National Strategic BAT for Soil, Concrete, Rubble, and Granular

Transcription

OFFICIAL (NO MARKINGS REQUIRED)
National Waste Programme
National Strategic BAT for
Soil, Concrete, Rubble, and
Granular Material Low Level
Waste
Report
NWP-REP-120 – Issue 1 – May 2016
A company owned by UK Nuclear Waste Management Ltd
Old Shore Road, Drigg, Holmrook,
Cumbria, United Kingdom CA19 1XH
Company Registration No. 05608448
OFFICIAL (NO MARKING REQUIRED)
NWP/REP/120
Issue 1 – May 2016
Page 2 of 74
Name
Role
Originator:
Ed Ghosn
National Programme Coordinator
Checker:
Helen Cassidy
National Programme Implementation
Manager
Approver:
Hannah Kozich
Head of National Programme
Alan Paulley, Dave Cannon, James Penfold, Richard Little, Samantha Jones and Vicky Gaskin
from COSMIC designed and facilitated this study and produced the initial draft report.
Document history
Issue
Date
Amendments
Issue 1
May 2016
First issue of document
NWP/REP/120
Page 3 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Executive Summary
Purpose of this document
LLW Repository Ltd is responsible for implementing the UK’s Low Level Waste (LLW) Strategy
on behalf of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). This is achieved through the
National LLW Programme (NWP), involving collaboration with a range of stakeholders. The
National Programme provides a strategic governance framework and associated guidance and
direction to LLW management programmes for UK waste producers.
An important component of the National Programme is the identification of optimised national
strategic BATs for the management of key LLW categories, through strategic or generic options
studies. The intention is that organisations that produce or handle wastes can use these
documents to inform their own Best Available Techniques (BAT) assessments at a local level,
including as a framework and starting point for site-specific studies; adopting the outcomes of
the generic study with appropriate argument and discussion if they are applicable to site-specific
situations; or justifying deviations from the generic case where necessary.
This document reports the outcomes of a National Strategic BAT study concerning LLW soil,
concrete, rubble, and granular material. Mixed wastes, primarily consisting of these bulk wastes,
but also including smaller proportions of other materials such as plaster or asbestos, were also
considered to be within the scope of this study. A substantial proportion of the future arisings
from relevant waste producers were expected to be in the Very Low Level Waste (VLLW)/Low
Activity-Low Level Waste (LA-LLW) categories, but the study considered waste populations up
to the LLW/Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) boundary. Wastes arising from new build or
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) operations were outside the scope of this
study but were assessed for the strategic threat or opportunity they posed.
Relationship with End State and Decommissioning Strategies
On decommissioning sites, waste management decisions are typically framed by their end state
and decommissioning strategies. In discussion with stakeholders throughout the study, and
consistent with the remit of the National Programme, it was identified that detailed analysis of
options involving disposal of wastes in their current location without retrieval (that is, in-situ
disposal) should not be included within the scope of this study. The focus was on wastes that will
be managed above ground, including wastes arising from excavation and removal of building
basements and other sub-surface structures. However, preliminary management steps that may
be applied to waste in-situ prior to retrieval (such as characterisation or initial decontamination
processes) were within the scope of this study. Waste producers should, however, recognise
that in-situ disposal options are available and should thus be included (where relevant) in the
mix of options evaluated in local, site-specific studies.
NWP/REP/120
Page 4 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Process
This BAT review was delivered in 3 stages in accordance with good practice:
• Scoping: aimed at developing a common understanding of the objectives and framing of the
study and the options generation and comparison process. A scoping document was
produced by the project team, and used as a basis for stakeholder engagement to test and
update the process.
• Options development and initial assessment: considered a detailed range of alternative
treatment options on a generic basis. A long list of waste management options was
identified and, following screening, combined strategy options were constructed.
• Main assessment and workshop: involved the compilation of a short list of treatment options
and their technical appraisal and evaluation against set attributes as reported in this
document.
Main Outcomes
Importance of early phases of waste management
A key theme from the workshops was how to achieve a suitable balance between the level of
effort early in the project (through enabling activities such as characterisation, sorting, size
reduction, etc.) to not foreclose later management options. These early phases of waste
management were recognised as key to ensuring the most optimum waste routing could be
achieved.
Options
A long list of options was identified and screened to produce a short list. The assessment
focused on the main treatment and management steps, while recognising that the preferred
option for a specific waste population may in reality consist of a combination of options.
Hierarchy of main treatment and management options
Following the assessment of options against criteria, a key conclusion was that there was no
single option, or combination of options, that will be BAT for all waste within the scope of this
study. The assessments indicate, however, that it was possible to establish a broad, high-level
hierarchy of preferred treatment options at the generic national strategic level. The hierarchy
maps options for managing wastes within the scope of this study and indicates which are most
likely to be associated with desirable end-points in general terms.
The generic BAT hierarchy is summarised in Table 1. Options including compaction, thermal
decontamination, and stabilisation/encapsulation were considered to offer limited benefit for the
majority of bulk wastes and were therefore excluded. Note that the hierarchy focussed on what
can be achieved for the bulk materials involved. For each approach, secondary wastes for
disposal and aqueous and gaseous effluents for discharge may be produced and were
addressed in the main report text, but for simplicity they were not represented in the table.
NWP/REP/120
Page 5 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
It should be noted that:
• The option 'reclassification through enhanced characterisation’ reflects the implementation
of an extra level of characterisation beyond that typically employed, when initial
characterisation suggests that such additional effort could be sufficient to re - classify
wastes from the original classification, e.g. from LA-LLW to VLLW, or from VLLW to out-ofscope.
• The ‘in-situ management of material as out-of-scope of radiological substances regulation’
reflects the potential for declassified materials to be left in-situ as they are no longer classed
as wastes. Note that hazardous properties could still mean they need to be managed as
wastes. More broadly, the non-radiological hazardous characteristics of wastes need to be
considered throughout characterisation, treatment / management and disposal steps.
• The ‘re-use of radioactive wastes for an engineering application’ e.g. for void-filling or within
a structure still constitutes a disposal that requires a permit. However, such applications
may have the benefit of avoiding the import of clean materials that may otherwise be
required.
• Both the mechanical and chemical decontamination groups of options cover a range of wellused techniques that can provide benefit to wastes within the study scope.
Some options could be undertaken either before retrievals (in-situ) or after (ex-situ). Full details
of the options are provided in the main report text.
For all wastes, and in particular for mixed wastes which represent a very heterogeneous
category, BAT assessments for individual sites and wastes may differ from this hierarchy. The
main text and associated appendices provide more detailed assessments and information
resources to help sites recognise and justify rationale for individual decisions.
NWP/REP/120
Page 6 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Table 1: Strategic BAT Outcomes: Generic Hierarchy of Treatment and Management Options
Hierarchy
Most
preferred on
generic
basis
End Point
Release of bulk wastes
from radiological
substances regulation
(for re-use or to be left
in-situ).
Disposal via re-use with
an engineering
application, avoiding use
of clean material.
Disposal of bulk wastes.
Least
preferred
Options and Key Rationale
Relevant Waste Populations
Reclassification through enhanced characterisation: For those wastes for
which initial characterisation provides confidence reclassification can be
achieved, this option offers clear benefits.
All waste populations within
study scope.
Mechanical decontamination: Can lead to release of a range of surface
contaminated materials without requiring subsequent treatment steps.
Concrete and rubble.
Mixed wastes.
Chemical decontamination: Similarly can lead to release of a range of surface
study scope.
No additional treatment / management steps prior to disposal of bulk
wastes via re-use: Need to be able to match arisings with required use material
specifications at the right time, at a permitted facility.
Soils and granular materials.
Mechanical decontamination: Similar to release above, but with the relevant
end-point. Need to match arisings with specifications and timeframes, as above.
Mixed wastes.
Chemical decontamination: Similar to release above, but with the relevant
study scope.
wastes to a VLLW / LA-LLW / LLW facility: Remains a solution for wastes
whereby it is too problematic or otherwise disproportionate to treat them.
study scope.
NWP/REP/120
Page 7 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Glossary
Term
Definition
ALARP
As Low As Reasonably Practicable
BAT
Best Available Technique
BPEO
Best Practicable Environmental Option
BPM
Best Practicable Means
DECC
Department for Energy and Climate Change
FHISO
Full-height ISO
GRR
Guidance on Requirement for Release
HAW
Higher Activity Waste
HEPA
High-efficiency particulate air
HHISO
Half-height ISO
HVLA
High-Volume Low-Activity
HVMPE
High Vacuum Multi-Phase Extraction
ILW
Intermediate Level Waste
LA-LLW
Low Activity – Low Level Waste
LAW
Lower Activity Waste
LLW
Low Level Waste
LLWR
Low Level Waste Repository
NAPL
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
NDA
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
NWP
NORM
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material
PCM
Plutonium Contaminated Material
PVC
Polyvinyl Chloride
SVE
Soil Vapour Extraction
UKRWI
UK Radioactive Waste Inventory
VLLW
Very Low Level Waste
WAC
Waste Acceptance Criteria
NWP/REP/120
Page 8 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 3
Glossary .......................................................................................................................... 7
1
2
3
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 10
1.1
Overview .............................................................................................. 10
1.2
Use of Strategic BAT Assessments ................................................... 10
1.3
Scope of this Study ............................................................................. 11
Objectives and Context ....................................................................................... 12
2.1
Overview .............................................................................................. 12
2.2
Relationship with Waste Management Strategies ............................ 12
2.3
Relationship to Site End State Planning ........................................... 13
2.4
Current Forecasts for Waste Arisings ............................................... 14
Approach to the BAT Study ................................................................................ 14
3.1
Overview .............................................................................................. 14
3.2
Key Steps ............................................................................................. 15
3.2.1 Study Scoping ................................................................................................ 15
3.2.2 Options Screening and Initial Assessment...................................................... 16
3.2.3 Main Assessment and Workshop ................................................................... 16
3.2.4 Integration ...................................................................................................... 17
4
Waste Populations and Options ......................................................................... 17
4.1
Overview .............................................................................................. 17
4.2
Waste Populations .............................................................................. 17
4.2.1 Key Waste Types within Study Scope ............................................................ 17
4.2.2 Waste Populations Taken Forward for Assessment ....................................... 18
4.3
Options ................................................................................................. 19
4.3.1 Long-list and Screening .................................................................................. 19
4.3.2 Combined Options.......................................................................................... 20
4.4
5
Options Assessment Criteria ............................................................. 25
Assessment Outcomes ....................................................................................... 25
5.1
Options Assessment Outcomes ........................................................ 25
5.2
Other Assessment Outcomes ............................................................ 30
NWP/REP/120
Page 9 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
5.3
Threats and Opportunities .................................................................. 32
6
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 33
7
References............................................................................................................ 36
Appendix 1: Screening Process Outcomes ............................................................... 38
Screening Criteria .......................................................................................... 38
Long-list and Screening Outcomes .............................................................. 38
Appendix 2: Assessment Criteria ............................................................................... 61
Appendix 3: Details of Assessment Outcomes ......................................................... 63
NWP/REP/120
Page 10 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
1
Introduction
1.1
Overview
LLW Repository Ltd is responsible for implementing the UK’s LLW Strategy on behalf of
the NDA. This is achieved through the National Waste Programme, which provides a
strategic governance framework and associated guidance and direction to LLW
management programmes for UK waste producers.
An important component of the National Programme is the identification of optimised
national strategic BATs for the management of key LLW categories. This document
reports the outcomes of the BAT study concerning LLW soil, concrete, rubble, and
granular material.
Members of the COSMIC team designed and facilitated this study and produced the
initial draft report on behalf of, and working with, the National Programme team.
1.2
Use of Strategic BAT Assessments
The development of national strategic BATs for LLW is informed by a range of elements
including:
• Decommissioning plans and waste arising forecasts;
• The nature of waste populations within each category;
• The availability of commercial routes for treatment and disposal;
• Opportunities for integration within and across industries; and
• Sustainability over medium to longer-term timeframes.
The aim of these strategic BATs is to provide a resource that waste producers can use to
inform their own, local, BAT assessments, as well as to:
• Help understanding of the range of waste streams and types of waste within key LLW
categories and the waste management challenges they present;
• Explore key aspects that waste producers and treatment suppliers will need to
consider when developing options studies for their own wastes;
• Identify life-cycle waste management options including treatment and disposal
techniques;
• Provide a consistent baseline that waste producers can use to support development
of site specific options studies, including providing an underpinning information base
and a summary of key advantages and disadvantages of different waste
management options;
• Assist consistency and integration across those studies, including identifying generic
preferred options; and
• Collate information on potential challenges and opportunities to help inform the
strategy development process.
NWP/REP/120
Page 11 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Strategic BATs are generic in nature because they address high-level descriptions of
waste streams at the national level. However it is important that, recognising this generic
remit, they provide constructive, clear advice and supporting information to guide
individual site studies. In addition, the assessments need to remain consistent with the
application of BAT and of the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) and Best
Practicable Means (BPM) regulatory requirements and associated best practice
guidance.
1.3
Scope of this Study
The present study concerns the UK’s soil, concrete, rubble, and granular material waste.
A significant component of these wastes are high-Volume Low-Activity(HVLA) wastes
likely to arise during site decommissioning; however the scope also included
consideration of other Lower Activity Wastes (LAW) within the same general waste
groups up to the LLW/ILW boundary. It also included mixed wastes that, whilst
predominately consisting of the above materials, also contain smaller proportions of
other materials such as metals, plastics, plaster or asbestos generated during demolition
activities.
The current review builds upon a previous VLLW National Strategic BAT assessment
[Ref. 1]. Also relevant are the recent metal and organic waste National Strategic BAT
assessments [Ref. 2, 3].
The existing VLLW report was produced over five years ago and is now due for review,
hence this study. The review provided an opportunity to align its scope more directly with
waste properties rather than radiological classifications, as options for waste
management are more closely influenced by material and contaminant characteristics
(such as physical, radiological and chemical properties) rather than waste route
classifications.
The review process also allowed adoption of a structure and
presentational approach consistent with that established in the other recent National
Strategic BAT studies.
The study will be of interest to UK nuclear industry waste producers, other producers of
radioactive wastes including the Ministry of Defence and small producers, and treatment
suppliers including those who maintain their own BAT studies.
The scope of the generic assessment did not formally cover NORM waste management
due to the remit of the NWP. Similarly, wastes associated with nuclear new build were
not directly considered in this document as most of the relevant wastes will arise during
decommissioning, and there is uncertainty in arising forecasts and how strategy will
evolve over time. However, it was part of the scope of this document to consider threats
and opportunities associated with the management of wastes in the UK, and sensitivities
to NORM and new build waste generation are relevant to that analysis.
The scope of this assessment did not cover treatment options outside of the UK.
NWP/REP/120
Page 12 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
2
2.1
Objectives and Context
Overview
It is national strategy [Ref. 4], and a requirement of the regulatory regime, that a BAT
approach be used in determining the most appropriate method for the management of
radioactive wastes. The purpose of this strategic BAT study was to provide an
overarching rationale for the preferred management options for LLW soils, concrete,
rubble and granular material.
The primary objectives of the study were to:
• Support the National Programme’s aim to ensure that safe and effective treatment
and disposal arrangements are in place for management of the UK’s LLW soil,
concrete, rubble, and granular material, enabling implementation of LLW Strategy;
• Identify the treatment and disposal options that need to be at the heart of the UK’s
approach for management of these wastes;
• Provide a framework and guidance for individual waste producers to support
development of site specific BAT assessments; and
• Identify relevant strategic level threats and opportunities.
2.2
Relationship with Waste Management Strategies
Existing waste producers have established LLW management strategies that are
captured, for example, in their Integrated Waste Strategy and Joint Waste Management
Plans (or equivalent). Site end state and decommissioning strategies also provide part of
the framework for making appropriate waste management decisions. As permit and/or
nuclear site licence holders, individual waste producers are responsible for
demonstrating that their waste management strategies are BAT. It was therefore not the
purpose of this study to define the management requirements for radioactive wastes
generated at each site.
Preferred options were identified on a generic basis, and guidance was provided as to
their advantages and disadvantages. The study will therefore help provide justification for
site-specific decisions where they are consistent with the generic strategic BAT, and
indicates what will need to be demonstrated if sites are to adopt different approaches
from the main national outcomes. It will therefore also help support LLW Repository Ltd,
NDA and Government in identifying opportunities for integration and gaps in service
provision, or other potential enabling strategies that could be of assistance in developing
national strategy and associated guidance.
Note that waste producers here include treatment service providers, as they need to
maintain their own BAT programmes to support treatment, management and disposal of
the materials that they handle, e.g. disassembled metals and secondary wastes.
NWP/REP/120
Page 13 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
2.3
Relationship to Site End State Planning
On decommissioning sites, waste management decisions may be framed by their end
state and decommissioning strategies. Such strategies are site-specific and address a
much wider range of factors than those related to the management of the wastes within
the scope of this study.
Whilst guidance on these matters is therefore outside the scope of this study, it is
intended that the content of this document will help inform future end state and
decommissioning strategy development processes for waste producers, as well as
informing how those strategies can subsequently be implemented. For example, the
development of end states and associated decommissioning strategies will need to take
account of the key advantages and disadvantages of available options to demonstrate
that a preferred strategy is optimised and is achievable. The outputs of this BAT study
will provide one input to that process, amongst others, and will be of particular relevance
