SRS Marks 20th Anniversary of Site's Second Tank Closure; EM Makes Progress in WVDP Vitrification Facility Demolition; and Much More!

DOE Office of Environmental Management sent this bulletin at 12/12/2017 11:23 AM EST

Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page.

EM Update | Vol. 9, Issue 27 | Dec. 12, 2017

SRS Celebrates 20th Anniversary of Tank 17 Closure
WVDP Workers Complete First Phase of Vitrification Facility Demolition
Nevada Program Contractor Earns 97 Percent of Available Fee for FY 2017
EM Names Moab Federal Cleanup Director
Team Designs New Filter to Improve WTP Safety
Independent Panel Recommends Stabilizing Second Hanford Tunnel With Grout
EM’s Chief Engineer John Marra Discusses Panel’s Work for PUREX Tunnel 2
SRS Women in Nuclear Organization Boosts Outreach, Visibility
Hanford Contractor Recognized for Commitment to Hiring Veterans

SRS Celebrates 20th Anniversary of Tank 17 Closure

The Savannah River Site celebrates 20 years since the closure of Tank 17.

AIKEN, S.C. – The Savannah River Site (SRS) is celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Tank 17 closure — the second waste vessel closed at the site.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control certified Tank 17 as closed on Dec. 15, 1997.

Closure is the final chapter in the life of an SRS tank. Once workers remove the radioactive liquid waste from the tank, they fill it with a cement-like grout, providing long-term stabilization of the tank and ensuring the safety of the community and environment surrounding SRS.

The first waste tank closure in the nation — Tank 20 at SRS — came about six months before the Tank 17 closure.

Each tank held about 1.3 million gallons and began receiving waste from the nation’s defense efforts in 1961. Each SRS tank contains a different combination of insoluble solids, salts, and liquids, making each closure unique.

Tracy Scott worked as an operations first-line supervisor supporting facility operations during the Tank 17 closure.

“These waste tanks that were once used in support of a national defense mission have provided safe storage for the radioactive liquid waste generated at SRS,” Scott said. “To be part of tank closure is to be part of the bigger mission and team here at SRS, and I am honored to say I contribute to the safety of our community and environment.”

The Tank 17 closure set a baseline for the site’s subsequent tank closures. SRS developed water-based flushing systems to remove residual solids, often referred to as sludge waste, at the bottom of the tanks. Crews improved the grouting process by filling the tank through multiple risers, ensuring an even distribution of grout. They also installed cameras in the tank to monitor grouting progress.

Workers learned lessons that transcend present-day tank closures, including techniques for residual waste sampling and grout application. Grout is still poured using the same method in the Tank 17 closure.

Kim Hauer, the facility manager for F Tank Farm in December 1997, said dedication to safety and a strong team effort drive the tank closures.

“With each tank closure, we evaluate ways we can improve, whether it be with scheduling or ideas that innovate our processes,” Hauer said. “We applied what we had learned from closing Tank 20 earlier that year to closing Tank 17, and the adjustments resulted in marking 1997 a historic year."

SRS has closed six more tanks since Tank 17. The 43 remaining tanks at SRS contain approximately 35 million gallons of waste and are in various stages of the waste removal, cleaning, and closure process.

Jim Folk, DOE-Savannah River Assistant Manager for Waste Disposition, said SRS demonstrated to the world through the closures for tanks 20 and 17 how the site can achieve a safe future for generations to come.

“In addition, through the trust of the community, regulators, and local and federal government, we’ve executed eight waste tank closures in 20 years,” Folk said.

- Contributor: Ashley Dernberger

WVDP Workers Complete First Phase of Vitrification Facility Demolition

WEST VALLEY, N.Y. – EM and cleanup contractor CH2M HILL BWXT West Valley (CHBWV) completed the first phase of demolition to the Vitrification Facility at the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP).

“The CHBWV team is making great progress with the safe completion of the first phase of this facility’s demolition,” EM WVDP Project Director Bryan Bower said. “This accomplishment allows our team to continue its work in the completion of Vitrification Facility demolition activities.”

