environment are reported in the companion paper. The loss in efficiency (LHV) considering the full fuel cycle as opposed to the thermal efficiency of the power plant is; 0.9, 2.4, and 4.6 for the NGCC, IGCC, and PC+controls, respectively. Electricity cost, c/kWh, including capital, operating and fuel, at a 10% discount rate. ranges from 5.6 to 7.08 for NGCC and 7.24 to 8.61 for IGCC. The range is dependent on the mode of disposal, primarily due to the long pipeline to reach a site for the pope disposal in the ocean. For the PC+ controls then is a considerable range from 7.66 to over 16 c/kWh dependent on the size and cost of the managed forest.

  8. Facility Safety

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    1996-10-24T23:59:59.000Z

    Establishes facility safety requirements related to: nuclear safety design, criticality safety, fire protection and natural phenomena hazards mitigation.

  9. Facility Safety

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    1995-11-16T23:59:59.000Z

    Establishes facility safety requirements related to: nuclear safety design, criticality safety, fire protection and natural phenomena hazards mitigation.

  10. Market Power in Pollution Permit Markets

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Montero, Juan Pablo

    As with other commodity markets, markets for trading pollution permits have not been immune to market power concerns. In this paper, I survey the existing literature on market power in permit trading but also contribute ...

  11. Air Permitting for Stationary Sources (New Hampshire)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The permitting system implements the permitting requirements of RSA 125-C and 125-I to regulate the operation and modification of new and existing stationary sources, area sources, and devices to...

  12. Priority Permit Processing for Green Buildings

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §46-19.6 requires each county agency that issues building, construction, or development-related permits to establish a procedure for priority processing of permit...

  13. Disposable telemetry cable deployment system

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Holcomb, David Joseph (Sandia Park, NM)

    2000-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    A disposable telemetry cable deployment system for facilitating information retrieval while drilling a well includes a cable spool adapted for insertion into a drill string and an unarmored fiber optic cable spooled onto the spool cable and having a downhole end and a stinger end. Connected to the cable spool is a rigid stinger which extends through a kelly of the drilling apparatus. A data transmission device for transmitting data to a data acquisition system is disposed either within or on the upper end of the rigid stinger.

  14. State waste discharge permit application, 200-E chemical drain field

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    As part of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order negotiations (Ecology et al. 1994), the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington State Department of Ecology agreed that liquid effluent discharges to the ground on the Hanford Site which affect groundwater or have the potential to affect ground would be subject to permitting under the structure of Chapter 173-216 (or 173-218 where applicable) of the Washington Administrative Code, the State Waste Discharge Permit Program. As a result of this decision, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office entered into Consent Order No. DE 91NM-177, (Ecology and DOE-RL 1991). The Consent Order No. DE 91NM-177 requires a series of permitting activities for liquid effluent discharges. This document presents the State Waste Discharge Permit (SWDP) application for the 200-E Chemical Drain Field. Waste water from the 272-E Building enters the process sewer line directly through a floor drain, while waste water from the 2703-E Building is collected in two floor drains, (north and south) that act as sumps and are discharged periodically. The 272-E and 2703-E Buildings constitute the only discharges to the process sewer line and the 200-E Chemical Drain Field.

  15. State Waste Discharge Permit application, 183-N Backwash Discharge Pond

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-06-01T23:59:59.000Z

    As part of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order negotiations (Ecology et al. 1994), the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the Washington State Department of Ecology agreed that liquid effluent discharges to the ground on the Hanford Site which affect groundwater or have the potential to affect groundwater would be subject to permitting under the structure of Chapter 173--216 (or 173--218 where applicable) of the Washington Administrative Code, the State Waste Discharge Permit Program. As a result of this decision, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the US Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office entered into Consent Order No. DE91NM-177, (Ecology and DOE-RL 1991). The Consent Order No. DE91NM-177 requires a series of permitting activities for liquid effluent discharges. Liquid effluents on the Hanford Site have been classified as Phase I, Phase II, and Miscellaneous Streams. The Consent Order No. DE91NM-177 establishes milestones for State Waste Discharge Permit application submittals for all Phase I and Phase II streams, as well as the following 11 Miscellaneous Streams as identified in Table 4 of the Consent Order No. DE91NM-177.

  16. Disposal of chemical agents and munitions stored at Anniston Army Depot, Anniston, Alabama

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Hunsaker, D.B. Jr.; Zimmerman, G.P.; Hillsman, E.L.; Miller, R.L.; Schoepfle, G.M.; Johnson, R.O.; Tolbert, V.R.; Kroodsma, R.L.; Rickert, L.W.; Rogers, G.O.; Staub, W.P.

    1990-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The purpose of this Phase I report is to examined the proposed implementation of on-site disposal at Anniston Army Depot (ANAD) in light of more detailed and more recent data than those included in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EPEIS). Two principal issues are addressed: (1) whether or not the new data would result in identification of on-site disposal at ANAD as the environmentally preferred alternative (using the same selection method and data analysis tools as in the FPEIS), and (2) whether or not the new data indicate the presence of significant environmental resources that could be affected by on-site disposal at ANAD. In addition, a status report is presented on the maturity of the disposal technology (and now it could affect on-site disposal at ANAD). Inclusion of these more recent data into the FPEIS decision method resulted in confirmation of on-site disposal for ANAD. No unique resources with the potential to prevent or delay implementation of on-site disposal at ANAD have been identified. A review of the technology status identified four principal technology developments that have occurred since publication of the FPEIS and should be of value in the implementation of on-site disposal at ANAD: the disposal of nonlethal agent at Pine Bluff Arsenal, located near Pine Bluff, Arkansas; construction and testing of facilities for disposal of stored lethal agent at Johnston Atoll, located about 1300 km (800 miles) southwest of Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean; lethal agent disposal tests at the chemical agent pilot plant operations at Tooele Army Depot, located near Salt Lake City, Utah; and equipment advances. 18 references, 13 figs., 10 tabs.