when determining the preferred options for the management of relevant wastes within
the context of the overall strategy.
An important area of discussion during the execution of this Strategic BAT study
concerned in-situ disposal options (i.e. disposal of subsurface wastes at their current
location without retrieval). In-situ disposal approaches offer plausible management
options for the wastes within the scope of this study. However, in discussion with
stakeholders throughout the study, it was identified that detailed analysis of in-situ
disposal options should not be included. Rather, the focus is on wastes that will be
managed above ground, including wastes arising from excavation of building basements
and other sub-surface structures. This was consistent with the remit of the National
Programme Office, and also recognised that drivers for in-situ disposal typically arise
from site-specific end state and end use considerations.
In-situ disposal is an available and potentially beneficial option for waste producers,
subject to any necessary approvals and consistency with interim / final end states. Waste
producers should consider options for in-situ disposal as part of their local decision
making, with reference to relevant guidance and information (such as the Guidance on
Requirements for Release of Nuclear Sites (GRR) [Ref. 5]).
Options involving in-situ management that do not lead to in-situ disposal were within the
scope of this study, recognising that enabling (e.g. characterisation, decay storage, etc.)
or even main treatment approaches (e.g. mechanical or chemical surface
decontamination) may be applied in-situ before facility demolition and removal is
complete. Similarly, removal of wastes and then their use on or off-site (e.g. for void
filling) were also within the scope of this study (although it should be recognised that their
use for void-filling constitutes a near-surface disposal of radioactive waste) and relevant
options were therefore treated as such in this study.
NWP/REP/120
Page 14 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
2.4
Current Forecasts for Waste Arisings
UK LLW producers provide estimates of future waste arisings in support of the collation
of the UK National Radioactive Waste Inventory (UKRWI) [Ref. 6]. These estimates are
subject to significant uncertainty, both in terms of their total volumes and potential
timeframes for arising. This presented a challenge to planning, in particular in the
medium to longer terms, as past experience suggests that forecasts for future annual
arisings often turn out to err on the side of over-prediction.
In the short- to medium- term several UK sites will enter an active decommissioning
phase (e.g. Dounreay, and several Magnox sites are entering the Care & Maintenance
phase of their decommissioning lifecycle). Therefore significant volumes of LA-LLW /
VLLW materials will be generated within the next few years.
3
Approach to the BAT Study
3.1
Overview
The process undertaken was based upon the application of a BAT process consistent
with best practice. The aim was to be evidence-based and to recognise the importance
of engagement with the range of stakeholders with an interest in this study. A further
core consideration in the process design was the national generic nature of the study.
Typically, site-specific BAT studies will consider a specific issue (e.g. the management of
a particular waste stream) and specific options for dealing with it, which enables the
assessment to efficiently draw on detailed specific information regarding the properties
and characteristics of the waste under consideration. For a national generic study, a
broad range of waste populations require consideration and therefore an evaluation in
broad terms of the relative performance of options is appropriate.
NWP/REP/120
Page 15 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
3.2
Key Steps
This study was designed to follow good practice for BAT assessment as defined in
relevant guidance documents [Ref. 7, 8] and shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: BAT Process Diagram
3.2.1
Study Scoping
The project team, assisted by stakeholders, developed a common understanding
regarding the objectives, scope and context of the study, and associated assumptions
and constraints.
An initial draft of this document was provided as an input to a scoping workshop and was
also issued to stakeholders unable to attend that workshop to inform them of the
intended scope and approach to the study. Very helpful and constructive feedback was
obtained from stakeholders and was used to shape the execution of the remainder of the
study. Key areas of feedback included the following:
•
•
Proposals to change the scope of the study to align with material types (previously,
the focus was on all forms of bulk VLLW, consistent with the existing VLLW National
Strategic BAT). This requirement has been addressed in this document, reflecting the
focus of the study on LLW soil, concrete, rubble, and granular material that make up
the majority of the forecast of future VLLW/LA-LLW arisings.
Suggestions that the study outcomes should be worded as strongly as possible, to
encourage integration and consistency across waste producer sites. Participants also
considered that the study outcomes could recommend that where sites do not adopt
preferred options from the generic study, their own BAT studies should clearly
explain the rationale for the differences.
NWP/REP/120
Page 16 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.2.2
The importance of understanding potential changes to regulatory arrangements for
in-situ management and disposal of contaminated material was recognised.
Amongst other discussions on in-situ management and disposal, it was noted that it
is important to ensure consistency in terminology with that used in regulations. For
example, the GRR defines disposal as the emplacement of waste without intent to
retrieve it at a later time; whilst in-situ disposal is defined as an application to dispose
of the waste based on a decision not to retrieve it (i.e. waste is not retrieved and
emplaced elsewhere).
The issue of proportionality/disproportionality in waste management decisions was
raised, including considering guidance on judging what may be deemed
disproportionate, as far as is possible given the importance of site and waste-stream
specific aspects in making such judgements. It was recognised that the volume of
wastes from different producers will also influence specific proportionality arguments.
Requirements to control the fissile content of wastes including secondary wastes
were noted.
Issues concerning the potential fragility of the radioactive waste management market
were noted; for example over-estimation of waste volumes and uncertainty in arising
timescales means making business cases can be challenging; for example for
treatment and disposal facility providers to maintain their service provision. It was
noted that this is a recognised issue within the NDA portfolio and sites are
encouraged to continually improve medium-term predictions, but that there is always
uncertainty associated with decommissioning waste arisings.
The importance of sufficiently addressing secondary wastes within the BAT process
was considered.
Options Screening and Initial Assessment
In this phase, a comprehensive long-list of options was developed and screened against
criteria agreed during study scoping, in order to identify a list of detailed options that
could plausibly provide benefit to treatment and management of the wastes within the
scope of this study.
3.2.3
Main Assessment and Workshop
The screened list of detailed options was then used to develop a set of generic combined
life-cycle management options for the main BAT assessment. Representative waste
populations (based on physical properties) were identified to assist the assessment of
options, undertaken using a qualitative multi-criteria decision-analysis methodology. This
process was designed to be robust, systematic and evidence-based.
A draft assessment of options against relevant criteria was first undertaken by the
internal project team, including review and challenge by independent experts from
outside the core team. This draft assessment was then reviewed and developed in detail
by stakeholders at the main stakeholder workshop. The feedback obtained from that
review and associated discussions and recommendations was then used as the basis for
NWP/REP/120
Page 17 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
the outcomes reported in this document. Throughout the process, information on
additional issues outside the scope of the generic process was recorded.
3.2.4
Integration
As noted previously, BAT processes typically inform rather than make decisions. Thus,
after a BAT recommendation is made, a process of integration is then required to
transpose the outcomes into wider planning and associated implementation and funding
decisions. This phase is outside the scope of this study.
4
Waste Populations and Options
4.1
Overview
This section provides an overview of the waste populations and options considered for
assessment. The wastes within the scope of this study are described in more detail, and
grouped into combined waste populations at a level of detail appropriate for the
subsequent assessment, primarily based on their material type. Options for treatment
and management of these wastes are discussed, including the detailed long-list of
options, and a short-list of combined strategy options was identified for the main
assessment phase following screening.
4.2
Waste Populations
4.2.1
Key Waste Types within Study Scope
Bulk wastes within the scope of this study represent an important component of the
wastes within the National Inventory, both due to the large potential volumes that might
arise during decommissioning, and due to the uncertainty in those volumes.
The wastes include soils, concrete, rubble, and granular materials. These wastes will
range from lightly contaminated building base slabs to general decommissioning rubble.
Contaminated land management was not within the scope of this study; however the
scope did include soils which are waste and require disposal in line with the definition in
GRR.
Potentially, a range of the wastes in this category might be directly suitable for disposal
via re-use1 within engineered structures, or it may be plausible to make a case for
1
This terminology is adopted for compliance with regulatory requirements. Strictly, such applications of
radioactive wastes are disposals which are required to be permitted. The term ‘disposal via re-use’ is used
in this document to represent this situation, as the waste upon disposal is used to provide an engineering
function that may otherwise require clean material.
NWP/REP/120
Page 18 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
retaining a subset of such materials in-situ in certain situations. Other wastes may
require retrieval and treatment prior to re-use or disposal.
Mixed wastes predominantly comprising the main bulk wastes outlined above, together
with small volumes of other waste types before or after sorting and segregation, were
also within the scope of this study.
These mixed waste streams may include metals and organics; for example, reinforced
concrete may include metal rebar. Bulk metals and organics have been addressed in
other recent strategic BAT study documents; therefore only mixed wastes involving
proportionately smaller volumes of these materials are within the scope of the current
study. Other wastes that may be found within mixed wastes include rubber, plaster, etc.
Asbestos wastes are also considered, but again only in the context of mixed waste
streams. LLW Repository Ltd has addressed requirements for bulk asbestos wastes
through a separate project [Ref. 9]. However, whilst asbestos wastes are not central to
the study scope, their consideration cannot be entirely decoupled.
An additional important component of the wastes within the scope of this study was
secondary wastes, including solid wastes, and gaseous and liquid effluents that might
arise as a result of any waste treatment process.
Decommissioning wastes are frequently complex and heterogeneous. During
decommissioning of legacy facilities, it is often not clear until a structure is disassembled
exactly which waste streams will be associated with it. Therefore, approaches to manage
heterogeneity of contamination are important considerations in waste management. The
role of sorting and segregation in defining life-cycle management options is discussed in
Section 4.3.
4.2.2
Waste Populations Taken Forward for Assessment
As noted above, a wide range of wastes were within the scope of this study. In order to
ensure that the study scope was manageable, it was important to group wastes of similar
characteristics for assessment.
During the draft internal options assessment process, it was considered that it would be
helpful to consider the waste streams to be part of a representative building. The aim
was to help assessors by providing a vision for the types of wastes involved and to help
unpack the issues that might be associated with treating real excavation and demolition
wastes. Therefore, waste groups were identified that represent plausible components of
such a representative facility, and were taken through the options assessment on that
basis. The representative building was considered to include:
• Contaminated above ground concrete structures; and
• Contaminated sub-surface concrete base slab and underground service structures.
NWP/REP/120
Page 19 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
These elements were combined into a concrete and rubble representative building waste
population for assessment.
A further waste population was identified as soils and granular materials. Granular
materials were included with soils in this element of the assessment, due to their
similarities with non-organic rich soils.
Finally mixed wastes were identified as a final representative building waste population
for assessment.
It was noted that defining these populations also helped to provide a simplifying structure
for the assessment. The assessment approach adopted was:
• First, assess options for treatment and disposal of the concrete and rubble waste
population, as this represents the majority of the bulk wastes within the scope of this
study.
• Then, assess options for treatment and disposal of soil and granular materials by
considering what changes compared to the concrete and rubble waste population
assessment. The aim was to avoid unnecessary repetition of similar assessment
outcomes and enable focus on the key differences.
• Similarly, address options for treatment and disposal of mixed wastes by considering
what changes for these wastes compared to concrete and rubble.
4.3
Options
4.3.1
Long-list and Screening
The initial long-list of options focussed on ensuring that a comprehensive list of potential
technologies was developed. These technologies were selected on the basis that it is
possible their application could deliver some benefit in terms of the management of
relevant wastes. A coarse screening process then reduced the size of the list.
The outcomes of this process are provided in Appendix 1, including the long-list of
technologies, management approaches and their descriptions; screening criteria;
screening outcomes and rationale; and the resulting short-list taken forward.
Note on Enabling Technologies
An important class of technologies considered in the BAT options development process
were enabling technologies that made other treatment and disposal options possible. In
particular, some approaches are often only possible if enabling options such as
characterisation, sorting and segregation of raw waste are implemented first.
The mode of application of enabling technologies is typically site and wastestream
specific and so it was not appropriate to focus on them at the strategic level. However, it
is appropriate that a discussion of the importance of enablers is a component of the
statement of the final BAT outcome. In particular, the importance of up-front
NWP/REP/120
Page 20 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
characterisation effort in ensuring end-points are realised was recognised throughout the
study as an essential must-do feature of any waste management strategy to enable
waste route acceptance to be achieved. In particular, it is important to obtain knowledge
of the available and anticipated end-points for wastes (e.g. release as out-of-scope, reuse or disposal), and to ensure appropriate enabling options are implemented to
guarantee that the required main management options can be successfully accessed.
In-situ and Ex-situ Options
As noted in Section 2.3, a key feature of the options identified concerned whether they
reflect in-situ or ex-situ approaches; or indeed a combination of both. A range of enabling
activities will often be undertaken, for example to characterise a structure or to allow
decay storage (i.e. in-situ) before it is removed. Initial decontamination of parts of a
structure
may
also
be
undertaken
before
removal.
However,
final
decontamination/treatment and then disposal of remaining wastes may then be
undertaken after removal/demolition.
4.3.2
Combined Options
Approach
The technology option short-list that remained following screening was used to form the
basis of options for the main assessment phase. This is where technologies were
grouped based on them having a similar mode of application (e.g. physical
decontamination techniques) to be assessed as techniques or combined life-cycle
management options. These options needed to be sufficiently detailed and useful to
provide the basis for a framework for subsequent site-specific decisions, without being so
detailed they compromise the generic nature of the assessment.
The main focus of the assessment concerned techniques that may be employed within
the next 5 years.
Grouping of Short-list Options
The short-list of options generated from screening the long-list (see Section 4.3.1 and
Appendix 1) was grouped into sets of approximately similar options in order to help
simplify the assessment as shown in Table 2. These grouped short-list options then
provided the building blocks for combined strategic options.
NWP/REP/120
Page 21 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Table 2: Short-list Options Grouping
Options Group
Short-list Options
Enablers
Characterisation, sorting, segregation, wiping, washing,
vacuuming, double bagging and dampening, size reduction
(crushing / cutting), vacuum packing, spraying / fixing, incineration,
in-situ storage, stockpiling / buffer storage, blending,
containerisation for interim storage and/or transport, decay storage,
low-force compaction.
Enhanced characterisation
Reclassification through enhanced characterisation.
Decontamination (mechanical,
chemical, thermal)
Milling, grinding/shaving, drilling and spalling/expansive grout,
heavy duty tools, abrasive cleaning (blasting),
scabbling/scarifying/planing, low pressure water jets/high pressure
water, water flushing, steam injection, steam cleaning, strippable
coatings, soil vapour extraction , vacuum desorption, organic
solvents, bleaching, detergents/surfactants, complexing agents.
Stabilisation / encapsulation
In-situ vitrification, encapsulation – vitrification (in-container),
cementation.
Disposal via re-use of material
Re-use on-site (disposal), re-use other permitted (or potentially
permitted) facilities (including void-filling or within a structure).
Disposal (or long term storage)
at engineered facility
Existing LLW facilities, other existing permitted facilities, existing
on-site facilities, long-term storage prior to long-term surface
storage (Scotland), geological / near-surface disposal facility.
The long- and short-lists in Appendix 1 focus on technologies and related management
options. They do not explicitly note all of the end-points that can result from the
application of those options, which were not assessed in this study. End-point groups not
covered directly by Table 2 are listed below:
• Release of exempt / out-of-scope material for re-use (directly or after treatment).
• In-situ management of material out-of-scope of radiological substances regulation
(e.g. after enhanced characterisation). This reflects the potential for declassified
materials to be left in-situ as they are no longer classed as wastes. Note this would
also require them not to be classed as wastes from a hazardous waste perspective.
• Permitted aqueous/gaseous discharges.
Note also that the option 'reclassification through enhanced characterisation’ reflects the
implementation of an extra level of characterisation beyond that typically employed,
when initial understanding / characterisation suggests that such additional effort could be
sufficient to de-classify wastes from the original classification, e.g. from LA-LLW to
VLLW, or from VLLW to out-of-scope.
Generation of Combined Life-cycle Management Strategic Options
A set of combined life-cycle management strategic options were generated from the
grouped short-list options by considering key steps in waste management and how they
NWP/REP/120
Page 22 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
can be combined into overall strategies. On that basis, the strategic options identified are
summarised in Figure 2 and
Figure 2: Strategic Options: Relationship between Main Options Groups
Figure below. The two figures show, respectively:
• The potential relationships between in-situ and ex-situ enabling, main
management/treatment step, and end point (re-use, disposal/discharge etc.) options.
The aim is to illustrate the key interactions; e.g. options leading to ex-situ treatment
and disposal can start with in-situ steps.
• The main management option groups. Note that in-situ and ex-situ enablers and
main treatment/management options are combined to reduce the complexity of the
diagram, although it is recognised that not all enablers and treatment/management
options are capable of being implemented both in- and ex-situ.
In each diagram, strategic options are represented by plausible routes through the
diagram from left (waste generation) to right (release, re-use or disposal).
NWP/REP/120
Page 23 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
These combined strategy options can be constructed by following logical routes from the
left to the right of the diagram. The key is to combine logical combinations that meet the
preferred end points at the right hand side of the diagram. This is similar to how waste
management and decommissioning plans are typically identified on sites.
It should be noted that the enabler classification is not intended to underplay the
importance of such techniques, or imply that they will only be applied at the beginning of
the waste management cycle as they are key techniques that can be applied at various
stages of the management of a waste.
NWP/REP/120
Page 24 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
NWP/REP/120
Page 25 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Figure 3: Strategic Options Chart
NWP/REP/120
Page 26 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
4.4
Options Assessment Criteria
A set of criteria for assessing the strategic options was agreed during the scoping phase.
This list is set out in Appendix 2. It has been defined based upon best practice resources
(including guidance on application of BAT/BPEO and consideration of the NDA Value
Framework) and experience from previous National Strategic BAT Studies. The criteria
are listed under the following broad headings:
• Safety and Security
• Environmental Impact
• Technical Feasibility
• Community Impact
• Financial Cost
A qualitative assessment approach has been utilised. In the draft assessment, for each
waste population being considered the key advantages and disadvantages (and notable
but non-differentiating factors) were recorded for each potential treatment/disposal option
