WERF INCINERATOR OPERATIONS UPGRADE FOR MACT OR SHUTDOWN AND FIND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

Similar documents
MFC CH-TRU Waste Certification Plan

TYPE B PACKAGING AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

WHAT IS THE COST FOR DOE LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL? Karen Guevara U.S. Department of Energy

FFTF DECOMMISSIONING. FFTF Decommissioning Alternative 1: No Action. FFTF Decommissioning Alternative 2: Entombment

HANFORD SITE MIXED WASTE DISPOSAL

INEEL REMOTE-HANDLED TRANSURANIC WASTE INVENTORY, WASTE DISPOSITION PLANS, AND TECHNOLOGY NEEDS

Transportation Program Overview

DEVELOPMENT OF AN INVENTORY REDUCTION PLAN FOR THE OAK RIDGE RESERVATION LOW LEVEL WASTE INVENTORIES

TER LIF'E CYCLE COST ESTIMATION AND SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

WIPP CAPACITY National Academy of Sciences

ASHTABULA SUCCESSES MACRO NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PIECES!

DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING A LIFE-CYCLE COST MODEL FOR FIRST-OF- A-KIND BUILDING DECOMMISSIONING

DOE Environmental Management

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER SUPPORT AGENCY

Waste Management Fiscal Year 1998 Progress Report

Waste Management Idaho Lessons Learned

RCRA CLOSURE OF MATERIALS DISPOSAL AREA P, LOS ALAMOS NEW MEXICO. Criswell, C.William Roy F. Weston Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico

Annual Fugitive Dust Report for the Walter Scott, Jr. Energy Center

ROP - CAM EXAMPLE TABLE NOTE: THIS TEMPLATE IS NOT AN OUTLINE FOR A CAM PLAN

Developed and Presented by: Wisconsin Healthcare Engineering Association

T-125 EVOLUTION OF THERMAL REMEDIATION. Technical Paper T-125. EVOLUTION OF THERMAL REMEDIATION by Wendell R. Feltman P.E.

EMERGENCY PHONE: or (651) (24 hours) For light to medium duty strapping, bundling, and reinforcing applicaitons.

Annual Fugitive Dust Report for the Walter Scott, Jr. Energy Center

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL U.S. Department of Energy. AUDIT REPORT OAI-L September 2017

Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Management Program

NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES PLUTONIUM DISPOSAL AT WIPP. MAYOR S NUCLEAR TASK FORCE JOHN HEATON, CHAIR March 13, 2018

INCINERATION OF DOE OFFSITE MIXED WASTE AT THE IDAHO NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

ALLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AIR QUALITY PROGRAM

WORD GAME PARKED/PARKED

WM 05 Conference, February 27 March 3, 2005, Tucson, AZ

ATTACHMENT N LEED PROJECT PROCEDURES

COMPREHENSIVE WM/ER/D&D/LTS RISK MODEL FOR THE INEEL

WIPP Overview. Betsy Forinash. Director, National Transuranic Waste (TRU) Program-HQ Office of Environmental Management, DOE

DOE ORDER "RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT" SRS & DOE COMPLEX IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND COSTS. W.T. Goldston Westinghouse Savannah River Company

Industrial Accessories Company 4800 Lamar Ave Mission, Kansas ETHANOL MARKET. PP007

MANAGING EMISSIONS OF POLYMER ADDITIVES. Through the proactive implementation of Good Practice

MANAGING EMISSIONS OF POLYMER ADDITIVES. Through the proactive implementation of Good Practice

Treatment of Radioactive Reactive Mixed Waste

ELEVATING VAM RTO INLET CONCENTRATION THROUGH CMM BLENDING FOR POWER GENERATION

GENERAL TESTING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

ROCKY FLATS CENTRALIZED SIZE REDUCTION FACILITY PROJECT UPDATE

RIVER PROTECTION PROJECT WASTE TREATMENT PLANT CONCEPT AND APPROACH. M. J. Lawrence, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., Inc.

PHYSICAL FACILITIES 2018 Consultant s Handbook Division 01 General 1400 Quality Requirements - Environmental Checklist

EMERGENCY PHONE: or (651) (24 hours)

Asbestos Abatement Standard Procedures Indoor Environment Group, Inc.