  17. Hanford Site Near-Facility Environmental Monitoring Data Report for Calendar Year 2008

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Perkins, Craig J.; Dorsey, Michael C.; Mckinney, Stephen M.; Wilde, Justin W.; Poston, Ted M.

    2009-09-15T23:59:59.000Z

    Near-facility environmental monitoring is defined as monitoring near facilities that have the potential to discharge or have discharged, stored, or disposed of radioactive or hazardous materials. Monitoring locations are associated with nuclear facilities such as the Plutonium Finishing Plant, Canister Storage Building, and the K Basins; inactive nuclear facilities such as N Reactor and the Plutonium-Uranium Extraction (PUREX) Facility; and waste storage or disposal facilities such as burial grounds, cribs, ditches, ponds, tank farms, and trenches. Much of the monitoring consists of collecting and analyzing environmental samples and methodically surveying areas near facilities. The program is also designed to evaluate acquired analytical data, determine the effectiveness of facility effluent monitoring and controls, assess the adequacy of containment at waste disposal units, and detect and monitor unusual conditions.

  18. California Solar Permitting Guidebook, Second Edition

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The California Solar Permitting Guidebook is a resource for local governments and permitting agencies to facilitate installation of small solar energy systems. By adopting its recommendations, local governments can reduce permit processing times and increase their output while facilitating local economic development.

  19. Solar Photovoltaic (PV) System Permit Application Checklist

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    The Permit Application Checklist is intended to be used as a best management practice when establishing local government requirements for residential and commercial solar photovoltaic (PV) system permits. Local governments may modify this checklist to accommodate their local ordinances, code requirements, and permit procedures.

  20. MATERIAL HANDLING, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    US Army Corps of Engineers

    Materials shall be stored in a manner that allows easy identification and access to labels, identification entering storage areas. All persons shall be in a safe position while materials are being loadedEM 385-1-1 XX Jun 13 14-1 SECTION 14 MATERIAL HANDLING, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL 14.A MATERIAL

  1. A Change in Envirocare's Disposal Cell Design

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Rogers, T.

    2002-02-25T23:59:59.000Z

    Envirocare of Utah, Inc. operates a Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) and 11e. disposal facility in the Utah west dessert. Envirocare disposes of LLRW in above ground cells. A seven-foot excavation lined with two feet of clay comprises the cell floor. Approximately 22 feet of waste is then placed in the cell in one-foot thick compacted lifts. The cover system consists of a nine-foot clay radon barrier and three-foot rock erosion barrier. This is required to prevent radon emissions at the surface of the radon barrier from exceeding 20 pCi/m2s, the radon release standard in Criterion 6 of 10 CFR 40. The required thickness of the current clay radon barrier cover was based on the original radon flux model used to evaluate the safety of Envirocare's proposed LLRW and 11e.(2) license operations. Because of the lack of actual measurements, universally conservative values were used for the long-term moisture content and the radon diffusion coefficients of the waste and radon barrier material. Since receiving its license, Envirocare has collected a number of samples from the radon barrier and waste material to determine their actual radon attenuation characteristics, including the long-term moisture content and the associated radon diffusion coefficient. In addition, radon flux measurements have been performed to compare the model calculations with the calculated results. The results from these analyses indicate that the initial modeling input parameters, specifically the long-term moisture content and the radon diffusion coefficient, are more conservative than that needed to ensure compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements.

  2. Hanford facility dangerous waste permit application, 616 Nonradioactive dangerous waste storage facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Price, S.M.

    1997-04-30T23:59:59.000Z

    This chapter provides information on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the waste stored at the 616 NRDWSF. A waste analysis plan is included that describes the methodology used for determining waste types.

  3. Federal Environmental Permitting Handbook. Environmental Guidance

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1991-05-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The handbook consists of eight chapters addressing permitting and licensing requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (CERCLA/SARA), the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Federal Insectide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Each chapter consists of: (1) an introduction to the statute and permitting requirements; (2) a diagram illustrating the relationship between permitting requirements under the statute being discussed and permitting requirements from other environmental statutes which may have to be addressed when applying for a particular permit (e.g., when applying for a RCRA permit, permits and permit applications under the CWA, CAA, SDWA, etc. would have to be listed in the RCRA permit application); and, (3) a compilation of the permitting requirements for the regulatory program resulting from the statute. In addition, the Handbook contains a permitting keyword index and a listing of hotline telephone numbers for each of the statutes.

  4. Disposal requirements for PCB waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1994-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a class of organic chemicals that had become widely used in industrial applications due to their practical physical and chemical properties. Historical uses of PCBs include dielectric fluids (used in utility transformers, capacitors, etc.), hydraulic fluids, and other applications requiring stable, fire-retardant materials. Due to findings that PCBs may cause adverse health effects and due to their persistence and accumulation in the environment, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), enacted on october 11, 1976, banned the manufacture of PCBs after 1978 [Section 6(e)]. The first PCB regulations, promulgated at 40 CFR Part 761, were finalized on February 17, 1978. These PCB regulations include requirements specifying disposal methods and marking (labeling) procedures, and controlling PCB use. To assist the Department of Energy (DOE) in its efforts to comply with the TSCA statute and implementing regulations, the Office of Environmental Guidance has prepared the document ``Guidance on the Management of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).`` That document explains the requirements specified in the statute and regulations for managing PCBs including PCB use, storage, transport, and disposal. PCB materials that are no longer in use and have been declared a waste must be disposed of according to the requirements found at 40 CFR 761.60. These requirements establish disposal options for a multitude of PCB materials including soil and debris, liquid PCBs, sludges and slurries, containers, transformers, capacitors, hydraulic machines, and other electrical equipment. This Information Brief supplements the PCB guidance document by responding to common questions concerning disposal requirements for PCBs. It is one of a series of Information Briefs pertinent to PCB management issues.

  5. ParkingPermit.docx 11/2/2012 Eligibility for Visitors/Temporary Parking Permits

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Mohaghegh, Shahab

    ParkingPermit.docx 11/2/2012 Eligibility for Visitors/Temporary Parking Permits Visitor or Temporary Parking Permits will only be issued based on the following policies: Visitors · Visitors (Non WVU employees) to the Statler College can receive a single day visitor Parking Permit for lots 40, 41, 44

  6. PERMIT MUST BE AVAILABLE AT ENTRY LOCATION IN PLASTIC SLEEVE CONFINED SPACE ENTRY PERMIT

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Stuart, Steven J.

    PERMIT MUST BE AVAILABLE AT ENTRY LOCATION IN PLASTIC SLEEVE CONFINED SPACE ENTRY PERMIT CONFINED SPACE GENERAL INFORMATION: Permit Number: Call 656-1297 Date: Equipment Number: Time Issued: Valid Until (Time, max. 8 hrs): Confined Space Description and Location: Purpose of Entry: PERMIT SPACE HAZARDS

  7. Regulatory requirements affecting disposal of asbestos-containing waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    NONE

    1995-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Many U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities are undergoing decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) activities. The performance of these activities may generate asbestos-containing waste because asbestos was formerly used in many building materials, including floor tile, sealants, plastics, cement pipe, cement sheets, insulating boards, and insulating cements. The regulatory requirements governing the disposal of these wastes depend on: (1) the percentage of asbestos in the waste and whether the waste is friable (easily crumbled or pulverized); (2) other physical and chemical characteristics of the waste; and (3) the State in which the waste is generated. This Information Brief provides an overview of the environment regulatory requirements affecting disposal of asbestos-containing waste. It does not address regulatory requirements applicable to worker protection promulgated under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHAct), the Mining Safety and Health Act (MSHA), or the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

  8. Remote-Handled Low Level Waste Disposal Project Alternatives Analysis

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    David Duncan

    2010-10-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report identifies, evaluates, and compares alternatives for meeting the U.S. Department of Energy’s mission need for management of remote-handled low-level waste generated by the Idaho National Laboratory and its tenants. Each alternative identified in the Mission Need Statement for the Remote-Handled Low-Level Waste Treatment Project is described and evaluated for capability to fulfill the mission need. Alternatives that could meet the mission need are further evaluated and compared using criteria of cost, risk, complexity, stakeholder values, and regulatory compliance. The alternative for disposal of remote-handled low-level waste that has the highest confidence of meeting the mission need and represents best value to the government is to build a new disposal facility at the Idaho National Laboratory Site.

  9. Spent Fuel Disposal Trust Fund (Maine)

    Broader source: Energy.gov [DOE]

    Any licensee operating a nuclear power plant in this State shall establish a segregated Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposal Trust Fund in accordance with this subchapter for the eventual disposal of spent...

  10. Deep Borehole Disposal Research: Demonstration Site Selection...

    Office of Environmental Management (EM)

    Site Selection Guidelines, Borehole Seals Design, and RD&D Needs The U.S. Department of Energy has been investigating deep borehole disposal as one alternative for the disposal...

  11. Disposal of NORM waste in salt caverns

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Veil, J.A.; Smith, K.P.; Tomasko, D.; Elcock, D.; Blunt, D.; Williams, G.P.

    1998-07-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Some types of oil and gas production and processing wastes contain naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM). If NORM is present at concentrations above regulatory levels in oil field waste, the waste requires special disposal practices. The existing disposal options for wastes containing NORM are limited and costly. This paper evaluates the legality, technical feasibility, economics, and human health risk of disposing of NORM-contaminated oil field wastes in salt caverns. Cavern disposal of NORM waste is technically feasible and poses a very low human health risk. From a legal perspective, there are no fatal flaws that would prevent a state regulatory agency from approving cavern disposal of NORM. On the basis of the costs charged by caverns currently used for disposal of nonhazardous oil field waste (NOW), NORM waste disposal caverns could be cost competitive with existing NORM waste disposal methods when regulatory agencies approve the practice.