The phase began in September and involved tearing down portions of the facility with the least radiological contamination.

Using a variety of heavy equipment and specialized tools, workers knocked down three sides of the facility, including operating aisles, a control room, rest rooms, truck bays, stairways, and tool and equipment storage rooms.

Workers tear down portions of the Vitrification Facility with the least radiological contamination in the first phase of demolition.

Before demolition began, workers finished deactivating the facility’s utility systems, which include instrument air, potable water, utility water, demineralized water, waste water, fuel oil, steam, steam condensate, fire protection, electrical power, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning.

The facility was used to solidify 600,000 gallons of high-level liquid radioactive waste generated from 1996 to 2002 during the reprocessing of spent fuel by Nuclear Fuel Services, the former site operator.

In the next phase, workers will demolish the heavily reinforced concrete process cell, shield doors, and the structure’s south wall. The cell, which was built to protect workers from radiation exposure during vitrification operations, contains higher levels of radiological contamination than the areas demolished in the first phase.

EM awarded CHBWV the prime contract for WVDP Phase 1 Decommissioning Facilities Disposition in 2011. Demolition of the Vitrification Facility and the Main Plant Process Building is one of four major milestones under the contract.

-Contributor: Joseph Pillittere

Nevada Program Contractor Earns 97 Percent of Available Fee for FY 2017

Safety First: a sign marks the entrance to a Nevada National Security Site groundwater monitoring well site.

LAS VEGAS – EM’s Nevada Program has awarded its environmental characterization and remediation contractor 97 percent of the available fee for fiscal year (FY) 2017.

Navarro Research and Engineering, Inc. earned nearly $836,000 fee for performing services at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) and Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), addressing the legacy of contaminated soil, facilities, and groundwater.

Key FY 2017 accomplishments include collaborating to complete the Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain Flow and Transport Model Report on schedule, implementing alternative modeling with the EM Nevada Program and regulator, and advancing closure of multiple sites on the NNSS and NTTR, which reduces the EM Nevada Program liability and footprint.

Navarro personnel collect groundwater at a groundwater monitoring well site.

Navarro earned the fee based on the EM Nevada Program’s evaluation of criteria for award fee and performance Incentive fee pools.

“Navarro is very appreciative of the confidence the EM Nevada Program and Environmental Management Consolidated Business Center place in the work of our employees,” Navarro Nevada Program Manager Dave Taylor said. “This year has been exceptionally challenging and the programmatic accomplishments would not have been possible without the outstanding collaboration from all of the federal staffs.”

Each year EM releases information relating to contractor fee payments – earned by completing the work called for in the contracts – to further transparency in its cleanup program.

For more information on the EM Nevada Program, the work Navarro conducts and the NNSS, click here.

View the scorecard here.

-Contributor: Marc Klein

EM Names Moab Federal Cleanup Director

Russell McCallister is the new federal cleanup director for EM's Moab project.

MOAB, Utah – EM has named Russell McCallister as the federal cleanup director for its Moab project in Utah, effective Dec. 10.

McCallister previously served as the quality assurance lead for EM’s Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office in Kentucky for 11 years. He brings more than 25 years of DOE experience in project management and contract oversight in remediation projects and programs and environmental laboratory and radioactive waste disposal operations. McCallister is lead auditor certified in Nuclear Quality Assurance-1 and International Organization for Standardization 14001.

McCallister worked on the development of cleanup standards and deactivation, decommissioning, and demolition activities for several nuclear facilities at the former Rocky Flats site in Colorado. At the Carlsbad Field Office in New Mexico, McCallister led EM's effort in managing, planning, integrating, and implementing national transuranic (TRU) waste characterization activities at DOE facilities throughout the U.S. The TRU and TRU-mixed wastes are disposed at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad. He began his federal career as a research chemist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

EM extends its appreciation to Ellen Mattlin who served as acting federal project director since last May. Mattlin came to the Moab project from the Office of River Protection at Hanford where she returned in mid-December.

