Ormai Robbins Intro Management of Challenging Waste

Management of Problematic Low and

Intermediate Level Radioactive Wastes

- Introduction -

R. Robbins, P. Ormai

Waste Technology Section

Division of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology

International Atomic Energy Agency

Technical Meeting of IPN and DISPONET Networks on the Management of Radioactive Waste Streams that Present

Specific Challenges, 28 Nov.- Dec. 2. 2016, VIC, Vienna

Contents

• Problematic waste – definition

• Problematic waste – examples

• Challenging issues – predisposal

– disposal

• Alternative disposal options

• Meeting objective

Sources of radioactive waste

NPPsResearch

ReactorsDSRS

Front-End Fuel Facilities Hospitals, R&D, Disused

Sealed Sources

Decommissioning &

Environmental Remediation

NPP, Research Reactor & Back-End

Operations Photos courtesy of Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd & NDA, UK;

Cameco Corporation.

Radioactive Waste Management

Of special interest is a category of wastes for which safe, technically correct, efficient, economically attractive and widely

acceptable methods for processing and / or

disposal are not readily available.

Disposal

Pre

dis

po

sa

l

Pre-treatment

Treatment

Conditioning

Storage

Radioactive Waste

Pro

ce

ss

ing

Ch

ara

cte

riza

tio

n

All these wastes must be treated and

conditioned as necessary to provide

waste-forms acceptable for safe

storage and disposal


Different terms

routine waste

non-standard, special, unique, problematic, challenging

waste

Problematic from • predisposal point of view

• disposal point of view

The problematic waste could be very diverse, and what is considered

problematic now at one site may become more or less routine later or

at another site or facility.

• Problems associated with particular waste could not only be defined by

waste characteristics, they could be facility-specific, site-specific or

even country-specific.

Problems with some waste may be associated with the existing regulatory

framework, existing waste management experience, available disposal option,

etc.


Problematic from predisposal point of view

Waste may presents a considerable treatment challenge because:

• unique composition

• large quantity

• heterogeneity of the waste

• chemical instability (or combination)

• Waste characterisation is difficult

• without this information forecasts for waste treatment and stabilization

are limited

• The waste-type fail to meet criteria for acceptance for processing by

technologies generally available at the local level

• Efficient and cost effective methods for processing is not readily

available, wastes do not fit into the other treatment groups

Treatment processes may have to be tailored for each waste

stream


Problematic from disposal point of view

Waste package

• Legacy / historical waste

• compliance checking (characterisation) is difficult

• Non compliant for the available disposal route • exceeds of permissible activity limitations or mass of

chemical constituents, or

• exhausts a high portion of permissible activity

• Not acceptable for the available disposal route


Routine waste stream

Non-problematic waste

package (WAC compliant)

Problematic waste

stream (pre)treatment, conditioning Non-problematic waste

package (WAC compliant)

Routine waste stream (pre) treatment, conditioning

Problematic waste

package

(pre)treatment, conditioning

Problematic waste

stream

(pre)treatment, conditioning Problematic waste

package

Routine waste stream /

package Problematic (historic, legacy)

waste stream / package

Long term storage

Predisposal – Disposal link

Problematic waste

stream pre)treatment, conditioning,

disposal

Problematic (legacy)

waste packages


Problematic waste packages

Reasons: improper material selection, improper processing, QC problems, etc.

Important predisposal-disposal link: need for assessing the behavior of

waste forms in the disposal environment

• Compatibility with the waste stream is a primary consideration in selecting

among the available waste forms.

• In some cases, lack of compatibility limits the selection (e.g. organic liquids

are usually incompatible with grout and can degrade the physical properties of the

grout matrix even when present in small amounts)


Legacy (historical) waste (1)

• Produced/processed in the absence of a formal QA-

system and WAC; by definition it is of

indeterminate quality.

• Will need to demonstrate that the waste is

acceptable, or can be rendered acceptable, for

further processing and disposal.

Source; K. Fernando, ANSTO, Australia

Corroded historical LLW drums

Source; NECSA, SA

Legacy (historical) waste (2)

Source: L. Jones, AECL, Canada

Waste mixed, unpacked,

uncharacterised, disposed of

Source; I. Tarnak, Estonia

Briefing on the IAEA Le Trench Project (legacy trench

disposal) on Wednesday!