  12. Asset Management Equipment Disposal Form -Refrigerant Recovery

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Sin, Peter

    Asset Management Equipment Disposal Form - Refrigerant Recovery Safe Disposal Requirements Under refrigeration, cold storage warehouse refrigeration, chillers, and industrial process refrigeration) has to have the refrigerant recovered in accordance with EPA's requirements for servicing. However, equipment that typically

  13. Washington Air Quality Notice of Construction Permit Regulatory Handbook |

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov YouKizildere IRaghuraji Agro IndustriesTown ofNationwide Permit webpageWalthallFacilityVermont:WashakieOpen Energy

  14. EPA Class V Permitting Authorities Website | Open Energy Information

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    AFDC Printable Version Share this resource Send a link to EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page to someone by E-mail Share EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Facebook Tweet about EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page on Twitter Bookmark EERE: Alternative Fuels Data Center Home Page onYou are now leaving Energy.gov You are now leaving Energy.gov You are beingZealand JumpConceptual Model,DOE FacilityDimondale,South, NewDyer County,ECO2LtdLegalClass V Permitting

  15. Framework for DOE mixed low-level waste disposal: Site fact sheets

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Gruebel, M.M.; Waters, R.D.; Hospelhorn, M.B.; Chu, M.S.Y. [eds.

    1994-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Department of Energy (DOE) is required to prepare and submit Site Treatment Plans (STPS) pursuant to the Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCAct). Although the FFCAct does not require that disposal be addressed in the STPS, the DOE and the States recognize that treatment of mixed low-level waste will result in residues that will require disposal in either low-level waste or mixed low-level waste disposal facilities. As a result, the DOE is working with the States to define and develop a process for evaluating disposal-site suitability in concert with the FFCAct and development of the STPS. Forty-nine potential disposal sites were screened; preliminary screening criteria reduced the number of sites for consideration to twenty-six. The DOE then prepared fact sheets for the remaining sites. These fact sheets provided additional site-specific information for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the twenty-six sites as potential disposal sites. The information also provided the basis for discussion among affected States and the DOE in recommending sites for more detailed evaluation.

  16. DECOMMISSIONING AND ENVRIONMENTAL CLEANUP OF SMALL ARMS TRAINING FACILITY

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Kmetz, T.

    2012-12-04T23:59:59.000Z

    USDOE performed a (CERCLA) non-time critical removal (NTCR) action at the Small Arms Training Area (SATA) Site Evaluation Area (SEA) located at the Savannah River Site (SRS), in Aiken, South Carolina. From 1951 to May 2010, the SATA was used as a small weapons practice and qualifying firing range. The SATA consisted of 870.1 ha (2,150 ac) of woodlands and open field, of which approximately 2.9 ha (7.3 ac) were used as a firing range. The SATA facility was comprised of three small arms ranges (one static and two interactive), storage buildings for supplies, a weapons cleaning building, and a control building. Additionally, a 113- m (370-ft) long earthen berm was used as a target backstop during live-fire exercises. The berm soils accumulated a large amount of spent lead bullets in the berm face during the facilities 59- years of operation. The accumulation of lead was such that soil concentrations exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) residential and industrial worker regional screening levels (RSLs). The RSL threshold values are based on standardized exposure scenarios that estimate contaminant concentrations in soil that the USEPA considers protective of humans over a lifetime. For the SATA facility, lead was present in soil at concentrations that exceed both the current residential (400 mg/kg) and industrial (800 mg/kg) RSLs. In addition, the concentration of lead in the soil exceeded the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 261.24) regulatory limit. The TCLP analysis simulates landfill conditions and is designed to determine the mobility of contaminants in waste. In addition, a principal threat source material (PTSM) evaluation, human health risk assessment (HHRA), and contaminant migration (CM) analysis were conducted to evaluate soil contamination at the SATA SEA. This evaluation determined that there were no contaminants present that constitute PTSM and the CM analysis revealed that no constituents posed a migration risk to groundwater. The NTCR action involved removal of approximately 12,092 m3 (15,816 yd3) of spent bullets and lead-impacted soil and off-site disposal. The removal action included soils from the berm area, a fill area that received scraped soils from the berm, and soil from a drainage ditch located on the edge of the berm area. Also included in the removal action was a mixture of soil, concrete, and asphalt from the other three range areas. Under this action, 11,796 m3 (15,429 yd3) of hazardous waste and impacted soil were removed from the SATA and transported to a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility (Lone Mountain Facility in Oklahoma) and 296 m3 (387 yd3) of nonhazardous waste (primarily concrete debris) were removed and transported to a local solid waste landfill for disposal. During the excavation process, the extent was continuously assessed through the use of a hand-held, field-portable X-ray fluorescence unit with results verified using confirmation sampling with certified laboratory analysis. Following the completion of the excavation and confirmation sampling, final contouring, grading, and establishment of vegetative cover was performed to stabilize the affected areas. The NTCR action began on August 17, 2010, and mechanical completion was achieved on April 27, 2011. The selected removal action met the removal action objectives (RAOs), is protective of human health and the environment both in the short- and long-term, was successful in removing potential ecological risks, and is protective of surface water and groundwater. Furthermore, the selected NTCR action met residential cleanup goals and resulted in the release of the SEA from restricted use contributing to the overall footprint reduction at SRS.