Team Designs New Filter to Improve WTP Safety

Mississippi State University experts conducted tests of high-efficiency particulate air filters planned for the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant facilities by simulating operating conditions, including those that could be caused by an accident such as an earthquake or fire, in these chambers.

Tests Conclude Filters Safe for Vitrification Process

RICHLAND, Wash. – A team of engineers from the EM Office of River Protection (ORP) and contractor Bechtel National Inc. (BNI) joined industry and academia experts to develop a first-of-a-kind high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter for the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP).

The filter helps protect the public and environment during operations. It’s at least five times stronger than a standard HEPA filter and meets or exceeds WTP standards and codes set by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).

It could be of use across the DOE nuclear complex. EM is considering additional uses for the new filter at its sites due to its potential to survive smoke loading from facility fires, heavy dust loading, and pressure generated during severe events at nuclear facilities.

“These robust HEPA filters have the potential to greatly improve safety across DOE and the nuclear industry,” said Bill Hamel, federal project director and assistant manager for the WTP.

The filter will be deployed in the WTP’s Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Facility, which is scheduled to be completed in spring 2018. The LAW Facility is vital to the direct-feed LAW approach to treat Hanford’s radioactive nuclear waste as soon as 2022.

The filters were developed after initial WTP testing showed standard HEPA filters used across the nuclear industry would not meet the plant’s stringent demands. Its process ventilation system operates at high temperature and humidity, making the standard filters susceptible to failure.

The first-of-a-kind radial high-efficiency particulate air filter is roughly 2.5-feet tall and 2 feet in diameter.

ORP and Bechtel collaborated with Porvair, a leading filter manufacturer that recently won Bechtel’s Large Business Subcontractor of the Year award, to design the new filters.

“The team developed a high-strength radial flow HEPA filter that expanded on a previous industry design to make a more robust filter for the Vit Plant (WTP),” said Peggy McCullough, Bechtel’s project director at the WTP. “The filter demonstrated positive results during testing, which is a significant accomplishment and energizes us as we drive towards making glass as soon as 2022.”

HEPA filters are critical to the nuclear industry for their ability to filter airborne contaminants from ventilation and off-gas systems in accordance with state and federal requirements. The filters will be used in the plant’s three nuclear processing facilities: Pretreatment, LAW, and High-Level Waste. The filters are constructed of fragile fiberglass sheets, resembling paper, which are pleated and installed in a filter pack, similar to a thick furnace filter.

The filter recently passed tests performed under Nuclear Quality Assurance (NQA)-1 conditions by the Institute for Clean Energy Technology at Mississippi State University (MSU) to confirm it met safety requirements and codes in an environment that simulated extreme operating conditions. NQA-1 is the regulatory standard managed by ASME for nuclear quality assurance. The testing, which exceeded what is required for standard nuclear-grade HEPA filters, used various flow rates, steam, heat, and aerosols, and included conditions that could be caused by an extreme event.

The performance of the filter design was also validated by code compliance testing at MSU, Underwriters Laboratories, and the U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center.

“From strategy to completion of testing, this is a collaborative success story,” said McCullough.

-Contributor: Ian Klei

Independent Panel Recommends Stabilizing Second Hanford Tunnel With Grout

Hanford’s Plutonium Uranium Extraction Plant (PUREX) includes two adjacent waste storage tunnels filled with rail cars containing radiologically contaminated plutonium processing equipment. Tunnel 2 (left) is nearly 1,700 feet long, considerably longer than Tunnel 1.

RICHLAND, Wash. – An independent panel of experts recommended DOE stabilize a second waste storage tunnel on the Hanford Site using engineered grout.

The panel assessed several stabilization options for safety, ease, and cost, and whether they would allow for disposition of the equipment in the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Plant (PUREX) Tunnel 2.

