APPENDIX C 

STORAGE FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS DATA 

This appendix presents data on construction and operations of a mercury storage facility analyzed in this LongTerm Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement. Section C.1 provides 

data related to the transportation of elemental mercury to the storage facility. Section C.2 provides background 

information regarding design criteria, a general description of physical characteristics, and construction and 

operations data for new and existing facilities that would be used to store mercury at each site. 

C.1 TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS 

Two acceptable container types for the mercury storage facility are 3-liter (3-L) (34.6-kilogram 

[76-pound]) flasks and 1-metric-ton (1-MT) (1.1-ton) containers. Figure C–1 illustrates the dimensions of 

a typical 3-L flask and Figure C–2 illustrates the dimensions of a typical 1-MT container. Other 

containers may be accepted for storage on a case-by-case basis. All containers are subject to U.S. 

Department of Transportation regulations regarding the transportation of mercury. 

The 3-L flasks would be transported in pallets; such pallets may have a built-in spill tray. Each pallet 

would contain up to a maximum of 49 3-L flasks in a 7- by 7-flask configuration, not to exceed 1.4 meters 

(4.7 feet) on a side. The 3-L flasks could also be shipped in quantities of less than 49 per pallet. Full-size 

pallets (containing 49 3-L flasks) would be shipped “ready” for storage upon passing inspection and 

satisfying acceptance criteria. Smaller loads (pallets containing less than 49 3-L flasks) would be 

consolidated in the Handling Area at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facility for efficient storage. 

Noncombustible (i.e., metal) or fire-resistant wooden pallets are recommended as a best management 

practice over non-fire-resistant wooden pallets (DOE 2009a). An example of typical shipment of a fullsize pallet of 49 3-L flasks is provided in Figure C–3. 

Figure C–1. Dimensions of a Typical 3-Liter Flask (inches) 

C–1
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

C–2

Figure C–2. Dimensions of a Typical 1-Metric-Ton Container (inches) 

Figure C–3. Example Box Pallet for Shipping 3-Liter Flasks 

in a 7-Flask by 7-Flask Configuration 
Storage Facility Construction and Operations Data 

C–3

The 1-MT containers would also be shipped on box pallets; however, there would be only one container 

per pallet. Each pallet would be constructed of wood or metal, similar to the 3-L flask pallets. Once 

received and visually inspected for integrity, the 1-MT containers would be removed from their shipping 

pallets and placed in a spill tray in long-term storage. The transportation pallets would be returned to the 

generator for reuse, if requested. Each spill tray would accommodate eight 1-MT containers in a 

2-container by 4-container configuration (DOE 2009a). 

DOE makes the following assumptions regarding the availability of surplus mercury for storage: 

 All or a portion of DOE’s surplus mercury inventory of approximately 1,200 metric tons 

(1,300 tons) currently in storage at the Y–12 National Security Complex (Y–12) is being 

considered for transfer to the long-term mercury storage facility. 

 The remaining chlor-alkali facilities would close by 2020, yielding approximately 1,100 metric 

tons (1,210 tons) of mercury that would be shipped to the long-term mercury storage facility. 

 Shipments from mining would yield approximately 4,900 metric tons (5,400 tons) of mercury that 

would be shipped to the long-term mercury storage facility. 

 Shipments from reclamation and recycling facilities would yield approximately 2,800 metric tons 

(3,090 tons) of mercury that would be shipped to the long-term mercury storage facility. 

DOE makes the following assumptions regarding the quantities of mercury and when this mercury would 

be shipped to the long-term mercury storage facility: 

 Years 2013–2014: A total of approximately 950 metric tons (1,050 tons) would be delivered per 

year from Y–12 (if the decision is made to transfer the Y–12 mercury inventory to the new 

storage facility), chlor-alkali facilities, mines, and reclamation and recycling facilities. 

 Years 2015–2019: A total of approximately 350 metric tons (390 tons) would be delivered per 

year from chlor-alkali facilities, mines, and reclamation and recycling facilities. 

