Nuclear Waste Cleanup Technology and Opportunities

457 Pages·1995·5.787 MB·English

by  Robert Noyes

About the Author
Robert Noyes is agraduate chemical engineer, with graduate
studies in nuclear engineering. Prior to founding Noyes Data
CorporationINoyes Publications, hewas nuclear salesmanager
for Bums & Roe, Inc" and Curtiss-Wright International; re
sponsible for marketing research reactors.
He is the author of four previous books: Handbook ofPol
lution Control Processes; Handbook of Leak, Spill and
Accidental Release Prevention Techniques; Pollution Pre
vention Technology Handbook; and Unit Operations in En
vironmental Engineering.
v
Preface
One of the largest, most complicated and expensive environmental
problems in the United States is the cleanup of nuclear wastes. The U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) has approximately 4,000 contaminated sites
covering tens ofthousands ofacres and replete with contaminated hazardous or
radioactive waste, soil,orstructures. Inaddition tohigh-level waste, ithas more
than 250,000 cubic meters oftransuranic waste and millions ofcubic tpeters of
low-level radioactive waste. In addition, DOE is responsible for thousands of
facilities awaiting decontamination, decommissioning, and dismantling.
DOE and its predecessors have been involved in the management of
radioactive wastes since 1943, when such wastes were first generated in
significant quantities as by-products of nuclear weapons production. Waste
connected with DOE's nuclear weapons complex has been accumulating as a
result of various operations spanning over five decades.
The cost estimates for nuclear waste cleanup in the United States have
been rapidly rising. It has recently been estimated in arange from $200 billion
to $350 billion. Costs could vary considerably based on future philosophies as
towhether to isolate certain sites (the "iron fence" philosophy), orclean them up
topristine conditions (the "green fields" philosophy). Fundingwill also bebased
oncongressional action thatmayreduce environmental cleanup,basedonbudget
considerations.
The technologies discussed in this book include the following:
1. Processes currently being utilized
2. Technology in the demonstration phase
3. Processes being developed
4. Research needs
vii
viii Preface
There is a vast amount of technical infonnation on current, in
demonstration, and potential cleanup technology, that would require an
encylopaedic workto fully describe. Therefore, this bookcanonly describe very
briefly the technology involved.
Infonnation contained inthisbookwasobtainedfrompublishedmaterial
issuedbyvariousgovernment agencies including: Department ofEnergy(DOE),
Department of Defense (DOD), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
General Accounting Office (GAO), Office ofTechnology Assessment (OTA),
and Energy Infonnation Administration (EIA). Published material was also
supplied by contractors working at DOE sites.
The Introduction presents infonnation that would be helpful to those
finns wishing to participate in DOE programs. In Appendix II, addresses, and
telephone numbers of the important sites are indicated. Also, foreign nuclear
contacts (with adescription oftheir activities) are presented inAppendix III,for
24 countries.
The substantial amount of money that will be spent on nuclear waste
cleanup offers an excellent opportunity for engineering, equipment, chemical,
instrument, and other finns.
Notice
To thebestofourknowledge the infonnation in thispublication isaccurate;
however, the Publisher does not assume any responsibility orliabilityforthe
accuracyorcompletenessof,orconsequences arisingfrom,suchinfonnation.
Thisbookisintendedforinfonnationalpurposesonly.Mentionoftradenames
orcommercial products does notconstitute endorsement orrecommendation
for use by the Publisher. Final determination of the suitability of any
infonnation orproduct for use contemplated by any user, and the manner of
thatuse,isthesoleresponsibility oftheuser.Werecommend thatanyone in
tending torelyonanyrecommendation ofmaterialsorproceduresmentioned
inthispublicationshouldsatisfyhimselfastosuchsuitability,andthathecan
meet all applicable safety and health standards.
1
Introduction
1.1 OVERVIEW
Any activity that produces or uses radioactive materials generates
radioactivewaste. Mining, nuclearpowergeneration, andvarious processes in
industry, defense, medicine, and scientific research produce by-products that
include radioactive waste. Radioactive waste can be in gas, liquid, or solid
form, and itslevel ofradioactivitycanvary. The wastecan remain radioactive
for a few hours or several months or evenhundreds ofthousands ofyears.