DOE LOW-LEVEL AND MIXED LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Innovative Multiphase Extraction Design Operating above the Upper Flammability Limit (UFL). Stuart Torr. M.Eng. EIT. October 2005 SYSTEM DESIGN GROUP

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISPOSAL CORE PLAN FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES, UNIVERSAL WASTES, AND USED OIL

APPENDIX XXIII SUBPART FF COMPLIANCE PLAN

EM Packaging and Transportation Update

Heritage Thermal Services RCRA Incineration Basics. Dave Buckner

Pollution Prevention Appendix W: Solid and Hazardous Waste

EMERGENCY PHONE: or (651) (24 hours)

WM2012 Conference, February 26 March 1, 2012, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Treatability Variance for Containerized Liquids in Mixed Debris Waste 12101

EMERGENCY PHONE: or (651) (24 hours)

DEPLOYMENT EVALUATION METHODOLOGY FOR THE ELECTROMETALLURGICAL TREATMENT OF DOE-EM SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

Material Safety Data Sheet SECTION 1: PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION SECTION 2: INGREDIENTS SECTION 3: HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION

The System Cost Model: A Tool for Life Cycle Cost and Risk An a1ysis

Annual CCR Fugitive Dust Report. TS Power Plant. Eureka County, Nevada

Melting Organics Waste - Seeing Waste Diversion Value in Ice Cream

WM Symposia AND FY 2013 Budget Overview. David Huizenga Senior Advisor for Environmental Management February

Measurement, Accounting and Reporting Plan for Thermal Heavy Oil Recovery Projects

Appendix V: Solid and Hazardous Waste

Perma-Fix Environmental Services, Inc. (Perma-Fix)

STGWG Open Session with Environmental Management

environmental hazard. Contains a chemical or chemicals which can cause cancer. This product, when used under reasonable conditions and in accordance w

VIRIDOR WASTE MANAGEMENT ARDLEY EFW PLANT EP APPLICATION - NON TECHNICAL SUMMARY

CASE STUDY: USE OF CIRCULATING FLUIDIZED BED BOILER BYPRODUCT TO SOLIDIFY OILY SLUDGE

Abstract. 1 Introduction. Golder Associates Ltd, Canada

Waste Information Management System with Integrated Transportation Forecast Data 9097

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Solids Handling Checklist

Efficiencies in the Environmental Restoration Operations at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico

WM2013 Conference, February 24 28, 2013, Phoenix, Arizona USA

Di ti agnos cs & O ti p i m t za ittion of of Pollution Control Systems y Dan Bemi MEGTEC Systems I nc Inc.

Land Disposal Restriction Checklist

FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN DUNKIRK GENERATION STATION 106 POINT DRIVE NORTH DUNKIRK, NEW YORK. PREPARED FOR: Dunkirk Power, LLC Dunkirk, New York

40 CFR Part 257. Rollin M. Schahfer Generating Station

NELSON PLANT CCR FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN

Best Management Practices for Fertilizer Storage and Nutrient Management

Project Management Plan for Low-Level Mixed Waste and Greater-Than-Category 3 Waste per Tri-Party Agreement M-91-10

CUSTOMER AUDIT HANDBOOK CORPORATE OVERVIEW

Field trip to Arnoldstein WTE facility Arnoldstein, Austria, December 19, by Werner Sunk

INEEL HEPA Filter Leach System: A Mixed Waste Solution. By Mark Argyle, Rick Demmer, Kip Archibald, Ken Pierson, Kimberlee Shackelford, and Ken Kline

TITLE V PERMIT APPLICATION APPLICATION COMPLETENESS CHECK LIST

1.2.5 Fast Flux Test Facility Deactivation Decision and Record of Decision/Environmental Impact Statement for Deactivation Decision

Vitrification of Mixed Wastes, the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Supplemental Treatment Hanford Immobilized Low Activity Waste Discussion National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Attachment H AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND PREVENTION DIVISION

State Of The Art (SOTA) Manual For Non-Hazardous Onsite Remediation Processes

Waste Form Initiative Close Out Report Draft

Comparison of estimated and actual decommissioning cost of José Cabrera NPP

Asbestos in the Workplace: A Guide to Removal of Friable Asbestos Containing Materials

In the early 1990s, KHNP considered vitrification technology as a prospective candidate for the

Waste Information Management System

WASTE MANAGEMENT MT WA. Chemical Waste Management of the Northwest

Production of Recycled Products from Coal Ash Using a Plasma Enhanced Melter

Office of River Protection

Consolidated Standards for Cleaning Food Contact Packaging Manufacturing Facilities

AP1000 European 16. Technical Specifications Design Control Document

WTE CAPITAL REFURBISHMENTS Extending the Life of WTE Facilities Another 25 Years HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.

