sludge is present, the canister is moved to the overfill recovery area within the basin weasel pit. At the overfill ..... Document (PSSD) for the STS cask. Once the ...
PRC-EDC- 09 - 43560
Page 1 of 2
CHPRC EDC (ENGINEERING DOCUMENT CHANGE) FORM
S_
Document Identification 1. Change Title:
8. Release:
Decision Report for Direct Hydraulic Loading of Sludge into Sludge Transport and Storage Containers Key Words: Sludge Treatment Project, Engineered Container, Settler Sludae. Alternatives Analysis 2. Project No.Work Package No.:
Release CACN
9l9
O
ULW
DAT: STA. 19
A-21C 3. Review Designators: N/AKD[]PD
ED NDR RD
I
300285
ANFORD
RELEASE
ID:
D FD0Q D6
Additional Reviewers: 4
Area l
l
4Ara 5. Building l00K
1105KW
9. USQ Required?
-
l
6. Facility
7. System No. N/A
JKW Basins Q USQ
0 CX
0
®NA
No.:
_____________________
Per PRC-PRO-062 Section 2 Scope
10. Distribution - Name
MSIN
Distribution - Name
MSIN
G. Barnes D Black DA Burbank JM Cannon C Carro BA Conrad JD Criddle RD Crowe TK Dhaliwal GR Franz JR Frederickson WJ Geuther D Himes
AO-26 AO-26 AO-26 A3-26 AO-26 A3-06 AO-26 A3-06 AO-26 A3-06 AO-26 AO-26 AO-2 6
ME Johnson MW Johnson SE Johnson DW Hamilton H Mashaw JD Mathews LA Nelsen CA Petersen RB Raymond MA Rivera T Staehr DJ Watson
AO-26 A3-06 A3-06 AO-26 AO-26 A3-06 A3-06 AO-2 6 AO-26 A02 6 AO-26 X4-01
STP Project File/N. Fouad
H6-08
11. Change Description (description and reason for requested change): Initial release of document
Approvals
A
0
12. C~~~ao
TAIDA qYEngineering
Print/Signature/Date
Print(SignifurelDate
Print/Si naturelfate
Title
Title.
Print/Signature/Date
Print/Signature/Date
Title S111
1 cY.j64 CIA
Prnt/Sinatute/Date
Mana
mentTA Manager
U
13. Document Index Acio Acton umbr
Rev (being Ttleissued)
Change Pages
Config Baseline
A-6004-684 (REV 0)
Page 2 of 2
PRC-EDC- 09 - 43560
CHPRC EDC (ENGINEERING DOCUMENT CHANGE) FORM (continued) N
PRC-STP-00112
Decision Report for Direct Hydraulic Loading of Sludge into Sludge Transport and Storage Contain-ers
0
Hi
14. Potentially Affected Documents Not Modified By This EDC.
N/A
Document Owner (Organization)
Document Number/Revision
Document Type N/A
Technical Authority Notified
Date Notified
N/A
A-6004-684 (REV 0)
PRC-STP-001 12 Revision 0
Decision Report for Direct Hydraulic Loading of Sludge into Sludge Transport and Storage Containers Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-08RL14788
414
)CH1112M1IHILL
Plateau Remediation Company
P.O. Box 1600 Richland, Washington 99352
Aproved for Public Release; Further rPissemrinaon Unlimited
PRC-STP-001 12S Revision 0
EDC #: PRC-EDC-09-43560
Decision Report for Direct Hydraulic Loading of Sludge into Sludge Transport and Storage Containers Project No: A21C
Program/Project: STP
Document Type: TR
M. E. Johnson CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company Date Published
November 2009 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-Aco6-o8RL1 4788
*dCH2MVHILL 44
Plateau Remediation Company
P.O. Box 1600 Richland, Washington
FDATE:HFR
STA: Release Approval
Date
I5
-iLEAc
Release Stamp
Approved for Public Release; Further flissemidnation Unriited
PRC-STP-001 12 Revision 0 TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors. This report has been reproduced from the best available copy.
Printed in the United States of America
Total Pages:
S2.
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0
Table of Contents Executive Sunmmary....................................................................................
3
1 Background ...........................................................................................
4
2
Sludge Removal Design Concepts ................................................................. 2.1
Underwater Loading of Sludge into Small Canisters........................................
7
2.2
Direct Hydraulic Transfer of Sludge into a STSC..........................................
17
3
Evaluation of Design Concepts ...................................................................
27
3.1
Safety...........................................................................................
29
3.2
Regulatory / Stakeholder Acceptance .......................................................
31
3.3
Technical Maturity............................................................................
32
3.4
Operability and Maintainability..............................................................
34
3.4.1
Constructability ..........................................................................
34
3.4.2
Operability and Maintainability ........................................................
37
3.4.3
Process Control...........................................................................
39
3.4.4
ALARA ..................................................................................
40
3.4.5
Secondary Waste.........................................................................
42
Programmatic Aspects ........................................................................
44
3.5
3.5.1
Interfaces with Other Hanford Site Programs .........................................
44
3.5.2
Interfaces with National DOE Programs ..............................................
45
3.5.3
Impacts to Other Planned Activities at K Basin.......................................
45
3.5.4
Cost........................................................................................
45
Value Engineering Session - Summary and Results.......................................
47
3.6 4
6
Summary............................................................................................ Page 1 of 49
49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 Table of Figures Figure 1 General Arrangement of Underwater Sludge Loading Equipment........................
8
Figure 2 Settling Vessel and Attached Canister........................................................
9
Figure 3 Canister Overfill Recovery System..........................................................
12
Figure 4 Canister Loadout from Basin into Shielded Transfer Cask ................................
13
Figure 5 STC and CTO Base on Transport Trailer ...................................................
14
Figure 6 Drip Pan, CTO and Canisters at T Plant.....................................................
15
Figure 7 Conceptual Design of STSC for Loading Canisters Containing Sludge................. 16 Figure 8 Process Flow Diagram for Direct Hydraulic Transfer of Sludge into a STSC.......... 18 Figure 9 STSC Loading Platform in Annex Building................................................
19
Figure 10 STSC Sludge Retrieval Tool................................................................
21
Figure 11I STSC/STS Cask Transport Trailer .........................................................
22
Figure 12 Unloading Large Diameter Container at T Plant with Canyon Crane.................. 23 Figure 13 Sludge Interim Storage in T Plant Cell.....................................................
24
Figure 14 Conceptual Design of STSC for Direct Loading Settler Sludge........................
25
Figure 15 Conceptual Design of STSC for Direct Loading Engineered Container Sludge .... 26 Figure 16 Typical View above Grating in K West Basin ............................................
Page 2 of 49
35
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 Executive Summary i In March 2009, the Sludge Treatment Project (STP) conducted a PeerdDsg multi-attribute utility analysis (MAUA) to define design concept for retrieving sludge from engineered containers within the 105-KWestCocpfi-teSug risk reduction action, the STP chose to develop in parallel the top two concepts identified in the MAUA. In the first design concept, sludge is loaded underwater into small canisters. The second design concept hydraulically transfers sludge out of the basin into STSCs. Preliminary conceptual designs were prepared for these two design concept. A value engineering session was conducted in September 2009 to evaluate these two design concepts.
DietHda-i Lain
ofaSS
The design concept for hydraulically transferring sludge out of the basin into STSCs is the preferred design concept for accomplishing the STP mission. The design concept for hydraulically transferring sludge out of the basin has equal or superior features than the design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters in the following areas: "
Safety o Incorporates controls in designs to protect onsite and offsite receptors and facility workers o Less critical lifts using the T Plant canyon crane " Regulatory / Stakeholder Acceptance o Supports removal of K Basin sludge by 1St quarter 2015, enabling remediation of the chromniumn plume beneath the basins
*
Technical Maturity o
Incorporates technologies sufficiently mature for critical decision 1
*
Operability, Constructability, and Maintainability " Less complex underwater equipment installation in K West Basin " Less constructability issues o Requires less T Plant operating shifts " No transloading of sludge containers in T Plant o Lower number of cask shipments from K West Basin to T Plant " No unresolved process control issues " ALARA o Lower estimated cumulative radiation dose during construction and operations "
Secondary Waste o Lower estimated secondary waste as basin debris and during future Phase 2 treatment and
packaging
The STP Project Manager has decided to proceed with only the preferred alternative into the conceptual design. 'A2 1C-STP-CD-004, Multi-Attribute Utility Analysis for Sludge Transport and Storage Container Loading, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington Page 3 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0
1 Background The CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) Gnsso einCnet prepared an alternatives analysis report (HNF-3 9744)2 in nJ uay20,C P ' response to direction from the U. S. Department of Energy-I Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) to develop and evaluatealentvaayssrp t alternatives for the removal of the sludge contained in thefore vigsu e t-n K West Basin. This alternative analysis report recommended KW s ai the sludge currently stored with the K West engineeredrikmtgioacono containers and settler tanks be retrieved and transported without eaut w ocps treatment to T Plant for interim storage until a new facility located on 200 Area Central Plateau is constructed for sludgeo ietvrreinsldg treatment and packaging. This approach for removing the rnegieedctaes sludge from the K West Basin will achieve the following: it T~ olaigcnanr " Expeditiously reduce the nuclear safety risk to the leKWs publicunewtri " Expeditiously reduce environmental risks by moving sludge safely away from the river, thereby allowing eM t-Atrbe Utlt earlier remediation of the contaminant plume beneath Aayi M U )peae the basin nMrh20toeaue * Earliest possible closure of 100-K operable units assioponfrethrdec required by environental and regulatory agreements ldertivlnoa " Does not preclude decision on ultimate disposition of __the waste and preserves the option to combine STCo ndrae treatment with other required facilities at Hanford lodn of sldeit " Avoids installation and operation of sludge treatment cnanr and packaging systems within the difficult operatingTordcrik P environment of K West Basin Lowest near-term cost while not resulting in any increase in long-term deeoe inprall o life-cycle cost tocnet rr A A " At least five to nine years quicker for removal of adn ctilC' sludge from the Columbia River corridor than anyo udr-ae nteKWs alternative that immobilizes the waste at or near the basinBaian As part of the risk mitigation actions for implementing the recommended disposition, section 5.3 of HNF-3 9744-VOLI1,oST~ states the Sludge Treatment Project (STP) will: "During the
rnegieedctaes
'HNF-39744-VOLI and HNF-39744-VOL2, revision 0, January 2009, Sludge Treatment ProjectAlternatives Analysis Summary Report, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington 3ContractNo. DE-ACO6-96RL13200 - K Basin Sludge DispositionDirection, letter 08-AMCP-0l151 dated March 28, 2008 from L. K. Jarnagin, Contracting Officer, U. S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office to C. M. Murphy, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fluor Hanford Inc. Page 4 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 project Definition Phase, the STP will evaluate alternatives for: (1) directly retrieving sludge f~rm engineered containers into STSCs and (2) loading containers underwater in the K West Basin. These alternatives will be compared to retrieving sludge fr~om engineered containers into an intermediate vessel located underwater in the K West Basin and then transferring sludge from the intermediate vessel into STSCs. Selection of a preferred technology for sludge retrieval and containment will occur using the TRA process". In March 2009, the Sludge Treatment Project (STP) conducted a multi-attribute utility analysis (MAUA) to further define concepts for (1) directly retrieving sludge from engineered containers into STSCs and (2) loading containers underwater in the K West Basin4 . Six concepts were evaluated for retrieving sludge from engineered containers and transporting sludge to T Plant for interim storage. Concepts evaluated included: 1) batch retrieval of sludge into an in basin thickening tank and then transferring the thickened sludge with an auger to a STSC, 2) hydraulic batch transfer of sludge from an engineered container into a STSC, 3) hydraulic batch transfer of sludge from an engineered container into either (a) inline small canisters or (b) settling vessels with attached small canisters followed by transferring the small canisters out of the basin into a STSC, 4) hydraulic continuous transfer of sludge from an engineered container into a STSC with continuous overflow of excess supernate to a filtration system, 5) hydraulic transfer of sludge f~rm an engineered container into multiple sock or bag filters and transfer of filters into small canisters for removal from the basin and placement into STSC, and 6) mechanical retrieval of sludge from an engineered container into small canisters for removal from the basin and placement into STSC. The two top concepts from the MAUA analysis were: 1) hydraulic batch transfer of sludge from an engineered container into small canisters and transferring the small canisters out of the basin into a STSC and 2) hydraulic batch transfer of sludge from an engineered container into a STSC. As a risk reduction action, the STP chose to develop in parallel the top two concepts identified in the MAUA. The STP has further matured both design concepts for the retrieval of sludge from the K West Basin and transfer to interim storage. This report documents the design concepts for (1) loading containers underwater in the K West Basin and (2) directly retrieving sludge from engineered containers into STSCs. Descriptions and drawings prepared for these two design concepts are provided in Section 2. Evaluation of these two design concepts is provided in Section 3 and summarized in Section 4.