 Years 2020–2052: A total of approximately 190 metric tons (210 tons) would be delivered per 

year from mines and reclamation and recycling facilities. 

DOE makes the following assumptions regarding the transportation of mercury: 

 A fully loaded truck can carry 9 pallets of 49 3-L flasks or 14 1-MT containers, and a fully loaded 

railcar can carry 24 pallets of 49 3-L flasks or 54 1-MT containers. 

 Y–12 mercury would be shipped in 3-L flasks, mercury from chlor-alkali facilities would be 

shipped in 1-MT containers, and mercury from mines and reclamation and recycling facilities 

would be shipped in 3-L flasks and/or 1-MT containers. 

Based on the above-mentioned assumptions and assuming fully loaded trucks or railcars, the number of 

shipments that would be required are listed below. However, it can be reasonably expected that some 

shipments would be smaller and not necessarily on fully loaded trucks or railcars. 

 Years 2013–2014: It is expected that 63 truck or 24 rail deliveries would be made per year from 

Y–12, chlor-alkali facilities, mines, and reclamation and recycling facilities. 

 Years 2015–2019: It is expected that 23 truck or 9 rail deliveries would be made per year from 

chlor-alkali facilities, mines, and reclamation and recycling facilities. 

 Years 2020–2052: It is expected that 13 truck or 5 rail deliveries would be made per year from 

mines and reclamation and recycling facilities. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

C–4

C.2 MERCURY STORAGE FACILITIES 

C.2.1 Introduction 

The U.S. Department of Energy Interim Guidance on Packaging, Transportation, Receipt, Management, 

and Long-Term Storage of Elemental Mercury (Interim Guidance) (DOE 2009a) serves as a basis for 

developing the design and operational parameters for a new mercury storage facility or existing building 

structures. For some criteria, construction and operations data for similar storage facilities were used to 

supplement the information taken from the Interim Guidance. In locations where existing facilities are 

proposed, data are evaluated against the description of a generic facility to determine what, if any, 

modifications or upgrades are likely to be required and whether sufficient long-term storage space can be 

provided. 

The DOE mercury storage facility would include the following four major physical areas that would 

provide the necessary functions for receipt, inspection, and long-term storage of mercury (DOE 2009a): 

 Receiving and Shipping Area. This area would include dedicated space(s) for the receipt, 

inspection, and handling of mercury containers. It would allow for truck docking, offloading, 

inspection, and transfer of received mercury to the facility. It would also allow for inspection, 

packaging, marking, manifesting, and truck docking and loading for shipments of secondary 

waste out of the DOE storage facility. It would be adjacent to the Handling and Storage Areas. 

 Handling Area. This area would include dedicated space(s) for acceptance/verification of 

incoming containers and for work involving potential contamination, including (1) safely 

handling and cleaning of palletized or individual containers that have external mercury 

contamination, and/or (2) repackaging of mercury from containers that have failed inspection. 

This area is needed for non-routine and emergency response activities for leaking flasks and/or 

containers. The area would be enclosed and have filtered ventilation. All exhausted air would be 

filtered (e.g., sulfur) to remove mercury vapors. 

 Storage Area. This area would include dedicated space for the storage of mercury containers. 

Composing the bulk of the facility, this enclosed area would have ample storage and aisle space 

for careful, tracked placement and retrieval of all containers (e.g., 3-L and 1-MT capacity). The 

area would be well lit, with appropriate ventilation, spill containment, and fire protection 

measures. Although sufficient forced ventilation would be provided in all Storage Areas, 

conditioned air would not be required. Note that the Storage Area(s) may be constructed in a 

modular fashion to accommodate mercury inventories as they become available for storage. 

 Office Administration Area. This area would include the management, operations, training, and 

all other administration functions supporting the overall mercury program. Examples include the 

storage and maintenance of records, waste verification documents, shipping papers, and 

databases. It should not be located within a hazardous area and would preferably be separated 

from the other three facility areas. 