Trench remediation, Harwell, UK

Source: P. Booth, UK

5 Beryllium pits: 5000 m3 waste Building, laboratory wastes including fume

cupboards, glove boxes, drums etc

Some of the forms of oxide as a respirable dust can

be very toxic to sensitive individuals and Beryllium

has a very low Maximum Exposure Limit (MEL).

../../../dv5074ea/Desktop/Tammiku jäätmed.jpg


Primary waste properties (Typical WAC components)

Physical and chemical properties

• Physical state

• Chemical composition

• Combustibility and thermal resistance

• Chemical compatibility

• Acidity/alkalinity (pH)

• Reactive metals and materials

• Explosive materials

• Toxic materials

• Chemical complexing or chelating agents

• Hazardous waste

• Lead, mercury, cadmium

• Gas generation

• Asbestos

Radiological properties

• Total activity and activity concentration

• Radionuclide composition (type of

radiation, half-life)

• Fissile mass

• Radiation level (on the external surface of

the package)

• Contamination (fixed, non-fixed)

Biological properties

• Putrescible waste

• Infectious/pathogenic


Problematic LILW streams

• Nuclear Fuel Cycle Waste • PPE (gloves, suits, wipes etc.)

• IEX resins

• Liquids with high degree of salinity

• Activated components

• Contaminated oil, oil sludge, oil with 3H / solvents

• Organic complexing agents

• Sludge from decontaminating solutions

• Reactive metallic waste (alkali metals, alkaline earth

metals)

• I-graphite waste

• Pu residues

• TRU/PCM

• Scrubber liquors (e.g 129I )

• Fuel element debris

• Decommissioning waste (e.g large disused

components, asbestos)

• RR waste (71 countries) • Wastes from 99Mo production

• Decommissioning waste • Beryllium, i-graphite, reactor components, biological

shield

• Institutional waste • Trash (process & laboratory)

• DSRS

• Liquid scintillation cocktails

• Health care waste (bio-hazardous)

• Miscellaneous waste • PCB waste

• Compressed gases and aerosols

• Ra- / Th-bearing waste

• U-waste (e.g U-tetraflouride)

• Mixed waste (e.g debris including manufactured

objects, plant or animal matter, or natural

geologic material)

• Paraffin containing waste

• Contaminated sites (nuclear tests)

• Weapon program, defence related waste

• Post accidental waste • large volumes of 3H contaminated water

• contaminated soil, debris, foodstuff, water

• Depleted U (resource or waste ?)

• NORM waste

• Legacy waste, historical waste • Complex liquid waste streams

• Spent extractant solutions with heavy metal

content

• Solid miscellaneous waste

• DSRS


Facility / activity Problematic waste

Non-nuclear countries Australia 99Mo

radiopharmaceutical

production

- ILW-LL: uranyl nitrate solution

containing fission products

Denmark Decommissioning of

Riso RR and Hot cell

- ILW-LL / LLW-LL

- solution of uranyl

- graphite

Estonia Decommissioning of

Paldiski NTC and

Tammiku RADON

type disposal facility

- ILW (DSRS, 226Ra contaminated

materials, reactor vessels,

biological shield tanks.

Greece research reactor

(GRR-1)

- graphite thermal column

- beryllium blocks

- control rods composed of Ag-Cd-

In alloy

- 226Ra and 241Am sources

Latvia Salaspils RR

decommissioning

- Beryllium blocks– 4142 kg

- i-graphite – 188 kg

- reactor pool components

(stainless steel, Al, graphite, Be,

Pb, titanium)

- biological shield components

Philippines - Empty teletherapy heads

containing DU

- Organic liquid scintillation solution

Thailand Rare-earth Extraction

Plant

- Alpha waste: yellow cake and

ThO2

- Ba (Ra)SO4 sludge

- contaminated solvent (kerosine,

TBP solution)

Nuclear countries Korea decommission of

two RR

KAERI

- graphite (~ 10 ton)

- alpha-bearing organic waste

(Uranium-bearing

TBP/dodecane)

- spent uranium catalyst

(~7,000 drum)

Hungary RR decommissioning

Radon facility

- 1200 kg Beryllium

- waste retrieved

Romania Cernavoda NPP - mineral oil with tritium

- machine oil with tritium

- scintillation fluid

South

Africa

radioactive waste of

health care origin

- unknown quantities of 14C, 3H and bio-hazardous

components (2500 drums

non-processed)