4A2 1C-STP-CD-004, Multi-Attribute Utility Analysis for Sludge Transport and Storage Container Loading, CH12M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington
Page 5 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0
2
Sludge Removal Design Concepts The Sludge Treatment Project (STP) developed in parallel twoTw design concepts for retrieving sludge from engineered containers within the 105-KWest Basin and transporting sludge to T Plant for interim storage. In the first design concept, sludge is loaded underwater into small canisters. CHPRC contracted with S.A. Robotics to prepare a preliminary conceptual design and conduct proof of principle testing of a full scale prototype unit for this concept. The second design concept hydraulically transfers sludge out of the basin into Sludge Transport and Storageeit Containers (STSCs). CHPRC staff prepared the preliminary conceptual design for this design concept.crtalid
DeinC Deeoe
cpt
nPrle
Unewtrlaigo S~a nosil *
aitr
iethdalcpas'ro ld T s o odceSetgo o-rtcl
liet tciilg For each design concept, the STP conducted testing to demonstrate performance of critical and non-critical technology eripol.,iattl elements and prepared process system descriptions, material blneadpoesto balances, and process flow diagrams (HNF-410O 1)'. The STP igas prepared equipment sizing calculations, ventilation diagrams,oPrpedcuiintSZII piping and instrumentation diagrams, and ALARA analyses forcaultos eiltor the two design concepts. Preliminary hazards analyses (PRCSTP-000 12' and PRC-STP-0003 7 7) and accident analyses (PRCdarns iigai STP-00043 8) were performed for the two decision concepts to tsrieiato dgais incorporate safety into the design process. Preliminary controls oPr'nidALAR (PRC-STP-00039' and PRC-STP-00048' 0 ) were identified for the nls.lizr aave, two design concepts to protect onsite and offsite receptors andacietiass.id facility workers. rhiiavhzrd Section 2.1 summarizes the design information prepared for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters. Section 2.2 summarizes the design information prepared for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into STSC. 5HNF-4105 1, revision 3, October 2009, PreliminarySTP Containerand Settler Sludge ProcessSystem Description
and MaterialBalance, CH42 MILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington
6 PRC-STP-000 12, revision 0, July 2009, "What -If/Checklist" Hazard Analysis for the Sludge Treatment Project
Direct Load Alternative ConceptualDesign, CH2MHJLL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington 'PRC-STP-00037, revision GA, August 2009, '"nat-IflCheckist"Hazard Analysis for Sludge Retrieval Project Small ContainerSludge Retrieval Draft ConceptualDesign, CH12MIHILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington 8PRC-STP-00043, revision 0, August 2009, Accident Analysis for Sludge Treatment Project Draft Conceptual Designs, CH12MHIILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington 'PRC-STP-00039, revision 0, September 2009, PreliminarySmall ContainerSludge Retrieval ControlDecision, CH2MHILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington "PRC-STP-00048, revision 0, September 2009, Control Decision Reportfor the DirectLoad Alternative Draft Conceptual Design, CH2MHILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington Page 6 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0
2.1
Underwater Loading of Sludge into Small CanistersA In this concept, sludge is retrieved from the existing EngineeredUnewtrLaigo Containers into settling vessels and then loaded into small noS alaitr Sug canisters. The small canisters are removed from the basin using the existing Fuel Transfer System (FTS) and transferred to T-KeDsinFau Plant for interim storage. All sludge loading equipment and eCmlxudrae operations are conducted underwater within the KW Basin, as isalto shown in Figure 1. oHdoaiertivlto
s
A batch of sludge is retrieved from an Engineered Container oBotrpii using a Xago HydroLance at nominally 70 gpm. and 5 volumeoHsevls.Iowrit, percent solids. Instrumentation for monitoring the solids content &sld iee and flowrate of the retrieved slurry is provided. Retrieved sludge Fu etigVses is transferred through a booster pump and approximately 135-fto ieraritrdivnak long, 1.5 inch diameter hose into one of four settling vessels. The ol-triliitrdie ue 135-ft long, 1.5 inch diameter hose is equipped with four valves and four, 10O-ft long lines that connect individually to eachoCaitrfl ati rd settling vessel'1 . After each batch transfer of sludge, thehyrui f HydroLance, booster pump, and sludge slurry transfer hose is oAi xasortrk flushed with water supplied from the basin ion exchange module oLqi ee eetr (IXM) to remove sludge. wil el As shown in Figure 2, each settling vessel is comprised of a oDcn iii 0.65m (26-inch) tall by 1.22m (48-inch) inner diameteroHseardvls cylindrical top section and a 1.06m tall (41.6 inch), 60 degree o* lae ea itr conical lower section. The total volume of each settling vessel is osi" 1.17m 3('-3 10 gallons). Each settling vessel is vented throug a T aks ormv pipeline connected to a separate air expansion tank, which allows adtase aitr rr air to be transferred into and out of the settling vessel and into the basin. Each settling vessel and canister filling station is located bai toTPln beneath the water within the K West Basin on a steel frame withoCaitrtan-addno weights to maintain the assembly submerged. Each settling SSsa ln vessel is equipped with liquid level detectors and weigh cells to determine the quantity of sludge received. The canister is located 0 17 aitrspoue on a hydraulic activated lift platform for inserting, removing, and * 12 T caksimnst sealing the canister to the fill port beneath the settling vessel.TPln The lift platform is also equipped with weigh cells. * 28SS
-6ile
1PRC-STP-00066, revision 0, September 2009, Preliminary Evaluation of Booster Pump Requirementfor Small CanisterLoading, CH2NMILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington
Page 7 of 49
PRC-STP-O112rvso0 Figure 1 General Arrangement of Underwater Sludge Loading Equipment
I7
8
I6
5
3
4_
2
-i
2 1"* CWOT SEESHEET
:
F
1
*:F
E
D
I
B0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--
A~~etln
000 0
0
_1
eel
~0 ~
~
0
I
-
0
-
-
0
0
-7
0
0c
-R
-_
kJ
aRRNEN Small.
