skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Lessons Learned for Construction and Waste Water Management at Radioactive Waste Closure Site

Abstract

Environmental remediation of three different radioactive waste closure sites each required exhaustive characterization and evaluation of sampling and analytical information in resolving regulatory and technical issues that impact cleanup activities. One of the many regulatory and technical issues shared by all three and impacting the cleanup activities is the compliant management and discharge of waste waters generated and resulting from the remediation activities. Multiple options were available for each closure site in resolving waste water management challenges depending upon the base regulatory framework defined for the cleanup or closure of the site. These options are typically regulated by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), with exemptions available under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between regulatory agencies. In general, all parties must demonstrate equivalent compliance when concerns related to the protection of the general public and the environment. As such, all options for management of waste water resulting from closure activities must demonstrate compliance to or equivalent actions under the CWA. The CWA provides for the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) that is typically maintained by individual states through permitting processmore » to generators, public utilities, and more recently, construction sites. Of the three sites, different compliance strategies were employed for each. The approach for the Columbus Closure Project (CCP) was to initiate full scale compliance to the Ohio EPA General Construction Permit No. OHC000002. The CCP provided Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Ohio EPA to discharge under the general permit according to the regulator approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. For the second site, the Li Tungsten Superfund Site in Glen Cove, New York, the option was to manage and discharge waste water under a due diligence process to New York State General Permit No. GP-02-01. For the third site, the Middlesex Sampling Plant in Middlesex, New Jersey, the options was to manage and discharge waste water to the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). Each option has resulted in a safe, cost-effective, and compliant approach to managing discharging waste waters from the site closure activities. (authors)« less

Authors:
 [1]
  1. CHP ECC, Lakewood, Colorado (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
WM Symposia, 1628 E. Southern Avenue, Suite 9 - 332, Tempe, AZ 85282 (United States)
OSTI Identifier:
21326120
Report Number(s):
INIS-US-10-WM-08322
TRN: US10V0538067485
Resource Type:
Conference
Resource Relation:
Conference: WM'08: Waste Management Symposium 2008 - HLW, TRU, LLW/ILW, Mixed, Hazardous Wastes and Environmental Management - Phoenix Rising: Moving Forward in Waste Management, Phoenix, AZ (United States), 24-28 Feb 2008; Other Information: Country of input: France; 19 refs
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; CLOSURES; CONSTRUCTION PERMITS; RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL; RADIOACTIVE WASTES; REMEDIAL ACTION; SAMPLING; US EPA; US SUPERFUND; WASTE WATER; WATER POLLUTION

Citation Formats

Anderson, K.D. Lessons Learned for Construction and Waste Water Management at Radioactive Waste Closure Site. United States: N. p., 2008. Web.
Anderson, K.D. Lessons Learned for Construction and Waste Water Management at Radioactive Waste Closure Site. United States.
Anderson, K.D. 2008. "Lessons Learned for Construction and Waste Water Management at Radioactive Waste Closure Site". United States. doi:.
@article{osti_21326120,
title = {Lessons Learned for Construction and Waste Water Management at Radioactive Waste Closure Site},
author = {Anderson, K.D.},
abstractNote = {Environmental remediation of three different radioactive waste closure sites each required exhaustive characterization and evaluation of sampling and analytical information in resolving regulatory and technical issues that impact cleanup activities. One of the many regulatory and technical issues shared by all three and impacting the cleanup activities is the compliant management and discharge of waste waters generated and resulting from the remediation activities. Multiple options were available for each closure site in resolving waste water management challenges depending upon the base regulatory framework defined for the cleanup or closure of the site. These options are typically regulated by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), with exemptions available under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between regulatory agencies. In general, all parties must demonstrate equivalent compliance when concerns related to the protection of the general public and the environment. As such, all options for management of waste water resulting from closure activities must demonstrate compliance to or equivalent actions under the CWA. The CWA provides for the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) that is typically maintained by individual states through permitting process to generators, public utilities, and more recently, construction sites. Of the three sites, different compliance strategies were employed for each. The approach for the Columbus Closure Project (CCP) was to initiate full scale compliance to the Ohio EPA General Construction Permit No. OHC000002. The CCP provided Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Ohio EPA to discharge under the general permit according to the regulator approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. For the second site, the Li Tungsten Superfund Site in Glen Cove, New York, the option was to manage and discharge waste water under a due diligence process to New York State General Permit No. GP-02-01. For the third site, the Middlesex Sampling Plant in Middlesex, New Jersey, the options was to manage and discharge waste water to the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). Each option has resulted in a safe, cost-effective, and compliant approach to managing discharging waste waters from the site closure activities. (authors)},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2008,
month = 7
}