Transcription:

WERF INCINERATOR OPERATIONS UPGRADE FOR MACT OR SHUTDOWN AND FIND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES Donald N. Rasch, Monte V. Davis, Stacey S. Francis, Kevin Kooda Jeff Mousseau, Phil Gray, Jeff Riedesel, Jeff Shadley ABSTRACT This paper presents the results of alternatives analysis for treating the INEEL incinerable mixed low-level waste. Several areas were considered during the analysis; current volume of waste for incineration currently identified in the INEEL Site Treatment Plan (STP), risk analysis pertaining to the facility upgrades for MACT, and an economic analysis based on funding allocation for DOE-HQ. A joint team of DOE-ID and BBWI personnel was involved in performing this work. WERF INCINERATOR EVALUATION Decision Process Risk Evaluation for the WERF Incinerator MACT Decision The Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office (DOE-ID) and Bechtl BWTX Inc. (BBWI) performed an analysis of the factors associated with the two core options, the INEEL upgrading the Waste Experimental Reduction Facility (WERF) incinerator to meet MACT or performing RCRA closure and using alternative treatments. Regardless of the path forward for the WERF incinerator, there are many factors and assumptions to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) for incinerable MLLW treatment, which are essentially the same for both options: Potential compliance road blocks with INEEL Site Treatment Plan (STP) milestones The accuracy of the waste projection estimates (over/under estimated) Availability of MLLW for treatment Unforeseen/unidentified waste generation from Environmental Restoration activities, and reclassified mixed waste etc Known inaccuracies with the existing MLLW treatment baseline, and zero funding post 2003 Impacts of the implementation of the MLLW/LLW PEIS ROD Potential increases in WERF incinerator operating cost or commercial price for treatment These factors and assumptions along with the associated mitigating actions, are consistent between both options. The following address in detail the principle factors and assumptions for the two options being analyzed. Comply with MACT by upgrading WERF Incinerator To upgrade the WERF incinerator to MACT standards, the facility itself must be permitted with new emission control equipment and pass a performance test to facilitate continued treatment of MLLW. The incinerator would be shutdown for, at a minimum, of one year. The WERF incinerator has an existing treatment schedule for the treatment of onsite and offsite mixed waste. The resultant changes to the treatment schedule as a result of the shutdown and the possibilities of WERF being unable to pass the MACT performance test, would necessitate that other mitigating actions must be taken while the upgrades and testing were taking place:

Re-map, negotiate and develop contracts for debris waste to alternative treatments for waste requiring treatment prior to the completion of upgrades Re-map, negotiate and develop contracts for non-debris waste to other thermal treatment options Negotiate with DEQ for a path forward as early as possible on the permitting and testing of MACT upgrades Negotiate change in schedule with Complex wide generators to store waste at the generators site until WERF MACT upgrades were completed These actions are essentially the same for both the WERF incinerator shutdown and MACT upgrading options. Cost of MACT Compliance The MACT upgrade has been estimated at $.4.2 M in capital costs based upon the feasibility study prepared by BBWI for DOE-ID. A complete conceptual design was not completed to verify this estimate. Nor, were any like process upgrades evaluated for comparison, which would address potential uncertainties in the cost estimate. The technical basis in the feasibility study used off-the-shelf equipment in a unique operating process. Programmatic changes would increase project costs, in particular the areas of project management and construction. If the cost exceeded GPP limits of $5.0M for capital costs, then the project would most likely have to be submitted as a line-item project. No construction or upgrade activities could occur until the funding is appropriated. This would not be supportive of the MACT implementation standards and time frames. Evaluating Volumes for Treatment The INEEL STP identifies mixed waste currently in storage and future generation at the INEEL. It also identifies mixed waste from off-site sources, which is planned to be treated at the INEEL. The table below summarizes the mixed waste identified for treatment at the WERF incinerator between 2000-2005. Waste identified as coming from off-site sources is taken from the corresponding DOE STP from these off-site sources. Incinerable MLLW volume targeted for WERF Incineration (as of March 2000) INEEL MLLW in storage 1950 m 3 INEEL Generated MLLW (5yr) 51 m 3 INEEL ER MLLW (3yr) 601 m 3 Off-site MLLW in storage (off-site) 508 m 3 Off-site Generated MLLW (5yr) 355 m 3 Total (2000-2005) 3465 cubic meters (on and off site) Planned FY2000 Treatment of MLLW at the INEEL Direct Disposal at Envirocare 600 m 3 TAN V-tank Waste (incineration) 300 m 3 INTEC 1617 (incineration) 145 m 3 INTEC 1617 (consolidation) 110 m 3 Misc. INEEL MLLW (incineration) 57 m 3 Off-site M LLW (incineration) 37 m 3 Total FY2000 Treated MLLW 1249 m 3