  17. Estimating costs of low-level radioactive waste disposal alternatives for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1994-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report was prepared for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, National Low-Level Waste Management Program. It presents planning life-cycle cost (PLCC) estimates for four sizes of in-state low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal facilities. These PLCC estimates include preoperational and operational expenditures, all support facilities, materials, labor, closure costs, and long-term institutional care and monitoring costs. It is intended that this report bc used as a broad decision making tool for evaluating one of the several complex factors that must be examined when deciding between various LLRW management options -- relative costs. Because the underlying assumptions of these analyses will change as the Board decides how it will manage Massachusett`s waste and the specific characteristics any disposal facility will have, the results of this study are not absolute and should only be used to compare the relative costs of the options presented. The disposal technology selected for this analysis is aboveground earth-mounded vaults. These vaults are reinforced concrete structures where low-level waste is emplaced and later covered with a multi-layered earthen cap. The ``base case`` PLCC estimate was derived from a preliminary feasibility design developed for the Illinois Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. This PLCC report describes facility operations and details the procedure used to develop the base case PLCC estimate for each facility component and size. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the base case PLCC estimate by varying several factors to determine their influences upon the unit disposal costs. The report presents the results of the sensitivity analyses for the five most significant cost factors.

  18. Waste disposal options report. Volume 1

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Russell, N.E.; McDonald, T.G.; Banaee, J.; Barnes, C.M.; Fish, L.W.; Losinski, S.J.; Peterson, H.K.; Sterbentz, J.W.; Wenzel, D.R.

    1998-02-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report summarizes the potential options for the processing and disposal of mixed waste generated by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant. It compares the proposed waste-immobilization processes, quantifies and characterizes the resulting waste forms, identifies potential disposal sites and their primary acceptance criteria, and addresses disposal issues for hazardous waste.

  19. Proposed rulemaking on the storage and disposal of nuclear waste. Cross-statement of the United States Department of Energy

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    None

    1980-09-05T23:59:59.000Z

    The US DOE cross-statement in the matter of proposed rulemaking in the storage and disposal of nuclear wastes is presented. It is concluded from evidence contained in the document that: (1) spent fuel can be disposed of in a manner that is safe and environmentally acceptable; (2) present plans for establishing geological repositories are an effective and reasonable means of disposal; (3) spent nuclear fuel from licensed facilities can be stored in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner on-site or off-site until disposal facilities are ready; (4) sufficient additional storage capacity for spent fuel will be established; and (5) the disposal and interim storage systems for spent nuclear fuel will be integrated into an acceptable operating system. It was recommended that the commission should promulgate a rule providing that the safety and environmental implications of spent nuclear fuel remaining on site after the anticipated expiration of the facility licenses involved need not be considered in individual facility licensing proceedings. A prompt finding of confidence in the nuclear waste disposal and storage area by the commission is also recommeded. (DMC)

  20. US DOE-EM On-Site Disposal Cell Working Group - Fostering Communication On Performance Assessment Challenges

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Seitz, Roger R. [Savannah River Site (SRS), Aiken, SC (United States); Suttora, Linda C. [U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Site Restoration, Germantown, MD (United States); Phifer, Mark [Savannah River Site (SRS), Aiken, SC (United States)

    2014-03-01T23:59:59.000Z

    On-site disposal cells are in use and being considered at several U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) sites as the final disposition for large amounts of waste associated with cleanup of contaminated areas and facilities. These facilities are typically developed with regulatory oversight from States and/or the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in addition to USDOE. The facilities are developed to meet design standards for disposal of hazardous waste as well as the USDOE performance based standards for disposal of radioactive waste. The involvement of multiple and different regulators for facilities across separate sites has resulted in some differences in expectations for performance assessments and risk assessments (PA/RA) that are developed for the disposal facilities. The USDOE-EM Office of Site Restoration formed a working group to foster improved communication and sharing of information for personnel associated with these Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) disposal cells and work towards more consistent assumptions, as appropriate, for technical and policy considerations related to performance and risk assessments in support of a Record of Decision and Disposal Authorization Statement. The working group holds teleconferences, as needed, focusing on specific topics of interest. The topics addressed to date include an assessment of the assumptions used for performance assessments and risk assessments (PA/RAs) for on-site disposal cells, requirements and assumptions related to assessment of inadvertent intrusion, DOE Manual 435.1-1 requirements, and approaches for consideration of the long-term performance of liners and covers in the context of PAs. The working group has improved communication among the staff and oversight personnel responsible for onsite disposal cells and has provided a forum to identify and resolve common concerns.

  1. State of Washington Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA)

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Manning, Sandra

    2001-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    all of the required permits, there is a greater likelihoodinform applicants on which permits they need, resulting inreduce the need for permit revisions that are currently

  2. Multiplicity of investment equilibria when pollution permits are not tradable

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    Karp, Larry

    2006-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    M ONTERO , J. (2002): “Permits, standards, and technologyequilibria when pollution permits are not tradable Larryequilibria when pollution permits are not tradable Abstract

  3. State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Form: State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities - Utility Permit Abstract This document is an example of a...

  4. Potential for Subsidence at the Low-level Waste Disposal Area

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Keck, Karen Nina; Seitz, Roger Ray

    2002-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management requires that DOE low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities receive a Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) from DOE-Headquarters. The DAS for the LLW disposal facility at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) was granted in April 2000 and included a number of conditions that must be addressed. A maintenance plan (Schuman 2000) was prepared that identifies the tasks to be completed to address the conditions in the DAS as well as a schedule for their completion. The need for a subsidence analysis was one of the conditions identified for the DAS, and thus, a task to prepare a subsidence analysis was included in the maintenance plan. This document provides the information necessary to satisfy that requirement.

