1

Status of the High Level Waste (HLW) Calcine Disposition Project

at theIdaho National Laboratory (INL) Site

Description, Challenges, Technology, Issues, and Needs

April 14, 2009

2

Calcine Specifics• Calcine is high level waste (HLW) by definition

– First cycle raffinate from reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel

• 8-9M gallons liquid HLW converted to 4400 cubic meters of granular solid – 7 to 1 volume reduction achieved

• Average particle size is 0.4 cm – Contains roughly 44 metric tons heavy metal

• Acidic, abrasive, and hydroscopic

• Currently stored in 43 bins in 6 bin-sets – Designed for safe storage for several hundred years– Stored under 10-year RCRA Part B Permit issued 11/06

• Calcine is also classified as hazardous waste as it:– Exhibits hazardous waste characteristics for toxicity for metals

• Waste numbers D004 through D011– Contains listed wastes

• Spent solvents (hazardous waste numbers F001, F002, and F005)• Discarded hydrogen fluoride (hazardous waste number U134)

• Chemical analysis has been performed on samples from:– New Waste Calcining Facility (NWCF) Campaign H-4 (1998)– NWCF Campaign H-3 (1993)– Alumina and zirconia calcine from CSSF 2 (1978)

3

Regulatory Challenges: Calcine Disposition Project Drivers

• Meet Idaho Settlement Agreement (SA) milestones– Issue a NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) by December 31,2009 to identify

method to treat calcine (if necessary) • Dual path ROD may carry forward both a treatment and the direct disposal option

– Submit a RCRA Part B Permit application by December 1, 2012 to the state of Idaho for retrieval and treatment (includes packaging)

– Have all calcine ready for transport out of the state of Idaho by a target date of December 31, 2035

• Meet Idaho Site Treatment Plan (STP) milestones– Approval of CD-0 by June 30, 2007

• Approved June 29, 2007 by Deputy Secretary Clay Sell– Approval of CD-1 by September 30, 2009

• Was March 31, 2008 prior to receiving 18 month extension– Submit an enforceable schedule for disposition of calcine (including design,

construction, and start of operations) by June 30, 2010

• Fulfill calcine commitments in 2005 ROD from the Idaho HLW and Facilities Disposition EIS - DOE/EIS-0287

– Develop calcine retrieval processes and conduct risk-based analysis necessary to issue ROD on calcine treatment (with input by State) by December 31, 2009 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement

4

Calcine Disposition Alternative Evaluations• Alternatives analyzed in the 9/2002 HLW and Facilities Disposition FEIS

– No action– Continued current operations– Separations

• Full or transuranic separations• Planning basis option (disposal of high activity fraction is in the YMP LA)

– Non-Separations• Early vitrification• Hot isostatic pressing• Direct cement • Steam reforming

– Minimum INEEL [sic] Processing Option – Direct vitrification

• With separations• Without separations

• DOE-ID conducted a value engineering (VE) session on March 21/22, 2006– Screened EIS alternatives through go/no-go and ranking criteria– Resulted in further downselection to three alternative treatment technologies

• Direct vitrification (without separations)• Steam Reforming• Hot Isostatic Pressing

• VE session planned for 12/08 delayed pending clarification of issues

5

• Retrieve, package and dispose of as is (direct disposal option)– Idaho baseline approach – highest regulatory risk, lowest cost– Requires conditional exemption from RCRA– Granular waste form

• Treatment by hot isostatic pressing – Volume reduction – being evaluated

by BEA and ANSTO, Inc.– Monolithic waste form – requires delisting– Could compact (~50% volume reduction) steam

reformed or untreated calcine

• Treatment by steam reforming – Maximizes re-use of IWTU– Requires re-dissolution of calcine in nitric acid – Granular waste form – requires delisting

• Treatment by direct vitrification (State EIS PA)– Lowest regulatory risk – highest cost and volume– Monolythic waste form – requires delisting

• Vitrified high-activity fraction (post separations) in YMP LA• Results in ~1200 canisters of glass

Additional Disposal Options for Calcine Remain as Follows:

50% Volume reduction of granular form

30% Volume Reduction

100% Volume Expansion

50-100% Volume Expansion

6

Technical Challenge: Layering of Calcine (Bin Set #3 shown)

6

1 2 3

4 5 6

77

Further Evaluation of HIP Option Appears Warranted

Consolidation: HIP Vitrification (JHM)