Key features of a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)–permitted facility used for the 

storage of elemental mercury include the following: 

 Location and Siting. The selection of siting for construction of a new facility or evaluation of an 

existing facility would consider environmentally sensitive locations or conditions such as the 

existence of floodplains, wetlands, groundwater, seismic zones, karst soils or other unstable 

terrain, local weather phenomena, or incompatible land use. 
Storage Facility Construction and Operations Data 

C–5

 Security. At a minimum, facility security would meet the requirements for a DOE Property 

Protected Area, as outlined in DOE Manual 470.4-2A, Physical Protection. The facility would be 

located in an area under the control and authority of DOE and would prevent inadvertent or 

deliberate unauthorized access to the facility and the Storage Area(s). The facility would have a 

perimeter barbed-wired fence to control unauthorized access. Remote surveillance may also be 

employed, where necessary. 

 Containment. The Storage Areas of the facility would be designed to properly contain any 

release of mercury. This would include the use of spill trays, properly sloped floors, and floors 

constructed to be impervious to liquid mercury releases. The facility walls and ceiling would be 

constructed of sufficient quality and design to shield the stored mercury from weather elements 

and ensure that mercury is not entrained in stormwater runoff. 

 Ventilation. The Handling Area would be ventilated through the use of a high-negative draw 

system for removing high-concentration vapors from mercury “sources” (e.g., container residues, 

open containers, small spills). The exhaust air would pass through a mercury vapor filter 

(e.g., sulfur) and be discharged to the outside. A wall-mounted air conditioning unit would be 

available for maintaining interior temperatures below 70 degrees Fahrenheit during times when 

mercury is being handled to keep its volatility low. The Storage Area would be ventilated using 

low-vacuum, high-volume, industrial-sized roof- or wall-mounted fans sized to provide multiple 

air exchanges over a short period of time and to evacuate low-concentration vapors that may 

accumulate in the storage spaces over time. These fans would operate on an as-needed basis prior 

to and during occupancy. 

 Fire Protection. The facility would be outfitted with fire detection systems such as smoke and 

heat detectors, as well as a permanent fire suppression system. The fire suppression system 

would be a conventional wet- or dry-charge water sprinkler system augmented with readily 

accessible fire extinguishers. 

 Emergency Response. The Handling Area would be designed for responding to small spills that 

might occur or for transferring mercury from corroding or leaking containers or from containers 

that have failed inspection upon arrival at the facility to new containers prior to placing them in 

storage. Emergency response procedures would be developed for larger releases of mercury. 

 Monitoring. The facility would conduct mercury vapor monitoring for the detection of any 

unplanned releases of mercury or deterioration of flask or container integrity. Weekly inspections 

of containers in long-term storage would incorporate air sampling. 

 Record-Keeping. Training records, waste receipts, inspection reports, laboratory analysis, 

response plans, monitoring data, etc., would be maintained in the Office Administration Area. 

C.2.2 Physical Description 

Construction of a new storage facility is being evaluated at the following locations: (1) the Grand Junction 

Disposal Site, (2) the Central Waste Complex in the 200-West Area at the Hanford Site, (3) the Idaho 

Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center at Idaho National Laboratory, (4) E Area at the Savannah 

River Site, and (5) the main facilities area at Waste Control Specialists, LLC. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

C–6

Figure C–4 provides a potential conceptual layout for a generic, full-size new mercury storage facility. 

Figure C–5 provides detail for the Receiving and Shipping Area and Handling Area. 

Figure C–4. Conceptual Layout for a New Mercury Storage Facility 

Existing facilities that are being evaluated for storage of mercury include (1) the Transuranic Storage 

Area in the Radioactive Waste Management Complex at Idaho National Laboratory, (2) the Central 

Magazine Area at Hawthorne Army Depot, and (3) the Main Manufacturing Building at the Kansas City 

Plant. 