~
~
~
~
~
Pg 8aise oflin 49to
as
od
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 Figure 2 Settling Vessel and Attached Canister
HANC UW /14W VALT
TOYP
OGAK0-C _
_
_-
-
V
0'. SEAP2
POER IrP FOR LFT TABLE
_
PAL E C AE
A
'12 FIL ;
AI
MEH A)
LrTIE.WHEES
WS~~4
J/"
MELLE ACPPSE ILYSAM EPYREE M
DER
A batch of retrieved sludge is allowed to settle within the settling vessels to concentrate the solids and clarify the supernate. After a prescribed solids settling period, the supernate is decanted from each settling vessel through a 1.5 inch line and a decant pump. A single decant pump with hoses and valves services all four settling vessels. The decanted solution is transferred into pleated metal filters to remove suspended sludge particles. After each decant transfer, the decant pump and hose is flushed with basin IXM water into the pleated metal filter housing to remove sludge from the pump and hoses. Thie filtered supemnate is returned to the basin through a 1.5 inch diameter hose connected to the filter housing. The solids collected on Page 9 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 the pleated metal filters are removed by back-pulsing the filters, with the solids collected in a small canister attached to the filter housing. The settled sludge is transferred from the settling vessel into the attached canister using a motor driven auger contained in the settling vessel. The settling vessels each have a motor operated internal rake to aid in moving the settled sludge to the auger. The rake motor, auger motor and controls and instrumentation for the settling vessels are located above the basin metal grating. The canister contains a bag that collects the sludge delivered by the auger. The bag is the primary method for the safety control for the amount of sludge that is added to a small container. In addition, the bag must mitigate the formation of a vessel spanning gas bubble (safety issue), prevent extrusion of sludge from the canister during uranium oxidation and radiolytic gas generation, and allow flow of water into and out of the bag. The bag must not impede sludge retrieval from the canister for processing during a future project phase. The Xago HydroLance is repositioned within the engineered container or to another engineered container as necessary to retrieve sludge. Subsequent batches of sludge are added to the settling vessels, settled, excess supernate removed, and augered into a canister in the same manner as previously described until the prescribed quantity of sludge is collected into each canister, as determined from the weigh cells associated with the settling vessel and canister. The canister selected for interim storage of either K East Engineered Container sludge or K West Engineered Container sludge is a right obround cylinder, -0.97 m (38 inches) long, -0.55 m (21.75 inches) wide, and -0O.67 m (27 inches) inside height. The volume of this canister is 0.31 2m3(-82-gallons). The canister selected for interim storage of the Settler sludge is a right obround cylinder, -0.97 m (38 inches) long, -0.55 m (21.75 inches) wide, and -0.43 m (17 inches) inside height. However, the volume of sludge added to each canister is limited by the more restrictive of the sludge expansion factor or transportation safety requirements, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Maximum Sludge Volume per Canister Sludge Type
Canister Design Capacity, m3
Sludge Expansion Limited Volume, M3 _______________
KE Engineered Container KW Engineered Container FSettlerSludge
0.312 0.312 0.196
0.217 0.177 0.087
F-SPA DE-Ci Limited Volume per Canister, m 3
0.433 0.185 0.087
F-SPA FGE Limited Volume -per
Canister, m 3
0.173 0.090 0.041
The volume of sludge added to each canister is limited so that the sludge is still contained within the canister in the event the design basis combined sludge expansion were to occur (i.e. uranium metal in the sludge fully oxidizes and gases retained). A further limitation on the volume of sludge added to each canister is the total volume of sludge must still be contained in a STSC in the event the safety basis combined sludge expansion occurs during storage. This limitation ensures sludge is not inadvertently discharged into the STSC storage system. Page 10 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 The transportation of the sludge is limited by the regulations discussed in the Hanford Site-wide Transportation Safety 12 -P,' Document' . The Fuel Special Packaging Authorization, F-SPAai from the Transportation Safety Document states that shipment payloads are limited to 200 DE-Ci (dose equivalent curies) per package. The fissile payload is limited to 1200 FGE (fissile grams equivalent). Two canisters of K East Engineered Container or K West Engineered Container sludge or one canister of Settler sludge comprise the payload in the FTS cask.pe These F-SPA limitations were used along with the safety basis 3 of sludge compositions values for DE-Ci per mn and FGE per i of sludge compositions to calculate the maximum volume of
sludge per canister, as shown inTable 1. A total of 272 small canisters are estimated to
netit
nN
m
9FSALitsrtic FG an * I C T caksimn o
loe
oeSsrciv G nnt euti 7 aitr 12FScs lliln
E i EIEi
Once filled, the canister is disconnected from the settling vessel and transferred underwater to the load-out area. The canister is weighed to verify the amount of sludge present. If excess sludge is present, the canister is moved to the overfill recovery area within the basin weasel pit. At the overfill recovery station, excess sludge is removed from the canister using a flexible eductor equipped with fluidizing jets, as shown in Figure 3. Excess sludge is transferred though a flexible hose back into an engineered container. After verifying the weight, the canister is removed from the basin as depicted in Figure 4. Two canisters container either K East Engineered Container sludge or K West Engineered Container sludge or one canister containing Settler sludge are installed into the lifing pallet inside the Shielded Transfer Cask (STC). The number of canisters placed into the STC is dependent on the sludge composition and the transportation safety requirements (e.g. fissile gramns Pu-239 equivalent or dose equivalent curies limits). Water surrounds the canisters inside the STC.
"2DOE/RL-2001-36, Rev. I1-C, June 2009, Hanford Sitewide TransportationSafety Document, CH2MHILL Plateau
Page 11 of 49
T
akSipet
-
aft be produced requiring 272 FTS caskEvlain ayebe shipments to comply with the F-SPA FGE limits. However, a agein ntrofsu criticality safety analyses can be prepared to justify higher FGE I limits for sludge shipments in the FTS cask. It is assumed thistobshpeinFSck criticality safety evaluation can justify increasing the sludgeoEsiae17CaI volume per FTS shipment so that the sludge expansion limit isan121FScs the limiting volume per canister. Since the nominal volumes ofshpet K East Engineered Container, K West 3Engineered Container and Settler sludge are 18.4, 5. 1, and 5.4 in , approximately 85, 29, ________________ and 63 canisters are filled with these sludge types, respectively.
Remediation Company, Richland, Washington
-o
tesan
U
tr
e
C>-
at Z
1 1
1
I... Ce
l~
Mfg
fL
.4.'I-
0 0 U2
$ o o
II
-
I
II
I I
~
iL~~
Q
a
II ~
~
I1f~
I
I
~
d
Ii!i ~ !~iI ,'
iI --
II
ii-
-
hA 1,.
V -
o .1A-.
K
~
o
a.
a.
-
46
*~j.
~[~ij]
F
-
~
aI
ES
------F-----
U
-
U
L
W
Li
~fl
m~4
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 The STC lid will be closed and locked. Then, the cask will be raised using the existing lift platform to the basin surface inside the fuel transfer annex. The STC is rinsed with water and a radiological survey performed. The STC is then transferred to the Cask Transfer Overpack (CTO) Base which is on a trailer using the existing Straddle Carrier. The CTO lid will be installed and the package given a final radiological survey. The existing crane will transfer the CTO to a cask transport trailer. Figure 5 shows the STC and CTO Base on the trailer. The transport trailer, loaded with the cask and CTO, is known as the Fuel Transfer System (FTS) cask, which is driven to T Plant for interim storage. Figure 5 STC and CTO Base on Transport Trailer
As previously stated, approximately 85, 29, and 63 canisters are filled with K East Engineered Container, K West Engineered Container and Settler sludge respectively. The number of canisters shipped in the FTS cask must comply with the F-SPA limits. Two canisters filled with K East Engineered Container or K West Engineered Container sludge or one canister filled with Settler sludge may be shipped in the FTS cask. Therefore, 121 FTS cask shipments are needed to transport the 177 canisters to T Plant. At T Plant, the cask trailer with FTS cask is received in the railroad tunnel. The CTO is removed from the transport trailer and placed on the canyon deck inside a drip pan using the canyon crane, as shown in Figure 6. The CTO lid will be removed manually and the locking pins of the cask lid are manually disengaged. All following processes are performed remotely due to the high radiation dose rate emitted by the canisters once the cask lid is opened. The hinged cask lid is opened to retrieve the canisters. The STSC will remain inside a cell at T Plant, where each cell Page 14 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 holds 5 STSCs. The canisters and accompanying lifting pallet will be removed from the cask using the canyon crane and placed into the STSC. The STSC will be filled with 3 tiers of canisters filled with either K East Engineered Container sludge or K West Engineered Container sludge, or 4 tiers of canisters filled with Settler sludge. Since number of canisters containing K East Engineered Container, K West Engineered Container and Settler sludge are 85, 29, and 63, respectively, a total of 28 STSCs are filled.
Figure 6 Drip Pan, CTO and Canisters at T Plant
Page 15 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 For this design concept, the STSC is a cylindrical vessel with flat heads, as shown in Figure 7. The inner diameter of the STSC is --1.5 m (58.5 ±0.5-inches). The height of the STSC is -2.6 m (103-inches). The volume of the STSC is -4.4 in3 . Two canisters containing sludge are placed into the STSC on one pallet. For KB or KW Engineered Container sludge, the height of each canister is 27-inches and only three pallets are placed into a STSC. There will be four pallets of Settler sludge placed inside each STSC, since the Settler sludge canisters are -I17-inch tall. Figure 7 Conceptual Design of STSC for Loading Canisters Containing Sludge
The STSC will have water added each time a pallet is installed to cover the canisters and provide radiation shielding. An alternative to adding water to the STSC after each pallet is installed may be to add a pre-detenmined volume of water to the STSC prior to loading the STSC pallets. After loading of the canisters into the STSC is complete, additional water is added to cover the canisters to a minimum depth of 12-inches of water. Then, the STSC lid is put in place and secured to the STSC using the canyon crane. During storage, the headspace in the STSC is vented to the storage cell headspace via natural circulation through two vents (open ports) on the STSC lid at different elevations'13 . This phenomenon is driven by the density difference between the environment and the headspace, where the gas in the environment is denser than the one in the headspace.
13KBC-4
1004, July 2009, Sludge Treatment Project- Sludge Thermal and Gas Analysis Guidance, CH12M HILL
Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington Page 16 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 2.2
Direct Hydraulic Transfer of Sludge into a STSC In this concept, sludge is retrieved from the existing Engineered irc HyruiTase Containers directly into a STSC. The STSC is contained in the of Sug inoSS existing Shielded Transfer System (STS) cask, which is positioned on a trailer. The STS cask was formerly used toKeDsinFau s transport sludge inside a large diameter container from the K EastSipeud-wtBasin to T Plant. The same STS cask transfer system will be isalto used for transporting K West Basin sludge inside STSCs. The STSC/STS cask is located inside a modified annex buildingo vio-icrtrea ol located adjacent to the KW Basin. The loaded STSC/STS cask is transported to T Plant for interim storage. Only the sludge o oserPM retrieval and transfer equipment and operations are conductedoHse.\,l-s lovietr underwater within the KW Basin, while the transfer pipeline and & oisiee STSC/STS are above ground as shown in Figure 8.Moiedanxblig The STSC and STS cask are located on a trailer inside the modified annex building adjacent to the north side of the K West Basin. The trailer is positioned on a truck scale to determine the tare and fill weight of the STSC. The STSC is also equipped with a level detector to determine the volume of sludge and water collected in the STSC. The modified annex building includes a mezzanine work platform for providing access to the top of the STSC and STS and an overhead crane for removing / installing the STS lid, as depicted in Figure 9. Operators connect the double-contained process hoses and ventilation system to the STSC then exit the annex building.
hue cs Su-
TCisd
4
T
rnfie
hoo
4
inoSS TCS 'rnpre
T ?
cs rmbsnt
ln TCSScs
simnst
ln
A batch of sludge is retrieved from the Engineered Containers20SSsfle percnt saolidsrumetatnional or moioig the solucnen usicn asaos Hydrmanteationomirinall 70 gpmlads e omen and flowrate of the retrieved slurry is provided. Retrieved sludge is transferred through a booster pump and approximately 235-ft long, 1.5 inch diameter hose'14 directly into a STSC located inside the annex building. The above basin portion of the transfer hose is double-contained with leak detection in the annulus between the inner and outer hoses. After each batch transfer of sludge, the HydroLance, booster pump, and sludge slurry transfer hose is flushed with basin IXM water to remove sludge and reduce personnel radiation exposure from the above basin hose. After each sludge batch transfer, the weight and volume of sludge collected in the STSC is determined.