Broadlydefined,themanagementofradioactivewastesencompassesthe
handling, storage, treatment, transportation, and permanent disposal of all
radioactive wastes.
Currently, a minimumofover45,300siteshandle radioactive material
orcontainpotentialradioactivecontamination. Ofthese, approximatelyhalfare
inoperationtoday. Insomecases, asinglecomplexmayhaveas manyas 1,500
contaminated sites, in other cases there may be 1siteper complex. However,
for all practical purposes, a much smaller number of sites are responsible for
most of the radioactive waste, and will involve a very high percentage of the
cleanup costs. These important sites are under the control of the U.S.
Department ofEnergy (DOE).
DOE and its predecessors have been involved in the management of
radioactive wastes since 1943, when such wastes were first generated in
significantquantitiesas by-products ofnuclear weapons production.
Waste connected withDOE's nuclear complex has been accumulating
as a resultofvarious operations spanningnearly 5 decades: first inconnection
with DOE's Defense Programs, more recently in connectionwith programs in
Nuclear Energy and Energy Research. When the nuclear age dawned in the
1940s with the Manhattan Project, there was littleknowledge ofthe degree to
which nuclear and hazardous waste materials posed a danger to human health
1
2 Nuclear Waste Cleanup
and safety or to the environment. Furthermore, during the earlier part ofthis
period, the demands of World War II, Korea, and the cold war days of the
1950sand 1960splacedhigherpriorityonnuclearoperationsandlowerpriority
on the wastes generated from such operations.
DOE's missionand prioritieshave changed dramatically over time so
thattheDepartmentisnowvery differentfromwhatitwasin 1977whenitwas
created in response to the nation's energy crisis. While energy research,
conservation and policy-making dominated early DOE priorities, weapons
productionand nowenvironmental cleanup overshadow its budget.
When DOE was created in 1977, it inherited the national laboratories
with a management structure that had evolved from the World War II
"Manhattan Project," whose mission was to design and build the world's first
atomic bombs. Fromthis national security mission, the laboratories generated
expertise that initially developed nuclear power as an energy source. The
laboratories' missions broadened in 1967, when the Congress recognized their
role in conducting environmental as well as public health and safety-related
research and development. In 1971, the Congress again expanded the
laboratories' role, permittingthem to conductnon-nuclear energy research and
development. During the 1980s, the Congress enacted laws to stimulate the
transfer oftechnology from the laboratories to u.s. industry. DOE estimates
thatoverthepast20years, thenationhasinvestedmore than$100billioninthe
laboratories.
DOE is responsible for some of the nation's largest and most
impressive scientific facilities. The agency's 9 national multiprogram
laboratoriesemploymorethan50,000peopleandhaveannualoperatingbudgets
that exceed $6 billion. DOE estimates that more than $100 billionhas been
invested in the laboratories over the past 20 years. The laboratories' work
covers many scientific areas-from high-energy physics to advanced
computing-at facilities located throughout the nation.
AlthoughDOE owns thelaboratories, itcontractswithuniversitiesand
private-sectororganizationsfortheirmanagementandoperation-apracticethat
has made the laboratories more attractive to scientists and engineers. These
contractsgenerallyrunfor5years; however, someofthelaboratorieshavebeen
run by the same contractor for decades, even since their inceptionin the early
1940s. The laboratory contractorsand DOE formpartnershipsat each site, but
the Department remains responsible for providing the laboratories with their
missions and overall direction, as well as for giving them specific direction to
meet both program and administrative goals. There are more than 145,000
contractor employees at DOE nuclear sites. The original concept of nuclear
reconfiguration was described in the January 1991 Nuclear Weapons Complex
ReconfigurationStudy. Thisstudyoutlinedpotentialconfigurationsofthefuture
Complexandchartedthecoursenecessary toachieve thegoalofmodernization.
In February 1991, the Secretary ofEnergy announced DOE's intentto prepare
Introduction 3
a Reconfiguration Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PElS) to
analyze the environmental impacts of the alternatives presented in this study.
However, there havebeen significantchanges in the worldsinceJanuary 1991,
especially with regard to projected future requirements of the United States'
nuclear weapons stockpile. As a result, the Nuclear Weapons Complex
Reconfiguration Studyno longerprovidesasuitableframework for determining
the appropriate configuration of the future Nuclear Weapons Complex. The
framework for a new proposal is now being developed. Therefore, DOE
decided toseparatetheReconfigurationPElS intotwoPEISs: aTritiumSupply
and Recycling PElS and a StockpileStewardship and Management PElS.