against each of these assessment criteria. The full list was used as an aide memoir to
ensure the assessment was appropriately comprehensive.
5
Assessment Outcomes
5.1
Options Assessment Outcomes
This section presents the main outcomes of the assessment of strategic options against
criteria.
The table showing the full assessment of options is provided in Appendix 3. The
summary table showing the main outcomes of the assessment for each waste population
is provided below in Table 3. As described in previous sections, both tables focus on
reference building concrete and rubble wastes in the first instance, and then any
changes for the other waste populations. The summary table outcomes are then used to
support further simplified statements on overall outcomes.
Table 3: Summary of Assessment Outcomes
Option
S1.
Enhanced
characterisati
on with the
aim of reclassification
(ex-situ)
Waste
Population
Concrete and
rubble
Key Outcomes
Maximum benefit in protecting volumes in disposal facilities, especially if
materials are shown to be out-of-scope–consistent with Waste
Management Hierarchy and National LLW Strategy.
Important that enhanced characterisation focusses on non-radiological
as well as radiological characteristics – such properties may be as
important for demonstrating compliance with waste route WAC.
Requires up-front knowledge that the waste is likely to be near relevant
radiological boundaries for there to be a potential benefit.
Risk that the enhanced characterisation effort may not lead to
NWP/REP/120
Page 27 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Waste
Population
Key Outcomes
reclassification.
Need to manage conventional health and safety/radiological risks during
characterisation – but avoids risks that may be associated with other
treatment options.
Additional characterisation may, in any case, be beneficial even if
reclassification is not achieved, such as enabling delineation of
contamination, identification of hotspots requiring separate management
etc.
S2.
Enhanced
characterisati
on with the
aim of reclassification
(in-situ)
S3.
Mechanical
decontaminat
ion
Soils and
granular
materials
Same key outcomes as the S1 concrete assessment.
Mixed wastes
General comment: For mixed wastes it is challenging to assess options
as the category is so wide ranging. This also applied to other options.
However:
For mixed heterogeneous wastes, it may be particularly challenging for
this option to provide the confidence necessary to support
reclassification.
In terms of disposability, the lack of prior segregation and sorting may
present challenges for gaining acceptance by the waste routes.
The key outcomes for the S1 concrete assessment are also relevant
here.
Concrete and
rubble
Similar to assessment for Option S1, except:
For out-of-scope materials avoids energy and resource use associated
with retrievals, waste treatments etc.
Avoids conventional and radiological safety risks that may otherwise
have to be managed for retrieval and waste treatment; e.g. minimises
worker contact with contaminated materials.
Depending upon wastes, heterogeneity, etc. potential to be the least
technically complex option as it requires minimum waste
handling/processing.
Soils and
granular
materials
The key outcomes for concrete in S2 and related points for soils, sands
and other granular materials in the S1 assessment are relevant here.
Mixed wastes
The key outcomes for concrete in S2 and mixed wastes in S1 are
relevant here.
May be particularly challenging to prove in-situ mixed wastes are out-ofscope due to heterogeneity. Would place a significant requirement for
complex characterisation to address the associated uncertainty.
Concrete and
rubble
Simple, tried and tested approaches that can help significantly in
enabling re-use and reducing volumes for disposal via higher activity
waste streams.
By definition only effective for treatment of surface contamination.
Need to manage generated secondary wastes, including dust, liquids
NWP/REP/120
Page 28 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Waste
Population
Key Outcomes
and other effluents, depending upon the specific approach.
Requirement to manage conventional and radiological risks to workers.
Commonly used techniques and standard approaches are typically
sufficient to ensure safety.
For VLLW, further treatment by mechanical decontamination to achieve
out-of-scope levels could be more expensive than disposal as VLLW; for
LLW, may have a cost benefit in supporting reclassification to a VLLW
route.
S4. Chemical
decontaminat
ion
Soils and
granular
materials
Mechanical decontamination approaches in this category are largely not
applicable to soils and other granular materials (note soil washing etc.
are covered under chemical decontamination below).
Mixed wastes
Will have limited applicability for some classes of mixed wastes–
understanding waste makeup will be key.
Where wastes are suitable for mechanical decontamination, the same
key outcomes as for the S3 concrete assessment apply.
Concrete and
rubble
Simple, tried and tested, well understood approaches that can help
significantly in enabling re-use and reducing volumes for disposal via
higher activity waste routes.
Need to consider choice of chemical agents carefully, and note
WAC/discharge restrictions to ensure waste can be accepted for
disposal (e.g. LLWR WAC restrictions on complexing agents).
Need to manage liquids and other effluents depending upon the
approach– generation of secondary wastes; and need to manage
conventional and radiological risks to workers.
Need to ensure that contamination is not transferred to a different
material (i.e. solvent) that is more difficult and costly to manage and
dispose.
Commonly used techniques and standard approaches are sufficient to
achieve the level of management and protection required.
For VLLW, could be more expensive than disposal; for LLW as disposal
costs are higher, may have a cost benefit.
Soils and
granular
materials
Chemical decontamination approaches can be applied to non-organic
rich soils, but a smaller set of them can be applied to soils compared to
concrete.
Soil washing and related techniques can be effective and are commonly
used.
For those wastes and options within the scope of this study, arguments
are similar to those for the concrete assessment.
Mixed wastes
Chemical decontamination approaches can be applied to mixed wastes,
but this will depend upon their composition so applicability may be
limited.
In some cases there may be an opportunity to target specific
contaminants/wastes within a mixed inventory. However, such cases are
likely to be for low volume niche applications.
Need to be careful to ensure that treatments do not produce problematic
NWP/REP/120
Page 29 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Waste
Population
Key Outcomes
waste streams for subsets of the mixed wastes e.g. by unintentional
degradation of materials such as plastics.
For those wastes and options within the scope of this study, arguments
are similar to those for the S4 concrete assessment.
S5. Thermal
treatment
(thermal
surface
decontaminat
ion,
incineration)
S6.
Compaction
S7.
Stabilisation /
encapsulatio
Concrete and
rubble
Likely to be of very limited benefit for concrete in general other than to
drive off volatile non-radiological contaminants (e.g. oil, fuel) or
potentially tritium.
May be niche exceptions for certain wastes where coatings cannot be
easily removed by other methods.
Not as simple or as commonly practiced as mechanical/chemical
decontamination techniques. Depending upon technique and waste type,
more limited facility availability.
Concrete can be batch incinerated but bulk volumes may be challenging
based on limited size/capacity of incinerators.
Similar cost arguments apply as for mechanical and chemical
decontamination.
Soils and
granular
materials
Likely to be of very limited benefit for non-organic rich solids.
Mixed wastes
For mixed wastes, thermal technologies with a wide operating feedstock
may be able to treat wastes via a single approach but are likely to be a
niche operation depending upon the specific composition of a mixed
waste.
However, demonstrating compliance with treatment facility WAC may be
a challenge for mixed wastes.
More commonly, full sorting and segregation will be required in advance
of thermal treatment.
Concrete and
rubble
Essentially an enabling technology - most wastes within the scope of this
study are not compactable other than to remove voidage within a
structure. Typically limited scope to apply as a main
treatment/management step.
If volume reduction is applied, should reduce costs of LLW vault
disposal. For VLLW / LA-LLW this may not offset treatment costs.
Soils and
granular
materials
As for concrete – limited benefit for wastes within the study scope.
Mixed wastes
As for concrete – limited benefit for wastes within the study scope.
Note for mixed wastes additional characterisation may be required to
demonstrate that there will be no deleterious effects e.g. mobilisation of
asbestos fibres or dust. However, basic containment approaches can
typically be applied that will effectively address any issues.
Concrete and
rubble
Very limited benefit for wastes within the study scope.
Potential niche application to help immobilise surface decontamination
that cannot be removed by other approaches.
NWP/REP/120
Page 30 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Waste
Population
n (e.g. use of
vitrification,
or grout or
other
encapsulants
)
S8. No
additional
treatment /
management
steps prior to
ex-situ
disposal of
bulk wastes
for reuse
Key Outcomes
Requires additional resource use and cost to establish plant, procedures
and techniques to support effective encapsulation. Would also require
demonstrated success as a technique via trials etc.
Encapsulation likely to lead to an overall waste volume increase.
In general terms benefits are likely to be limited compared to the costs.
Soils and
granular
materials
Similar to concrete assessment, except:
Can offer more benefit for non-organic rich soils than for concrete - e.g.
stabilisation of granular materials, control of dust etc.
For some finer grain size materials, disposal facility WAC may require
some additional stabilisation.
Mixed wastes
Can offer more benefit for mixed wastes within the study scope than for
concrete, and arguably for soils and associated materials.
Grouting or other encapsulation methods are applicable to a wide range
of wastes and can help control/manage mixed wastes.
Vitrification (and related technologies) can provide immobilisation and
passivation benefits; however for wastes within the study scope there
may be more benefit for non-radiological hazards than for radiological
hazards.
Vitrification, ashes and glass materials can be produced from a mixed
waste stream with a high level of passivation. However, there is very
limited experience of applying vitrification to bulk lower activity wastes in
the UK and limited available facilities who can undertake this.
Vitrification likely to involve high energy use and comparatively high cost.
Concrete and
rubble
Arguments on “re-use” disposals also apply to wastes that may be made
suitable for such applications after application of one of the treatments
associated with options S3 to S7.
Less preferred in terms of the Waste Management Hierarchy as remains
a disposal, but helps avoid use of clean material that would otherwise be
required for the relevant application (such as backfilling voids).
Consistent with National LLW Strategy requirements for protection of
existing disposal space.
Can be challenging to match waste properties with required engineering
material specifications at the required time–stockpiling/storage may be
necessary so supply and demand considerations will be important.
Simple option–arguably reduced health and safety risks compared to
other options depending on nature of final disposal.
Soils and
granular
materials
Similar to concrete assessment.
Mixed wastes
Very unlikely that mixed wastes will meet the required materials
specifications for any future use without significant further sorting and
segregation.
NWP/REP/120
Page 31 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
S9. No
additional
treatment /
management
steps prior to
ex-situ
disposal of
bulk wastes
to a VLLW /
LA-LLW /
LLW facility
Waste
Population
Key Outcomes
Concrete and
rubble
Least preferred in terms of the Waste Management Hierarchy.
Least preferred also in respect of National LLW Strategy requirements –
no re-use or protection of disposal space.
Simple option – arguably reduced health and safety risks compared to
other options.
For LLW, may be the highest cost option. For VLLW/LALLW costs will be
lower.
Soils and
granular
materials
Mixed wastes
The assessment in Table 3 identifies that a number of options have very limited
applicability to key wastes within the study scope, and are either niche technologies in
the context of the waste populations being considered, or would only be applied in an
enabling role. These include:
S5. Thermal treatment (in-situ or ex-situ)
S6. Compaction (ex-situ)
S7. Stabilisation / encapsulation (ex-situ)
The remaining more generally applicable main treatment and management options can
then be ranked in a hierarchy corresponding to the potential end-points they may
achieve, and their position within the waste management hierarchy; this outcome is
described in Section 6.
5.2
Other Assessment Outcomes
As the assessment progressed, a range of additional views were elicited from assessors
and stakeholders concerning overarching issues/factors that have significance to the
management of all wastes within the scope of this study but which are not specifically
captured in the options assessment summary presented in previous sections.
Consideration of these additional issues/factors is provided below.
Proportionality
Participants at both workshops discussed the topic of proportionality in making waste
management decisions. It was noted that it can be appropriate for sites to make BAT
arguments that lead to options being implemented that do not reflect end-points at the
top of the Waste Management Hierarchy (i.e. an option which would deviate from the
generic preferred options identified in this study). In addition to consideration of the basic
suitability of a treatment disposal option from a waste management perspective, other
arguments that may influence decisions on proportionality may include the following:
• Health and safety implications.
NWP/REP/120
Page 32 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
•
•
•
•
Consistency with end states and other key site strategies.
Volumes of wastes and economies of scale (recognising both small producer issues
and the potential to stockpile on some sites to allow later bulk treatment).
Practical implementation challenges.
Cost.
Regulatory and best practice guidance indicates that an option should be considered as
BAT if it provides the best level of environmental protection unless there are other factors
(such as health and safety, time etc.) that would make it grossly disproportionate to
implement, when considering the additional benefits that it provides. The concept of
proportionality in the selection of a BAT waste management approach for a site therefore
will depend on consideration of a wide range of site specific factors.
Participants considered overall that it is not possible to make specific arguments on
where proportionality may apply in this generic BAT. This is because the arguments
around this issue and the range of factors to balance in making such a case will typically
be site and wastestream specific. Ultimately, it is for a waste producer to determine what
is proportionate given their site specific circumstances based on reasoned argument and
taking into account relevant factors.
Importance of choices at early stages of decommissioning and waste management
A significant component of the discussions from the initial internal assessment
concerned the importance of choices at early stages of the decommissioning and waste
management cycle. This discussion approximately corresponds to the region to the left of
the dotted line in
NWP/REP/120
Page 33 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Figure , although in reality the distinction is blurred, as described below. It concerns the
initial work that will always be undertaken at source during post-operational clean-out
and decommissioning, and the related initial waste management steps.
As highlighted earlier, it is not possible to provide a generic assessment of options for
enabling stages. However, the importance of the enabling techniques needs to be
recognised in relation to the full life-cycle of waste management. A key point from
discussions throughout the project is that whatever combinations of treatment/disposal
approaches are used, it is helpful to have an up-front vision of the desired end-points for
wastes in order to make sure the adopted approaches are supportive of achieving the
overall objective. These end-points can themselves be complex – for homogenous bulk
wastes, achieving a certain level of decontamination using a particular approach may be
the required end-point. For complex decommissioning wastes, there may be several endpoints, each mapped to the different wastes that might be encountered during
decommissioning.
Optimisation arguments in planning enabling approaches
There is an important trade-off to be considered in terms of the level of effort utilised in
enabling stages and the extent to which it realises other options. For example, for some
wastes, initial characterisation may suggest that all components of a mixed waste stream
can be subject to the same main treatment step, and some further sorting and
characterisation is simply required to confirm that. Alternatively, complex wastes that are
heterogeneous and for which there is limited initial characterisation data may present a
more complex challenge and the end-points may be less clear. In such cases, an
optimisation argument needs to be made balancing the level of preparation effort against
the likelihood of realising different end-points. This argument will often reflect a best
estimate judgement based on preliminary data, recognising that the level of effort
expended for further characterisation should balance the likelihood of successfully
achieving re-use / re-cycling / volume reduction against the associated difficulties,
NWP/REP/120
Page 34 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
including as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) considerations, costs and other
practicability considerations.
A related point is that the UK LLW strategy requires as much sorting, segregation and
characterisation as is practicable to be undertaken at source. This is because in general
initial work undertaken during decommissioning can have a substantial impact on later
waste management efficiencies, and segregation at source is often the most efficient
approach.
Potential value of buffer and decay storage
For some low-volume individual waste streams, it may appear uneconomic to undertake
treatment. However, the UK LLW strategy notes that buffer storage, to allow aggregation
of wastes until the volume is economic to treat, can be an important element of waste
management strategies.
Decay storage can also provide important benefits. It may be particularly beneficial for
some low activity wastes currently below the ground surface to be left in-situ for a period
of time such that decay enables them to be declared as out-of-scope of radiological
substances regulation, avoiding the requirement to retrieve. Some wastes may also
benefit from ex-situ decay storage e.g. wastes close to the LLW / ILW boundary where
the contamination is short-lived and waste can be re-classified to a lower activity waste
route over a reasonably short time period.
5.3
Threats and Opportunities
The threats and opportunities which were identified throughout the study are covered in
table 4 below.
Table 4: Threats and Opportunities
Description
Threat or
Opportunity
Implementation of the revised Paris Brussels Convention removes service
providers for off-site VLLW/LA-LLW disposal at appropriately permitted landfill
from the marketplace (owing to inability to or lack of appetite for obtaining the
necessary insurance).
Threat
Significant increase in the volume of waste routed to treatment and disposal
facilities from the NORM industry reduces capacity for management of waste
arisings from the nuclear industry.
Threat
NWP/REP/120
Page 35 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Significant increase in the volume of waste routed to treatment and disposal
facilities from the NORM industry improves the economic viability of treatment and
disposal facilities for the arisings from the nuclear industry.
Opportunity
Reduction in the volume of conventional waste requiring disposal in landfill sites
due to improved recycling reduces the economic case for VLLW/LA-LLW landfill
facilities and reduces the availability of sites.
Threat
Choices for interim and/or final end states for sites may not enable the use of insitu disposal or use of on / near site facilities.
Threat
Developments in the regulatory framework enable sites to make the case for insitu disposal where such approaches can be demonstrated to be the optimal way
forward (including providing the appropriate permits can be obtained and
compliance with interim and final end states ensured).
Opportunity
Specification and appropriate integration of supply/demand enables disposal with
re-use of VLLW/LA-LLW in capping material at the LLWR site, or for void filling or
other closure functions on other sites.
Opportunity
Re-use of out-of-scope waste or disposal with re-use of VLLW/LA-LLW in
construction materials for new construction subject to the ability to generate
material of the appropriate specification/grade and reconcile supply/demand.
Opportunity
6
Conclusion
The key conclusion from the study was that there is no single option, or combination of
options, that will be BAT for all waste within the scope of this study. The characteristics
of individual wastestreams will need to be reviewed within the context of individual
producer or treatment provider strategies in order to identify BAT. More broadly,
arguments on disproportionality relating to factors such as health and safety, cost or
other factors will be important in evaluating BAT for lower hazard wastes.
The assessments indicate that it is possible to establish a broad, high-level hierarchy of
preferred treatment options at a generic national strategic level. The hierarchy maps
options for managing wastes within the scope of this study and indicates which are most
likely to be associated with desirable end-points. This is shown in Table 5.
Note that the hierarchy focusses on what can be achieved for the bulk materials
involved. For each approach, solid secondary wastes for disposal and aqueous and
gaseous effluents for discharge may be produced but these are not considered here.
Also, options are listed against the main end-points for which they are likely to be
utilised, but it is recognised that this is a generalisation.
A key theme of the assessment concerned the balance between enabling approaches
and main treatment options, including the need to make early decisions based upon
available data on the best prospect for waste treatment. These decisions will take
account of the likelihood of achieving desired end points reflecting upper levels of the
Waste Management Hierarchy, given the understanding of wastes and related
NWP/REP/120
Page 36 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
uncertainties. These decisions also need to take into account estimates of the relative
benefits of different levels of effort at enabling stages, against the main treatment
technologies they will support and the final outcomes that may be achieved.
Management approaches such as buffer or decay storage also need to be carefully
