>Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.
Technical Alternatives to Reduce Risk in the Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System Phase I Privatization Project

DOE/EM-0493






Technical Alternatives to Reduce
Risk in the Hanford Tank Waste
Remediation System Phase I
Privatization Project












U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Environmental Management
Office of Science and Technology
Tanks Focus Area



September 1999



Technical Alternatives to Reduce Risk in the Hanford
Tank Waste Remediation System Phase I Privatization Project


Revision: Final


Authors:







Technical Alternatives to Reduce Risk in the Hanford
iii
September 1999

Tank Waste Remediation System Phase I Privatization Project


Executive Summary



The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of River Protection (ORP) has begun a key phase of its
program to immobilize and dispose of the high-level tank waste at the Hanford Site (Hanford). In August
1998, DOE entered into a 24-month contract (Phase I, Part B-1) with a team led by BNFL Inc. (BNFL), a
United States subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels plc, for the preliminary design of facilities to pretreat
and immobilize Hanford's high-level tank waste.


In early 1999, the DOE Acting Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Waste Management and Science and
Technology for Environmental Management (EM) requested the Tanks Focus Area (TFA) to identify
technical improvements and alternative processes for the Hanford's high-level waste (HLW) program to
ensure success of the current privatization strategy for HLW treatment (DOE 1999). In response to this
request, the TFA convened a team of national experts (Team) in the appropriate technical areas. Team
members consisted of:


Harry
D.
Harmon
John
L.
Swanson

James
H.
Lee

Larry
L.
Tavlarides

M.
John
Plodinec
Major
C.
Thompson

John
H.
Roecker

E.
Thomas
Weber

Wally
W.
Schulz

Frank
E.
Woolley



The Team was requested to evaluate technical risks and to identify technical alternatives for the high-
risk portions of the current Hanford baseline. In this study, technical risk was defined as the probability
that a unit operation would not perform as intended, multiplied by the consequences (cost and schedule
impacts) to the project. The Team was also asked to recommend preferred technical alternatives and a
prioritized list of any new work required to implement the preferred alternatives. Based on their review,
the Team reached the following conclusions:

1. The Phase I project is based upon fundamentally sound waste treatment strategies and principles.

2. BNFL and the Project Hanford Management Contract (PHMC) personnel did an excellent job of
identifying technical and programmatic risks and developing plans to resolve them.

3. At this early stage of the project, a number of technical risks still exist. From the information
reviewed, it appears likely that all of these risks will be satisfactorily addressed as development work
and design efforts progress. Therefore, Phase I, Part B, as currently defined, has a very good chance
of succeeding.

4. Of the technical risks identified by the Team, two are rated high:


Sr-90/TRU element removal process immature technology.
Technical Alternatives to Reduce Risk in the Hanford
iv
September 1999

Tank Waste Remediation System Phase I Privatization Project




Sulfate removal technologies a system-wide issue whose resolution will likely require a
combination of approaches.

5. The vitrification effort, involving BNFL, GTS Duratek, and Catholic University, is a sound, well-
integrated program.


The functions covered by this independent alternatives review include waste characterization,
retrieval, staging, transfer, pretreatment (i.e., sludge washing, solid/liquid separation, and radionuclide
removal), immobilization, and product certification. Tank waste storage, and immobilized waste products
storage and disposal are specifically excluded from this alternatives review. The scope of the review
emphasizes Phase I activities and associated waste end states, and considers technology alternatives that
could be implemented beyond Phase I.


The Team gathered information from document reviews, presentations, and responses to written
questions from DOE, BNFL, and PHMC. The team members then identified technical issues and
technology development needs for each unit operation in the currently proposed baseline flowsheet.
Technical issues were evaluated based on whether they present a low, moderate, or high risk to the overall
success of the project.


Based on the number of technical issues identified and their risk evaluation, the Team then assigned
an overall technical risk to each unit operation. A detailed discussion of technology development needs
to mitigate the risks for each unit operation is provided in this report. Also in this report, alternative
technologies are prioritized using the criteria developed by the Team (see Table 4.4.1), and recommended
technology development activities are defined for the highly ranked improvements and alternatives.


Recommendations on the overall technology development program, listed in priority order, are as
follows:

complete all baseline technology development tasks
develop additional sulfate removal processes
develop strontium-90/transuranic element (Sr/TRU) removal processes
execute the in-tank mixer pump tests as soon as possible
evaluate flammable gas release during mixer pump operation
provide adequate analytical facilities
test melters thoroughly
develop alternative cesium-137 (Cs) removal processes
provide a bench scale integrated, radioactive processing facility
deploy a large (9-liter) waste sampler
perform a similar review at the end of the Phase I, Part B-1 contract.


Completion of the additional development work described in this report for baseline verification,
improvements to the baseline, and alternative processes, will further guarantee the success of this critical
Technical Alternatives to Reduce Risk in the Hanford
v
September 1999

Tank Waste Remediation System Phase I Privatization Project


project. Adequate resources must be provided to ensure timely completion of these key development
activities.

Technical Alternatives to Reduce Risk in the Hanford
v
September
1999
Tank Waste Remediation System Phase I Privatization Project


Acknowledgments



The Review Team is deeply indebted to many individuals for their valued assistance throughout our
review. We especially acknowledge the following individuals:


Mr. Tom Brouns (TFA). In his capacity as TFA Technical Team Manager, Mr. Brouns was directly
responsible for assembling and organizing our Review Team. We thank him for his efforts on our behalf.


Ms. Lynne Roeder-Smith (TFA). As Communications Specialist for the TFA Technical Team, her
skills and patience in preparing and editing the many drafts of our report were outstanding.


Ms. Bonnie Williams (TFA). Her careful attention to detail in arranging for conference rooms,
working lunches, hotel accommodations and many other tasks is much appreciated.


Dr. Neil Brown (DOE-ORP). We benefited greatly from his many insightful comments and
responses to our questions on the BNFL privatization contract and the proposed technological approach.


PHMC Personnel. Their presentations and reports were not only timely and well-done, but invaluable
in evaluating the status of the waste retrieval and transfer technology.


BNFL Personnel. We sincerely thank Mr. Andy Elsden, Mr. Mike Johnson, and their colleagues, for
taking time from their busy schedule to provide up-to-date information on proposed flowsheets and
ongoing and future technology development programs.
Technical Alternatives to Reduce Risk in the Hanford
vi
September
1999
Tank Waste Remediation System Phase I Privatization Project




Technical Alternatives to Reduce Risk in the Hanford
vii
September
1999
Tank Waste Remediation System Phase I Privatization Project


Contents


Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................................. v

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ xvi

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1.1


1.1 Brief Summary of Office of River Protection Phase I Program ....................................... 1.1


1.2 Division of Work Scope and Responsibilities .................................................................. 1.2


1.3