Planned FY2001 Treatment of MLLW at the INEEL Direct Disposal at Envirocare 300 m 3 INEEL MLLW Incineration 150 m 3 Total FY-2001 Treated MLLW 450 m 3 At the end of FY-2001 approximately 1700 m 3 of MLLW would remain untreated in the INEEL STP. Approximately 1000 m 3 of this volume is INEEL on-site waste and approximately 700 m 3 is from off-site generators. The post FY 2001 INEEL volume of 1000 m 3 can be split into 20-50 m 3 non-debris and 950-980 m 3 debris. Debris can be treated using an alternate treatment standard in accordance with 40 CFR 268.45 (e.g., macroencapsulation). Non-debris will require treatment to reduce organic concentration to below the treatment standard in accordance with 40 CFR 268. (e.g. thermal treatment or chemical oxidation). The post FY 2001 off-site volume of 700 m 3 of waste is currently listed in DOE Site Treatment Plan from off-site sources. This waste is split into 70% non-debris and 30% debris. The majority of non-debris offsite waste is from the following four DOE generators: Portsmouth, Hanford, Los Alamos, and Rocky Flats. Impacts of Shutdown DOE Complex Since the completion of the DOE STP s in 1995, the WERF incinerator has been a leader in assisting the DOE Complex in the Treatment of MLLW. Various DOE facilities, and DOD Naval Reactor Programs, have identified the INEEL WERF Incinerator as the primary treatment for much of their MLLW. These waste streams were identified and included in the INEEL Site Treatment Plan. The volume of this waste was approximately 500 cubic meters. However, DOE-ID has decided that the WERF incinerator is to be shutdown. Therefore the individual DOE/DOD sites must find alternative treatment of this waste in accordance with the requirements in the STP s. These sites will need to renegotiate with their Individual State regulatory agencies to determine the treatment paths for those waste streams. INEEL The INEEL has identified approximately 2000 cubic meters of MLLW for treatment in the WERF incinerator. The decision to shutdown will require that approximately 60 waste stream be evaluated for alternative treatment and modification to the existing treatment paths in the INEEL STP. The INEEL STP was modified to reflect the loss of the WERF incinerator and the addition of Commercial Treatment as the new treatment option. This was proposed to the State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) during the November 2000 STP quarterly meeting and was approved by DEQ. The fate of the WERF incinerator was sealed when the DEQ denied the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) operating permit, withdrew the RCRA interim status by-which the WERF incinerator operated and required the submittal of a RCRA closure plan. Closure Plan The boundaries of the system to be closed are summarized below. WERF incinerator unit The WERF incinerator unit consists of the incinerator system and Air Pollution Control System (APCS). The incinerator components that will be dismantled and removed include the primary and secondary combustion chambers, ash ram/housing, bottom ash handling system, solid waste feed chute, combustion air system, the primary dilution air system, and incinerator offgas ducting. The incinerator components that were part of the treatment system but not in contact with the

