skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SLUDGE TREATMENT PROJECT PHASE 1 SLUDGE STORAGE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT OF T PLANT VERSUS ALTERNATE STORAGE FACILITY

Abstract

The CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) has recommended to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) a two phase approach for removal and storage (Phase 1) and treatment and packaging for offsite shipment (Phase 2) of the sludge currently stored within the 105-K West Basin. This two phased strategy enables early removal of sludge from the 105-K West Basin by 2015, allowing remediation of historical unplanned releases of waste and closure of the 100-K Area. In Phase 1, the sludge currently stored in the Engineered Containers and Settler Tanks within the 105-K West Basin will be transferred into sludge transport and storage containers (STSCs). The STSCs will be transported to an interim storage facility. In Phase 2, sludge will be processed (treated) to meet shipping and disposal requirements and the sludge will be packaged for final disposal at a geologic repository. The purpose of this study is to evaluate two alternatives for interim Phase 1 storage of K Basin sludge. The cost, schedule, and risks for sludge storage at a newly-constructed Alternate Storage Facility (ASF) are compared to those at T Plant, which has been used previously for sludge storage. Based on the results of the assessment, T Plant ismore » recommended for Phase 1 interim storage of sludge. Key elements that support this recommendation are the following: (1) T Plant has a proven process for storing sludge; (2) T Plant storage can be implemented at a lower incremental cost than the ASF; and (3) T Plant storage has a more favorable schedule profile, which provides more float, than the ASF. Underpinning the recommendation of T Plant for sludge storage is the assumption that T Plant has a durable, extended mission independent of the K Basin sludge interim storage mission. If this assumption cannot be validated and the operating costs of T Plant are borne by the Sludge Treatment Project, the conclusions and recommendations of this study would change. The following decision-making strategy, which is dependent on the confidence that DOE has in the long term mission for T Plant, is proposed: (1) If the confidence level in a durable, extended T Plant mission independent of sludge storage is high, then the Sludge Treatment Project (STP) would continue to implement the path forward previously described in the Alternatives Report (HNF-39744). Risks to the sludge project can be minimized through the establishment of an Interface Control Document (ICD) defining agreed upon responsibilities for both the STP and T Plant Operations regarding the transfer and storage of sludge and ensuring that the T Plant upgrade and operational schedule is well integrated with the sludge storage activities. (2) If the confidence level in a durable, extended T Plant mission independent of sludge storage is uncertain, then the ASF conceptual design should be pursued on a parallel path with preparation of T Plant for sludge storage until those uncertainties are resolved. (3) Finally, if the confidence level in a durable, extended T Plant mission independent of sludge storage is low, then the ASF design should be selected to provide independence from the T Plant mission risk.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Hanford Site (HNF), Richland, WA
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM)
OSTI Identifier:
952592
Report Number(s):
HNF-40917 Rev 0
TRN: US0902682
DOE Contract Number:  
DE-AC06-08RL14788
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES, AND NON-RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES; FUEL STORAGE POOLS; SLUDGES; WASTE RETRIEVAL; RADIOACTIVE WASTE STORAGE; STORAGE FACILITIES; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; RECOMMENDATIONS; HANFORD RESERVATION

Citation Formats

RUTHERFORD WW, GEUTHER WJ, STRANKMAN MR, CONRAD EA, RHOADARMER DD, BLACK DM, and POTTMEYER JA. SLUDGE TREATMENT PROJECT PHASE 1 SLUDGE STORAGE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT OF T PLANT VERSUS ALTERNATE STORAGE FACILITY. United States: N. p., 2009. Web. doi:10.2172/952592.
RUTHERFORD WW, GEUTHER WJ, STRANKMAN MR, CONRAD EA, RHOADARMER DD, BLACK DM, & POTTMEYER JA. SLUDGE TREATMENT PROJECT PHASE 1 SLUDGE STORAGE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT OF T PLANT VERSUS ALTERNATE STORAGE FACILITY. United States. doi:10.2172/952592.
RUTHERFORD WW, GEUTHER WJ, STRANKMAN MR, CONRAD EA, RHOADARMER DD, BLACK DM, and POTTMEYER JA. Wed . "SLUDGE TREATMENT PROJECT PHASE 1 SLUDGE STORAGE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT OF T PLANT VERSUS ALTERNATE STORAGE FACILITY". United States. doi:10.2172/952592. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/952592.
@article{osti_952592,
title = {SLUDGE TREATMENT PROJECT PHASE 1 SLUDGE STORAGE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT OF T PLANT VERSUS ALTERNATE STORAGE FACILITY},
author = {RUTHERFORD WW and GEUTHER WJ and STRANKMAN MR and CONRAD EA and RHOADARMER DD and BLACK DM and POTTMEYER JA},
abstractNote = {The CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) has recommended to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) a two phase approach for removal and storage (Phase 1) and treatment and packaging for offsite shipment (Phase 2) of the sludge currently stored within the 105-K West Basin. This two phased strategy enables early removal of sludge from the 105-K West Basin by 2015, allowing remediation of historical unplanned releases of waste and closure of the 100-K Area. In Phase 1, the sludge currently stored in the Engineered Containers and Settler Tanks within the 105-K West Basin will be transferred into sludge transport and storage containers (STSCs). The STSCs will be transported to an interim storage facility. In Phase 2, sludge will be processed (treated) to meet shipping and disposal requirements and the sludge will be packaged for final disposal at a geologic repository. The purpose of this study is to evaluate two alternatives for interim Phase 1 storage of K Basin sludge. The cost, schedule, and risks for sludge storage at a newly-constructed Alternate Storage Facility (ASF) are compared to those at T Plant, which has been used previously for sludge storage. Based on the results of the assessment, T Plant is recommended for Phase 1 interim storage of sludge. Key elements that support this recommendation are the following: (1) T Plant has a proven process for storing sludge; (2) T Plant storage can be implemented at a lower incremental cost than the ASF; and (3) T Plant storage has a more favorable schedule profile, which provides more float, than the ASF. Underpinning the recommendation of T Plant for sludge storage is the assumption that T Plant has a durable, extended mission independent of the K Basin sludge interim storage mission. If this assumption cannot be validated and the operating costs of T Plant are borne by the Sludge Treatment Project, the conclusions and recommendations of this study would change. The following decision-making strategy, which is dependent on the confidence that DOE has in the long term mission for T Plant, is proposed: (1) If the confidence level in a durable, extended T Plant mission independent of sludge storage is high, then the Sludge Treatment Project (STP) would continue to implement the path forward previously described in the Alternatives Report (HNF-39744). Risks to the sludge project can be minimized through the establishment of an Interface Control Document (ICD) defining agreed upon responsibilities for both the STP and T Plant Operations regarding the transfer and storage of sludge and ensuring that the T Plant upgrade and operational schedule is well integrated with the sludge storage activities. (2) If the confidence level in a durable, extended T Plant mission independent of sludge storage is uncertain, then the ASF conceptual design should be pursued on a parallel path with preparation of T Plant for sludge storage until those uncertainties are resolved. (3) Finally, if the confidence level in a durable, extended T Plant mission independent of sludge storage is low, then the ASF design should be selected to provide independence from the T Plant mission risk.},
doi = {10.2172/952592},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Apr 29 00:00:00 EDT 2009},
month = {Wed Apr 29 00:00:00 EDT 2009}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share: