Analysis of alternatives for immobilized low activity waste disposal

Burbank, D.A.

doi:10.2172/362472

Cited by 9 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, a proposed EPA "Hazardous Waste Identification Rule" (60 FR 66343) may revise existing rules and develop risk-based exit levels for hazardous waste constituents that may allow the ILAW product to be regulated as ordinary low-level waste instead of under RCRA. The DRD for the ILAW interim storage project (Burbank 1997) lists government and DOE regulations applicable to the project. ' These are given in Appendix B along with the environmental checklist results.…”

Section: -1mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The key requirements come from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the Washington Administrative Code (WAC), and DOE orders. The primary requirements that have been identified for the ILAW Disposal Subproject are discussed in the DRD (Burbank 1997), the AGA for ILAW (Burbank and Klem 1997), and the Reanalysis of Alternativesfor ILA W Disposal (Burbank and Hohl 1999). Appendix D contains a comprehensive list of these requirements.…”

Section: Other Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

TWRS Retrieval and Storage Mission and Immobilized Low Activity Waste (ILAW) Disposal Plan

Burbank¹

1999

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: -1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Other Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

TWRS Retrieval and Storage Mission and Immobilized Low Activity Waste (ILAW) Disposal Plan

Burbank¹

1999

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several designs have been proposed for the new ILAW disposal facility (Burbank and Klem 1997;Mann et al 1998;PHMC 1998;Burbank and Hohl 1999;Puigh 1999) but a final decision has not yet been made. Fortunately, all of the designs have enough similar details to proceed with the analyses.…”

Section: Subsurface Disposal Facilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Assessment

1999

International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryLockheed Martin Hanford Company (LMHC) is designing and assessing the performance of disposal facilities to receive radioactive wastes that are currently stored in single -and double -shell tanks at the Hanford Site. The preferred method of disposing of the portion that is classified as immobilized lowactivity waste (ILAW) is to vitrify the waste and place the product in near-surface, shallow-land burial facilities. The LMHC project to assess the performance of these disposal facilities is known as the Hanford ILAW Performance Assessment (PA) Activity, hereafter called the ILAW PA project. The goal of this project 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 predictions of contaminant migration from the facility. To make such predictions will require estimates of the fluxes of water moving through the sediments within the vadose zone around and beneath the disposal facility. These fluxes, loosely called recharge rates, are the primary mechanism for transporting contaminants to the groundwater.Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) assists LMHC in their performance assessment activities. One of the PNNL tasks is to provide estimates of recharge rates for current conditions and long-term scenarios involving the shallow-land disposal of ILAW. Specifically, recharge estimates are needed for a fully functional surface cover, the cover sideslope, and the immediately surrounding terrain. In addition, recharge estimates are needed for degraded cover conditions. The temporal scope of the analysis is 10,000 years, but could be longer if some contaminant peaks occur after 10,000 years.The elements of this report compose the Recharge Data Package, which provides estimates of recharge rates for the scenarios being considered in the 2001 PA. Table S.1 identifies the surface features and time periods evaluated. The most important feature, the surface cover, is expected to be the modified RCRA Subtitle C design. This design uses a 1-m-thick silt loam layer above sand and gravel filter layers to create a capillary break. A 0.15-m-thick asphalt layer underlies the filter layers to function as a backup barrier and to promote lateral drainage. Cover sideslopes are expected to be constructed with 1V:10H slopes using sandy gravel. The recharge estimates for each scenario were derived from lysimeter and tracer data collected by the ILAW PA and other projects and from modeling analyses.For the best estimate case, we proposed using a recharge rate of 0.1 mm/yr for the surface cover with a shrub-steppe plant community. This rate is lower than the cover design goal of 0.5 mm/yr because it is closer to the actual drainage rate measured with lysimeters and inferred with modeling. The simulation results showed that erosion of 20% of the silt loam layer did not impair this performance nor did the deposition of 20 cm of dune sand. For the sandy grav...

show abstract

“…However, Burbank (1997) has performed preconceptual engineering studies of alternative designs. The basic design unit for all the disposal facility concepts is a vault bay.…”

Section: Facility Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these materials, the concrete is of the most interest because of the anticipated volume required, approximately 320,000 metric tons (Burbank 1997), and the chemical effect of the concrete in increasing pH and Ca, Na, and K concentrations. Corrosion of the metal containers will generate iron oxyhydroxides that are known to adsorb or coprecipitate with Si (Harder 1978).…”

Section: Materials Interaction Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%