14PRC-STP-0002
1, 2009, PreliminaryHydraulic Analysis for DirectLoading of Sludge Transport and Storage Containers,CII2MHILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland, Washington Page 17 of 49
PRC-STP-OO( Figure 8 Process Flow Diagram for Direct Hydraulic Transfer of Sludge into a STSC
F7
I65
7
4
p
~
-~~~~~~ --
--
- --
2
1
..
~ ~ --~
----
-
--
-
---
~~~~~'t --
--
--
f
--
----.
-
---
3
-
- -- - - - --- -- - ----- - - -
- ---
CMO
II
II~~to
mw U
ill
J1i
1"
ii'LK
41-1-W~Z~O
DOMOOI
nI
IL-
L
I
SITE PL ANPRLMNY U.S. DIEPARTNT OF ENEUI2
A
4#4
0.
CIVIL SLUDE HrDRAUC TRANSF~t WIE PLAN
7
I21
654
Page 18 of 49
A
2rvso
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 Figure 9 STSC Loading Platform in Annex Building
The sludge is allowed to settle within the STSC to concentrate the solids and clarify the supemnate. After a prescribed solids settling period, the supemnate is transferred from the STSC through a 1.5 inch diameter hose using a decant pump. The supemnate passes through a sand filter to remove suspended sludge particles. The sand filter and decant pump are located within concrete enclosures with leak detectors. The concrete enclosures are located adjacent to the annex building and reduce personnel radiation exposure from sludge. The above basin portion of the transfer hose is double-contained with leak detection in the annulus between the inner and outer hoses. After each decant transfer, the decant pump and hose is flushed with basin IXM water into the sand filter to remove sludge. The filtered supemnate is returned to the basin. After each decant transfer, the weight and volume of sludge and water in the STSC is deter-mined.
Page 19 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 The volume of sludge added to each STSC is limited to the value listed in Table 2 s0 that the sludge is still contained within the STSC in the event the safety basis combined sludge expansion were to occur (i.e. uranium metal in the sludge fully oxidizes and gases retained) during storage. This limitation ensures sludge is not inadvertently discharged from the STSC into the T Plant cell during interim storage. The nominal volumes of K East Engineered Container, K West Engineered Container and Settler sludge are 18.4, 5. 1, and 5.4 in 3 . Based on the STSC fill limits shown in Table 2, approximately 9 STSCs will be filled with K East Engineered Container sludge, 3 STSCs will be filled with K West Engineered Container sludge, and 7 STSCs will be filled with Settler sludge. Table 2 Maximum Sludge Volume per STSC Sludge Type
KE Engineered Container Engineered Container FSettler Sludge (with annulus) -KW
STSC Design
Capacity, M3
Safety Basis Combined Sludge Expansion Factor
3.49 3.49 2.69
1.66 2.13 3.04
Maximum Sludge Volume, m3 (STSC Design Capacity / Safety Basis 2.1_______________ 1.6_______________ 0.86______________
Due to expected variations in the volume percent solids contained in the retrieved sludge slurry, multiple batches of sludge will be retrieved, settled and excess supemnate decanted to fill a STSC. The Xago HydroLance is repositioned within the engineered container or to another engineered container as necessary to retrieve sludge. Subsequent batches of sludge are added to the STSC, settled, and excess supemnate removed in the same manner as previously described until the prescribed quantity of sludge is collected into a STSC. The solids collected on the sand filter are then backwashed and transferred back into the STSC. After filling a STSC, a final weigh and volume measurements of the sludge and water in the STSC are determined. In the event that too much sludge is added to a STSC, a method is available to retrieve sludge from the STSC and return it to an Engineered Container in the basin. Prior to the recovery activity, the STSC will be disconnected from the sludge transfer hose. A two inch nozzle is provided on the STSC which will normally be sealed and not used during fill operations. This two inch nozzle connects to a sludge mobilization and retrieval tool depicted in Figure 10, which is permanently installed inside the STSC. The tool utilizes direct suction in conjunction with a mobilization spray nozzle. The retrieval tool is connected to the basin IJXM water and the suction of the slurry transfer pump. The slurry transfer pump discharges via a hose connected to an Engineered Container in the basin. The above basin section of the hose is double-contained with leak detection in the annulus between the inner and outer hoses. The excess sludge removal process consists of activating the spray nozzle to mobilize the sludge and allow the slurry transfer pump to transfer the desired amount of sludge back to an engineered container in the basin. After removing the desired quantity of sludge, the retrieval tool is disconnected, all connections sealed, and the retrieval tool remains in place within the STSC.
Page 20 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 Figure 10 STSC Sludge Retrieval Tool Mobilization Pump (lXM Water) To Decant Pump Dilution water Supply (lXM Water)
The slurry transfer pump is contained in a concrete enclosure to reduce personnel radiation exposure. After each use, the slurry pump, transfer hose, and overfill recovery tool are flushed with basin water and disconnected. After verifying the weigh and volume of sludge and water in the STSC, the fill, decant, sand filter back flush lines and the liquid level detector cables are manually disconnected from the STSC using long handled tools to reduce personnel radiation exposure. The transfer lines and connectors on the STSC are surveyed, decontaminated as necessary, and wrapped in plastic. The lines are then placed into their storage area on the mezzanine. The nozzles on the STSC are capped. Then, the vent line is manually disconnected and the sintered metal filter installed on the STSC connector. The final STSC survey is conducted and the lid replaced back on the STS cask.
Page 21 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 The STS cask is evacuated and backfilled with an inert gas to satisfy the shipping safety requirements . The shipping requirements will be determined from a Package Specific Safety Document (PSSD) for the STS cask. Once the cask has been configured as required by the shipping safety documentation, the tractor will be reconnected to the STS trailer and the shipment transported as shown in Figure I11 to T Plant for interim storage. Figure 11 STSC/STS Cask Transport Trailer
1KBC-4
1004, July 2009, Sludge Treatment Project- Sludge Thermal and Gas Analysis Guidance, CH2M HILL
Plateau Remediation Company, Richiland, Washington
Page 22 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 Upon STS Cask receipt at the T Plant railroad tunnel, the cask will be vented and purged with an inert gas to sweep hydrogen gas accumulations from the headspace to ensure lower flammability limits are achieved prior to offloading the STSC. The STSC will be remotely removed from the STS Cask using the canyon bridge crane similar to unloading of the large diameter container as shown in Figure 12. The STSC is raised into the canyon and then lowered into a shielded storage cell. The sintered metal vent filter will be removed and two vent pipes installed on the STSC. Figure 12 Unloading Large Diameter Container at T Plant with Canyon Crane
Page 23 of 49
PRC-STP-00l 12 revision 0 Each cell will have space for up to six STSCs, as shown in Figure 13 for the formerly used large diameter containers. Each cell will hold five loaded STSCs; the sixth location can hold an STSC over pack to load a leaking STSC in the event of a STSC failure. Additionally, in the event of a leak from a STSC, a sump pump in each cell can be used to transfer liquid into the STSC over pack. A total of four cells at T Plant are required for storing the estimated 20 STSCs that will be filled with K Basin sludge.
Figure 13 Sludge Interim Storage in T Plant Cell
Page 24 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 The STSC used for Settler sludge is designed as an ASME Section V1II pressure vessel with a centrally located inner cylinder (annulus), as shown in Figure 14. The inner cylinder is required for Settler sludge to enhance heat rejection and ensure thermal stability during transport. For this application, the STSC has 2:1 radius elliptical top and bottom heads. The inner diameter of the STSC is -1.5 m (58.5 ±0.5-inches). The height of the STSC is -2.5 m (100-inches) from the bottom to the top of the elliptical heads. The radius of the cylinder inside the STSC is -0.36 m (14-inches) and extends from the bottom of the STSC to the top flange. The volume of the inner cylinder is - 1 i 3 ; however, the inner cylinder is only filled with -0.8 M3 of water, which is the tangent line with the top elliptical head. The annulus radius inside the STSC is '-0.38m (15inches). The volume of the annulus is '-2.63 in 3 , excluding the volume of the top elliptical head. The inner cylinder extends from the bottom of the STSC and is connected to a flange on the top elliptical head. This inner cylinder is sealed at the bottom and is open at the top to the STSC. Figure 14 Conceptual Design of STSC for Direct Loading Settler Sludge 412'"!
C.1 -LD
I-,,
nAVMC DMWTUfSS M
7-
--COder
-
VESSEL SCALE
1 -
Page 25 of 49
/1-B THICKRING
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 The annulus space contains sludge whereas the inner cylinder is filled with water. The water contained inside the inner cylinder provides a heat transfer mechanism for heat generated from radiolytic decay and uranium metal reaction with water. The STSC used for Engineered Container sludge is the same design as the STSC used for Settler sludge, except there is no inner cylinder and the STSC capacity is -3.49 in3 , excluding the top dished head, as shown in Figure 15. Figure 15 Conceptual Design of STSC for Direct Loading Engineered Container Sludge
FLOATING DECANT SUCTION, SEEDETAIL 6, SHEEr2
I
1
~i
IL
2 C14METER CONTAIN~ER SLUDGE LEVEL
J
I
kk I t~
I
~ p
~
INDEXING SLOT IN SKR
Page
26 of 49
I I
ASME 2: EUPTICAL ISHED HEAD. THICKNESS ASREOD PICAL iTOPANDBTOM
PRC-STP-00l 12 revision 0
3
Evaluation of Design Concepts The CHPRC prepared an alternatives analysis report (HNF-EvlainC 39744) 16 in response to direction from the DOE-RL to develop and evaluate alternatives for the removal of the sludge containedCrtiasmasproe in the K West Basin. The alternatives were rated and ranked by by DOpg consensus of a decision support board relative to five selectionAlentvs criteria shown in Table 3. The weighting, goals, and measures
for each criterion from the alternatives analysis decision plan'17
(HNFin)944
are described for each criterion in Table 3. These criteria, goals, and measures along with the weighting factors were developed jointly with DOE-RL personnel.