Matrix: glass-ceramic borosilicate glass

Waste loading: 60-90% 20-35%

Durability (PCT-B): 10-100 x EA glass 10 x EA glass

Final volume: 15-45% reduction ~100% increase(relative to untreated calcine)

Temp: 2200oF 2100oF

Pressure: 4500 psi atmospheric

Off-gas: minimal medium-high

Facility

Future Mission Flexibility: diverse/flexible extremely limited/inflexible

Cold calcine in glass-ceramic matrix Direct SBW compaction (no additives) Metal encapsulation of uneconomic feeds (Swedish SNF in copper shown)

8

Technology Initiative: HIP Evaluation Funded by EM-20 • Contract between Battelle Energy Alliance and the Australian Nuclear

Science and Technology Organization, Inc. was signed 2/28/2008– Currently funded at $2.85M – Will provide data necessary to proper downselection of treatment alternatives

• Calcine surrogate produced at STAR Center and shipped to ANSTO for HIPing and testing of resultant waste form against repository criteria

– Three distinct alumina-calcine simulants containing low, medium, and high mercury concentrations

– Three distinct zirconia-calcine simulants containing low, medium, and high cadmium concentrations

– All other RCRA constituents at maximum

• HIP unit is installed in the HFEF hot-cell at the INL– Using to evaluate conduct of necessary remote operations

(filling/crimping/welding) and potential HIPing of actual calcine– Planning to evaluate treatment of a wide range of challenging

EM materials difficult to incorporate into glass such as:• Cesium/Strontium, technicium, radioactive sludges (e.g. Hanford

K-basin), alpha ashes, impure actinides, corroded spent fuel pins, iodine, etc.

9

Technology Initiative: HIP Evaluation Funded by EM-20 (cont) • Results to date indicate viability of HIP treatment of calcine

– Direct HIPing (no treatment additives) generates > than 50% volume reduction• Aluminum calcine actually exceeds the regulatory universal treatment standard (UTS)

without treatment additives (direct HIPing)• Resultant monolythic waste form facilitates transport to a repository

– HIPing of treated calcine (80% loading) results in a glass-ceramic waste form• Chemical durability of treated zirconium calcine handily exceeds UTS and

environmental assessment (EA) requirements while achieving a 39%+ volume reduction• Evaluation of aluminum calcine is currently underway

– Preparations are being made for HIPing actual calcine at the INL (HFEF hot cell) and HIPing a large (70 pound) can in Sydney, Australia

• All work is being performed under the NRC-approved QA program

Evolution of HIP can design will further enhance volume reduction

Direct HIPed alumina calcine showing a 69%+ volume reduction

HIPed treated zirconia calcine inside the INL’s MFC hot cell

10

Technology Initiative: HIP Evaluation Funded by EM-20 (cont)

• BEA/ANSTO have reviewed performance/safety record of US HIP industry– HIPs of up to 64-inch diameter operate above calcine

pressure and temperature requirements– Operated in 24/7production environment over 30 years

• Work pieces up to 10,000 pounds are routinely HIPed– Main safety issue raised was asphyxiation (argon gas)

• Not a significant concern in a restricted hot-cell environment

IWTU Calcine Retrieval and Delivery to IWTU (Direct Disposal Case)

IWTU packaging annexIWTUBin sets (typical)Prototype retrieval arm

IWTU Internal View Looking East

Potential IWTU Retrofit for Hot Isostatic Pressing of Calcine

East

14

Project Issues

• Inability to determine regulatory viability of direct disposal option/baseline

– Petition for conditional exemption from RCRA definition of hazardous waste for calcine requires update, finalization, and submittal to EPA (on hold) would require > 3 years for EPA decision

• DOE priority to defend the YMP LA as submitted may preclude any decision-making regarding calcine path forward for several years.

– Concern over decision on waste forms that differs from vitrification of the calcine high activity fraction into a single phase borosilicate glass

• Such as a NEPA Record of Decision and/or formal discussions with EPA

• Preparation of a RCRA Part B Permit requires significant (~30%) process and facility design

– Insufficient time and funding to produce a competent application for any option other than ICP baseline (direct disposal option) at present

• Recent announcement by Secretary Chu that the YMP repository will not be built adds project uncertainty

– NRC review of license application still supported at present– Blue Ribbon panel will recommend alternatives

15

Example: Conceptual HIP Schedule Working Forward from 2035

Four year RCRA Part B Permit slip is conservatively available