France operation and dismantling of GCR reactors

defence activities

- 17,100 t of irradiated graphite

- 4,600 m3 tritium waste

- LL-DSRS

UK Magnox and AGR

reactors

Sellafield

- fuel sleeves

- core graphite from the

decommissioning of

experimental and prototype

- contaminated oil

- fuel debris

Lithuania RBMK-1500 NPP

decommissioning

- Irradiated graphite

- bituminized waste

Sweden NPPs - very large components, such as

reactor pressure vessels

Germany NPPs, research

facilities

- Beryllium, sodium, graphite,

paraffin containing waste, 3H

waste, Th-compounds, DU

National examples


• Pu line carboys

• Glass vessels

(contents unknown)

• Incinerator ash

(drummed)

• Tractors

• Trailers

• Cs-137 crane

• Pile filters

• Tritium furnace liners

• Flasks (up to 2 tons)

• Building rubble

• Asbestos

• Pipes

• Scaffolding

• Pond lamps

• Pond tools

• Lead castles

• Wheels

• Drums of oil

• Steel tanks

• Tank sludge

• Mononitrotoluene

• Dinitrotoluene

• Acid degredation

products

• Solvent

• Asbestos

• Hydraulic fluid

• Oil

• Lead and other

heavy metals

Source: J. Cruickshank

From `simple` to very problematic

(complex) cases

large quantity, heterogeneous, widely

varying characteristics, unique

composition, non-characterized, aged,

partially or fully buried


Changing priority in RWM (1) Waste minimisation

`Classical` RWM strategy

Process and condition the

waste for storage and / or

disposal

New RWM strategy

Minimise the volume of the waste to be

finally disposed of, by:

• partitioning radionuclides

• regenerating media

• re-using as much of the waste

components as possible and

economically feasible

Recognition: Implementation of any

disposal facility for RW is a difficult duty

hence disposal facility should be considered

as a rare resource (precious asset)

Waste minimization programs are mandated

by law, and regulations in some countries

(e.g USA)

waste minimisation,

reuse / recycling

In addition to reducing volumes and

thereby disposal costs, treatment

techniques can improve the waste

form and, thereby, the performance

of a disposal facility.


Changing priority in RWM (2) Optimisation, integration

Because of the variety of processes, techniques and

equipment available for different waste streams and waste

management steps, optimized technologies have to be

selected for each stream and step.

To optimize the overall RWM approach, technologies selected

for different waste management steps should be combined

into an integrated system.

Predisposal challenges and

solutions

Relevant IAEA Publications

Major Predisposal Challenges

• Lack of process knowledge

• Variable characteristics

• Unsegregated wastes

• Mixed waste – hazardous items present

• Waste previously disposed in unsatisfactory conditions, e.g. trench disposal

• Degradation of waste package

• Previously conditioned matrix does not meet disposal waste acceptance criteria (WAC)

• One-of-a-kind waste streams

• No suitable processing technology available

• Small volume waste streams – economically unfeasible to build facilities to process these streams

• Lack of access to waste processing facilities

Waste Processing Options

TreatmentSorting &

Segregation

Solid Treatment Technologies

· Low force compaction

· Supercompaction

· Incineration

· Metal melting

· Pyrolysis

Liquid Treatment Technologies

· Ion exchange

· Filtration

· Precipitation

· Evaporation

Storage

Immobilization

· Cement

· Geopolymer

· Polymer

· Ceramic

· Vitrification

Overpack

Packaging

Conditioning

Photos courtesy of Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd and NDA; Sellafield Sites Ltd. and NDA, COVRA N.V.; M. Ojovan, IAEA

Available Conditioning Technologies Process Waste Types

Calcination Aqueous liquids

Crystallization /

Drying

Aqueous liquids,

Wet wastes: IX resins, sludges,

evaporator bottoms

Steam Reforming

Organic wastes, e.g. IX resins

Nitrate wastes

Liquid wastes

Ceramic

processes

IX resins, sludges, evaporator

bottoms, zeolites, PCMs

Sintering

Granular dry solids

Ceramic

processes

IX resins, sludges, evaporator

bottoms, zeolites, PCMs

Sintering Granular dry solids

Molten salt

processing

Wet wastes, such as IX resins, low

activity filter cartridges.