  5. Potential for Subsidence at the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Area

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Keck, K.A.; Seitz, R.R.

    2002-09-26T23:59:59.000Z

    U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management requires that DOE low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facilities receive a Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) from DOE-Headquarters. The DAS for the LLW disposal facility at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) was granted in April 2000 and included a number of conditions that must be addressed. A maintenance plan (Schuman 2000) was prepared that identifies the tasks to be completed to address the conditions in the DAS as well as a schedule for their completion. The need for a subsidence analysis was one of the conditions identified for the DAS, and thus, a task to prepare a subsidence analysis was included in the maintenance plan. This document provides the information necessary to satisfy that requirement.

  6. Criteria for releases and disposal of low level and intermediate level waste in Sweden

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Lindbom, G. [Swedish Radiation Protection Inst., Stockholm (Sweden). Div. of Waste Management and Environmental Protection

    1993-12-31T23:59:59.000Z

    In Sweden there exists a complete system for management, including final disposal, of all radioactive wastes which are not classified as long-lived or high-level waste. This paper will present the disposal options and the requirements set on the waste categories as well as Sweden`s four different engineered shallow land disposals. The advantages of having a shallow land disposal together with exemption of waste and a final storage facility for low-level and intermediate-level waste are discussed. Finally, the paper will give a summary of why Sweden has succeeded in establishing a full system for low-level and intermediate-level waste. The discussion is from regulatory point of view.

  7. NNSA B-Roll: MOX Facility

    ScienceCinema (OSTI)

    None

    2010-09-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In 1999, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) signed a contract with a consortium, now called Shaw AREVA MOX Services, LLC to design, build, and operate a Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility. This facility will be a major component in the United States program to dispose of surplus weapon-grade plutonium. The facility will take surplus weapon-grade plutonium, remove impurities, and mix it with uranium oxide to form MOX fuel pellets for reactor fuel assemblies. These assemblies will be irradiated in commercial nuclear power reactors.

  8. NNSA B-Roll: MOX Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    2010-05-21T23:59:59.000Z

    In 1999, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) signed a contract with a consortium, now called Shaw AREVA MOX Services, LLC to design, build, and operate a Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility. This facility will be a major component in the United States program to dispose of surplus weapon-grade plutonium. The facility will take surplus weapon-grade plutonium, remove impurities, and mix it with uranium oxide to form MOX fuel pellets for reactor fuel assemblies. These assemblies will be irradiated in commercial nuclear power reactors.

  9. Design and Installation of a Disposal Cell Cover Field Test

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Benson, C.H. [University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; Waugh, W.J. [S.M. Stoller Corporation, Grand Junction, Colorado; Albright, W.H. [Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada; Smith, G.M. [Geo-Smith Engineering, Grand Junction, Colorado; Bush, R.P. [U.S. Department of Energy, Grand Junction, Colorado

    2011-02-27T23:59:59.000Z

    The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Legacy Management (LM) initiated a cover assessment project in September 2007 to evaluate an inexpensive approach to enhancing the hydrological performance of final covers for disposal cells. The objective is to accelerate and enhance natural processes that are transforming existing conventional covers, which rely on low-conductivity earthen barriers, into water balance covers, that store water in soil and release it as soil evaporation and plant transpiration. A low conductivity cover could be modified by deliberately blending the upper layers of the cover profile and planting native shrubs. A test facility was constructed at the Grand Junction, Colorado, Disposal Site to evaluate the proposed methodology. The test cover was constructed in two identical sections, each including a large drainage lysimeter. The test cover was constructed with the same design and using the same materials as the existing disposal cell in order to allow for a direct comparison of performance. One test section will be renovated using the proposed method; the other is a control. LM is using the lysimeters to evaluate the effectiveness of the renovation treatment by monitoring hydrologic conditions within the cover profile as well as all water entering and leaving the system. This paper describes the historical experience of final covers employing earthen barrier layers, the design and operation of the lysimeter test facility, testing conducted to characterize the as-built engineering and edaphic properties of the lysimeter soils, the calibration of instruments installed at the test facility, and monitoring data collected since the lysimeters were constructed.

  10. Facility model for the Los Alamos Plutonium Facility

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Coulter, C.A.; Thomas, K.E.; Sohn, C.L.; Yarbro, T.F.; Hench, K.W.

    1986-01-01T23:59:59.000Z

    The Los Alamos Plutonium Facility contains more than sixty unit processes and handles a large variety of nuclear materials, including many forms of plutonium-bearing scrap. The management of the Plutonium Facility is supporting the development of a computer model of the facility as a means of effectively integrating the large amount of information required for material control, process planning, and facility development. The model is designed to provide a flexible, easily maintainable facility description that allows the faciltiy to be represented at any desired level of detail within a single modeling framework, and to do this using a model program and data files that can be read and understood by a technically qualified person without modeling experience. These characteristics were achieved by structuring the model so that all facility data is contained in data files, formulating the model in a simulation language that provides a flexible set of data structures and permits a near-English-language syntax, and using a description for unit processes that can represent either a true unit process or a major subsection of the facility. Use of the model is illustrated by applying it to two configurations of a fictitious nuclear material processing line.

  11. 1996 Hanford site report on land disposal restrictions for mixed waste

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Black, D.G.