The environmental task facing DOE is enormous and continues to
expand. DOE has approximately 4,000 contaminated sites covering tens of
thousandsofacresandrepletewithcontaminatedhazardousorradioactivewaste,
soil, or structures. Ithas more than 250,000cubic meters oftransuranic waste
and millionsofcubic meters oflow-level radioactive waste. In addition, DOE
is responsible for thousands of facilities awaiting decontamination,
decommissioning, and dismantling. Consequently, DOE faces major technical,
planning, and institutional challenges in meeting its expanding environmental
responsibilitieswhile controlling cost growth.
Workperformed at the DOE Weapons Complex has traditionallybeen
divided into 4 categories:
1. Weaponsresearchanddevelopmentat3nationallaboratories, Los
Alamos and Sandia in New Mexico and Lawrence Livermore
in California;
2. Nuclear materials (plutonium and tritium) production and
processing at the Hanford Plant in Washington State and the
Savannah River Site in South Carolina, along with uranium
processing at the Feed Materials Production Center in Ohio
and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory;
3. Warhead component production at the Rocky Flats Plant in
Colorado, the Y-12 Plant in Tennessee, the Mound Plant in
Ohio, the Pinellas Plant in Florida, the Kansas City Plant in
Missouri, and thePantex Plant (finalassembly) inTexas; and
4. Warhead testing at the Nevada Test Site.
AlthoughtheWeaponsComplexwasdevelopedinWorldWarIIaspart
of the Manhattan Project, a major expansion occurred in the early 1950s.
Today, most operating facilities are more than30 years old. Operations are in
various stages oftransition because ofsafety and environmental problems that
have diverted attention from productionand because of the uncertain future of
the entire enterprise.
Although facilities in the DOE complex have much in common, there
is no "typical" facility. Each site has a unique combination of characteristics
thatshapes itsparticularwasteand contaminationproblems and affects theway
those problems are addressed. Relevant facility characteristics include its
functionsand management; its size, location, and proximitytopopulatedareas;
4 Nuclear Waste Cleanup
anditsrelationshipswithFederalandStateregulators, neighboringcommunities,
and the general public.
DOE is responsible for environmental cleanup and waste management
at 15majorcontaminatedfacilitiesandmorethan100smallerfacilitiesinthirty
four states and territories. These facilities encompass a wide range of waste
sites,includingtanksorotherstoragefacilitiescontainingradioactivewastefrom
nuclear weaponsproduction,productionfacilitiesthatare nowidledandinneed
of cleanup, and locations where hazardous chemicals were dumped into the
ground. Cleaning up these sites is an enormous task. Examples of some of
these sites are indicatedbelow.
DOE Weapons Complex facilities-both large and small-are spread
across theNation, from SouthCarolinatoWashingtonState, andare locatedin
both remote and populated regions. The Feed Materials Production Center
(Fernald), whichhasproduceduraniummetal forweapons, isa l,450-acresite,
a relatively small facility located 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati, OH, in a
rural area witha numberoffarms. The Rocky Flats PlantinColorado, which
has been producing plutonium "triggers" for weapons, is also a small facility
situated close to densely populated suburbs ofDenver.
Othersitesare muchlarger thanFernaldorRockyFlats. TheHanford
Reservation encompasses approximately 360,000 acres in the Columbia River
Basin ofsoutheastern Washington State. Hanford's primary mission has been
toproduceweapons-gradeplutonium; itproducedplutoniumfor theatombomb
dropped on Nagasaki during World WarII. The Savannah River Site, builtin
the 1950s, produces tritiumandplutonium. Itconsistsof192,000acres onthe
north bank ofthe Savannah River. Most ofthe immediate plant environs are
rural, and the surrounding area, which is heavily wooded, ranges from dry
hilltops to swampland. More than 20,000 people are employed at Savannah
River, making it the largest plant (in terms of employment) in the DOE
Weapons Complex.