considered, to ensure relevant opportunities are recognised.
It is also important to recognise that there is no clear dividing line between work that
should be undertaken during and after decommissioning, or during enabling/early waste
management and main treatment phases, given the wide range of wastes within the
remit of this generic study. Assessors recognised that it is important to consider the
potential final end-points for different waste types throughout, including developing BAT
cases for waste types in advance that can then be applied to manage the wastes
generated when complex facilities enter decommissioning.
NWP/REP/120
Page 37 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Table 5: Strategic BAT Outcomes: Generic Hierarchy of Treatment and Management Options
2
Hierarchy
End Point
Most
preferred on
generic
basis
Release of bulk
wastes from
radiological
substances
regulation (for
re-use or to be
left in-situ).
Reclassification through enhanced characterisation: For those wastes for
which initial characterisation provides confidence reclassification can be
achieved, this option offers clear benefits.
All waste populations within study scope.
Mechanical decontamination: Can lead to release of a range of surface
Mixed wastes.
Chemical decontamination: Similarly can lead to release of a range of surface
Disposal via reuse with an
engineering
application,
avoiding use of
clean material.
wastes via re-use: Need to be able to match arisings with required use material
specifications at the right time, at a permitted facility.
Soils and granular materials.
Mechanical decontamination: Similar to release above, but with the relevant
Mixed wastes.
Chemical decontamination: Similar to release above, but with the relevant
wastes to a VLLW / LA-LLW / LLW facility: Remains a solution for wastes
whereby it is too problematic or otherwise disproportionate to treat them.
Least
preferred
2
Disposal of bulk
wastes.
Options and Key Rationale
Relevant Waste Populations
As discussed above, this focusses on end-points for bulk material, recognising the need for disposal / discharge routes for secondary wastes.
NWP/REP/120
Page 38 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
7
References
1. Donohew, A., Dooley, S., Keep, M., Kruse, P., and Pugh, D., 2009. Strategic
BPEO study for Very Low Level Waste. Volume 1: Final Report. ENTEC report
to LLW Repository Ltd.
2. Paulley, A., and Towler, G., 2015. National Strategic BAT for Metallic Lower
Activity Radioactive Wastes: Final Report. Jacobs report B2010100_02.
3. Paulley, A., 2014. National Strategic BAT for Organic Low Level Radioactive
Waste: Final BAT Report. Jacobs report 60X50008_01.
4. Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, 2016a. UK Strategy for the Management of
Solid Low Level Radioactive Waste from the Nuclear Industry.
5. Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, the Environment Agency, and
Natural Resources Wales, 2016. Guidance on Requirements for Release of
Nuclear Sites from Radioactive Substances Regulation. Consultation Document
February 2016.
6. Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, 2014. The 2013 UK Radioactive Waste
Inventory.
7. Environment Agency and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, 2004.
Guidance for the Environment Agencies’ Assessment of Best Practicable
Environmental Option Studies at Nuclear Sites.
8. AMEC, 2008. Best Practicable Means Assessment for Asbestos Waste at the
Chapelcross Decommissioning Site, 14923/TR/0001.
https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/132202/paper-10-bmp-assessment-for-asbestoswaste.pdf
9. LLW Repository Ltd, LAW Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Waste Gate B
(Preferred Options) study, Issue 1, March 2016.
The following references were also used to gather information for the study and
particularly when considering treatment and disposal options:
AMIANT E Report Summary, 2013. The development of selected hazardous wastes
utilization technologies, based on microwave thermal treatment method. Project
reference 222142, http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/60830_en.html.
Ecologia, retrieved December 2016. In-Situ Remediation, http://www.ecologiaenvironmental.com/index.php/remediation/in-situ-remediation/
NWP/REP/120
Page 39 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
EIC-CL:AIRE, 2013. Asbestos in Soil, Made ground and Construction & Demolition
Materials, Joint Industry Working Group Statement on Discussions on Regulation and
Enforcement with HSE and EA. 20130315 JIWG.
Environment Agencies Requirements Working Group, 2013. Waste Minimisation
Database. http://www.rwbestpractice.co.uk/
Environment Agency, 2010. Radioactive Substances Regulation: Principles of
optimisation in the management and disposal of radioactive waste. Version 2.0.
Environment and Heritage Service, 2004. BPEO for the Management of Waste
Asbestos, http://www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/bpeoasbestos.pdf.
International Atomic Energy Agency, 1999. On-site Disposal as a Decommissioning
Strategy.
LLW Repository Ltd., 2011. UK Management of Solid Low Level Radioactive Waste from
the Nuclear Industry: Guidance for the Segregation and Management of Low Level
Waste from the Nuclear and Associated Industries.
LLWR, 2014. LLWR
NWP/REP/047, Issue 2.
National
Waste
Programme:
Strategic
Review
2013.
Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, 2016b. The NDA Value Framework. Version 1.2.
Nuclear Industry Safety Directors Forum, 2010. BAT for the Management of the
Generation and Disposal of Radioactive Wastes: A Nuclear Industry Code of Practice.
Ultrawave Precision Ultrasonic Cleaning Equipment, 2015. How Ultrasonic Cleaning
Works, http://www.ultrawave.co.uk/how-ultrasonic-cleaning-works.html
United Nations Environment Programme, retrieved December 2016. Phytoremediation:
An Environmentally Sound Technology for Pollution Prevention, Control and
Remediation.
http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/Freshwater/FMS2/1.asp.
NWP/REP/120
Page 40 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Appendix 1: Screening Process Outcomes
Screening Criteria
Options screening is designed to consider whether each of the technology options is
capable of providing a meaningful contribution, on their own or in combination with
others, to the overall objective of achieving safe management of relevant wastes.
The screening criteria adopted were:
• Is the technology capable of being legally implemented?
• Is the technology expected to provide a tangible environmental benefit (e.g.
reducing volumes for disposal)?
• Is there confidence that potential service providers will be available to provide
required treatment services within a reasonable timeframe?
• Are there clear arguments that show the cost would not be disproportionate to
any benefits gained?
Long-list and Screening Outcomes
Table 6 below provide a long-list of options identified that could provide a potential
benefit to the wastes within the study scope. They were compiled from detailed
review of a range of resources, and a review and analysis from a range of industry
experts involved in the process.
The table also provides the outcomes of the screening process, and associated logic
and rationale for the screening decision.
Table 7 provides a summary of the screened short-list of options and shows how the
options were grouped into broad categories. The main text (Section 4) then shows
how these grouped options can be used to form overall strategic options for the
main assessment phase.
NWP/REP/120
Page 41 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Table 6: Waste Treatment and Management Options
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Characterisation
Determination of the physical, radiological and chemical properties of a
waste to enable the appropriate waste route to be determined and to
identify the requirement for further treatment and/or conditioning to support
disposal.
A range of characterisation techniques are available, including laboratory
analysis of physical samples and in-field measurement (e.g. using
appropriate radiation detection monitoring equipment).
Different characterisation techniques have differing applicability to different
material types and therefore selection of an appropriate characterisation
technique appropriate to the material type is an important consideration.
Characterisation is required to demonstrate compliance with WAC.
Reclassification
through enhanced
characterisation
Determination of the radiological characteristics of a waste to enable
classification to a lower activity waste route where preliminary data / history
and provenance suggest that the waste could be close to a waste
classification boundary. For example this could lead to VLLW wastes being
re-classified as out-of-scope.
Decay storage (in or
ex-situ)
Storage of waste for a number of half-lives until the activity has reduced to
out-of-scope levels or supports alternative radioactive waste management
i.e. meets other specific waste route conditions for acceptance. It could be
applied to wastes once retrieved or still in their original positions.
Useful
for
wastes
containing
radionuclides
with
a
short
half-life where decay storage can benefit from a significant reduction in
activity.
Rationale
IN
A key enabling approach.
Appropriate characterisation is
a requirement for all
radioactive waste routes.
Selection of techniques
appropriate to the physical
properties and radiological
characteristics of the waste is
essential to support waste
route acceptance.
IN
Not just an enabling
technology but can be a key
component of the overall
management approach.
IN
Potentially important approach
enabling simpler / more cost
effective / safer solutions to be
subsequently employed.
NWP/REP/120
Page 42 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Rationale
In-situ storage below
ground
Material is managed at its existing location below ground. Note this is
active management with a view to future retrieval and ex-situ management.
This waste stream therefore includes soils and any associated below
ground building structures that are known to be radioactively contaminated
but have not yet been defined as a waste.
IN
May be a necessary
component of strategies for
sites without an early final end
point / end state.
Stockpiling / buffer
storage
Temporary storage of smaller volumes of waste until sufficient volume is
accumulated for bulk characterisation and recycling / re-use or disposal
(e.g. stockpiling smaller volumes of waste until a suitable disposal
container can be filled). Note that stockpiles of contaminated concrete /
rubble etc. on nuclear licensed sites may require appropriate protection
from precipitation, management of leachate etc.
IN
A key enabling approach.
Blending
The potential of blending waste for treatment is noted. Whilst waste dilution
with clean material is clearly outside regulatory expectations in the UK, it is
plausible that BAT cases can be made to blend LAW or cross-boundary
HAW with LLW for treatment if doing so will present clear benefits.
IN
Justifiable in certain
circumstances.
Containerisation for
interim storage and/or
transport
Use of (re-usable) receptacles (e.g. skips, HHISOs, FHISOs) for direct or
interim storage and/or transport between consignor sites, and treatment
and disposal sites. This is an enabling technology in that it facilitates
treatment or disposal elsewhere than the arising site.
Includes bags, drums, skip liners etc. depending on the volume and activity
of the waste.
IN
Screened IN but considered
primarily an enabler for
handling / transport
applications.
NWP/REP/120
Page 43 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Rationale
Sorting
Waste types are pre-grouped prior to segregation based on similar
physical, radiological and/or chemical properties or anticipated waste
disposal route.
This could include sorting / grouping wastes from areas of different
radiological characteristics / fingerprints for which a similar approach to
characterisation or co-disposal is anticipated. It will also take into account
chemical / hazardous waste characteristics.
IN
An essential consideration for
all waste characterisation and
disposal.
Segregation
Waste is segregated to facilitate application of the Waste Hierarchy and to
route wastes for appropriate pre-treatment, such as supercompaction,
combustible waste treatment and metallic waste treatment, prior to
disposal. The intention of segregation in a radioactive waste context is to
minimise the total volume and activity of radioactive waste generated and
to encourage treatment / routing of wastes away from disposal, especially
LLW vault disposal (e.g. at LLWR).
Segregation therefore typically involves grouping wastes with similar
physical properties that are likely to be subject to the same pre-treatment /
disposal.
IN
disposal.
Wiping
Wiping is a proven technique that is a commonly used for radiation
protection and hazardous and radioactive waste management purposes.
Removing loose contamination by wiping can provide a number of benefits
to waste management including improved waste handling, reducing the
radiological designation / controls required in waste processing areas, and
minimising the potential for cross / re-contamination of wastes.
IN
disposal.
NWP/REP/120
Page 44 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Rationale
Washing
Removes contaminants by dissolving or suspending them in the wash
solution. Therefore it is most applicable to wastes with a high surface area
to volume ratio (such as granular soils, crushed aggregate).
Has been successfully applied to the decontamination of soils
contaminated with a wide variety of heavy metals, radionuclides and
organic contaminants. The clean soil can potentially be returned to the
originating site for reuse.
The potential for washing to be a successful technique is very much
dependent upon the physio-chemical nature of the contaminant and site
specific considerations (such as the type of soil).
IN
Commonly used proven
technique.
Vacuuming
Most useful as a physical pre-treatment for removing large quantities of
loose contamination prior to application of other surface decontamination
techniques. Also used to minimise contamination spread during the
application of other treatment methods. For example, a high-efficiency
particulate air vacuum is commonly used to provide shadow vacuuming to
remove dust and debris generated during a range of physical surface
decontamination techniques.
Applicable to concrete, particularly prior to demolition. Of limited application
to granular/mixed wastes with a high surface area to volume ratio.
IN
technique.
Double bagging and
dampening agent
A means of managing the hazard posed by a radioactive waste by isolating
the waste from people and the wider environment by double bagging
following addition of a dampening agent.
Applicable to most waste types. Can be particularly effective for fibrous
materials such as wastes containing asbestos fibres, disturbed plasters,
and other dusts.
IN
technique.
NWP/REP/120
Page 45 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Size reduction
(crushing / cutting)
Used to reduce the size of materials into manageable size and shape for
further waste processing. Often used to get the waste into a size that will fit
into a required waste disposal container. Techniques range from use of
saws, shears and nibblers to lasers and focused power water jetting to cut /
size reduce items.
Applicable to concrete, masonry and mixed waste streams.
Spraying / fixing
Treatment of the surface of the waste material by coating or impregnating
the waste with a material to reduce the potential for release of hazardous
fibres / contaminants. Typical agents used for spraying / fixing
contamination include PVA or a sodium silicate solution. This technique is
not really a decontamination technique but rather involves the
management/passivation of surface contamination layer to assist handling.
Rationale
IN
technique.
IN
Potentially suitable for
concrete but unlikely to have
applicability to soils and mixed
wastes.
Incineration
Thermal treatment processes include a wide variety of oxidative and
pyrolytic technologies to reduce the volume of combustible material.
Can be potentially used to drive off volatile components of the waste such
as organic compounds, flammable solvents and tritium. This type of
thermal treatment is potentially suitable for LLW and can be used for dry
solid wastes and ion exchange resins depending on the incinerator concept
used.
IN
Unlikely to be applied on a
bulk scale. Possible
application for removing tritium
and non-radiological
hazardous components that
could challenge compliance
with WAC.
In-situ disposal below
ground
This involves retaining waste material in the ground with the intent not to
retrieve it for ex-situ disposal at any point in the future. Such in-situ
disposal would be a permitted disposal and would require demonstration
that the risk posed to human health and the environment (controlled
waters, non-human biota) are managed to an acceptable level.
OUT
This option is outside the
scope of this specific BAT.
NWP/REP/120
Page 46 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Rationale
In-situ storage above
ground
Material is temporarily managed at its existing location above ground
pending future disposal. A typical example would be to leave a building
that has been identified for future demolition and waste disposal for a
period of safe management pending future demolition.
A number of site specific considerations may drive selection of this option
including availability of funding and/or resource to undertake demolition and
waste management, and logistical constraints such as access restrictions
which make the demolition difficult.
IN
In-situ disposal
(entombment) above
ground
For wastes where removal / dismantling is very challenging for some
reason (e.g. worker dose) above ground in-situ disposal, most likely with an
engineered barrier e.g. entombment in concrete, may be applicable.
This is likely to be only applicable in very specific cases where the activity
and dose rate levels are significant (i.e. ILW/HAW) and could not be
reduced to acceptable levels / demonstrated ALARP to support more
conventional demolition and waste management activities.
OUT
Engineered barriers in
support of in-situ
disposals
Use of engineered barriers such as vertical cut-off walls to support in-situ
storage and disposal options. The purpose of the barrier could be for a
number of purposes including: to minimise water ingress, deter human
intrusion or to help contain contamination within a defined area and prevent
it migrating into adjacent, previously clean areas.
OUT
See in-situ disposal above.
This was identified as outside
the study scope.
Access controls in
support of decay
storage and/or
in-situ disposals
Use of access controls including physical barriers, or working
arrangements / planning controls that prevent access to the waste storage /
disposal area and the ability to undertake certain human activities that
could result in exposure to or release of the contamination. An example
would be use of controls such as area designation, physical barriers and
permit to work / permit to dig management systems to prevent excavation
in areas that could lead to intrusion into sub-surface contamination.
IN but only
in support
of decay
storage as
part of
normal site
controls.
May be of assistance in
minimising impacts of in-situ
storage/disposals and for
contaminated soil.
In-situ disposals were defined
as outside the study scope.
An important component of
any site clearance strategy.
In addition, such in-situ
disposals were defined as
outside the study scope as the
work progressed.
NWP/REP/120
Page 47 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Re-use on-site (or at
other sites)
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Plant, equipment and buildings, which have reached the end of their
original intended purpose, may have potential use elsewhere.
Concrete and soil can be characterised and re-used on the originating site
for void filling or landscaping as an in-situ disposal. Use as an aggregate in
new construction materials is also a possibility. Such re-use and in-situ
disposal would require an environmental permit.
A key issue is that materials generated from decommissioning will need to
meet the required engineering material specifications for their re-use and
will need to arise at the right time, or be stockpiled.
Re-use in conventional
industries
Concrete and soil could potentially be processed and re-used in the
construction industry as hardcore for void filling or landscaping. This would
require the ‘conventional’ industry user to obtain a permit as this would still
be a disposal of radioactive wastes in regulatory terms.
Phytoremediation
A seasonal technique that involves growing plants in a contaminated matrix
for a required growth period to remove contaminants from the matrix, or
facilitate immobilisation (binding / containment) or degradation
(detoxification). Can be used alone or in combination with physical
methods and can be used to remove solvents, crude oil and hydrocarbons
in contaminated soils and sediments.
Phytoremediation has not been actively used on a large scale as a
remediation technique for the decontamination of radioactively
contaminated soils. Although its potential application on a small laboratory
scale has been successfully demonstrated.
Rationale
IN
Provided an appropriate
optimisation / environmental
case can be made, this would
be consistent with application
of the Waste Hierarchy.
Note that some enabling
treatments may be required to
support re-use.
OUT
For radioactive waste, re-use
would be considered as
disposal and would require an
environmental permit which
conventional sites are not
likely to be interested in
obtaining.
OUT
Within the scope of this study
for soil that may be classed as
a waste.
Screened out as there is a
very limited tangible
environmental benefit; an
increase in volume as soil will
typically still be waste and will
also have plant matter to
manage; limited applicability.
NWP/REP/120
Page 48 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Rationale
Grinding / shaving
This technique uses coarse, grained abrasives in the form of diamond
grinding wheels or multiple tungsten carbide surfacing discs to remove
surface contamination as dust / shavings. This could be applicable to
wastes with accessible surfaces subject to contamination.
Grinding / shaving are applicable to the decontamination of building
surfaces where thin layers of contamination need to be removed.
Potential for dust production, which could result in spreading contamination
and has radiological implications from inhalation. Often used with shadow
vacuuming to capture and contain the generated dust and debris.
IN
Commonly used surface
decontamination approach.
Milling
Large, paving-type equipment is used to shave the concrete surface (up to
a depth of a few millimetres) over a large surface area removing
radioactivity from the surface. It is however very difficult to use milling
machines remotely due to their weight. This could be applicable to wastes
with accessible surfaces subject to contamination.
IN
Drilling and spalling /
expansive grout
This technique involves drilling a series of holes into building surfaces and
inserting a hydraulic spalling tool to break up the material within the holes.
Removal of the near-surface contamination in this manner allows control
over the depth of surface contamination removed but its application is likely
to be more suited to scenarios where gross widespread contamination has
been identified across a surface rather than the remediation of localised
hotspots of contamination.
Not applicable for individual concrete blocks but is suitable for removal of
contamination 2.5-5 cm deep across a large surface area.
IN
NWP/REP/120
Page 49 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Heavy duty tools e.g.
jackhammer