    1996-04-01T23:59:59.000Z

    This report was submitted to meet the requirements of Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order milestone M-26-OIF. This milestone requires the preparation of an annual report that covers characterization, treatment, storage, minimization, and other aspects of land disposal-restricted mixed waste management at the Hanford Site.

  12. Disposable remote zero headspace extractor

    DOE Patents [OSTI]

    Hand, Julie J. (Idaho Falls, ID); Roberts, Mark P. (Arco, ID)

    2006-03-21T23:59:59.000Z

    The remote zero headspace extractor uses a sampling container inside a stainless steel vessel to perform toxicity characteristics leaching procedure to analyze volatile organic compounds. The system uses an in line filter for ease of replacement. This eliminates cleaning and disassembly of the extractor. All connections are made with quick connect fittings which can be easily replaced. After use, the bag can be removed and disposed of, and a new sampling container is inserted for the next extraction.

  13. Sample storage/disposal study

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Valenzuela, B.D.

    1994-09-29T23:59:59.000Z

    Radioactive waste from defense operations has accumulated at the Hanford Site`s underground waste tanks since the late 1940`s. Each tank must be analyzed to determine whether it presents any harm to the workers at the Hanford Site, the public or the environment. Analyses of the waste aids in the decision making process in preparation of future tank waste stabilization procedures. Characterization of the 177 waste tanks on the Hanford Site will produce a large amount of archived material. This also brings up concerns as to how the excess waste tank sample material from 325 and 222-S Analytical Laboratories will be handled. Methods to archive and/or dispose of the waste have been implemented into the 222-S and 325 Laboratory procedures. As the amount of waste characterized from laboratory analysis grows, an examination of whether the waste disposal system will be able to compensate for this increase in the amount of waste needs to be examined. Therefore, the need to find the safest, most economically sound method of waste storage/disposal is important.

  14. Instructions to the Applicant 1. The Facility Representative shall complete a "Special Event Application &

    E-Print Network [OSTI]

    de Lijser, Peter

    Application & Permit". A site and floor plan must be submitted to the Office of the State Fire Marshal with the Fire and Life Safety requirements of Title 19, Title 24, and the conditions noted on this permit. Non. The Facility Representative shall transmit the "Special Event Application & Permit" to the Office of the State

  15. Special Analysis: Revision of Saltstone Vault 4 Disposal Limits (U)

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cook, J

    2005-05-26T23:59:59.000Z

    New disposal limits have been computed for Vault 4 of the Saltstone Disposal Facility based on several revisions to the models in the existing Performance Assessment and the Special Analysis issued in 2002. The most important changes are the use of a more rigorous groundwater flow and transport model, and consideration of radon emanation. Other revisions include refinement of the aquifer mesh to more accurately model the footprint of the vault, a new plutonium chemistry model accounting for the different transport properties of oxidation states III/IV and V/VI, use of variable infiltration rates to simulate degradation of the closure system, explicit calculation of gaseous releases and consideration of the effects of settlement and seismic activity on the vault structure. The disposal limits have been compared with the projected total inventory expected to be disposed in Vault 4. The resulting sum-of-fractions of the 1000-year disposal limits is 0.2, which indicates that the performance objectives and requirements of DOE 435.1 will not be exceeded. This SA has not altered the conceptual model (i.e., migration of radionuclides from the Saltstone waste form and Vault 4 to the environment via the processes of diffusion and advection) of the Saltstone PA (MMES 1992) nor has it altered the conclusions of the PA (i.e., disposal of the proposed waste in the SDF will meet DOE performance measures). Thus a PA revision is not required and this SA serves to update the disposal limits for Vault 4. In addition, projected doses have been calculated for comparison with the performance objectives laid out in 10 CFR 61. These doses are 0.05 mrem/year to a member of the public and 21.5 mrem/year to an inadvertent intruder in the resident scenario over a 10,000-year time-frame, which demonstrates that the 10 CFR 61 performance objectives will not be exceeded. This SA supplements the Saltstone PA and supersedes the two previous SAs (Cook et al. 2002; Cook and Kaplan 2003).

  16. MANAGING BERYLLIUM IN NUCLEAR FACILITY APPLICATIONS

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    R. Rohe; T. N. Tranter

    2011-12-01T23:59:59.000Z

    Beryllium plays important roles in nuclear facilities. Its neutron multiplication capability and low atomic weight make it very useful as a reflector in fission reactors. Its low atomic number and high chemical affinity for oxygen have led to its consideration as a plasma-facing material in fusion reactors. In both applications, the beryllium and the impurities in it become activated by neutrons, transmuting them to radionuclides, some of which are long-lived and difficult to dispose of. Also, gas production, notably helium and tritium, results in swelling, embrittlement, and cracking, which means that the beryllium must be replaced periodically, especially in fission reactors where dimensional tolerances must be maintained. It has long been known that neutron activation of inherent iron and cobalt in the beryllium results in significant {sup 60}Co activity. In 2001, it was discovered that activation of naturally occurring contaminants in the beryllium creates sufficient {sup 14}C and {sup 94}Nb to render the irradiated beryllium 'Greater-Than-Class-C' for disposal in U.S. radioactive waste facilities. It was further found that there was sufficient uranium impurity in beryllium that had been used in fission reactors up to that time that the irradiated beryllium had become transuranic in character, making it even more difficult to dispose of. In this paper we review the extent of the disposal issue, processes that have been investigated or considered for improving the disposability of irradiated beryllium, and approaches for recycling.