The Oak Ridge Reservation covers approximately 58,000 acres in
eastern Tennessee. Oak Ridge carries out several activities including the
production of weapons components. The area immediately around the
reservation is predominately rural except for the City ofOakRidge. The City
of Knoxville is about 15 miles away. The Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory (lNEL), where reactor fuel is reprocessed to recover uranium, has
anumberoffacilitiesandconductsavariety ofotheractivities. Thelargestsite
in terms ofarea, INEL covers 570,000 acres in southeastern Idaho. The site
boundary is about 22 miles from the City ofIdaho Falls.
TheNuclearWeaponsComplex isanindustrialempire-acollectionof
enormous factories devotedtometal fabrication, chemical separationprocesses,
and electronic assembly. Like most industrial operations, these factories have
generated waste, much of it toxic. The past 50 years of nuclear weapons
productionhaveresultedintherelease ofvastquantitiesofhazardous chemicals
Introduction 5
and radionuclidesto theenvironment. Thereis evidencethatair, groundwater,
surfacewater, sediments, andsoil, aswellasvegetationandwildlife,have been
contaminatedat most, ifnotall, ofDOE nuclear weapons sites.
AlthoughtheWeaponsComplexwasdevelopedinWorldWarIIaspart
of the Manhattan Project, a major expansion occurred in the early 1950s.
Today, mostoftheoperating facilities are more than30 years old. Operations
are invarious stagesoftransitionbecauseofsafetyandenvironmentalproblems
that have diverted attention from the production mission and because of
uncertainty about the future ofthe entire enterprise.
Contamination of soil, sediments, surface water, and groundwater
throughout the Nuclear Weapons Complex is extensive. At every facility the
groundwateris contaminatedwithradionuclidesorhazardous chemicals. Most
sites in non-arid locations also have surface water contamination. Millionsof
cubic meters ofradioactive and hazardous wastes have been buried throughout
the complex, and there are few adequate records of burial site locations and
contents. Contaminated soils and sediments ofall categories are estimated to
total billionsofcubic meters.
Descriptionsofvastquantitiesofold buriedwaste; ofcontaminants in
pits, ponds, and lagoons; and of the migration of contamination into water
suppliesservetodramatizetheproblem. However, sofarverylittlequantitative
characterization ofeach sitehas been accomplished.
Many factors have contributed to the current wasteand contamination
problems at the weapons sites: the nature ofmanufacturing processes, which
are inherently waste producing; a long history ofemphasizing the urgency of
weapons production in the interest of national security, to the neglect of
environmental considerations; a lack of knowledge about, or attention to, the
consequences of environmental contamination; and an enterprise that has
operated in secrecy for decades, without any independent oversight or
meaningful public scrutiny.
Sites contaminatedwith radionuclides pose a uniqueproblembecause,
unlikeorganicwastes, radionuclidescannotbedestroyedbyphysicalorchemical
means; they can only decay through their natural process. Thus, alteration or
remediation of the radioactive decay processes, thereby changing the
fundamental hazard, is notpossible.
As part of DOE's technological development program, it will be
important to identify the greatestneeds and the areas inwhich new technology
can make a difference. The first step should be to identify cleanup needs and
to determine those that are most urgent and serious. In this step, information
abouthealtheffectsshouldbefactoredinas itbecomesavailable. Forexample,
among the problems that DOE has already identifiedas particularly intractable
are the following:
6 Nuclear Waste Cleanup
1. Groundwater contaminationat almost all sites,
2. Plutoniumin soil (e.g., at Rocky Flats and Mound Plant),
3. Silos containinguranium processing residues at Fernald,
4. Single-shell tanks containinghigh-level waste at Hanford, and
5. Buried transuranic waste at INEL.
Contamination of soil, sediments, surface water, and groundwater
throughout the Weapons Complex is widespread. Almost every facility has
confirmed groundwater contamination with radionuclides or hazardous
chemicals. All sites in non-arid locations probably have surface water
contamination. Almost 4,000 solid waste management units (SWMUs) have
beenidentifiedthroughouttheWeapons Complex-manyofwhichrequiresome
form ofremedial action. Substantialquantitiesofradioactive and mixed waste
havebeenburiedthroughoutthecomplex, manywithoutadequaterecordoftheir
locationor composition.