waste include the solid waste feeding (conveyor) system, fuel system, propane system, steam generator system, and associated components of the distributed control system. The APCS components that will be dismantled and removed include the heat exchanger, spark arrestor, secondary dilution air system, baghouse collectors, dust transfer system, HEPA filtration unit, isokinetic sampling system, continuous emissions monitoring system, offgas blowers, and north exhaust stack, and offgas ducting. The APCS components that were part of the system but not in contact with the waste treatment system include the halon fire protection system, plant air system, and the associated components of the distributed control system. WERF drum/feed blending unit The entire WERF drum/feed blending unit will be removed from PER-609 under this closure. This unit includes the liquid waste feed pump, two filters, associated feed lines, valves, piping, and the secondary containment pan. WERF repackaging unit The ventilation from the repackaging unit in the basement of WERF unit provides secondary dilution air to the WERF incinerator system. The spark arrestors and ducting associated with WERF repackaging unit will be dismantled and removed from the facility during closure. The closure strategy for the WERF systems will meet the closure performance standards for interim status treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) identified in IDAPA 58.01.05.009 (40 CFR 265.111, Closure Performance standard ) and will include: Minimizing the need for further maintenance Removing and properly managing all hazardous waste inventories and hazardous waste residues Controlling, minimizing or eliminating, post closure escape of hazardous waste and hazardous decomposition products to the environment Minimizing the amount of hazardous waste generated during closure activities. In addition, the performance standard specified for incinerators, IDAPA 58.01.05.009 (40 CFR 265.351, Incinerators Closure ), is removal of all hazardous waste and hazardous waste residues from the incinerator. The proposed strategy for RCRA closure of the WERF interim status units includes removing waste residuals as necessary, dismantling and removing from PER-609 the process equipment associated with the WERF incinerator, drum/feed blending, and repackaging units. MLLW will be sent to a permitted TSDF for treatment (e.g. macroencapsulation, stabilization, etc.) and disposal. Ancillary equipment that is industrial waste will be disposed of in the INEEL Landfill Complex, and LLW will be disposed of at the RWMC. Some ancillary equipment may be reused at the INEEL. Final decontamination activities of the facility walls and floors will be performed on the affected areas of PER-609 following the dismantling and removal activities. Facility components, such as blowers, and fire protection systems, utilities, and the bridge crane, that will not be removed during closure will be uniquely identified before starting closure. FINDING ALTERNATIVES The INEEL STP was modified to reflect the loss of the WERF incinerator and the addition of Commercial Treatment as the new treatment option. This was proposed to the State of Idaho during a STP quarterly meeting and was approved. However, DOE-ID must detail the individual treatment technologies to be use by Commercial Treatment no later that April 25, 2001. At this time the INEEL is evaluating those affected

waste stream and determining if non-thermal treatment (is macroencapsulation, or stabilization) can be used for debris type waste. For those waste streams that have hazardous constituents that require incineration, a commercial treatment unit is being determined. At this time the INEEL is evaluating waste characterization documentation and determining the alternative treatments that may be used. The direct disposal of some mixed low-level waste is also being evaluated. The amount of waste to be directly disposed, may be as much as 50% of the total volume of waste that was originally identified for incineration. Macroencapsulation may be used to treated an additional 30%. Commercial incineration and stabilization will be used to treat the remaining 20% of the MLLW volume. At this time these percentage amount are strictly estimates. STP PROCESS Dealing with Home State When DOE made the decision to close the WERF incinerator, the State of Idaho was contacted and at the STP quarterly meeting the addition of Commercial Treatment was proposed. The State approved the concept of using commercial treatment. However they requested that the specific treatment technologies to be used be identified no later that April 25, 2001. All waste streams from offsite generators that had the WERF incinerator identified as the primary treatment will be removed from the STP no later than January 24, 2001. Those waste stream generated at the INEEL are being evaluated for commercial treatment (i.e. macroencapsulation, stabilization, or commercial thermal treatment). This evaluation and modification to the treatment plans found in the STP must be completed, and proposed to the State of Idaho for there approval, no later April 25, 2001. The INEEL is now working to modify/revise the INEEL STP to reflect these changes to covered waste streams. Dealing with other State (Equity Issues) DOE is required to assess all waste destined for treatment at an out-of-state DOE facility, to conduct equity discussions between both the sending and receiving state regulatory agencies. The receiving state is required to assess tha acceptability of the waste at the receiving DOE treatment facility. The equity discussion allow the state regulatory agencies to discussion any particular or unique issue for handling the waste. Specifically, these discussion involve the criteria for waste to be returned, either treated or untreated, to the generating DOE facility should direct disposal not be an option for that particular waste. DOE-ID will be assessing the waste streams currently in the INEEL STP and will be identifying the specific waste streams that need to entertain equity discussions. INEEL S ROLE IN THE DOE/EM COMPLEX The INEEL s role is the assess the waste streams currently in the INEEL STP and determine if treatment can occur at the INEEL without the use of incineration. We will be working with the DOE Site that identified the WERF Incinerator as the preferred option to find alternative treatment for those waste streams. Part of this assistance will include looking at other potential treatment options at the INEEL for these waste streams. The INEEL will be assessing the waste streams generated on-site and originally slated for treatment in the WERF incinerator to determine the appropriate treatment options for these waste streams. We will be looking at on-site treatment as the first potential option, followed by an assessment of the treatment capabilities and capacity at other DOE or commercial sites. Upon completion of this evaluations, we will be meeting with the State of Idaho to get their approval to the modification to the INEEL STP and to conduct any necessary equity discussion with potential other State regulatory agencies that maybe requested to receive waste from the INEEL.