The Waste Control Specialists, LLC, Container Storage Building, an RCRA-permitted facility for the 

storage of hazardous waste, could be used on an interim basis to store a limited amount of mercury 

pending construction of a new facility. The Container Storage Building would be capable of storing 

approximately 2,000 metric tons (2,200 tons) of mercury, if necessary. 
Storage Facility Construction and Operations Data 

C–7

Figure C–5. Conceptual Schematic for Receiving and Shipping Area and 

Handling Area of a New Mercury Storage Facility 

Table C–1 provides general physical data for the construction of a generic, new facility or the existing 

facility options for the storage of elemental mercury. 
C–8

Table C–1. Data for a Mercury Storage Facility – New Construction and Existing Buildings 

Parameter New Facilitya RWMC - INL HWAD KCP 

Facility Footprint 20,500 square meters 

(220,600 square feet) 

Within existing DOE complex. 

Within existing DoD complex. 

Within existing DOE complex. 

RCRA Permitted for Storage of Hazardous Waste 

Yes; would be permitted. 

Yes; currently permitted for storage of mixed transuranic waste. 

No No; currently 

regulated as RCRA large-quantity generator. 

Building Dimensions (length × width) 

154×102 meters 

(506×336 feet) 

61×43 meters 

(200×140 feet) 

(each facility) 

61×15 meters (200×50 feet) 

(each facility) 

Contiguous storage space is within a larger manufacturing building. 

Ceiling Height 6.1 meters 

(20 feet) 

7.3 meters 

(24 feet) 

4.5 meters 

(14 feet, 8 inches) 

9.8 meters 

(32 feet) 

Number of Buildings 

1 Up to 7 Up to 29 1 

Total Space Dedicated to Storage 

13,610 square meters (146,500 square feet) 

Up to 19,000 square meters (205,000 square feet) 

Up to 26,940 square meters(290,000 square feet) 

14,000 square meters (150,000 square feet) Note: Additional space could be available if current tenants relocate as planned. 

Building Construction 

Structural steel frame on reinforced-concrete slab and sheet metal shell; epoxy-sealed floor. 

Prefabricated modular buildings (uninsulated) on curbed-concrete slab; sheet metal roof and siding, epoxy-sealed floor. 

Concrete floor, walls, and support columns with steel roof trusses and transite roofing. 

Structural steel and concrete masonry unit with reinforcedconcrete floors, brick exterior façade, and mopped and gravel roof system. 

Floor Thickness 30 centimeters 

(12 inches) 

20 centimeters 

(8 inches) 

15 centimeters 

(6 inches) 

30 centimeters 

(12 inches) 

Rail Access Yes, with exception of 

Grand Junction Disposal Site location. 

Yes Yes Yes 
C–

9

Table C–1. Data for a Mercury Storage Facility – New Construction and Existing Buildings (cont

Parameter New Facilitya RWMC - INL HWAD KCP 

Access/Security Security measures 

would prevent inadvertent or deliberate unauthorized access to the facility and Storage Area(s). Examples would include physical barriers such as perimeter barbed-wire fence, remote interior and exterior surveillance, and/or security personnel. 

Facility is located within a restricted area with perimeter fence used to restrict access and personnel security 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. 

Facility is located within a restricted area with perimeter fence used to restrict access and personnel security 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. 

Perimeter fence and security gates; current tenants are expected to relocate by 2014. 

Required Building Modifications 

New facility would be designed and built to desired specifications. 

 Reapply epoxy sealant to 

floor. 

 Service rail spur into 

RWMC, if transportation by rail is used. 

 Potentially reinforce 

floor. 

 Apply epoxy sealant or 

geomembrane liner to floor. 

 Install spill control 

curbing. 

 Install and provide 

utilities. 

 Service rail spur to 

Central Magazine Area, if transportation by rail is used. 

 Reapply sealant to 

floor. 

 Upgrade ventilation 

systems. 