  17. Facility Safety

    Broader source: Directives, Delegations, and Requirements [Office of Management (MA)]

    2005-12-22T23:59:59.000Z

    This Order establishes facility and programmatic safety requirements for Department of Energy facilities, which includes nuclear and explosives safety design criteria, fire protection, criticality safety, natural phenomena hazards mitigation, and the System Engineer Program. Cancels DOE O 420.1A. DOE O 420.1B Chg 1 issued 4-19-10.

  18. Site maps and facilities listings

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Not Available

    1993-11-01T23:59:59.000Z

    In September 1989, a Memorandum of Agreement among DOE offices regarding the environmental management of DOE facilities was signed by appropriate Assistant Secretaries and Directors. This Memorandum of Agreement established the criteria for EM line responsibility. It stated that EM would be responsible for all DOE facilities, operations, or sites (1) that have been assigned to DOE for environmental restoration and serve or will serve no future production need; (2) that are used for the storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous, radioactive, and mixed hazardous waste materials that have been properly characterized, packaged, and labelled, but are not used for production; (3) that have been formally transferred to EM by another DOE office for the purpose of environmental restoration and the eventual return to service as a DOE production facility; or (4) that are used exclusively for long-term storage of DOE waste material and are not actively used for production, with the exception of facilities, operations, or sites under the direction of the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. As part of the implementation of the Memorandum of Agreement, Field Offices within DOE submitted their listings of facilities, systems, operation, and sites for which EM would have line responsibility. It is intended that EM facility listings will be revised on a yearly basis so that managers at all levels will have a valid reference for the planning, programming, budgeting and execution of EM activities.

  19. Authorized limits for disposal of PCB capacitors from Buildings 361 and 391 at Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois.

    SciTech Connect (OSTI)

    Cheng, J.-J.; Chen, S.-Y.; Environmental Science Division

    2009-12-22T23:59:59.000Z

    This report contains data and analyses to support the approval of authorized release limits for the clearance from radiological control of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) capacitors in Buildings 361 and 391 at Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois. These capacitors contain PCB oil that must be treated and disposed of as hazardous waste under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). However, they had been located in radiological control areas where the potential for neutron activation existed; therefore, direct release of these capacitors to a commercial facility for PCB treatment and landfill disposal is not allowable unless authorized release has been approved. Radiological characterization found no loose contamination on the exterior surface of the PCB capacitors; gamma spectroscopy analysis also showed the radioactivity levels of the capacitors were either at or slightly above ambient background levels. As such, conservative assumptions were used to expedite the analyses conducted to evaluate the potential radiation exposures of workers and the general public resulting from authorized release of the capacitors; for example, the maximum averaged radioactivity levels measured for capacitors nearest to the beam lines were assumed for the entire batch of capacitors. This approach overestimated the total activity of individual radionuclide identified in radiological characterization by a factor ranging from 1.4 to 640. On the basis of this conservative assumption, the capacitors were assumed to be shipped from Argonne to the Clean Harbors facility, located in Deer Park, Texas, for incineration and disposal. The Clean Harbors facility is a state-permitted TSCA facility for treatment and disposal of hazardous materials. At this facility, the capacitors are to be shredded and incinerated with the resulting incineration residue buried in a nearby landfill owned by the company. A variety of receptors that have the potential of receiving radiation exposures were analyzed. Based on the dose assessment results, it is indicated that, if the disposition activities are completed within a year, the maximum individual dose would be about 0.021 mrem/yr, which is about 0.02% of the primary dose limit of 100 mrem/yr set by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for members of the public. The maximum individual dose was associated with a conservative and unlikely scenario involving a hypothetical farmer who intruded the landfill area to set up a subsistence living above the disposal area 30 years after burial of the incineration residue. Potential collective dose for worker and the general public combined was estimated to be less than 4 x 10{sup -4} person-rem/yr, about 0.004% of the DOE authorized release objective of 10 person-rem/yr for collective exposure. In reality, the actual radiation doses incurred by workers and the general public are expected to be at least two orders of magnitude lower than the estimated values. To follow the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle of reducing potential radiation exposures associated with authorized release of the PCB capacitors, a dose constraint of 1 mrem/yr, corresponding to a small fraction of the 25 mrem/yr limit set by DOE, was initially used as a reference to derive the authorized release limits. On the basis of the dose assessment results, the following authorized release limits are proposed - 0.6 pCi/g for Mn-54, 0.6 pCi/g for Na-22, 0.1 pCi/g for Co-57, and 2.3 pCi/g for Co-60, with a corresponding maximum individual dose of 0.21 mrem/yr. This maximum dose, about 0.2% of the DOE primary dose limit of 100 mrem/yr for members of the public from all sources and exposure pathways, was then selected as the final dose constraint for releasing the PCB capacitors through the authorized process. The proposed authorized release limits would satisfy the DOE requirements for the release of non-real properties to a commercial treatment and disposal facility. In addition, due to the relatively short half-lives (< 5.27 years) of radionuclides of concern, there will be no long-term buil

  20. Washington Environmental Permit Handbook - Underground Injection...

    Open Energy Info (EERE)

    Washington Environmental Permit Handbook - Underground Injection Control Registration webpage Jump to: navigation, search OpenEI Reference LibraryAdd to library Web Site:...