Use of heavy duty tools have application where contamination has been
identified to extend past a discrete surface layer and therefore removal by
other surface decontamination techniques may be more labour intensive
and time consuming.
A rough surface is left and the method can easily remove too much, leading
to unnecessary contaminated waste and large amounts of airborne dust.
IN
Abrasive cleaning
(blasting)
An abrasive medium (e.g. sand, grit, metal shot, and dry ice) is suspended
in a medium of water or compressed air and forced at high speed onto the
surface removing the contaminated surface layer. Contamination extending
into the bulk of porous material requires repeat application.
Specific technologies exist, such as Spongejet, which includes a sponge
medium to help capture the removed contamination dust and debris.
This could be applicable, as for other mechanical surface decontamination
approaches, to wastes with accessible surfaces subject to contamination.
IN
Scabbling / scarifying /
planing
Scabbling, scarifying and planning are commonly used surface
decontamination techniques on porous materials such as concrete where
the contamination may have penetrated into the surface. These
decontamination techniques involve the removal of a thin surface layer
using mechanical action.
These techniques are most commonly applied to building surfaces
requiring decontamination but can also be applied to larger surface
contaminated monolithic waste items such as concrete blocks.
Suitable for use in situations where the concrete surface is to be reused
after decontamination as it can be applied to leave a smooth even surface.
IN
Rationale
NWP/REP/120
Page 50 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Rationale
Low pressure water
jets/ (ultra) high
pressure water
Involves removal of surface contamination by the force of a pressurised
water jet. Applicable to wastes with accessible contaminated surfaces.
Applicability is mainly limited to removal of contamination that is present as
a discrete surface layer and has not penetrated into the material itself, and
therefore typically is more suitable for decontamination of non-porous
rather than porous materials which has the potential for driving
contamination further into the substrate. For concrete, may be used to
remove surface coatings (i.e. paint) or surface chemical contamination.
IN
decontamination approaches.
Water flushing
Low pressure, hot or cold water flushing can be used for the removal of
surface contamination, including loose contamination/debris and watersoluble fixed contamination.
Need to consider for porous materials whether the technique has the
potential of driving contamination further into the substrate.
Typically applied to accessible surfaces that are too large for wiping /
scrubbing or as a preliminary treatment prior to application of other
decontamination techniques.
IN
Pumping and
discharge via permitted
route without treatment
Includes a range of systems which can be used to remove contaminated
groundwater or Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPL). Water requires
disposal via a permitted route without further treatment. This is primarily
focussed on in-situ soils, sands and similar materials.
Outside the
scope of
this study
Primarily used for
contaminated land and
groundwater which are outside
Pump and Treat
Contaminated groundwater or NAPL is pumped from wells to an above
ground treatment system (such as an ion exchange column or activated
charcoal filtration unit) that removes the contaminants prior to onward
permitted discharge.
Outside the
scope of
this study
NWP/REP/120
Page 51 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Rationale
Microwave Scabbling
This technique involves the removal of a concrete surface using microwave
energy to heat the moisture present in the concrete matrix. Continued
heating produces steam under pressure, leading to internal mechanical and
thermal stresses that burst the surface layer of the concrete.
This technique may be unsuitable for decontaminating complex geometries
such as cracks or enclosed spaces and corners due to the difficulty in
manoeuvring the equipment.
OUT
Limited applicability and is still
an emerging technology.
Unlikely to deliver benefit over
other surface decontamination
approaches. Likely to be more
costly than other options that
are more effective.
Sparging
This technique involves the injection of air, pure oxygen, nitrogen or ozone
below the water table, under pressure, via vertical or horizontal lines and is
primarily focussed on in-situ soils, sands and similar materials. The
injections can volatilise contaminants within the groundwater and saturated
zone or mobilise groundwater and encourage mass transfer.
Outside the
scope of
this study
This approach is primarily
used for contaminated land
and groundwater which are
outside the scope of this study.
Steam Injection
Removes volatile and semi-volatile contaminants through increasing
vapour pressure by injecting steam into soils, sands, or similar materials.
Contamination of equipment is a potential issue and could result in high
volumes of secondary waste management, including management of any
liquid residues.
Steam injection has been successfully used in conventional industries for
chemical decontamination of soils but limited application to radioactive
contaminants is known or anticipated. It does however have potentially
limited applicability.
IN
Retained as part of the
broader suite of soil treatment
options.
NWP/REP/120
Page 52 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Rationale
Steam cleaning
Steam cleaning combines the solvent action of hot water with the kinetic
energy effect of blasting. It is a recommended method by the IAEA for
decontamination of large complex shapes. Differs from injection due to the
surface cleaning rather than bulk treatment approach. It is therefore
applicable to wastes with a range of geometries.
This technique is not capable of removing contaminants beyond the
immediate surface and treatment is required for the wastewater.
Has been used in both conventional and nuclear industries for both
chemical and radiological decontamination applications e.g. at Sellafield.
IN
A simple approach that is
similar to conventional steam
application techniques.
Strippable coatings
The technique involves coating the surface requiring decontamination in a
liquid substance (polymer mixture) that dries to form a removable film to
which contaminants become entrained. The contaminated layer is peeled
off by hand or the coating cracks, flakes and falls off. The removed
material can then be collected for disposal.
This technique can also be used to facilitate later decontamination by
application of a preventative coat to tie-down contamination. This may be
useful as an interim management measure.
Strippable coatings are intended for use in decontaminating smooth and
semi-rough porous surfaces, including concrete and painted surfaces, and
are most effective on large, accessible surfaces such as floors and walls.
IN
technique.
Soil vapour extraction
(SVE)
Removes organic contaminants from soil by inducing a localised vacuum.
The technique involves drilling vertical or horizontal wells and inducing a
vacuum. The extracted air and vapour is then treated at the surface.
This technology has no proven application for management of radiological
contaminants and is therefore only likely to be applicable where there is
mixed radiological/chemical contamination to remove the chemical /
hazardous component of the waste.
IN
Retained as part of the
broader suite of soil treatment
options.
NWP/REP/120
Page 53 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
High vacuum multiphase extraction
(HVMPE)
Simultaneous application of vacuum enhanced extraction/recovery, soil
vapour extraction, and bioventing to address light NAPL, groundwater and
soil contamination. It is applied to soils, sands and related materials and
combines the action of several approaches each of which are mentioned
elsewhere in this list in their own right.
Rationale
OUT
This approach is primarily
used for contaminated
land/groundwater and is
therefore outside the scope of
this study.
Electrokinetics /
electromigration
A technology that involves the movement of charged species under the
influence of an applied electric field. Used to separate and extract heavy
metals, radionuclides and organic contaminants from soils and sediments.
This is an unproven technique which is likely to be of limited effectiveness,
require extensive trials to demonstrate potential application, and will be
very time and energy intensive. In addition, it is likely to be used for
contaminated land/groundwater which are outside the scope of this study.
OUT
Unproven technology with
limited application and likely
not to be applicable to waste
within the scope of this study.
In-situ radio frequency
heating
This is an innovative technique where the soil is heated to increase
volatility or reduce viscosity of organic contaminants so they may be
removed via SVE or HVPME.
The technique is an emerging technology and would require extensive trials
to demonstrate applicability to a waste. Furthermore, potential application
to radioactive waste is limited and likely to only be an option to remove the
volatile chemical components of a mixed waste.
OUT
Unproven technology and
unlikely to be effective on a
bulk scale.
In-situ vitrification
The technique involves application of electrical energy via insertion of
electrodes (and adding silica or equivalent material if necessary) to melt the
waste into a glassy, immobilised matrix.
The use of vitrification reduces the volume of any aqueous component of
the waste, as the water is evaporated. The glass product has a high
chemical and radiation stability. Glass provides a good barrier to
radionuclide release and it can be used for a wide range of waste
compositions.
IN
Especially for higher activity
soils, could be an
immobilisation technique that
may provide benefits where
others would be challenging to
implement.
NWP/REP/120
Page 54 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Low force compaction
A widely used method to reduce the volume of dry radioactive waste by
reducing the amount of voidage in the waste through the application of
mechanical force.
A variety of compaction devices are commercially available specially
designed for use with radioactive waste.
Only applicable to materials that can be readily compacted, based on the
physical properties and level of voidage. Potentially applicable to loose
soils/building rubble waste.
IN
High force compaction
High-force compactors differ from conventional compactors in that they
utilise greater pressure to compact solid waste. High-force compaction can
be used for non-combustible waste and waste not compactable by
conventional compactors and are routinely adopted in the nuclear industry.
However, bulk concrete, soils, rubble etc. will typically be outside the WAC
of supercompactors and are unlikely to offer volume reduction beyond that
of basic size reduction and compaction techniques.
OUT for
bulk wastes
Vacuum packing
Technique commonly used throughout the nuclear industry to minimise the
volume of soft waste arisings. This is applied during demolition, dismantling
sorting, and segregation operations, etc.
Soft wastes produced in facilities are placed in PVC bags and the air is
removed using a HEPA filtered vacuum. The bags are then sealed to
prevent air ingress, expansion and contamination release. The removal of
air from the bags greatly reduces the volume and increases the density
prior to packing into drums for final disposal.
IN as an
enabler e.g.
to assist
handling.
OUT as a
bulk
treatment
approach.
Rationale
In as a basic voidage
reduction mechanism, but
application is dependent on
the physical properties of the
waste.
Supercompaction is not
suitable for the waste within
Unlikely to be used for bulk
wastes, but will have specific
applications during enabling
processes.
NWP/REP/120
Page 55 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Rationale
Cracking / pyrolysis
Chemical decomposition induced in organic materials by heat in the
absence of oxygen. An example of application includes the separation of
organics from hydrocarbon contaminated soils. Essentially it can be
considered to offer benefits similar to incineration, but the low-oxygen
environment typically leads to a ceramic type product.
No anticipated application to radioactive contaminants and therefore only
likely to be an option to remove the volatile chemical components of a
mixed radioactive / chemically contaminated waste.
Outside the
scope of
this study
Primarily focused on organic
components of soils and thus
addressed by the Strategic
BAT for organic LAW.
Ultrasonic cleaning
The rapid and complete removal of contaminants from objects by
immersing them in a tank of liquid flooded with high frequency sound
waves. These non-audible sound waves create a scrubbing action within
the fluid to remove surface contamination. This is only applicable to
individual items that are small enough to be cleaned in the bath.
OUT
Not a plausible bulk treatment
technique.
Vacuum desorption
Vacuum desorption is a thermal desorption process which takes place in a
vacuum in order to provide an extra level of protection by ensuring releases
to the environment are minimised. The objective of the technology is to
separate organic contaminants from a waste matrix, leaving the solid
processed material amenable to further treatment / direct disposal. Soils,
sands and related materials could potentially benefit from this technique.
Potential application to radioactive waste is limited and likely to only be an
option to remove the volatile chemical components of a chemically
contaminated waste such as inorganic sludge and soil or for the treatment
of process residues.
IN
Retained as could potentially
form part of a treatment
approach also involving other
components. Likely applicable
in specific cases only i.e.
involving soil and debris
contaminated with volatiles.
NWP/REP/120
Page 56 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Encapsulation /
synthetic polymer /
other organic
encapsulants
Synthetic polymer encapsulation is used to immobilise LLW. The technique
involves coating individual components of a waste in a chemically
compatible and inert matrix that has been demonstrated to provide good
long term chemical and physical stability.
The choice of encapsulant potentially can present issues for demonstrating
compliance with WAC and requires careful selection and trials to
demonstrate suitability for the waste requiring treatment.
Encapsulation can be applied to wastes including concrete and soils.
Rationale
OUT
No specific benefit over other
encapsulants for wastes within
the scope of this study, and
likely to be much more costly.
Encapsulation –
vitrification
(in-container)
This technique involves electrically melting contaminated soils and solid
wastes to provide a vitrified glass within a waste container, using
electrodes and a high energy electric current.
This process has been found to be unsuitable for large items with a low
surface area to volume ratio and reactive or explosive wastes.
Only limited data is available to support the long-term effectiveness and
durability of waste forms. However it is reasonable to expect that the waste
forms produced would be more stable than the original wastes and with key
reactive species and volatiles stabilised or driven off through the process.
IN
Screened in but likely to be of
interest only for specific
applications e.g. higher activity
soils.
Cementation
Cementation is a process used to encapsulate LLW in solid and liquid
forms. Waste is placed into a drum and a fluid masonry mix is transferred
from the grout mix container into the drum which fills the spaces between
the waste items. The cement mix is allowed to set and is capped with a
layer of cement before placing the lid on the drum. Alternatively, pressure
injection of liquid grout into a container can be undertaken, or grouting of a
large item directly into place in an engineered facility.
IN
technique.
NWP/REP/120
Page 57 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Lasers
This approach can be used to decontaminate concrete by removing a
defined thickness of the surface layer of a material. The laser beam can be
delivered to the material surface remotely via a fibre optic cable.
Likely to be an expensive technique delivering no significant benefits to
more conventional surface decontamination approaches such as scabbling.
Organic solvents
Organic solvents are hydrocarbons that dissolve organic contaminants
such as grease, oil or paint from concrete without chemically reacting with
the contaminant. The technology may be applied as a continuous process
or may be developed for portable use. Solvents are typically applied in-situ
as an aid to gathering loose or loosely fixed contamination through
swabbing. The solvent volatilises leaving a dry solid waste.
The chemical composition of the solvent could potentially pose challenges
for waste route acceptance of both the primary and secondary waste and
should be carefully selected. There may be also be contaminant control /
mobilisation issues that require consideration.
Bleaching
Bleach is a powerful oxidising agent, used to break down organic or
inorganic matter. It has been successfully demonstrated for use on metal
and concrete in the nuclear industry. In nuclear processes, hydrogen
peroxide is more frequently used. It has wide applicability but secondary
wastes including effluents need to be managed, and the resulting wastes
need to meet relevant disposal facility WAC.
Rationale
OUT
Not suitable for bulk usage.
IN
Proven technique with known
specific applications.
Potentially presents waste
management/disposal and
contamination control
challenges that require
appropriate consideration.
IN
Similar rationale as for organic
solvents including the
requirement to manage and
dispose of a liquid secondary
waste and contamination
control / mobilisation issues.
NWP/REP/120
Page 58 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Detergents /
surfactants
Detergents and surfactants make it easier for water to dissolve dirt and
grease. Surfactants used have previously been successfully applied to
decontamination of bare and painted concrete walls, floors and ceilings.
Application of detergents can be dynamic such as by pressure washing or
flushing in situ, or by static process where chemicals are sprayed, sprinkled
as a powder, painted or spread onto a surface within a detachable coating.
Detergents added to a water jet are good for removing relatively low activity
levels.
Detergents are applied to surface contaminated materials with a range of
geometry. Concrete surfaces are the most obvious of the potential
applications for the wastes within the study scope.
Complexing agents
Complexing agents increase the solubility of metal ions / radionuclides and
extend the range of pH over which they remain in solution. They also help
retain metal in solution under conditions when the metal ions otherwise reprecipitate on the surface being cleaned.
There are potential disposal problems for wastes containing complexing
agents due to their ability to increase the mobility of some long-lived
nuclides - depending upon the nature of the disposal route and any
applicable WAC. Specific complexing agents are not accepted by a
number of the available LLW waste disposal routes and therefore careful
selection of complexing agent would be required.
Supercritical fluids
Can be used in order to surface decontaminate materials by dissolving the
contaminating radionuclides. The application has been successfully used to
decontaminate soils, but concretes and other wastes are also potentially
applicable.
Rationale
IN
IN
Specific restrictions on
disposal of some complexing
agents for a number of waste
routes.
OUT
Very challenging and costly to
implement, and is unlikely to
present any benefits over
other techniques; unlikely to
be applicable to bulk waste.
NWP/REP/120
Page 59 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Description
Screened
IN or OUT
Chemical wet oxidation
Developed as an alternative to incineration, the oxidation process offered
by the chemistry involved delivers similar results.
The process works best for waste streams where there is a small volume of
organic material to be removed from a large amount of inert matrix.
Outside the
scope of
this study
Addressed by the strategic
BAT for organic LAW.
Thermochemical
conversion
This technology involves the application of a combination of heat and
chemical treatment to break down a wide variety of materials. The
technique can potentially be applied to treat waste materials from the
nuclear industry including soil, sludge and sediments but is not a proven
technique.
Application of the technology would therefore require specific trials to
demonstrate applicability and is unlikely to have specific use for radioactive
wastes, unless used to remove a non-radiological chemical component.
OUT
For application to bulk
organics, addressed by the
strategic BAT for organic LAW.
Exothermic metallised
powders
This technology includes applying a reagent mixture to the surface
requiring treatment. Heat is applied and the reaction generates heat, which
degrades the surface coating allowing removal of surface contamination
from concrete. This is a novel approach that could be applied to concrete
surfaces, but is relatively unproven and unlikely to be used for bulk.
As the process uses a number of reactive metals, the disposal of the
primary and secondary wastes may not meet the disposal facility’s WAC.
OUT
Considered to be of limited
applicability; is an essentially
unproven novel technique;
there are secondary waste
issues; unlikely to be used for
bulk wastes; and is a very
aggressive approach.
Microbial degradation
Degradation of hazardous organic contaminants to environmentally safe
levels in soils, concrete and other materials. Suitable for use for the in situ
removal of hazardous residues from walls and floors.
Whilst this technology is proven and well developed for organic
contamination in soils and groundwater, its application to concrete is largely
unproven. Furthermore, the technology has no current application to the
treatment of radioactive contaminants.
OUT
For application to bulk
organics, addressed by the
Strategic BAT for organic
LAW.
Rationale
NWP/REP/120
Page 60 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Screened
IN or OUT
Description
Rationale
Existing LLW facilities
Disposal to an existing licensed LLW facility e.g. LLWR, Dounreay.
IN
Current practice.
Other existing facilities
Disposal to an existing facility permitted to accept LA-LLW/VLLW waste.
IN
Current practice.
Existing On-site
Facilities
Disposal in an existing surface / near surface disposal facility on the site of
generation permitted to accept LA-LLW or VLLW.
IN
Current practice.
New on-site facilities
Disposal in a new surface / near surface disposal facility on the site of
generation permitted to accept LA-LLW or VLLW.
OUT
Considered unlikely that
further provision will become
available within 5 years. May
be an option in the long term.
New offsite facilities
Disposal in a new surface / near surface disposal facility permitted to
accept LA-LLW or VLLW waste in the UK.
OUT
As above.
Long-term storage prior
to availability of a near
surface or geological
disposal facility
Long term surface storage of LLW is consistent with Scottish national
policy. In the rest of the UK, long term surface storage is used until the
construction of a geological disposal facility that will accept wastes for
which there is no present disposal route.
IN
From the perspective of
packaging for long-term
storage prior to geological (or
near surface) disposal.
NWP/REP/120
Page 61 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Table 7: Short-list Options Grouping
Relevant Waste Population(s)
Concrete and
rubble
Soil and
Granular
Materials
Mixed
Wastes
Characterisation