Dry solid wastes, including

combustible, non-combustible

compactable, metal, ash, air filter

Process Waste Tyeps

Graphite annealing /

roasting

Irradiated graphite

Thermo-chemical

treatment

Solids, such as metals, asphalt, concrete, plastics, polymers

Wet solids, such as ion exchange resins, medical waste, biological

objects.

Granular solids, such as ash residues, calcinates, spent inorganic

sorbents, contaminated soils.

Carbon with 14C retention (reactor graphite, lubricants, moulds, etc.).

Fuel rod zirconium

Metal melting Most ferrous and non-ferrous metals

Vitrification Aqueous liquids

Wet wastes, such as sludges, IX resins, filter media, evaporator

concentrates

Solids such as soils, sediments, incinerator ashes, asbestos, medical

wastes, filter media

High-temperature

incineration with

plasma slagging

Combustible solids, wet solids and liquids

Small percentage of non-combustible material is acceptable in waste

Induction melting

Granular dry solids, such as incinerator ash

Metallic wastes

Molten metal

processing

Wet wastes, such as IX resins, low activity filter cartridges.

Dry solid wastes, including combustible, non-combustible

compactable, metal, ash, air filter, asbestos

Plasma processing

Most waste types, solid and liquid, including non-combustibles

Waste Hierarchy

DecommissioningFacility Design Operations

Photos courtesy of Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd & NDA, UK

Waste Minimization

Reuse

Recycle

Disposal Least

Desirable

Most

Desirable

Reducing the amount and

activity of radioactive waste to

a level as low as reasonably

achievable by:

– Reducing waste

generation at source

– Recycle and reuse

Occurs at all radioactive

life cycle stages

Examples of Challenging Waste

Streams

• Spent ion exchange resins

• Sludges

• Evaporator concentrates

• Aqueous waste e.g. oils or decontamination solutions containing organic complexants

• Tritium containing waste

• Carbon-14 containing waste

• Irradiated graphite

• Depleted uranium

• Beryllium

Tritium (H-3) Contaminated Liquids

• t½ = 5,730 years

• Mostly commonly occurs as tritiated water, in aqueous sludges, tritiated oils etc.

• Tritium is highly mobile in disposal environments – readily diffuses from or through porous waste forms (e.g. cement and geopolymers) and highly volatile so not amenable to thermal processing

• Industrial processes exist to remove tritium from heavy water (e.g. in CANDU reactors) – Too expensive to be used on removing low

concentrations of tritium from large volumes of waste water (e.g. Fukushima Daiichi or LWRs)

Modular Tritium Removal System

Photos Courtesy of Kurion Veolia

• Developed by Kurion Veolia – demonstrated at pilot-scale

• Tritiated water is fed into an electrolyser and cracked into

gaseous oxygen and hydrogen streams

• Gaseous streams are decontaminated to leave pure oxygen

and hydrogen/tritium (HT)

• Tritium is extracted (catalytic column) in the form of tritiated

water (HTO) and stored pending recovery and disposal

Problematic Liquid Waste Streams

• Certain wastes are problematic for glass matrices or existing vitrification process technologies

– Waste streams with volatile components, for example I-129 and Tc-99

– Nuclear wastes containing actinides, notably plutonium (surplus weapons Pu and Pu residues)

– Lack access to conventional vitrification facilities

• Development of new waste form matrices for example ANSTO’s Synroc and other glass ceramics

• Development of modular vitrification processes

Intermediate Level Liquids

• Extraction of Mo-99 (precursor of Tc-99m) results

in production of intermediate level aqueous

waste containing dissolved fission products (Cs-

137 & Sr-90)

• Key selection criteria for conditioning method:

• High waste loading

• Mechanically and physically durable

• Amenable to remote handling (hot cell)

• Proliferation resistant

• High Na concentration will limit waste loading

particularly in ceramic hosts

• ANSTO developed a process using hot-isostatic

pressing (HIP) with a glass ceramic

• High waste loading (~26% oxide equivalent)

