Year
1997
Abstract
The u.s. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science and Technology (OST), sponsored a series of systems engineering analyses to guide its future research and development (R&D) programs for the treatment of mixed lowlevel waste (MLLW). Each system of technologies was chosen to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for MLLW and its air pollution control standards. The fIrst study, Integrated Thermal Treatment Systems (lTIS) - Phase I, looked at relatively mature thermal treatment technologies (Reference 1). Subsequently, Phase 2 was conducted to consider more innovative and developmental thermal treatment technologies (Reference 2). As a result of a DOE internal technical peer review (Reference 3) of Phases I and 2 of the ITTS, a similar study of non-thermal treatment systems, known as the Integrated Non-thermal Treatment Systems (INTS) study (Reference 4), was conducted. Both the thermal and non-thermal treatment systems studied were chosen to treat MLL W and to generate fInal waste forms to meet both RCRA and DOE performance assessment requirements at a disposal site. This paper summarizes the results of the ITTS (Phase I and Phase 2), the INTS (individual non-thermal technologies -- as opposed to systems -- are detailed in Reference 5), and a detailed ITISIINTS comparison report (Reference 6). It also briefly touches on the major fIndings and conclusions of additional and more limited studies prepared under the OST Integrated Process Analysis program such as an enhanced INTS report (Reference 7), a portable melter study (Reference 8), a comparative risk analysis (Reference 9), a systems time and motion study (Reference 10), a toxic metals and radionuclide partitioning study (Reference II), a cost impact study (Reference 12), a waste form R&D study (Reference 13), a \"plain language\" summary (intended for the general public and stakeholders) comparing the major results of the INTS and ITTS (Reference 14), a waste flow analysis study (Reference 15), and a combined waste management/environmental restoration incineration system study (Reference 16) that has been completed but not yet published. The cost impact of storing DOE MLL W for an extended period was also studied but not published: (1) for every year a treatment technology is unavailable, a penalty cost for pre-treatment storage is incurred, and (2) if treated waste cannot be disposed for a set time, a penalty cost for storage is incurred. It was found that by treating the waste inventory with existing technologies and disposing of it, TLCC are $4.6 billion. If treatment is delayed to develop new technologies, the costs are $5.8 billion primarily because an additional 40 years of storage would be required. The study also found that the volume of waste to be stored is reduced by 56% and the cost by 55% if the primary treatment residues are vitrifIed rather than grouted.