 Service rail spur 

into KCP, if transportation by rail is used. 

a Data for new facility construction would be similar regardless of location and would include the Grand Junction Disposal Site, the 200-West Are

Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center at INL, E Area at the Savannah River Site, and WCS in Andrews County, Texas. 

b The CSB at WCS could store approximately 2,000 metric tons (2,200 tons) of mercury on an interim basis, if necessary, until construction of a new 

Key: CSB=Container Storage Building; DoD=U.S. Department of Defense; DOE=U.S. Department of Energy; HWAD=Hawthorne Army D

Laboratory; KCP=Kansas City Plant; RCRA=Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; RWMC=Radioactive Waste Management CompSpecialists, LLC. 

Source: DLA 2004; DOE 2009a, 2009b; SAIC 2009a, 2009b. 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

C–10

C.2.3 Construction Data 

Resource commitments for new facility construction at the Grand Junction Disposal Site, 200-West Area 

at the Hanford Site, Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center at Idaho National Laboratory, 

E Area at the Savannah River Site, or at Waste Control Specialists, LLC, would be similar regardless of 

location and are presented in Table C–2. DOE expects that construction of a new mercury storage facility 

would require approximately 6 months to complete. Construction resource commitments for 

modifications to existing buildings at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex at Idaho National 

Laboratory, the Hawthorne Army Depot, the Kansas City Plant, and Waste Control Specialists, LLC 

(i.e., Container Storage Building), are assumed to be minor and would require negligible resources when 

compared with those required for new facility construction. Specific modifications that may be required 

for each proposed existing building were previously described in Table C–1. 

Table C–2. Resource Commitments for Construction of a 

New Mercury Storage Facilitya

Resource Quantity 

Land Use 

Land disturbance 3.1 hectares (7.5 acres) 

Labor

Man hours 18,500 

Materials

Concrete 4,755 cubic meters (6,220 cubic yards) 

Gravel (crushed stone) 3,875 cubic meters (5.070 cubic yards) 

Asphalt 670 cubic meters (872 cubic yards) 

Steel 2,700 metric tons (2,970 tons) 

Epoxy sealant 2,400 liters (6,330 gallons) 

Utilities

Water (non-potable) 1,270,000 liters (325,000 gallons) 

Water (potable) 40,900 liters (10,800 gallons) 

Diesel 193,000 liters (51,000 gallons) 

Gasoline 0 liters (0 gallons) 

Electricity 0 megawatt-hours 

Waste

Nonhazardous construction debris 270 cubic meters (355 cubic yards) 

Nonhazardous liquid waste 

(sanitary wastewater) 

9,850 liters (2,600 gallons) 

a Duration of construction would be 6 months. 

Source: DOE 2009a; SAIC 2009b. 

The construction of a new facility would generate air emissions from the use of heavy equipment and the 

disturbance of soils from grading and site preparation. Typical heavy equipment that might be used 

would include dump trucks, cement trucks, dozers, graders, spreaders, compactors, cranes, etc. Air 

emissions from vehicle exhaust would be dependent on frequency of use, fuel efficiency, and fuel type. 

Particulate air emissions would be dependent on the amount of exposed land and the duration of 

exposure. Based on the relevant factors and an estimated construction period of 6 months, expected air 

emissions are listed in Table C–3. 
Storage Facility Construction and Operations Data 

C–11

Table C–3. Air Emissions During Construction of a 

New Mercury Storage Facilitya

Pollutant 

Total Emissions 

(metric tons) 

Total Emissions 

(tons) 

Carbon monoxide 3.01 3.32 

Nitrogen dioxide 14.0 15.4 

Sulfur dioxide 0.00475 0.00524 

Particulate matter 

(with a diameter of 

10 micrometers or less) 

16.6 18.3 

Carbon dioxide 520 573 

Total organic compounds 1.14 1.26 

Ammonia 0.022 0.0242 

Benzene 0.00296 0.00326 

1,3-Butadiene 0.0001124 0.000137 

Formaldehyde 0.00374 0.00412 

Toluene 0.00130 0.00143 

Xylene 0.000903 0.000995 

a Duration of construction would be 6 months. 

Source: SAIC 2009b. 