• Better retention of Tc-99 and Cs-137

In-Can Vitrification

• Relatively low cost alternative to bulk vitrification

• Waste (for example spent ion exchange resin) mixed with glass formers

• Placed in a container that: – Acts as an ICM

– Final disposal container

• Advantages – Good for low volume problematic

waste streams (spent ion exchange resins, salt cake)

– Enhanced incorporation of volatile constituents (e.g. Tc-99)

– Good volume reduction

– Modular system

– Produces waste form in final disposal container

• Currently developed to pilot-scale

Photos Courtesy of Kurion Veolia

Predisposal Path Forward

• Fully understand the waste characteristics

• Develop a national integrated waste management strategy – Understand the legacy, ongoing and future waste

inventory

– Development of cradle-to-grave radioactive waste management solutions for each waste stream – group ‘like’ waste streams together

– Identification of gaps i.e. problematic wastes without predisposal/disposal concepts

– Conduct research and development activities to identify viable processing technologies

• In the future – begin with the end in mind i.e. do not produce waste streams without a clear processing path and end-point

From disposal point of view the most problematic waste streams:

• consists of long-lived, highly mobile like 129I and 14C

• long-lived, highly toxic radionuclides, especially transuranics (TRU)

• The most problematic “TRU” LLW comes mainly from

• MOX fabrication

• reprocessing facilities

(variety of wastes including metal, liquid waste, nitric acid)

• Other problematic LILW: • DSRS (LL, Cat. 1-2.) • Irradiated graphite • Ra-bearing waste • Bulky waste • Mixed waste • Nation-specific problematic wastes

LILW disposal challenges (1)


LILW disposal challenges (2)

Disposal route is available

• The package is non compliant • considered on a case by case basis

as a Waiver to the WAC

• Introduction of a new waste form

(e.g. large disused components, heat

generating 60Co sources ) • development of a specific technical

requirement for that waste form

• Waste volume or activity exceeds the

disposal capacity

• is the repository expansion possible ?

• Waste packages are not acceptable

for the existing disposal route

• alternative disposal route

No disposal route is available

• Siting a repository (many challenges)

• Develop sustainable concept

(disposal)

• Derivation WAC Until the final waste disposal strategy and WAC are

defined the operator should avoid the adoption of

WM technologies that cannot be shown to have a

clear benefit in preparing for eventual disposal

(predisposal challenge).

• Address country-specific challenges


Sweden: • The two existing entrance tunnels are too small for

very large components, such as reactor pressure

vessels. Hence, it has been decided to build a third

tunnel in SFR.

Fast breeder lateral neutron

shielding blocks Vessel heads

Source: ANDRA

Source: SKB

Examples for disposal challenges Disposal of large components

France (Centre de l’Aube): • Reactor-vessels heads are disposed of in dedicated

cells. Conditioning is performed inside the disposal

vault.

• Adapt existing disposal cells

Source: J. Nzimande, Koeberg, South Africa, 2014

• Dedicated disposal cells

South Africa (Vaalputs): • The steam generator (SG) replacement project

requires the disposal of the six original SGs as

radioactive waste.

Decommissioning projects are increasing at a rapid pace. The result of this trend means more large

pieces of contaminated equipment that do not meet the traditional dimension requirements also need a

permanent disposal location.

Examples for disposal challenges Disposal of Uranium tails

• 1 t enriched (up to 3 - 4%) uranium 7 t depleted uranium (residue

material)

• Annual production of DU in Germany 2,800 t

• Without prolongation of NPP operational life time still 16,000 – 30,000 t

DU will be produced (ca. 1015 Bq)

• Stored as UF6

• UF6 volatile and aggressive, with water => HF, not disposable

• Conversion to U3O8 - Technology is available

• Limitation for Konrad: 150 t U-238

• Disposal in another repository (?)

Source: Karin Kugel, Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), Germany

Examples for disposal challenges Disposal of sodium waste

7 sodium cooling traps from the compact-cooled nuclear reactor in

Karlsruhe

Sodium and sodium compounds (NaOH, NaH, NaHCO3)

Na – self-igniting and aggressive with water, not disposable

6 cooling traps each with a mass of 130 kg sodium

1 cooling trap with 1,700 kg sodium

High activity of H-3: in total approx. 1.3·1014 Bq

Source: Karin Kugel, Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), Germany

Disposal

Aim: condition to fulfil the Konrad WAC

Initial considerations:

Safe encapsulation of sodium

Packaging in Konrad-containers

Grouting with concrete

Further considerations:

Cut into pieces

Pack into washing baskets

Scrubbed in the sodium-washing system

Examples for disposal challenges Disposal of graphite waste (1)

UK plans

• Reactor graphite makes up about 30% by

volume of the UK’s inventory of ILW.