Conference:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share:
  • The Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF) is the Department of Energy's on-site disposal facility for radioactive and hazardous waste generated by the CERCLA cleanup of the Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR). EMWMF recently completed building out to its maximum site capacity and is approaching a decade of operating experience. In meeting the challenges of design, construction, and operation of a mixed waste and low-level radioactive waste disposal facility within the framework of CERCLA, the Bechtel Jacobs Company LLC (BJC) project team learned valuable lessons that may be beneficial to other disposal facilities. Since project inception in 1998, the scope ofmore » the effort includes five regulator-approved designs, four phases of construction, and utilization of half of EMWMF's 1.63 M m{sup 3} of airspace during disposal of waste streams from across the ORR. Funding came from the broadest possible range of sources - privatization, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and two funding appropriation accounts. In the process of becoming the cost effective disposal outlet for the majority of the ORR cleanup waste, EMWMF overcame numerous challenges. Lessons learned were a key factor in achieving that success. Many of EMWMF's challenges are common to other disposal facilities. Sharing the successes and lessons learned will help other facilities optimize design, construction, and operations. (author)« less
  • The Department of Energy Sites (DOE) are faced with the challenge of managing several categories of waste generated from past or future cleanup activities, such as 11(e)2 byproduct material, low-level radioactive (LL), low-level radioactive mixed (LLM), transuranic (TRU), high level radioactive (HL), and hazardous waste (HW). DOE must ensure safe and efficient management of these wastes while complying with all applicable federal and state laws. Proposed waste management strategies for the EM-40 Environmental Restoration (ER) program at these sites indicate that on-site disposal is becoming a viable option. For purposes of this paper, on-site disposal cells managed by the EM-40more » program at Hanford, Weldon Spring, Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP) and Rocky Flats were compared. Programmatic aspects and design features were evaluated to determine what comparisons can be made, and to identify benefits lessons learned that may be applicable to other sites. Based on comparative analysis, it can be concluded that the DOE EM-40 disposal cells are very unique. Stakeholders played a major role in the decision to locate the various DOE on-site disposal facilities. The disposal cells will be used to manage 11(e)2 by-product materials, LL, LLM, and/or HLW. The analysis further suggests that the design criteria are comparable. Lessons learned relative to the public involvement activities at Weldon Spring, and the design approach at Hanford should be considered when planning future on-site disposal facilities at DOE sites. Further, a detailed analysis of progress made at Hanford should be evaluated for application at sites such as Rocky Flats that are currently planning on-site disposal facilities.« less
  • Management Systems Laboratories (MSL) has worked with the US Department of Energy (DOE) and several of its contractors as they understand and assess the DOE culture change and change the contractor culture to serve DOE's needs. Primarily, these contractors have been those whose responsibilities include starting up and operating weapons materials facilities. The number and scope of these activities have escalated and expanded to contractors at DOE sites such as Westinghouse at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken, South Carolina, EG G at the Rocky Flats Plant (RFP) in Golden, Colorado, and Westinghouse at the Feed Materials Processing Centermore » (FMPC) in Fernald, Ohio. The point of this paper is not to compare or contrast the relative merit of one site over another. It is to show the lessons, good and bad, and use and communicate those lessons, especially those lessons transferable to other sites in similar situations. 8 refs., 1 fig.« less
  • Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, located at sites across the nation, generate large quantities and a wide variety of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) from nuclear defense production and research and development activities. All DOE-generated LLRW is disposed of at DOE disposal sites. Most DOE waste generating sites do not have disposal facilities on site and so must ship their LLRW to one of six currently active DOE disposal locations. Four disposal sites are located in generally arid regions: the Hanford Reservation (HANF) in the state of Washington, the Nevada Test Site (NTS), the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), and themore » Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico. The other two disposal sites are located in the humid southeast: The Savannah River Plant (SRP) in South Carolina and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee.« less
  • Department of Energy (DOE) facilities, located at sites across the nation, generate large quantities and a wide variety of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) from nuclear defense production and research and development activities. All DOE-generated LLRW is disposed of at DOE disposal sites. Most DOE waste generating sites do not have disposal facilities on site and so must ship their LLRW to one of six currently active DOE disposal locations. Four disposal sites are located in generally arid regions: the Hanford Reservation (HANF) in the state of Washington, the Nevada Test Site (NTS), the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL), and themore » Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) in New Mexico. The other two disposal sites are located in the humid southeast: The Savannah River Plant (SRP) in South Carolina and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee.« less