Decay Storage (in or exsitu)



In-situ Storage Below
Ground



Stockpiling / Buffer Storage



Blending



Containerisation for Interim
Storage and/or Transport



Sorting



Segregation



Wiping

Washing



Vacuuming



Double Bagging and
Dampening Agent



Size Reduction (Crushing /
Cutting)



Vacuum Packing



Spraying / Fixing



Incineration



In-situ Storage Above
Ground





Options Group
Enablers
Option
Low-force compaction
Enhanced
characterisation
Reclassification through
Enhanced Characterisation



Re-use On-site (Disposal)



Disposal via re-use
of material
Re-use Other Permitted (or
Potentially Permitted)
Facilities


Decontamination
(mechanical,
chemical, thermal
etc.)
Milling

Grinding/Shaving

Drilling and Spalling /

NWP/REP/120
Page 62 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Relevant Waste Population(s)
Options Group
Option
Concrete and
rubble
Soil and
Granular
Materials
Mixed
Wastes

Expansive Grout
Heavy duty tools e.g.
Jackhammer

Abrasive Cleaning
(Blasting)

Scabbling / Scarifying /
Planing

Low Pressure Water Jets/
(Ultra) High Pressure Water

Water Flushing


Steam Injection


Steam Cleaning

Strippable Coatings

Soil Vapour Extraction
(SVE)

Vacuum Desorption

Organic Solvents

Bleaching

Detergents / Surfactants

Complexing Agents


In-situ Vitrification
Stabilisation /
encapsulation
Disposal (or long
term storage) at
engineered facility

Encapsulation – Vitrification
(in-container)



Cementation



Existing LLW Facilities



Existing Other Permitted
Facilities



Existing On-site Facilities



Long-term storage prior to
long-term surface storage
(Scotland), Geological /
Shallow Geological (Nearsurface Geological)
Disposal Facility



NWP/REP/120
Page 63 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Appendix 2: Assessment Criteria
Table 8 provides a description of the assessment criteria which were used to support the
options assessments undertaken for the study as reported in the main document text.
This full list was used as an aide memoir: In the assessment matrices, the list was
simplified to just the main criteria headings (Safety and Security, Environmental Impact,
Technical Feasibility, Community Impacts, Financial Cost).
Table 8: Assessment Criteria
Main Factor
Safety &
Security
Environmental
Impact
Key Points
Achieving an acceptable rate of
passive control.
Avoidance of implementation
hazards.
Minimising off-site impact
(humans, flora and fauna, and
environmental receptors).
Conditioned waste volume.



Confidence in end product.



Resource use.
Consistency with existing
Department for Energy and
Climate Change (DECC)
strategies.
Strategy flexibility.
Technical
Feasibility
Considerations








Operability and maintainability.


Confidence in process viability.



Availability of treatment routes.




Delivers passive wasteform.
Acceptable timescales.
Operational hazards to
workforce.
Environmental footprint.
Secondary wastes.
Effluent discharges.
Minimise final conditioned
wasteform.
Stable final wasteform.
Meets WAC for disposal.
Life-cycle, energy, and
material costs.
Land-take costs.
Option supports or conflicts
existing strategies?
Potential future commercial
opportunities.
Do facilities exist or do they
need to be built?
Short or long term solution?
Ease of operation and
maintenance.
Process reliability.
Technical maturity of the
process.
Capability to deliver a
satisfactory final waste
product.
Nature of waste involved.
Previous experience.
Availability of plants to
process wastes.
Plant throughput capacity.
NWP/REP/120
Page 64 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Main Factor
Key Points
Robustness to uncertainties and
variation in feed characteristics.
Considerations


Footprint.
Planning processes.



