Posted On: 05/03/2013 2:18:33 AM
Post# of 1536
Re: sevenOdouble #1143
http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/External/LinkClic...p;mid=1118
Lots in there that refers to MBS although not by name.
Sounds like Jim has his orders or J3 is in the advanced design stages. I think Contracts will come if they can develop a high volume way to process contaminated soil. Something more than just a backhoe and hopper. That may not cut it with such high volume necessary.
'However, the future volumes of debris and soils
projected to be generated at Y-12 may be impractical
to send off-site from a cost perspective. Therefore,
it is of value to investigate providing treatment on-site for mercury-contaminated waste, to avoid the
transportation to and from commercial off-site treatment facilities. Until on-site facilities for treatment are
provided and approved, commercial facilities are the only treatment option available.'
'In situ treatment of mercury-contaminated soils/sediments or substructures may be determined to be an
'In situ treatment of mercury-contaminated soils/sediments or substructures may be determined to be an
option in some cases. If in situ treatment is applied, the treated media is not subject to LDRs. Variance
requests to regulators addressing waste form endstates need to be investigated/applied for depending on results of these efforts. Very little work has been done to date exploring options for in situtreatment of mercury, but it could conceivably provide significant savings in terms of transport, treatment, and
Meeting LDRs for disposal of contaminated media poses a significant challenge when considering the
large volumes, and thus high projected costs.
disposal costs and should continue to be explore as an option for remediation of soils, sediments, and
subsurface structures contaminated with mercury. Subsurface remediation at Y-12 is far enough in the
future that, while in situ treatments are not technologically advanced enough to be implemented currently,
advancements may yet be made, and it should remain a consideration in future analyses.'
'The proven technologies of retorting and amalgamation have high energy demand, and are not cost effective or practical for the potentially large volumes of waste anticipated during source removal. Several commercial vendors have proven technologies for treating high concentration, mercury-contaminated soils. Likewise, macroencapsulation of debris is acceptable as a treatment step. Exploratory treatment is necessary to
'The proven technologies of retorting and amalgamation have high energy demand, and are not cost effective or practical for the potentially large volumes of waste anticipated during source removal. Several commercial vendors have proven technologies for treating high concentration, mercury-contaminated soils. Likewise, macroencapsulation of debris is acceptable as a treatment step. Exploratory treatment is necessary to
establish remedial effectiveness, expected costs, and regulatory agreement. As indicated previously,
this work has been initiated for soil treatment.'
(0)
(0)
