Waste Packaging

DOE-HDBK-1129-99

accurate estimation of these costs cannot be made until after the new tritium source comes on line,

the Canadian marginal cost for their tritium facility is estimated to be about $0.25 per Ci. [39] It

appears that the value of the recovered tritium (i.e., from waste streams; high Ci content process

streams are more economical) is overstated, and that recovery options, even the most cost-

effective such as the PMR, cannot be justified on economics alone. Any recovery argument

should also have an environmental component or a different valuation philosophy for tritium. One

such valuation model proposed by Mike Rogers of Mound is based on the opportunity costs of

delaying the construction of the new production source. If the quantity of recovered tritium could

delay the construction of the new production source, there is a savings to the Treasury of the time

value of money. If government accounting practices are cognizant of such benefits, a quantified

basis can be estimated to ascertain economic viability for recovery system construction (these

cash outflows offset, to a small extent, the cash inflow savings). This valuation technology for

tritium could only be used up to the time that a new production source comes onstream.

Thereafter, a comparison of marginal costs of the recovery system and new production source

could be made to decide on continuing with recovery operations.

In the absence of a Department-wide policy on tritium recovery, DOE sites with tritium oxide and

tritiated water inventories should consider their EDLs based on the site-specific conditions and

needs. The implication of the preceding discussion is that once tritium goes into the oxide form, it

is difficult to justify on an economic basis alone using any recovery method. The fact that

economic recovery of tritium from oxide form is not easily justified should be an important factor in

designing tritium facilities.

8.3 Waste Packaging

DOE, DOT and NRC requirements for radioactive waste packaging are presented in Chapter 7.

Barriers, in addition to the outer packaging, should be considered to inhibit tritium migration from

waste packages. The only significant difference associated with packaging of waste for shipment

versus packaging of any other quantity of nuclear material for shipment is that Type B quantities of

waste may be packaged in Type A containers at the waste generation site and shipped to the

waste site overpacked in Type B containers such as the Trupact II. During shipment, the waste

package must meet the current DOE and DOT regulations for shipment of the form and quantity of

radioactive material; i.e., Limited Quantity, Type A Quantity, Type B Quantity. After receipt at the

waste disposal site, the type A package containing the Type B quantity of low-level (radioactive)

waste is removed from the Type B package. The Type B package is then returned to the shipper

for reuse, and the Type A package containing the Type B quantity of tritium is stored at the waste

disposal site along with the other low-level waste.

The waste acceptance requirements are a little different at each waste disposal site. The following

is a list of things to be considered before waste is packaged.

Free Liquids: Waste should contain as little free liquid as reasonably achievable, but under no

conditions shall the free liquid volume exceed 0.5 percent by volume of the external container.

Absorbent: If absorbent material is used to solidify liquid in the waste, then the quantity of

absorbent material added to the waste must be sufficient to absorb a minimum of twice the

volume of the liquid.

Particulate: Waste in particulate form should be immobilized, and, if immobilization is

impractical, other acceptable waste packaging shall be used, such as overpacking: drum