Socio-economic implications.
Community
Impacts
Financial Cost


Affordability.

Lifetime costs.


Capability to accommodate
variations in feed
characteristics.
Minimal rejection or
breakdown.
Area of land required.
Comparison with relevant
Development plan
Documents.
Conformity with national
policies.
Implications for the support
for local supply chains.
Number and skill level of local
jobs created.
Construction, commissioning
and operation short and
medium term costs.
Process implementation
costs.
Final disposal costs.
NWP/REP/120
Page 65 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Appendix 3: Details of Assessment Outcomes
The following table presents the detailed outcome of the main assessment workshop of
options for the relevant waste populations. This includes the full option/criteria
evaluation, with key strengths in green, weaknesses in red and neutral issues in blue.
The differentiators considered to be of particular importance are indicated by bold,
underlined font.
NWP/REP/120
Page 66 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
KEY:
Strength
Weakness
Neutral discussion point
Bold, underlined entries were assessed as representing the ‘key points’ from the assessment.
For each option, the assessment is first presented for concrete / cement (and associated masonry and rubble), and then subsequent rows highlight ‘what changes’ for the other waste populations, to avoid repetition.
See Appendix 3 for a full list of criteria under the 5 main headings: Safety and Security; Environmental Impact; Technical Feasibility; Community Impacts; Financial Cost.
Option
S1.
Reclassification
through
enhanced
characterisation
e.g. to out-ofscope, or LLW to
VLLW (ex-situ)
Waste
Population
Concrete
and rubble
Safety and Security
Extra sampling, coring etc. will
increase exposure of workers
Sampling/coring could also affect
the structure’s integrity, shielding
etc.
Avoids conventional safety
implications of additional waste
management steps; minimises
handling of waste
Sufficient characterisation as a
general principle enables a clear
strategy to be developed at the
outset, reduces risk, improved
confidence
May require some offsite transport
of samples (e.g. inferences from
isotope ratios)
If there is offsite transport then there
will be limited road traffic (but likely
to be minimal compared to other
options)
Environmental Impact
Minimises environmental
impact by avoiding
unnecessary waste
management activity
Could avoid the import of
materials if the material can be
reused (Waste Management
Hierarchy and energy/resource
use benefits)
Does not use volume in
disposal facilities if going from
VLLW to out-of-scope
Generates some minimal
secondary waste
If there is offsite transport then
there will be associated
environmental impacts (but
likely to be minimal compared
to other options)
Technical Feasibility
Community Impacts
Simplest approach overall, with well established techniques
Enhanced characterisation will also help further underpin the selection of
waste management routes
Reduces the risk of misconsignment
Reduces volumes of waste to disposal facilities if successful
Maximises potential for re-use of material (at an earlier time) by characterising
in full up-front, allowing potential opportunities to be matched to specifications
Might require quite a lot of time, effort and cost to undertake the enhanced
characterisation that might be required
Risk that the enhanced characterisation may not yield the benefits hoped for –
although will still yield benefit in terms of additional input to decisions on
treatment – balance of risk/reward
Success and benefits depends on the heterogeneity of the waste – might just
help understand variability (although that may still be beneficial)
There is an opportunity to further develop sampling and monitoring
technologies (esp. non-invasive sampling at depth) if characterisation above and
beyond current standard practice becomes the norm
Very positive to be
seen to be doing the
right thing
Increases chances of
on-site reuse,
avoiding local
transports etc.
Gives confidence
that the most cost
effective approach is
being taken
Likely to be limited
differentiators
between options in
terms of overall
socio-economic
benefit, jobs etc.
Financial Cost
Up-front additional
cost compared to
enabler standard
characterisation
However if successful
will significantly
reduce
treatment/disposal
costs
Judgement on
risk/reward likely to
be waste-specific
Potentially a big gain for certain waste streams e.g. Plutonium Contaminated
Material (PCM) rubble (but sampling a challenge)
Requires prior expectation that wastes are close to limits e.g. for exemption –
unlikely to be beneficial for a subset of wastes not near limits
Can require more dismantling and other work to allow enhanced
characterisation than for some other techniques (although for many wastes
requirements will be similar to e.g. surface decontamination or melting
preparation steps)
Bespoke work that can require specific management approaches/specialist
technical capability
Once reclassified no further work required
NWP/REP/120
Page 67 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Waste
Population
Soils and
granular
materials
Safety and Security
As for concrete, except:
Community Impacts
Financial Cost
Similar to concrete assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Remote or non-soil displacement
methods could be used to mitigate
exposure risks
Structure integrity risk not relevant
for soils
Treatment of organic-rich soils is
covered by the National Strategic
BAT for Organic Wastes
Mixed
wastes
S2.
Reclassification
through
enhanced
characterisation
(in-situ) to enable
in-situ
management as
out-of-scope
material
Concrete
and rubble
increase exposure of workers and
conventional H&S risks
Avoids conventional safety
implications of additional waste
management steps
Minimises handling of the waste
For in-situ below-ground
management, will lead to minimal
transports compared to options
involving ex-situ treatment or reuse
Sufficient characterisation as a
general principle enables a clear
strategy to be developed at the
outset, reduces risk, improved
confidence
Likely to require some offsite
transport of samples in support of
characterisation – but this will be
minimal compared to other options
Soils and
granular
materials
increase exposure of workers and
conventional H&S risks unless
For mixed waste, there is a
regulatory expectation that
wastes will be appropriately
segregated and therefore,
where this doesn’t occur, it
would need to be justified.
Likely to be more challenging to successfully demonstrate that a
heterogeneous mixed waste can be reclassified
Minimises environmental
impact by avoiding
unnecessary waste
management activity
Simplest approach overall, with well established techniques
Minimises volumes of materials
declared as waste
Minimises transport
requirements and associated
energy use
If the material can be reused,
this will reduce need to import
other materials for that use
Does not use volume in
disposal facilities if going from
Generates some minimal
secondary waste – from
characterisation works
If there is offsite transport of
characterisation samples etc.
then there will be some limited
road traffic environmental
impacts (minimal compared to
other options)
Once reclassified will still require further effort if mixed wastes are to be re-used
as segregation will probably be necessary
Enhanced characterisation (in addition to characterisation as an enabler) will
also help optimise future management of material/waste
Reduces the risk of miss consignment
Reduces volumes of waste to disposal facilities if successful
Might require quite a lot of time, effort and cost to undertake
Risk that the enhanced characterisation may not yield the benefits hoped for –
although will still yield benefit in terms of additional input to decisions on
treatment (e.g. targeted remediation) – balance of risk/reward in spend
Success and benefits depends on the heterogeneity of the waste materials and
contamination – might just help understand variability (although that may still
be beneficial)
There is an opportunity to further develop sampling and monitoring
technologies (esp. non-invasive sampling at depth) if characterisation above and
beyond current standard practice becomes the norm
Gives confidence
that the most cost
effective approach is
being taken
Up-front additional
cost compared to
enabler standard
characterisation
differentiators
between options in
terms of overall
socio-economic
benefit, jobs etc.
However if successful
will significantly
reduce treatment /
disposal costs
Potential legacy
concerns following
future delicensing
because of a
perceived lack of
remediation
Judgement on
risk/reward likely to
be waste-specific
May be additionally challenging to prove wastes can be re-classified to out-ofscope when underground and in-situ – may require extensive characterisation
to map out variability, demonstrate no hot-spots etc.
Likely to be particularly challenging to demonstrate that all in-situ materials are
out-of-scope when they are mixed and heterogeneous and in the ground
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Depending on the composition of the waste, even if reclassification is successful
NWP/REP/120
Page 68 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Waste
Population
Safety and Security
remote or non-soil displacement
methods used
Mixed
wastes
S3. Mechanical
decontamination
(in-situ or exsitu)
Concrete
and rubble
Increased safety issues to manage –
e.g. mobilised activity, dust / gas
generation
Increased conventional and
radiological safety risk compared to
no treatment, due to complexity of
process, enhanced contact times and
manual elements (technology
dependent)
However, a commonly used
approach – risks can be managed
Including extra handling if used as a
precursor to other methods
Reduction in intrinsic hazard and
associated public/environmental
dose/risk prior to disposal
Almost always capable of
implementing on site so no
requirement for off site treatment
Enables reclassification which could
reduce need for subsequent
transport steps – especially if can be
re-used on site
Typically delivers waste form
passivation improvement (removal
of potentially mobile species)
Community Impacts
Financial Cost
from a radiological perspective, this could present further considerations under
the contaminated land regime – i.e. asbestos, plaster
Compared to no treatment,
significant improvements in
terms of potential to release
exempt material for re-use or
re-cycling
Minimises volumetric disposal
requirements if going from
Increased transport movements
if off-site facilities are to be
used, compared to direct
disposal however additional
transport not likely to be
significant, and on-site
treatment will be typical
Generation of secondary wastes
– depending upon type of
mechanical approach,
contaminated shot/grit
residues, contact machinery,
dust, liquid/gas effluents
Some treatments can
concentrate surface
contamination leading to higher
activity residues – but only an
issue for specific subset of
wastes e.g. higher activity LLW
near ILW boundary
Need to ensure final waste
volume for disposal is a
significant decrease–adding
shot/grit etc. can increase
original volume if out-ofscope/exempt targets not met –
particularly for higher activity
LLW or transboundary ILW
Some secondary waste can be
disposed/discharged through
existing routes
Energy use associated with
application
Similar to concrete
assessment
Increases release of exempt material for re-use, and reduces volumes of waste
to disposal facilities if successful (LLW, LA-LLW, VLLW etc.)
Consistent with policy/strategy requirements (Waste Management Hierarchy,
reducing volumes for disposal)
Range of options that could be used – cutting, scabbling, jetting etc.
On site surface decontamination can enable transport for off-site treatment
Flexible – can be used as a pre-treatment rather than main treatment. Frequently
used to de-classify waste as out-of-scope / exempt
May need additional pre-treatment /characterisation in order to be able to fully
decontaminate: For example cutting / size reduction – geometrically limited –
requires exposed surfaces
A range of mechanical processes are very well proven
Can be usefully employed as a pre-treatment for other technique (e.g. chemical
decontamination) to maximise volume reduction
Need to manage solid (e.g. grit/shot), airborne (inc. dust) and liquid effluents
(esp for water jetting) depending upon the mechanical decontamination
approach used – however these are largely standard approaches
Need to ensure no unacceptable concentration of contaminants in secondary
wastes
Secondary wastes typically meet disposal facility WAC – especially for off-site
treatment, will need characterisation etc. they meet WAC – but that is common
to all treatment options
If required, time to implement ‘new’ technologies/ facilities can be challenging
within budget cycles etc. – however there are opportunities; some innovative
techniques are being developed – increased application across decommissioning
fronts will lead to further development
Introduces an additional risk step (manual handling, use of aggressive
mechanical approaches etc.) – but can be managed with standard arrangements
For a range of wastes surface treatment will reduce overall waste heterogeneity
by removing surface material/fingerprint potentially leaving homogenous
material
Needs planning and knowledge in advance but this will typically be provided
by enabling steps
Likely to need to select specific option or combinations of options depending on
the properties of the structure (e.g. height)
Confidence in future availability
Confidence in
established
technologies
on-site reuse,
avoiding local
transports etc.
differentiators
between options in
terms of overall
socio-economic
benefit, jobs etc.
Similar to concrete
assessment
Lower disposal costs
for final product
compared to no
treatment followed by
ex-situ disposal
Potential to
significantly reduce
disposal costs overall
if decontamination is
successful for bulk
wastes for LLW
May be more
expensive for
VLLW/LA-LLW than
disposal
Cost of treatment (+
possible pretreatment). Disposal
costs for secondary
wastes
Potential economies of
scale – bulk
scheduling could
bring costs down
Potential cost benefits
of re-use/recycling/release where
achieved (sale of
material, avoiding
import of new
materials, etc).
Well understood
technique that can be
implemented in a
reasonably costeffective manner
However, additional
cost compared to
some options (e.g.
enhanced
characterisation)
NWP/REP/120
Page 69 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Waste
Population
Safety and Security
Community Impacts
Financial Cost
Need to manage noise and
vibration depending upon the
mechanical technique used
Note there may be a preference
for many wastes to use simple
cutting approaches (to remove
layers of concrete), water
jetting, etc. instead of scabbling
– will have different impacts
(e.g. less dust from cutting)
Soils and
granular
materials
Mixed
wastes
Not typically applicable to soil
(assuming sieving etc. is classed as
an enabler)
Potential health and safety risks for
mixed wastes containing certain
contaminants, e.g. asbestos,
plasterboard etc. – see also ‘technical
feasibility’
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Potential environmental issues
if some wastes are treated using
mechanical decontamination
e.g. those containing asbestos –
see ‘technical feasibility’
Will not be suitable for all mixed wastes – careful characterisation and technique
selection required. For example, for asbestos-containing concrete, will need to
use appropriate techniques to control asbestos components to ensure that there
are not environmental or health and safety impacts from fibres. Wastes
containing plasterboard may also be challenging.
Incompatibility of different component waste types to a single technique.
Potential need to manage concrete containing embedded shot, depending upon
approach used
S4. Chemical
decontamination
(in-situ or exsitu)
Concrete
and rubble
Involves application of chemicals
which could pose H&S management
requirements
Increased conventional and
radiological safety risk compared to
no treatment due to enhanced
complexity of process and
enhanced contact times and
movements
Use of liquids (solvents) may change
exposure pathways (i.e. dermal
absorption etc.) that require
alternative management
However, experience of use of a
range of (typically simpler)
chemical approaches – risks can be
managed
Potential mobilisation of
contaminants needs to be managed
to avoid worker dose (in particular
in leachate which may be chemically
hazardous also)
Often capable of implementing on
Aim to reduce the volume and
category of waste (note that
contamination will be
concentrated in a smaller
volume that still requires
disposal)
Depending on the chemical
type, this could present
disposal issues for the
decontaminant – i.e. if it is a
restricted substance in the
waste route CFA (e.g. chelating
agents) which could result in an
orphan waste
Increases release of exempt material for re-use, and reduces volumes of waste
to disposal facilities if successful (LLW, LA-LLW, VLLW etc.)
Improved accessibility for decontamination compared to mechanical – less
geometrically limited
Can be targeted for specific contaminants - although note post-operational
clean-up out-of-scope; note options that target specific contaminants may be less
helpful for mixed fingerprints
Broadly consistent with policy/strategy requirements e.g. application of waste
hierarchy
Time to implement ‘new’ technologies / facilities can be challenging within
budget cycles etc.
Organisational factors and site facilities may constrain or enable use – need
space and expertise
Compared to no treatment,
significant improvements in
terms of potential to release
exempt material for re-use or
re-cycling, and for re-use within
the industry
Chemical residues may constrain subsequent treatment and disposal; permit
constraints may apply with use of chemicals
Could avoid the import of
materials if the material can be
reused assuming out-of-scope
May need additional pre-treatment /characterisation in order to be able to fully
decontaminate and post-sampling to demonstrate success (as you are not
In practice capability and capacity vary – needs good planning, and depends
upon complexity of the chemical approach utilised
Some decontaminants, if traces remain in wastes after treatment (e.g. chelating
agents) strongly discouraged by WAC for some disposal facilities
Confidence in
established
technologies (but
less than physical
decontamination)
Well understood
technique that can be
implemented in a
reasonably costeffective manner
on-site reuse of
decontaminated
material, avoiding
local transports etc.
Lower disposal costs
for final product
compared to no
volume reduction for
LLW
differentiators
between options in
terms of overall
socio-economic
benefit, jobs etc.
May be more
expensive for
VLLW/LA-LLW than
disposal
Certain technologies
will require
resourcing outside
local community (i.e.
limited use of local
workforce)
Cost of treatment (+
possible pretreatment). Disposal
costs for secondary
wastes and needs to
be understood as part