Presently, DOEhas identifiedmore than1million55 gallondrumsand
boxesofwasteinstorage, and 3millioncubicmeters ofburiedwaste. Overthe
years, many of the older disposal containers have been breached resulting in
contamination of the adjacent soil. Considering transuranic solid waste,
approximately 190,000cubicmeters havebeenburied, and60,600cubicmeters
have been retrieved and stored. Mixed transuranic waste composes 58,000
cubicmetersofthisinventory. High-levelwastestoredat4DOEsitesrepresent
another 381,000 cubic meters ofvolume.
Currently, 77 million gallons ofhigh-level waste is contained in 332
underground storage tanks as sludge/liquids. There are also small amounts,
approximately 4,000 cubic meters of high-level waste, stored as granular
calcined solids. Most of the high-level wastes are mixed with hazardous
contaminantsandare thusconsideredmixedwastes. Theremainderofthewaste
in storage is low-level waste. This remainder is made up of3,000,000 cubic
meters, including 247,000 cubic meters ofmixed low-level waste. Currently,
no effective treatmentis known to existfor 107,000cubic meters ofthis mixed
low-level waste.
Another ofthe most pressing environmental restoration needs for the
DOEinvolvecleanuporcontainmentofradioactiveandhazardouscontaminants
in soils and groundwater. The DOE soils and groundwater programs were
designed to identify, develop, and demonstrate innovative technology systems
capable of removing or reducing potential health and environmental risks.
These risks are the result of previous storage and disposal practices that left
behinda legacy ofradioactive and hazardous materials (includingheavy metals
andtoxicorganiccompounds)inthesurroundingsoilandgroundwater. Sources
of this contamination at the DOE sites include: previous disposal of
contaminatedwastes in ponds, seepage pits, trenches, and shallow land burial
sites; spillsand leakage from waste transport, temporary storage facilities, and
underground storage tanks; and unregulated discharges to the air and surface
waters.
Introduction 7
Another form of waste, representing potentially large volumes, is
associatedwithdecontaminationanddecommissioningofcontaminatedbuildings
and equipment. More than 500 separate facilities have been identified, and it
is possible that as many as 7,000 facilities at 39 different sites could be
scheduled for decontamination and decommissioning. Although materials will
berecycled when possible, thisactivitywill result innew waste generation that
is immeasurable at this time. Additionally, as much as 20,000 cubic meters of
mixedwaste, in100separatewastestreams, isstillbeinggeneratedonanannual
basis from ongoing transitionactivities.
One of the biggest challenges facing the DOE is effective
characterization of contamination. Characterization must take place before a
contaminant site can be properly prioritized. To accomplish this, methods are
beingdeveloped thatare capable ofmapping vastareas at depthsup to 250feet
belowgroundlevel. Resultsare threedimensionalimagesthatarevaluabletools
for proper selection and placement ofremediation technologies. Complicating
remediationeffortsfurtheristhefact thattechniquesfor accessingand removing
contaminantsdifferinaridandnon-aridenvironments. Asaresult, technologies
must be demonstrated and evaluated at multiplesites.
Adequate chemical and physical characterization information is
importantfor satisfactorymanagementand disposalofall(bothnuclearandnon
nuclear)DOEwastes. Forexample, detailedandaccuratewastecharacterization
dataare essential notonly to develop appropriateand flexible pretreatment and
conversion processes, but also to classify and certify wastes, both before and
after pretreatment, for disposal as mandated by state and federal regulations.
Similarly, characterization by physical methods of the important geologic,
hydrologic, and seismic properties of candidate strata and sites is absolutely
necessary to eventual disposal of certain DOE radioactive wastes in a deep
geologic repository. The overriding importance ofreliable waste and disposal
site characterization data is a strong spur for basic research to devise new and
better characterization methods and to improve and supplement existing and
proven procedures.
The need for advanced and improved systems and instruments to
characterize contaminated soils, sediments, etc. has been recognized in
connectionwithDOEenvironmentalrestorationprograms and activities. Some
research needs such as in situanalytical techniques, portable field instruments,
and advanced analytical instrumentation are common to both waste
management/disposal and environmental restoration programs.
The cleanup of these nuclear waste sites is one of the most difficult
tasksfacing thiscountry. Problemsincludelegaldifficulties,regulatoryoverlap,
conflict between state and federal governments, lack of proven technical
processing, enormous costs, and safety considerations.
DOE'sstatedgoalofenvironmentalcleanupbytheyear2019represents
a formidable challenge, and currently available information does not clearly