Minimal site excavation would be required for the construction of a new facility. Excavation up to 

60 centimeters (24 inches) may be required for site preparation and pouring the concrete foundation. 

Small trenches may also be required for installation of utilities or connection with existing utilities and 

installation of concrete footers. Any excess soil would be incorporated and contoured into the existing 

landscape. It is assumed that any new construction would take place in an uncontaminated area. 

C.2.4 Operations Data 

Resource commitments for operations of a mercury storage facility are expected to be similar across all 

alternatives for the storage of up to 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of elemental mercury in either a new 

facility or an existing facility; projected resource commitments are presented in Table C–4. However, 

infrastructure capacities may differ from one site to the next, especially for existing buildings. The one 

notable exception would be for labor resources. It is conservatively assumed that security personnel 

would guard the facility 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, although this level of security may not be 

necessary. Based on this assumption, site security for a standalone facility is estimated to be 

350,400 man hours over the 40-year period of analysis. Several candidate sites would operate within the 

confines of an already secure and federally controlled complex that have continuing missions beyond 

mercury storage. In these cases, dedicated security for the storage facility may not be required. Security 

personnel would only be required during normal working hours for receipt and handling of mercury 

shipments and would be reduced to 83,200 man hours over the 40-year period of analysis. 

The long-term mercury storage facility will not treat or process mercury. The facility will only be 

designed to store mercury in high-integrity, tight containers. However, it may become necessary to 

respond to small spills or repackage mercury from failed containers. The Handling Area, where 

repackaging mercury into new containers would be performed, would be negatively ventilated and the 

exhaust air would be filtered to remove airborne mercury emissions. The binding chemical that would 

most likely be used to remove mercury from the air would be sulfur. Filters would be replaced on a 

regular schedule to maintain optimum mercury removal efficiency. Therefore, air emissions vented from 

the Handling Area to the outside air are expected to be negligible. Mercury vapor might accumulate in 

the Storage Area(s) during normal operations from storage containers or residual surface contamination 

and could subsequently be vented to the outside air through the exhaust fans. However, as discussed in 
Draft Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury Environmental Impact Statement 

C–12

Appendix D, Section D.4.1, air emissions from normal operations are projected to remain well below 

actionable concentrations for human health exposure. 

Table C–4. Resource Commitments for Operation of a 

New or Existing Mercury Storage Facilitya

Resource Quantity 

Land Use 

Land occupied 3.1 hectares (7.5 acres) 

Labor 

Man hours 482,220 (215,020)b

Utilities 

Water (non-potable) Negligible 

Water (potable) 3,540,000 liters (935,000 gallons) 

Diesel 24,200 liters (6,400 gallons) 

Gasoline Negligible 

Electricity 10,100 megawatt-hours 

Waste 

Hazardous solid waste 

(55-gallon drums) 

910 

Nonhazardous liquid waste 

(sanitary wastewater) 

2,360,000 liters (623,000 gallons) 

a Values presented are totals for the 40-year period of analysis. 

b Parenthetical value represents reduced security personnel for those candidate sites that 

already reside within a secure Federal complex (i.e., Idaho National Laboratory, Hawthorne 

Army Depot, the Hanford Site, and the Savannah River Site). 

Source: DOE 2009a; SAIC 2009b. 

C.3 REFERENCES 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009a, U.S. Department of Energy Interim Guidance on Packaging, 

Transportation, Receipt, Management, and Long-Term Storage of Elemental Mercury, Oak Ridge, 

Tennessee, November 13. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2009b, “Mercury Storage EIS” Expressions of Interest. 

DLA (Defense Logistics Agency), 2004, Final Mercury Management Environmental Impact Statement, 

Defense National Stockpile Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, March. 

SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation), 2009a, Data Call Responses for Existing Facility 

Data, Germantown, Maryland. 

SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation), 2009b, Data Package for Construction of New 

Storage Facility, Germantown, Maryland. 

U.S. Department of Energy Manuals

DOE Manual 470.4-2A, Physical Protection, July 23, 2009.