of planning
Potential economies of
scale – a large
NWP/REP/120
Page 70 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Waste
Population
Safety and Security
site but some specific techniques
may require application away from
the source
Enables reclassification which could
reduce need for subsequent
transport steps – especially if can be
re-used on site
Typically delivers waste form
passivation improvement (removal
of potentially mobile species) reduction in intrinsic hazard and
associated risk prior to disposal
Community Impacts
as a criterion for reuse
physically removing a surface layer)
Reduces volumetric disposal
requirements for disposal
facilities
Use of novel chemicals may be more challenging in terms of maintaining
process throughput, demonstrating WAC met for final wastes for
disposal/discharge
Potential to release bulk clean
material for re-use
Some technologies in this class relatively immature – others commonly used
Introduces an additional risk step (for aggressive chemicals etc.) – but can be
managed with standard approaches, particularly for less aggressive chemical
applications
Generation of liquid effluents
for relevant subsets of
decontamination approaches;
need to ensure can be
disposed/discharged through
existing routes
For a range of wastes surface treatment will reduce overall primary waste
heterogeneity by removing surface material/fingerprint
Generation of other secondary
wastes esp. for techniques such
as strippable spray-on coatings
Compared to characterisation-based or in-situ management options, involves
extra steps
Energy use associated with
application
A lot of decontaminants are
liquids which present disposal
issues – if they can’t be sent for
incineration then they may
require solidification which can
be complex
Potential concerns
about introduction
of additional hazard
balanced against
radiological hazard
reduction
Needs planning and knowledge in advance but this will typically be provided
by enabling steps
Financial Cost
proportion of future
wastes could benefit,
and bulk scheduling
could bring costs
down
Potential cost benefits
of re-use/recycling/release where
achieved (inc.
avoiding import of
new materials, etc.)
Potential to
significantly reduce
disposal costs overall
if decontamination is
successful for bulk
wastes
Note that some innovative techniques being developed – increased application
across decommissioning fronts will lead to further development and fine-tuning
Liquids pose additional technical challenges of containment and management at
the workface
Need to demonstrate that
decontaminated material is free
from properties that would
impact waste route acceptance –
i.e. no free liquids or low flash
point absorbed liquids
COSHH management of liquids
Soils and
granular
materials
As noted above, ex-situ treatment of
organic-rich soils is covered under
the 'Organic Waste’ National BAT
Challenging to achieve high
rates of decontamination
Focus is on desorbing
approaches that can be applied
Soil washing particularly relevant to this waste category
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Soil washing more proven technique for non-radiological contamination. Not
regularly used for radiological contaminants
Large volumes of water
required for soil washing
presenting liquid secondary
waste and effluent management
considerations
Mixed
wastes
Can enable targeted
decontamination of mixed
wastes for situations where
More challenging to achieve high rates of decontamination than for equivalent
surface decontamination of ‘pure’ concrete
Incompatibility of different component waste types to a single decontamination
NWP/REP/120
Page 71 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Waste
Population
Safety and Security
mechanical decontamination
isn’t appropriate – depending
upon the nature of the wastes
Potentially more limited
applicability than for concrete –
depending upon nature of
mixed wastes
S5. Thermal (e.g.
incineration)
treatment (exsitu)
Concrete
and rubble
Passive / chemically stabilised
waste form for some forms of
incineration and wastes
Reduction in chemical toxicity
safety risk of final waste form
(dependent on facility)
For incineration, inherent risk of
high temperature process although controlled appropriately
by normal site operations note
additional risk associated with
repeated start-up / shut-down for
batch operations
Potential off-site transport risk
implications (additional transports
compared to disposal alone, due to
transport to treatment site then on to
disposal)
Physically and chemically
stabilised final waste form for
wastes such as soils; however
this is a limited benefit for
concrete
Can destroy (non-rad)/drive off
surface contamination e.g. of
concrete but mainly relevant
for paints/coatings
Energy use for thermal
treatment
Additional transportation for
secondary waste (due to
transport to thermal plant as
well as to disposal site) –
Generate discharges (airborne
and liquid) – although would
need to be managed such that
they are within Permitted limits
(site or waste treatment facility)
Visual impact/footprint of new
plant assuming plant built on
site
Soils and
granular
materials
As noted above, ex-situ treatment of
organic-rich soils is covered under
the Organic Waste National BAT
Community Impacts
Financial Cost
technique. Will depend on the nature of individual components
Need to ensure that chemicals used are appropriate treatments for all mixed
waste components they are likely to come into contact with – potentially more
limited applicability
Mature / available processes
Scalability – both incineration of concrete primarily suitable for smaller volumes
of waste.
Combustible waste treatment WAC limit acceptance to fairly small total activity
levels (esp. alpha) which could have impact on volume that could be sent per
consignment
Can drive contamination deeper in to the waste
Likely limited benefits for most forms of concrete – mainly useful for
coatings, but there are other ways to strip concrete
Reasonable confidence in future availability
Perception of risk
associated with high
temperature
processes
differentiators
between options in
terms of overall
socio-economic
benefit, jobs etc.
Costs associated with
treating and
disposing resulting
(non volume reduced)
product may be
significant – unless
drives off
contamination and
leaves a disposable
product – but still
need to deal with
secondary waste
Robust to varying characteristics - flexible
More vulnerable to permit changes (smaller on-site incinerators) but typically
concrete will be batch incinerated
Potential footprint (dependent on technology)
Incineration typically used to achieve volume reduction for final vault disposal
Can be used to drive off volatiles but limited to tritium and possible chemically
contaminated wastes (i.e. if need to remove non rad hazard)
Limited volume reduction achievable for concrete and therefore limited
benefit of application (especially compared to other options that could
achieve similar results)
Limited benefits for non-organic rich soils
Reduced overall net
treatment / disposal
costs for concrete if
effectively
decontaminated (only
LLW – LALLW/VLLW
likely increase in
costs) balanced
against high disposal
costs for incineration
(alpha)
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Limited benefits for non-organic rich
soils unless contaminant is volatile
Mixed
wastes
For some mixed wastes, some thermal approaches (e.g. incineration) will have a
sufficiently wide envelope to allow treatment of the entire waste stream
However, this will be mixed waste-stream specific and there will be limits in
feedstock
May also be more challenging to demonstrate wastes meet facility WAC if
mixed / heterogeneous
S6. Compaction
Concrete
Potential reduced off-site transport
Volume reduction of treated
Broadly consistent with existing National LLW Strategy and Policy which
Accepted commonly
Lower cost than direct
NWP/REP/120
Page 72 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
(ex-situ)
Waste
Population
and rubble
Safety and Security
risk if applied at point of arising (by
reducing waste volume and
therefore number of consignments)
Potential increase in containment
due to containment, grouting and
overpacking (where required)
therefore reducing risk of release
No benefits in terms of passivating
waste form
disposal) - unless on-site compaction
wastes, but …
For concrete, limited volume
reduction, other than
eliminating voidage
Limited infrastructure
requirements (e.g. in-drum
compaction) and therefore
limited construction impacts /
footprint
Doesn’t provide any
segregation benefits when used
in isolation (i.e. limited
application of waste hierarchy)
Community Impacts
favours volume reduction, but not preferred as other processes offer greater
reduction, but …
Very limited applicability/benefit to concrete
Bulking factors such as packaging for disposal (if required) may counteract
volume gain
Mature / available process
used approach
differentiators
between options in
terms of overall
socio-economic
benefit, jobs etc.
Financial Cost
ex-situ disposal but
benefit is limited
compared to other
treatment
technologies (nb
LALLW/VLLW
potential increase in
costs)
Reduced
transportation costs
compared to no
compaction
WAC has specific limitations on certain waste types – i.e. the majority of bulk
wastes have limited capability for compaction
Potential industrial H&S risks
although standard safety
arrangements will mitigate
S7. Stabilisation /
encapsulation
(ex-situ)
Soils and
granular
materials
Mixed
wastes
Concrete
and rubble
As for concrete, potentially very
limited benefits for soils
As for concrete, potentially very limited benefits for soils
Need careful characterisation to ensure compaction is appropriate – avoid
mobilisation of asbestos fibres, plaster dust etc.
Passivation of waste-form for some
combinations of wastes /
stabilisation approaches /
encapsulants; for some wastes,
controls rather than passivates;
however concrete will require little
passivation
Chemically stabilised final
waste form (depending on
waste/encapsulants); for some
wastes, controls rather than
passivates; however concrete,
especially LLW concrete, may
require little passivation
Possible reduction in chemical
toxicity safety risk of final waste
form
Energy / material use for
encapsulation / vitrification
Conventional risks posed from
process of encapsulation
Chemical / radiological risks from
increased exposure timeframes etc.
during encapsulation
disposal) – unless local
grouting/encapsulation or in-
Volume increase due to
encapsulation
Generate discharges (airborne
and liquid) – although will be
within Permitted limits
Visual impact / footprint of any
new plant
Mature / available process – standard practice for some wastes, but …
Limited benefit / applicability to concrete in terms of environmental benefits
Confidence in future availability (esp encapsulation)
Robust to varying characteristics – flexible (esp encapsulation)
Potential footprint (dependent on technology)
For some wastes/encapsulants, encapsulation controls rather than passivates
Additional considerations of detailed WAC compliance of final waste form – i.e.
requirement for additional quality / waste form demonstration such as leachate
tests etc.
May be required for some disposal facilities that take wastes above LA-LLW
(e.g. LLWR)
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Accepted commonly
used approach
differentiators
between options in
terms of overall
socio-economic
benefit, jobs etc.
No volume reduction
– maximum disposal
costs - for all
encapsulation options
could argue increased
disposal costs as the
final waste form
likely to be
significantly greater
in volume than the
raw unprocessed
waste
Cost of implementing
trials and preparing
paperwork to support
encapsulation as a
viable technique
Vitrification may require
addition of silica, depending on
nature of wastes increasing the
volume of waste and
incorporation of otherwise
NWP/REP/120
Page 73 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Waste
Population
Safety and Security
container vitrification used
Community Impacts
Financial Cost
clean material
Once passivated, reduced overall
handling and transport risks
For vitrification: challenge of using
high-temperature process
S8. No additional
treatment /
management
steps prior to exsitu disposal of
bulk wastes via
re-use
Soils and
granular
materials
Mixed
wastes
Concrete
and rubble
More benefit than for concrete in stabilising wastes, but in particular for
VLLW/LA-LLW, benefit may still be marginal – soils already reasonably stable
and not high hazard
For some mixed wastes, can provide
more benefit than for concrete –
stabilisation of loose elements either
via encapsulation or vitrification;
dealing with health and safety risks
of elements such as trace asbestos,
etc.
Minimum handling so minimum
contact time – potentially lower
dose to workforce
Minimal secondary waste prior
to disposal
Potential to achieve disposal
earlier than for other
technologies
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Would require up front work to determine the correct encapsulant etc.
considering the varied properties of waste individual components. In most cases
this is likely to be grout
Minimal reduction in intrinsic
hazard or security risk prior to
disposal – increased total public
dose / environmental risk
Requirement for re-characterisation
/further processing if WAC cannot
be met
Similar to concrete
assessment
More benefit than for concrete in stabilising applicable mixed wastes, but in
particular for VLLW/LA-LLW, benefit may still be marginal – soils already
reasonably stable and not high hazard
May minimise overall health and
safety risk if acceptance can be
gained without further effort
Depending on type of
contamination, increased pressure
on characterisation to demonstrate
compliance with transport
requirements
Flexible / robust to waste characteristics – in particular for grouting /
encapsulation, likely to be applicable to most or all mixed wastes
No transport movements to
interim treatment facilities, so
reduced number of overall
transports
No early reduction in hazard posed
Soils and
granular
Reduced potential for an
environmental release as a
result of treatment (as there is
no treatment undertaken)
Requires sufficient characterisation to ensure meets disposal/use material
specifications over required timeframes – may need additional
storage/stockpiling
Less preferred from Waste Management Hierarchy perspective
Consistent with National LLW Strategy as protects volumes in disposal
facilities
Does not address transport challenges (i.e. need to fix contamination for
transport regulation compliance) for loose contamination on its own
Perception of aiming
to do the right thing
differentiators
between options in
terms of overall
socio-economic
benefit, jobs etc.
May not be feasible for higher activity wastes depending upon whether an
Environmental Safety Case can be made
Cost of implementing
trials and preparing
paperwork to support
encapsulation as a
viable technique will
be significant for
mixed waste as it
needs to consider
variability across the
entire waste stream
and compatibility
with different
materials
Low treatment costs
Lifecycle costs need to
be considered in
operator BAT
Avoids costs of
materials otherwise
required for
engineering
application
Potential costs of
characterisation,
storing / stockpiling
No reduction in environmental
hazard prior to disposal
Protects disposal volumes in
disposal facilities
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
NWP/REP/120
Page 74 of 74
LLW Repository Ltd
Option
Waste
Population
materials
Mixed
wastes
S9. No additional
treatment /
management
steps prior to exsitu disposal of
bulk wastes to a
VLLW / LA-LLW
/ LLW facility
Concrete
and rubble
Safety and Security
Community Impacts
Likely to be particularly challenging to match wastes to material
specifications for mixed wastes
Minimum handling so minimum
contact time – potentially lower
dose to workforce
Minimal secondary waste prior
to disposal
May minimise overall health and
safety risk if acceptance can be
gained without further effort
No transport movements to
interim treatment facilities, so
reduced number of overall
transports
Minimal reduction in intrinsic
hazard or security risk prior to
disposal – increased total public
dose / environmental risk
Potential to achieve disposal
earlier than for other
technologies
No early (pre-disposal) reduction in
hazard posed
Depending on type of contamination
(need to ensure no loose
contamination) increased pressure
on characterisation to demonstrate
compliance with transport
requirements
Requirement for recharacterisation/further processing
if WAC cannot be met
Reduced potential for an
environmental release as a
result of treatment (as there is
no treatment undertaken)
No reduction in environmental
hazard prior to disposal
No reduction in disposal
volume – maximum volume
taken up at disposal facility –
indeed with conditioning/void
filling/containerisation, total
volume can increase
Technically the least complex, in principle
Requires minimum characterisation effort – except that required for
demonstrating compliance with the WAC
Least preferred from Waste Management Hierarchy perspective / doesn’t meet
national strategic policy for solid LLW
For VLLW/LA-LLW, inconsistent with Landfill Directive
Does not address transport challenges (i.e. need to ‘fix’ contamination for
transport regulation compliance) for loose contamination on its own
No treatment means for some wastes higher likelihood of not meeting WAC for
certain materials and disposal facility combinations – potential not to be
consistent with disposal route requirements
Similar to concrete
assessment
Financial Cost
Similar to concrete
assessment
Greater waste
volume requiring
more transportation
potentially
unpopular with
locals
Low treatment costs
Poor perception of
waste management
procedures
Lifecycle costs need to
be considered in
operator BAT
High disposal costs
especially to an
engineered vault,
offset (at least in part)
by no treatment costs
VLLW/LA-LLW costs
for disposal are much
lower
Potential for lack of confidence in final waste assessment leading to waste routes
not accepting waste (due to reduced data quality)
Costs for higher
activity wastes may be
significantly higher
Least preferred from the perspective of the national LLW strategy and policy (as
no reduction in disposal volume) where other options are available
Need to ensure no free liquids
Soils and
granular
materials
Mixed
wastes
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
assessment
Similar to concrete
Least preferred from Waste Management Hierarchy perspective / doesn’t meet assessment
national strategic policy for solid LLW. For mixed waste, this is perhaps
particularly significant. There would need to be a good justification for not
undertaking pre-segregation if this limits management options / ability
Similar to concrete
assessment

National Strategic BAT for Soil, Concrete, Rubble, and Granular

Transcription

Similar documents

(WRACS) - New Supercompactor

metabolon - QUESTOR Centre

GranQuartz - Ameripolish

Mud Hopper™

GranQuartz

Concrete Sound Barrier Broucher

Thin-Set - Bomanite of Wisconsin

Malaysia

January 2015

RMC