oSft oRgltr/tkhle
tea
o nayi
These same selection criteria are used in this report to evaluate oTcnclmtrt the two design concepts for retrieving and transferring sludge o prblt*n from the K West Basin and transporting sludge to T Plant for aniablticudg interim storage. Safety aspects of each design concept in terms of LR preliminary hazards analyses, accident analyses, and control decisions are discussed in Section 3. 1. Regulatory and oPornnai stakeholder acceptance of each design concept is discussed incosdrtnsnhiil Section 3.2. Technical maturity of each design concept wascot cilu.an11pcs evaluated using a CHPRC prepared technology readinesstotlc rgaian assessment, as discussed in Section 3.3. Operability and fclte maintainability, including constrtictability, process control, and ALARA aspects of the two design concepts are evaluated in Section 3.4. Programmatic aspects (cost, schedule impact, secondary waste) are evaluated in Section 3.5. Additionally, a value engineering session was conducted by STP personnel to evaluate each design concept, as discussed in Section 3.6
1HNF-39744-VOLI and HNF-39744-VOL2, revision 1, June 2009, Sludge Treatment Project Alternatives Analysis Summary Report, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington 17A2 C-STP-WP-0002, October 2008, Sludge Treatment Project: Planfor Selecting the PreferredAlternative for DispositionofEngineered Containerand Settler Tank Sludgefrom K Basins, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richiland Washington
Page 27 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 Table 3 Evaluation Criteria, Goals, and Measures Criteria 1. Safety
Weight
Goals
Go or No-Go
Ensure worker and Public Safety
2. Regulatory/ Stakeholder Acceptance
25
0 *
Corrdor
__________
3. Technical Maturity
Measures
Process Safety, Nuclear Safety 0 Criticality Safety * Industrial Safety and Hygiene Provide environmental * Number of years before sludge is compliance removed from River Corridor Schedule for removing sludge from River *
20
0
Maximize confidence in process implementation
4. Operability and Maintainability
25
0 0
Maximize operability * Minimize maintenance o difficulty and maximize safety 0
5. Programmatic Aspects
30
*
Technology Readiness Level (TRL) must be at 3 or above prior to submittal for CD- I Process Flexibility and Robustness
________________
___________
0 *
Minimize overall system interface Meet cost and schedule guidance
Ease of process control and operation As low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) Reliability * Ease and Frequency of Maintenance * Ease of Implementation
*
Liquid/solid secondary waste
0 0 0 0 *
Total project cost Total life-cycle cost Cost profile (flat funding is preferred) Schedule impact Impacts to WIPP, Yucca Mountain, Tank Farms and Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) - positive and negative Impacts to other planned activities at the K Basins and other Hanford Facilities (e.g., Analytical Laboratory, canister storage building, T Plant)
*
Resources and materials
_________________
Page 28 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0
3.1 Safety The safety criterion used in the alternatives analysis report (HNF39744) is a go or no-go criterion to ensure worker and public safety that a design concept must satisfy. Both design concepts; underwater loading of sludge into small canisters and the direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC, can be designed without extensive controls to protect onsite and offsite receptors and facility workers. Therefore both design concepts satisfy the safety criterion.*Cotosieifdan
Preliminary hazards analyses (PRC-STP-000 12 "and PRC-STP0003719), accident analyses (PRC-STP-00043 2 0 ) and controls
decisions (PRC-STP-00039 2 ' and PRC-STP-00048 22) have been identified for the two design concepts to protect onsite and offsitewokr receptors and facility workers. The results of these preliminary safety evaluations are summarized as follows.
Sft 9Bt
eincnet stsytesft
IIIII
prtc oniead rcposadfclt -st
For the underwater loading of sludge into small canisters with underwater ventilation of the settling vessels, the hazard and accident analysis did not identify any events that require safety class or safety significant facility or system level hazard controls. Underwater loading of sludge into small canisters will require reactivation of the currently deactivated Fuel Transfer System (FTS). The FTS hazard analysis is identified in the current K Basin Safety Analysis Report (SAR) but the accident analysis and identification of safety class and safety significant systems and components (SSCs) and technical safety requirements (TSRs) controls have been removed from the SAR. The FTS safety assessment identified two safety class SSCs, five safety significant SSCs and one TSRD . No changes are envisioned for the design or operation of the FTS. The hazard and accident analysis are considered to still be valid. Because the KW Basin structure has been downgraded to safety significant, the safety class SSCs of the FTS can also be downgraded to safety significant. However the safety significant SSCs and controls identified by the FTS hazard and accident analysis will require restoration and verification.
"PRC-STP-000 12, revision 0, July 2009, "What-If/Checklist " HazardAnalysis for the Sludge Treatment Project Direct Load Alternative Conceptual Design, CH21MILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington 'PRC-STP-0003
7, revision OA, August 2009, "What-If/Checklist " HazardAnalysis for Sludge Retrieval Project
Small ContainerSludge Retrieval Draft ConceptualDesign, CH2MHILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington 20 PRC-STP-00043, revision 0, August 2009, Accident Analysis for Sludge Treatment ProjectDraft Conceptual Designs, CH2NMILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington "PRC-STP-00039, revision 0, September 2009, PreliminarySmall ContainerSludge Retrieval ControlDecision, CH2MHILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington 2PRC-STP-00048, revision 0, Spebr2009, Control Decision Reportfor the Direct Load Alternative Draft ConceptualDesign, CH2NMILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington "HNF-8659, 2001, K Basin Fuel Transfer System Safety Assessment ProjectA. 15, Fluor Hanford, Richland Washington Page 29 of 49
rtro
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 The accident analysis for the direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC identified the following accidents as safety significant: spray leak in above basin transfers, spray leak during sand filter backwash, fire (initiates a spray release), hydrogen deflagration, and natural phenomenon hazards (initiates a spray release). It should be noted that the STSC overfill recovery activities and activities to prepare an STSC for transportation were not complete at the time of the hazard analysis and therefore were omitted from the controls decision analyses. The preventative and mitigative controls for these accidents are listed in Table 4. The identified controls have been incorporated into the conceptual design for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC. Table 4 Preventive and Mitigative Control Summary - Direct Hydraulic Transfer
Accident Spray release
Preventive Controls Above-water transfer lines (and connectors) * Ingress/egress pipes 0 STSC * Sand filter vessel * Flocculant injection check valve * U34 water check valves * Booster pump rupture disk * STSC high-level monitoring * Requirement to verify basin water level prior to transfers * Conduct of Operations - verification of system configuration 0 Quality Assurance Program - acceptance inspection Fire 0 Dead man switch/sludge transfer timer * combustible control program * Ignition source control program 0 Fire Protection Program - maintenance of defensible space Hydrogen 9 STSC active ventilation Deflagration a Requirement for verifying sludge limit * Conduct of Operations - verification of system * Configuration * STSC design features " dimensions o uniform distribution of uranium metal during STSC loading " water retention in core region * Requirement for verifying presence of water in core region * Inert gas purge (for transportation) Natural 0 Preventive safety SSCs (designed to seismic design category Phenomenon (SDC)-3, Limit State D requirements) Hazards 0 Lightning protection system * Combustible control program 0 Ignition source control program * Deadman switch/timer * Fire Protection Program (maintenance of defensible space) * STSC Loading Facility (designed to performance category (PC)-2 wind requirements) * Severe weather work restrictions Note: The STSC spray shield was eliminated from the design subsequent to the hazards analysis. The the STSC have full secondary containment, which eliminates the need for the spray shield. *
Page 30 of 49
0
Mitigative Controls Transfer line outer hoses and associated leak detection Ingress/egress pipe outer pipes and associated leak detection STSC spray shield and associated HEPA-filtered ventilation Sand filter enclosure Transfer line leak detection Sand filter enclosure leak detection None
*
None
0 0 0
*
0 *
______________
0
*
Mitigative safety SSCs (design to SDC-3, Limit State D requirements) Outdoor mitigative safety SSCs (designed to PC-2 wind requirements)
ingress / egress piping connecting to
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 3.2
Regulatory / Stakeholder Acceptance Stakeholder input has been received as public comments from past K Basins remedial action planning in support of the
CERCLA Record of Decision (ROD) 2 4 and ROD amendment. 2 5 The Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) has also-I
Reuao Itkhle t5Acpac
provided input in the form of DNFSB Recommendations 26 Bt eincnet alternatives analysis report concluded the development of . The regulatory documentation is achievable in all alternatives and isreoeKBsnlu, not a discriminator between alternatives (HNF-39744-Vol 1,1StqalrF 205 section 4.2.2). This conclusion is still valid for the two design concepts evaluated in this document. BohdsI, ocit As stated in HNF-39744-Vol 1, there is a known chromiumeqalSupr plume that underlies K Basin and has connectivity with the rmdaino hoin Columbia River. This chromium plume represents a substantial lm gbnah ai environmental risk. It is believed that the design concept that removes sludge from the K Basins the earliest would be considered the most favorable to advance the chromium plume and other cleanup actions, which are physically constrained until sludge has been removed from the K West Basin. Detailed design and construction schedules were not prepared for the two design concepts: underwater loading of sludge into small canisters and the direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC. However, the STP believes both design concepts can be designed, constructed and start-up and testing completed by October 2014. The operating mission duration (i.e. schedule) was estimated for both design concepts 2 7 . The operating duration was estimated at 35 to 78 weeks for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters. This range in operating duration is due to uncertainty in the number of small canisters and FTS cask shipments (see Section 2. 1). Assuming 177 small canisters are produced and 121 FTS cask shipments, the estimated operating duration is 35 weeks for the underwater loading of sludge into small canisters design concept. The estimated operating duration is 46 weeks for the direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC design concept. The estimated schedules for completing sludge removal from the K West Basin are similar for both design concepts, given the level of accuracy in these estimates. Both design concepts can achieve removal of K Basin sludge by the Ist quarter of FY 2015, thus allowing remediation of the chromium plume beneath the basin to be initiated. 24
EPA/ROD/R1O0-99/059, 1999, Record of Decisionfor the KBasins Interim RemedialAction, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Richland, Washington 2'5EPA, 2005, ROD Amendment for the K BasinsInterim Rem edial Action,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Richland, Washington 2Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board Recommendations can be found at the following website httn//ww~dnsbgo/pul dos/recommendations/all/rec all.12hy PRC-STP-00059, revision 0, 2009, Sludge Loading Options - Operationsand Maintenance Evaluation, CH2MHILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington Page 31 of 49
b
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 3.3 Technical Maturity In August 2009, the CHPRC Sludge Treatment Project prepared a TcnclM trt technology readiness assessment following the guidelines of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Bohds01cnetrad Management (DOE-EM) Technology ReadinessAssessment : (TRA) / Technology MaturationPlan (TMP) Process Guide datedatTL3byCI R march 2008. The CHPRC prepared the STP TRA in preparationSldeT at ntPojc for a formal DOE-EM TRA that was subsequently conducted in October 2009. The contractor prepared TRA identified 8 D EE efrsfra potentially critical technology elements associated with the TcrooyRaiis design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small Assnel canisters and 9 potential CTEs associated with the design concept for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC 28 . These potential CTEs along with a CHPRC estimate of the technology readiness level (TRL) are listed in Table 5. The TRL of a system is based on the lowest value assigned to all of the CTEs that comprise the system. Therefore, CHPRC assigned a TRL 3 to both the design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters and design concept for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC. A minimum TRL of 3 is required to receive critical decision 1 for the STP. As previously mentioned, DOE-EM performs a formal TRA. The DOE-EM performed TRA will determine the CTEs and the associated TRL for each CTE. Table 5 Contractor Prepared Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Assessment Technology Elements & Associated CTEs
7
2
3
5
6
7'
1. Sludge Retrieval3 Technology (Smallcopeeanreotwrte.Agresighsbn Canisters & STSCs)
2.dg
IntatetnofXgto]adi-osrtivltos cmltda
ue
efrac
olf iuae
Sludg Transfernaiesispobeatcan
a
Technology (Small
aotoouptitanSS.Acndteumshv
Canisters & STSCs)
been identified and tested. Testing of a second pump type
A. Sludge Settling (STSCs)
33
3B. Sludge Settling
3Sludge
Sug
etigtsshv
encmltd
settling tests are underway at this time. Other
(Small Canisters)spcfcdsgfothsmlcaitrotonsnw
28
AF
PRC-STP-000 10, revision 1, 2009,Technology Testing Planfor the Sludge Treatment Project - Phase 1 CD-i,
CH12NMILL Plateau Remnediation Company, Richland Washington Page 32 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0
Technology ElementsCurnMauiyEdecfo & Associated CTEs 2 3 5
6
R
7
4A. Decant /Filtration33 (STSCs)deemntoofdcn
Sldestlntethayileifominueuln dwtrn)tmgad
4B. DecantlFiltration3 (Small Canisters)deemntoofdcn
Sldestlntethayileifominueuln dwtrg)iigad
5A. Overfill Recovery3Ovrilrcvrfetrsaehonnpeimay (STSCs)
Ppn
5B. Overfill Recovery
5 (Small Canisters)sucnrcetoSRooisFeuesopevt
3
Isrmn
igas
Deig ofsalcnse-iligeupeti
6. Transfer of Small53ThtrnfreupetuefofulrasrbtwnK Canisters from Basinsin 7. STSC &3Faiiystnstdehaebecopee.Dsgsav Transporter LoadingbenpeaetolctateitnAnetonercewh Facility