• There is estimated to be about 15,000 m3

of graphite arisings prior to 2040, mainly

comprising operational waste streams

(Magnox and AGR fuel sleeves), along with

core graphite from the decommissioning of

experimental and prototype reactors.

• A further 65,000 m3 of graphite is forecast

to arise after 2040, comprising core

graphite from the final decommissioning of

the Magnox and AGR reactors.

The disposal concept under

development is for a facility comprising of

one or more concrete lined, cylindrical

disposal cells, sited within the near

surface environment at tens of meters

depth below ground level.

Source: A. Meehan, P. Sibley, Al Johnson J. Lightfoot, D. Jackson , UK


Examples for disposal challenges Disposal of graphite waste (2)

French plans

• Inventory: 17,100 t of irradiated

graphite (LLW-LL)

• Two design options were

considered

Disposal with reworked capping (SCR) at a depth of around 15 m in a clay layer

with low permeability. (this option is mainly

applicable to Ra-bearing waste)

Disposal with intact capping (SCI) Cells in a thick clay formation at a depth of 50

to 200 m. Access is via a ramp and once the

waste is disposed of, the drifts are backfilled The project has run into difficulties.

Current situation: ??

Examples for disposal challenges Countries with no nuclear program (small inventory)

• Permanent storage: not sustainable

• Challenging waste types: DSRS (Cat 1-2.), DSRS-LL (Ra,

Am), other LLW-LL (legacy), NORM waste

• the `standard ` GD designs may be very expensive

• multi-national solution (political will and/or public

support ??)

• ALTERNATIVE (NOVEL, INNOVATIVE) DESIGNS MAY

BE NEEDED !

Alternative disposal options Disposal design Waste type Reference

Small trench Decommissioning VLLW Japan (o)

Highly engineered near surface

vault

higher activity LLW streams USA (p)

Hazardous waste facilities and

municipal or industrial solid

waste landfills

LLW, NORM USA (o)

Small diameter borehole (BDC) DSRS Malaysia, Ghana (p)

Large diameter borehole

high-risk DSRS

Medical waste

USA (?)

Russia USA (?)

South Africa (o)

Shaft

LLW

LILW-LL

Australia (o)

Estonia (p)

Purpose-built rock cavern Norway: Himdalen (o)

Abandoned mine (rock gallery,

tunnel)

NORM (Ra-,Th-, U-bearing)

LILW

Czech: Richard, Bratrství, Hostim (o)

Romania: Baita, Bihor (o)

Ex-military fort LLW-SL, LL

DSRS

Poland: Rozan (o)

Underground bunker Kazahstan (o)

Abandoned underground military

objects

Albania, Croatia (p)

Multi functional facilities

near surface + borehole (BDC)

near surface-vault +LL waste

PHI, Iran (p)

Australia (p)

IAEA BDC: Borehole Disposal Concept

A generic SC has been developed for borehole disposal of Cat. 3–5 sources,

and has been completed t for Cat. 1 and 2 sources.

• Borehole facilities offer safe, simple, economic alternative for

all DSRS

• No decrease in safety standards

• Small footprint

• Broad range of suitable (safe) site properties

• Safe implementation with limited resources

Disposal of DSRS is a serious challenge in many

MSs, often with limited infrastructure and resources.

The high specific activity and the long half-life of some of the isotopes in

radioactive sources cause problems in fitting some DSRS into the waste

disposal schemes of many countries.

Shaft LDB

Purpose-built

rock cavern

Multi functional

facilities

Abandoned mine

(rock gallery, tunnel)

Small trench

It is worthwhile to exchange advanced information on the ongoing R&D

activities in MSs and to facilitate access to the practical results of their

application for processing and disposal of specific waste types since that will

contribute towards the implementing of novel ideas and for improving the

efficiency and general safety of RWM practice in MSs.

Thank you!

Ormai Robbins Intro Management of Challenging Waste

Documents

Transcript of Ormai Robbins Intro Management of Challenging Waste