eitn
ldertivlsses
8. Sludge Transport33ThSTCakadTasotrwrpevulylcd (STSC)inosrieadaeapoefousintasoig
9. T Plant Interim Storage (Small Canisters & STSCs)strgatTPn.
33TPatsoaeo
10A. Removal of Sludge for Packaging (STSCs)
33Wr
efre o T ,aoe ilb dqaet dmntaeTL3frsug erea rma TC
10B. Removal of Sludge for Packaging (SmallCanisters)
33Wr
efre o T ,aoe ilb dqaet demonstrate TRL 3 for sludge retrieval fr~om small cnses
N
Page 33 of 49
niiae
Dshsbe ehooydfeecsrltv
efre
ucsfly oSS
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0
3.4 Operability and Maintainability The goals for the operability and maintainability criterion are to maximize operability and minimize maintain difficulty, while maximizing safety. The degree to which each design concept satisfies these goals is discussed in terms of Constructability (Section 3.4. 1), Operability and Maintainability (Section 3.4.2), Process Control (Section 3.4.3), ALARA (Section 3.4.4), and Secondary Waste (Section 3.4.5). 3.4.1 Constructability The two design concepts present a contrast in constructability. osiutblv The design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters primarily involves construction work in the K WestHihrCntuioRsk Basin, which is an operational nuclear facility. The design concept for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC wihUdraerLaigo primarily involves work outside the K West Basin. Suceit ml
aitr
The construction work for underwater loading of sludge into oMr rdrae ~upei small canisters would involve removing debris from the basin in utlaiitir frDec order to provide floor space for installation of new equipment.Hyrui aisrofSdg The Hydro Lance sludge retrieval tool, booster pump, and ci01crcp iioSS instrumentation for monitoring the solids content and flowrate of the retrieved slurry would be installed underwater in the oS efrrcs o rdrae basin. Four settling vessels with associated augers, rakes, qpmrtrialt01 canister filling station, and air expansion tank (see Section 2. 1)oReudwrkrpdctiy would be segmented for insertion into the basin, and thenclet ariortig connected underwater. Significant underwater work using long handled tools would be required to install and connect hoses, irotnu instrumentation and control systems. These construction AnxMdfctosi activities would be impeded by the low head space clearance above the K West Basin surface.GrefldCntuiofr The K West Basin superstructure supports, grating, existingDietHdalcTnsr equipment (see Figure 16), and limited coverage by available ofSugeit STS monorail based hoists, would complicate construction activities o Lmtdeupei for the underwater loading of sludge into small canisters. isaltoiiibsl Worker productivity is reduced above the basin due to requirements for personnel to wear a Powered Air Purifying Respirator (PAPR) and personnel protective clothing due to potential for airborne radionuclides. Another impact to worker productivity above the basin is the need to use long handled tools for installation and operation of underwater equipment to minimize personnel radiation exposures. These conditions in the K West Basin represent risks to the construction (and operating) schedule for the underwater loading of sludge into small canisters concept. Page 34 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0
Figure 16 Typical View above Grating in K West Basin
Page 35 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 The FTS that will be used to remove the small canisters from the basin will need to be refurbished, since this system has been deactivated. This work will also have to be performed with all the nuclear/radiological controls that impede work in an operating nuclear facility such as K West Basin. The FTS refurbishment and construction work for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters will be dependent upon unrelated operational activities and operational upsets that occur frequently inside the K West Basin proper. These operational activities and upsets can shut down construction work causing significant schedule risk. The construction work would require daily operations release, and would be dependent on availability of operational resources, including nuclear operators, health physics technicians, etc., that can delay the construction work. In addition to K West Basin construction, the design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters requires the removal of equipment and modifications to 5 cells in T Plant for interim storage of 28 STSCs. For the direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC design concept, there is limited equipment installation within the K West Basin and modifications to the annex building. Equipment installed underwater in the basin is comprised of the HydroLance sludge retrieval tool, booster pump, hoses, and instrumentation for monitoring the solids content and fiowrate of the retrieved slurry. This is a subset of the underwater equipment needed in the design concept for the underwater loading of sludge into small canisters. The required modifications to K West Basin annex building would be "green field" construction, and likely will be easier to authorize and perform than installation work that is performed underwater in the K West Basin. The radiation dose to construction/installation personnel will be lower than for the underwater work in the K West Basin. The construction work for the annex building modifications will not be dependent upon unrelated operational activities and operational upsets that occur frequently inside the K West Basin proper, and that can shut down construction work. The construction work for the annex building modifications would not require daily operations release, and would be less dependent on scarce operational resources, including nuclear operators, health physics technicians, etc., that can delay the construction work. The STSC direct loading concept will require less modification work for storage of the sludge containers at T Plant. Equipment will need to be removed and 4 cells modified at T Plant for interim storage of 20 STSCs. Two fewer cells will have to be modified for the direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC, compared to the underwater loading of sludge into small canisters.
Page 36 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0
3.4.2 Operability and Maintainability An Operations and Maintenance (O&M) evaluation was Oprblt conducted in August 2009 by a selected group of experienced an iablt operations and maintenance personnel in order to assess the two atrbue o h todein ocpt tiiin im ndmtin9 design concepts . The O&M evaluation compared the key Twshfoprtnsa approach based upon the known system operational configurationTPlnreuedt at the time. oeaigshdl
n
et o
An additional O&M review of the two design concepts was UnewtrLaigo conducted in October 200930 . This O&M review included an ldeinoSalC isr evaluation of the most current design documentation and systemo Tcakmsbeuldd operating parameters, as well as further discussions with the desgn ngieerngstaf t clriy operational aspects and expected characteristics for the two design concepts. Since theBaiiiondy design concept for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into STSCs 9H-e oeta o is similar in operations to the previously operated sludge storage 1 system, the archived operations procedures were utilized in the Commo Mod Falreo review. An activity based procedural straw man was developed Sug otcigrttn to evaluate the design concept for underwater loading of sludgeeqimninUdrar into small canisters in conjunction. Archived facility procedures were reviewed for the operation of the FTS. In addition, a more fSldeit in depth look at the operational steps and sequences to identify ml Cnse any plant interferences or restrictions was performed for both design concepts. DietHdalcTase 4odn.
As part of the O&M evaluation, timelines were prepared for eii sludge processing in the two design concepts. In the directmoevlraetoSne hydraulic transfer of sludge into STSCs, the operating timeline is PitFiue 46 weeks to complete the retrieval and transfer of sludge from K West Basin to T Plant. This operating timeline includes a 3 o ordnat working day float in the assumed 2 week turnaround time for filling and transporting a STSC to T Plant and returning an empty STSC/STS cask to K Basin. K Basin and T Plant operations personnel would need to work a single shift operation to support this operating timeline. For the underwater loading of sludge into small canisters, the operating timeline is 35 weeks to complete the retrieval and transfer of sludge from K West Basin to T Plant. There is no similar float in the timeline for the underwater
oioct
2PRC-STP-00059, revision 0, 2009, Sludge Loading Options - Operations and MaintenanceEvaluation, CH2MHILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington 3See Section 11 in PRC-STP-00089, revision 0, September 2009, Sludge Treatment Project Value Engineeringfor Sludge LoadingAlternative Selection, CH2MIIILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington Page 37 of 49
PRC-STP-0l 12 revision 0 loading of sludge into small canisters and transporting canisters to T Plant in the FTS cask. The FTS cask requires daily turnaround from T Plant operations, which would be required to work a two shift operation to support this timeline. The design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters has a higher potential for common mode failure of active critical components. Each of the four settling vessels contains a motor-driven rake and auger that transfers sludge from the settling tanks to the small canisters. Each of these rakes and augers will process more than 40 batches of sludge over their lifetimes. A common mode design defect in these rakes or augers would be unrecoverable, for example due to unplanned abrasive wear or sludge shear strength that damages the rotating components. While the rakes and augers are designed for underwater replacement by disassembling the settling vessel, this is still a schedule risk in comparison to the design concept for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into STSCs that does not rely this active rotating sludge handling equipment. Both design concepts due rely on a booster pump to transfer sludge from the HydroLance. The booster pump is a peristaltic hose type pump and the sludge does not come in contact with the pump rotor. The design concept for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into STSCs is more vulnerable to single point failures than the design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters. There is a single line for slurry feed and decant for the STSC, and a single sludge loading station using the STSC/STS cask in the modified annex building. Clogging of lines with slurry, and erosion of hoses and fittings cannot be absolutely precluded. Design features are provided to flush the slurry lines after each routine transfer and in the event of a power outage to prevent clogging, and to unclog the lines if necessary. Hose-in-hose systems are designed to contain and detect any leakage. Leak-proof STSC hose connections are provided in the design. Delays due to potential over-filling of an STSC, or instrument failure, could be mitigated by providing a second STSC loading station in the annex building; however, this would complicate the installation and operation of the piping system, and require additional equipment that requires more maintenance and operational complexity.
Page 38 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0
3.4.3 Process Control Two process control issues were identified in the design conceptPrcsCotl for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters: " Design of the bag for retaining sludge within the small canister " Retrieved sludge slurry hoses and valves In spite of significant design effort at both CHPRC and S. A.read Robotics, a satisfactory design for a bag in the small canister that met all technical requirements never evolved. This bag is theM primary method for the controlling the amount of sludge that isadetoasil added to a small container, which is required to demonstrate compliance with transportation safety requirements. In addition,
-dntfedfrBgise nal C o
aife
svrlsft
oiolfrioutofsdg
I
citlil
the bag must mitigate the formation of a vessel spanning gas
bubble (safety issue), prevent extrusion of sludge from theveslpaihggs canister during uranium oxidation and radiolytic gas generation, and allow flow of water into and out of the bag. The bag must not impede sludge retrieval from the canister for processing during a future project phase.
a
is e
iiaefrntoio
ibl
0
rvWetuoiofsdg f-i h aise
The slurry feed lines to each of the four settling vessel will need *Cmlxcnrl o automated slurry valves for both the feed lines and for flush Slrr Hoe an ale water, assuming that the four settling vessels are filledfoUnewtrLaigf sequentially during each sludge retrieval evolution. This will require a large number of underwater valves and hoses, and aSldeitSm l PLC-based control system. Similarly, the four settling vesselsCaitr will need underwater manifolds, automated valves, and hoses for each of the decant and filter back flush connections. This amount of underwater equipment increases the likelihood of mis-operation or system plugging, in addition to the difficulty of installation and potential repairs.
Page 39 of 49
PRC-STP-00l 12 revision 0
3.4.4 AILARA A qualitative comparison of the radiation dose to workers during construction has been made for the two design concepts. ALAA Cosdrain Quantitative estimates of the cumulative radiation doses to personnel during construction and installation activities were ietHyruiase not prepared for the two design concepts, since details of o ld, noSS construction activities have not been defined at this early stage in design. For the design concept for underwater loading of oLwretnac uiltv sludge into small canisters, the cumulative radiation dose israitodseuin expected to be significantly higher than for the design conceptcosrtinadpetos of direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC. o
cUS sus il The construction work for underwater loading of sludge into otnmincnrl small canisters would involve removing debris from the basin in order to provide floor space for installation of new equipment. The HydroLance sludge retrieval tool, booster pump, and instrumentation for monitoring the solids content and flowrate of the retrieved slurry would be installed underwater in the basin. Four settling vessels with associated augers, rakes, canister filling station, and air expansion tank would be segmiented for insertion into the basin, and then connected underwater. The four settling vessels and associated equipment would have to be staged above the basin, and assembled in tiers underwater. Installation and connection of the large number of hoses and associated valves and control systems for the settling vessel would be an added complexity. The low head room above the basin, and the interfering gratings and super structures over the basin would result in long hours of exposure to the elevated background radiation doses (i.e. 1 to 1.5mrernlhr) over the basin.
In the design concept for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC, the equipment installed underwater in the basin consists of the HydroLance sludge retrieval tool, booster pump, and instrumentation for monitoring the solids content and flowrate of the retrieved slurry. This is significantly less equipment installed in the basin than in the design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters. Cumulative personnel radiation dose would be less during installation of equipment in the basin in the design concept for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC. Estimates were prepared of the cumulative radiation doses to personnel during operations for both design concepts . The operating steps and estimated durations for each design concept, as described in PRC-STP-00059 and dose rate calculations were used to prepare the estimated cumulative radiation doses to personnel during operations for both design concepts. The estimated cumulative radiation dose is 14.7 person-remn during operation of the underwater 31See Appendix C in PRC-STP-00089, revision 0, September 2009, Sludge Treatment Project Value Engineering
for Sludge Loading Alternative Selection, CH2MIIILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington Page 40 of 49
ln
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 loading of sludge into small canisters. The estimated cumulative radiation dose is 3 person-rem during operation of the direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC. The principal reasons the estimated personnel radiation dose is higher for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters than for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC are the large number of workers, higher occupancy factor over the K West Basin, and relatively high dose rate over the basin. Another factor influencing the estimated cumulative personnel radiation dose is the number of sludge container shipments. The design concept for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC results in filling 20 STSCs and 20 STS cask shipments. The design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters results in filling 177 small canisters, 121 FTS cask shipments, and filling 28 STSCs. Another ALARA consideration is contamination control at T Plant during receipt and handling of the containers filled with sludge. In the design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters results, the small canisters are shipped surrounded by basin water inside the FTS cask. The small canisters must be removed from the FTS cask and placed into STSCs within the T Plant canyon. The exterior of the small canisters would be contaminated with basin water or possibly sludge following their removal from the FTS cask. All of the personnel work in the T Plant canyon would require use of PAPR respiratory protection. The contamination control issues would be significantly less at T Plant for the design concept of direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC. The exterior surfaces of the STSC do not come in contact with sludge or basin water and the STSC.
Page 41 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0
3.4.5
Secondary Waste An O&M review of the two design concepts was conducted inSeodrWat October 200932 . This review was not limited to the operational
aspects but included an evaluation of the potential post-I
Cnieain
operational impacts of the two design concepts on the final cleanDietHdalcT out and preparation of the basin for demolition. The design concept for underwater loading of sludge into smalloLwe canisters adds a significant amount of equipment to the basin in the form of the four settling vessels, four air expansion tanks, four canister filling stations, and steel frames to support this equipment. These vessels and associated hoses will each have a volume of residual sludge material that must be removed to theardpcgii extent practicable and the residues added to the end-pointcriteria 3 3 calculation for determining compliance with the CERCLA ROD. The residue waste forms for disposal of the basin and debris must comply with the low-level waste acceptance criteria for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF). The small canister equipment will also add complexity to the eventual demolition of the basin substructure and reduce the ability to effectively vacuum up any resettled sludge in the basin.
nsr ofSug
it1T~
sriadscnavwsea ai e~~ oLs uuescrdr lrnPiae2taiet oLs ie'rtc ih riivlo eiulsu(, ribanflo o Drioltoio ndfe aie srgIev qiren
There are two options for disposal of the equipment associated with the small canister system when sludge retrieval is completed. The first option is to disassemble or cutup the equipment in the basin. Once disassembled or cutup, the pieces would be placed in 10-ft by 10ft by 20-ft ('-5 7M3) Industrial Package Type 2 (IP-2) burial boxes, grouted and transported to ERDF for disposal. It would take approximately four to six IP-2 burial boxes (i.e. --230 to 340M3 of waste) to dispose of the small canister system. The other option would be to leave the equipment installed in the basin. The equipment would then be grouted with the basin. After basin grouting, the equipment would be sheared or cutup with the grouted basin and disposed of in JP-2 burial boxes at ERDF. Both of the above options would require all sludge to be removed to the maximum extent practicable from the small canister equipment before grouting and disposal at ERDF in order to comply with the basin end point criteria.
See Section I1I in PRC-STP-00089, revision 0, September 2009, Sludge Treatment Project Value Engineeringfor Sludge Loading Alternative Selection, CH2MHILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington 33 HNF-20632, revision 1, 2008, End Point Criteriafor the K Basins Interim Remedial Action, Fluor, Richland Washington 32
Page 42 of 49
M
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 The design concept for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into STSCs only adds a retrieval tool, hoses and booster pump, which is common to both design concepts. At the conclusion of operations the annex facility will be a relatively standard demolition using heavy equipment in a minimally contaminated environment. Another secondary waste impact from the design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters occurs at the future Phase 2 sludge treatment and packaging facility. The 177 small canisters containing sludge would be stored in 28 STSCs at T Plant. The STSCs with the small canisters inside will be transferred from T Plant to the future Phase 2 sludge treatment and packaging facility. After removal of sludge, the STSCs and small canisters secondary waste would require treatment and packaging for disposal. The volumes of the 177 small canisters and 28 STSC are approximately 48m3 and 112 in , respectively. Assuming no waste volume reduction, 160 in3 of secondary waste would be generated from disposal of the small canisters and STSCs. The design concept for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into STSCs is estimated to generate 20 STSCs. After removal of sludge and assuming no waste volume reduction, 80 M3 of secondary waste would be generated from disposal of the 20 STSCs. Therefore, design concept for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into STSCs is estimated to generate -80 Mn 3 less of secondary waste at the Phase 2 sludge treatment and packaging facility than the design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters.
Page 43 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0
3.5 Programmatic Aspects Programmatic aspects include cost and schedule of each design concept, impacts to other DOE programs at the Hanford Site (i.e. Tank Farms future Phase 2 sludge treatment and packaging facility) and nationally (i.e. WIPP), and impacts to other planned activities at K Basins. The two design concepts do not have anybew impacts to Yucca Mountain, Hanford Site Tank Farms, or the Waste Treatment Plant since they do not send any waste to these locations. Progranmmatic aspects are discussed further in the
following sections for the two design concepts for retrieval and
packaging of K West Basin sludge for interim storage at T Plant. 3.5.1
Interfaces with Other Hanford Site Programs
The two design concepts for retrieval and packaging of K West Basinsludge for interim storage interface with TPlant~ n afuture Phase 2 sludge treatment and packaging facility. These two design concepts do not affect other DOE programs at the Hanford site.
Porm eN
ai ifrnito n simc
fritrae ftr
hs
cpt
ihTPat 2sug
tetetadpcaa11g
crmu Bohdsg smlretmtdlf
lm
I"4 eet
ocpshv
cssadana
The design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters is estimated to produce 177 canisters that are transfer into 28 STSCs at T Plant. These 28 STSCs are stored in six cells at T Plant. T Plant would be required to work a two-shift per day schedule to transfer the 177 small canisters into 28 STSCs to support the STP schedule, as discussed in Section 3.4.2. However, there are no new interfaces with T Plant for the receipt and storage of small canisters in STSCs. The design concept for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into STSCs is estimated to produce 20 STSCs requiring interim storage in four cells at T Plant. Removal of debris and installation of storage racks in four cells at T Plant cells was previously performed. These cells were to be used for storage of K Basin sludge in large diameter containers but can know be used to store STSCs. Additional T Plant cells can be readily prepared for interim storage of STSCs, if necessary. Preparation of T Plant to receive and interim store STSCs is not a critical path activity for the STP. The interface with the future Phase 2 sludge treatment and packaging facility is the same for both design concepts. STSCs containing sludge are transferred to the future Phase 2 sludge treatment and packaging facility. Sludge is removed from the STSCs (or small canisters) using a HydroLance to retrieve the sludge as a slurry. The design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters does result in the generation of additional secondary waste at the future Phase 2 sludge treatment and packaging facility resulting from the disposal of the emptied 177 small canisters. The additional secondary waste is discussed in Section 3.4.5.
Page 44 of 49
set
yl
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 Conceptually, there is no differentiation in the interfaces with T Plant and the future Phase 2 treatment and packaging facility between the two design concepts. 3.5.2 Interfaces with National DOE Programs Treatment and packaging of K Basin sludge for disposal at WIPP is to be conducted during Phase 2 of the Sludge Treatment Project. The two design concepts for retrieval and packaging of K West Basin sludge for interim storage at T Plant do not alter the volume or composition of the sludge that will be treated and packaged for disposal at WIPP. Initial assessments show that waste drums of engineered container sludge are volume limited and waste drums of settler sludge are fissile gram equivalent Pu-239 limited. Initial assessments indicate approximately 3,000 waste drums will be created, which would result in about 1,000 shipments to WIPP using an R-72B shipping cask34 . Therefore, no differentiation can be made between the two design concepts when considering impacts to WIPP. 3.5.3
Impacts to Other Planned Activities at K Basin The sludge stored in the K West Basin must be removed to allow basin demolition to be performed. Once the K West Basin is demolished, remediation. of a chromium plume in the soil beneath the basin can be initiated. The estimated schedules for completing sludge removal from the K West Basin are similar for both design concepts, given the level of accuracy in these estimates (see Section 3.2). Both design concepts can achieve removal of K Basin sludge by the IsA quarter of FY 2015, thus allowing remediation of the chromium plume beneath the basin to be initiated. 3.5.4 Cost Preliminary cost estimates were prepared for design, construction, and operation of each design concepts . The cost estimates are summarized in Table 6. These cost estimates are applicable for comparison between the two design concepts and are not representative of baseline project costs. These cost estimates are considered Class 4 estimates per the Association for Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) International definitions. A Class 4 estimate has an expected accuracy range from a minus 30% to a plus 50%; this accuracy range is applied to the EPC costs only. Table 7 provides the estimated annual expenditures during the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) phase of the project in addition to the operating costs for the transfer of the sludge from KW Basin to T Plant in FY20 14 and FY20 15. Both design concepts have similar estimated total life cycle costs and annual expenditures.
1HNF-39744-VOLl, revision 1, June 2009, Section 4.2.5, Sludge Treatment ProjectAlternatives Analysis Summary Report, CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington 3PRC-STP-00042, 2009, Sludge Treatment Project: Cost Comparison between Hydraulic Loading and Small CanisterLoading Concepts, CH2AMILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington
Page 45 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 Table 6 Cost Estimate Summary Life Cycle Costs
Underwater Loading of Sludge into Small Canisters $62M
Direct Hydraulic Transfer of Sludge into STSCs $44M
EPC Cost Range Operations Total Life Cycle
$43M - $92M $56M $117M
$30M - $65M $60M $104M
Life Cycle Range
$99M - $148M
$90M - $125M
Engineering, Procurement & Construction (EPC)
Table 7 Comparison of Estimated Annual Expenditure Fiscal Year FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 Total
Underwater Loading of Sludge into Small Canisters ($M) 16.1 18.5 22.0 45.5 14.7 0.6 117.4
Page 46 of 49
Direct Hydraulic Transfer of Sludge into STSCs ($M) 16.9 18.9 21.7 31.0 14.5 0.5 103.5
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0
3.6
Value Engineering Session - Summary and Results A Value Engineering (VE) session was held on September 10- 11,VauEnierg 2009 to recommend to CHPRC management a preferred alternative for loading sludge from the engineered containers in EPnleautdfv the K West Basin into containers for storage at T Plant". Two design concepts for packaging and transportation of K Basin ct~oisfrbt ei1 sludge to T Plant were evaluated by a VE Panel. The first design cocps concept is underwater loading of sludge into small canisters in the KW Basin, transport canisters in the existing FTS cask to T o prtos&0aneac Plant, and transfer canisters into STSCs in cells at T Plant. The oShdl second design concept is to direct hydraulic transfer of sludge into a STSC that is contained in an existing STS cask, transporto LR the STSC / STS cask to T Plant, and place the STSC in cells at T SaeyCnrl Plant. o
rnpotto
The VE Panel of multi-disciplinary engineers, operators, and external technical reviewers utilized objective evidence and Deincnetsfrdrc subjective reviews, based on their experience and professionalhyruitanfro judgment, to determine the best method to remove the highlysldeita TCrnd radioactive sludge from the Basin. The VE Panel recommended adopting as the conceptual design hge salctgre baseline the design concept for direct hydraulic transfer of sludge exetSftyCnrl into STSCs. This design concept was concluded by the VE Panel to result in less project risk since it was less complex, the -iot dscet equipment was more accessible and would require less timeinoprtcnrlso consuming underwater operation / maintenance, and would result poetost n fst in significantly fewer containers and shipments of sludge, than rcposadfclt the design concept for underwater loading of sludge into smallwokr canisters. o0 newtrlaigo The VE Panel evaluated five functional areas as shown in Table ldeinosalcnstr 8. The information used by the VE Panel is the same information as reported in Section 3, with the exception that the VE Panel did icue infcnl not evaluate regulatory / stakeholder acceptance, process control, 7 secondary waste generation or progranmmratic aspects for the twolitwthTPatcno design concepts.crn
From Table 8, the overall weighted score was 6.4 for the STSC direct loading concept, and 5.1 for the small canister underwater loading concept, thereby favoring the STSC concept by a fairly substantial margin of 20-25% in a one-to-one comparison. For three areas, Operations and PRC-STP-00089, revision 0, September 2009, Sludge Treatmnent Project Value Engineeringfor Sludge Loading Alternative Selection, CH2MHILL Plateau Remediation Company, Richland Washington 16
Page 47 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0 Maintenance, Schedule, and ALARA, the STSC concept scored 2 points higher than the small canister concept; Transportation scored 1 point higher. For the Safety Controls area, even though the small canister concept scored higher by 2 points, both concepts scored high in this area (6 for STSC direct sludge loading and 8 for small canisters). Deletion of the scoring for any one of the areas shown in Table 8 would not have changed the overall conclusion that the STSC concept is the best alternative. Table 8 VE Functional Areas, Weightings, and Scores Functional Area Operations and Maintenance Schedule ALARA Safety Controls Transportation Weighted Total Score
Weight % 35
STSC Score 6
STSC Weighted Score 2.1
Small Canister Score 4
Small Canister Weighted Score 1.4
25 15 15 10
7 6 6 7
1.75 0.9 0.9 0.7
5 4 8 6
1.25 0.6 1.2 0.6
6.35
___________
________5.05
Two issues were raised during the VE sessions that were not reflected in the evaluations of Table 8. One was whether either of the two sludge loading alternatives would affect the ability to retrieve waste out of small canisters or the STSC for future phase 2 processing and packaging. The other was whether either of the two alternatives would be favored if an Alternate Interim Storage (AIS) location instead of T Plant was selected for interim storage. Regarding the first issue, retrieval of waste from either an STSC or a small canister was concluded by the VE Panel to not favor either concept, and would not change the scoring in Table 8. The presence of a bag in the small canister was discussed by the VE Panel as a complication to the sludge retrieval process, requiring further design development. Regarding the second issue, use of an AIS location for sludge storage instead of T Plant, would favor the STSC direct loading concept, because of the negative impacts from the additional step of trans-loading small canisters from the FTS into an STSC prior to transfer to a AIS location. However, the VE Panel concluded that this would not change the scoring in Table 8. Another factor not explicitly considered in the VE Session that applies to the Safety Controls is the much larger number of crane lifts that are required at T Plant during the unloading of the small canisters from the FTS in the Canyon (approximately 177 total lifts required). Even with critical lift procedures, the likelihood of a drop accident is much higher for the small canister concept. While the radiological consequences can be mitigated by canister structural design and by ventilation filtration, any drop incident would present a significant threat to the project schedule. For this reason, and because of the complexity of the small canister system, and attendant human factors issues, it should not be construed that either of the systems is safer than the other when preventive and mitigate safety controls are included in the designs.
Page 48 of 49
PRC-STP-001 12 revision 0
4 Summary The STP developed in parallel two design concepts for retrieving sludge from engineered containers within the 105-KWest Basin and transporting sludge to T Plant for interim storage. In the first design concept, sludge is loaded underwater into small canisters. The second design concept hydraulically transfers sludge out of the basin into STSCs. Preliminary conceptual designs were prepared for these two design concept. A value engineering session was conducted in September 2009 to evaluate these two design concepts. Hydraulically transferring sludge out of the basin into STSCs is the preferred design concept for accomplishing the STP mission. The design concept for hydraulically transferring sludge out of the basin into STSCs has the following beneficial features in comparison to the design concept for underwater loading of sludge into small canisters: " Safety o Incorporates controls in designs to protect onsite and offsite receptors and facility workers o Less critical lifts using the T Plant canyon crane * Regulatory / Stakeholder Acceptance o Supports removal of K Basin sludge by I" quarter 2015, enabling remediation of the chromium plume beneath the basins * Technical Maturity o Incorporates technologies sufficiently mature for critical decision 1 " Operability, Constructability, and Maintainability o Less complex underwater equipment installation in K West Basin o Less constructability issues o Requires less T Plant operating shifts o No transloading of sludge containers in T Plant o Lower number of cask shipments from K West Basin to T Plant o No unresolved process control issues * ALARA o Lower estimated cumulative radiation dose during construction and operations * Secondary Waste o Lower estimated secondary waste as basin debris and during future Phase 2 treatment and packaging The STP Project Manager has decided to proceed with only the preferred alternative into the conceptual design.
Page 49 of 49