In their report, the panelists noted that grout stabilization provides maximum protection of workers, the public, and the environment while not precluding future options for disposition. They also acknowledged DOE’s use of grout across the complex to successfully immobilize contamination.

“DOE is committed to the safety of its workforce, the public, and the environment. Grouting safely and efficiently reduces near-term risk by providing interim stabilization while DOE and the Washington State Department of Ecology evaluate future closure options,” said Doug Shoop, manager of EM’s Richland Operations Office.

The partial collapse of Tunnel 1 at the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Plant (PUREX) did not result in worker injuries or release of radioactivity, but a tarp was placed as added precaution until the tunnel could be stabilized with engineered grout. The protective cover was removed after DOE stabilized Tunnel 1.

Tunnel 2 at the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Plant (PUREX) was constructed of steel and concrete and contains 28 rail cars containing radiologically contaminated plutonium processing equipment.

In mid-November, DOE safely and successfully finished placing engineered grout to stabilize PUREX Tunnel 1. Tunnel 2 was under continual surveillance during that project.

Tunnel 2 is nearly 1,700 feet in length — considerably larger than Tunnel 1. Tunnel 2 is constructed of steel and concrete, and contains 28 rail cars with radiologically contaminated plutonium processing equipment. It was used between 1964 and 1996.

Grout placement in Tunnel 2 is expected to begin during this fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2018, allowing time to incorporate lessons learned from the Tunnel 1 project, development of work controls and design, and consideration of seasonal conditions for grout placement.

“I want to thank those who provided their input on this important recovery action,” Shoop said. “It is vital to have considered every option.”

The panel’s report is available on this page, which features information about the PUREX tunnels. Read an EM Update interview in a separate newsletter entry below on EM's Chief Engineer John Marra, who chairs the panel.

-Contributor: Kristen Holmes

EM’s Chief Engineer John Marra Discusses Panel’s Work for PUREX Tunnel 2

EM’s Chief Engineer John Marra chaired an independent panel of experts that recently recommended DOE stabilize a second waste storage tunnel at the Plutonium Uranium Extraction Plant (PUREX) on the Hanford Site using engineered grout. EM Update's Q&A with Marra is below.

Read a separate newsletter story above on the panel’s recommendation and view the panel’s report here. For additional information on the PUREX tunnels, click here.

How was the panel formed?

One of the main things we did is look for panel members with a diverse experience base, not only within the Department of Energy here at Hanford, but also across the complex and internationally. We utilized a broad set of people, some of whom had extensive familiarity with Hanford and the PUREX tunnels, such as David Kosson. He is the lead investigator for the CRESP (Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation) Consortium that has done a lot of risk assessment work at Hanford. Beyond that, we reached out to people who had suitable industrial experience and could offer a different perspective, notably on worker safety. We reached out to Christine Lee, who is the Environmental, Safety, Health, Quality and Security manager for CH at West Valley. We reached out to Kurt Kehler, who is another CH2 person, but he is at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory in Canada, and his expertise is in D&D. So, he is familiar with the types of actions that would be taken if we ultimately ended up disposing. Beyond that, we reached out internationally to John Ballantyne who is also with CH, but is their chief of nuclear structures in the U.K. He is a civil structural-type expert on nuclear structures, all the way from nuclear reactors to other support-type buildings. So, we looked for a broad experience base — not just expertise, but people who had direct involvement with PUREX and people who had no involvement. (Panelist biographies are in the panel’s report.)

Is it common for panel members to get together and undergo a process like this, and has this group gotten together before?

We never met face to face. Part of that was because we were doing our work at the start of the academic year, and the academicians on our panel didn’t have a lot of time. So, we met for five consecutive Fridays via web conference for a couple of hours at a time. In between Fridays, we’d kick back-and-forth emails with questions, and things like that. It worked really well. A few of the panel members have worked with each other in the past, but the rest of us, myself included, were relatively new.

Looking at the stoplight chart in the back of the report, can you explain if there were actual numbers assigned?

Yes, there were actual numbers. We went through an evaluation. I call it a parametric evaluation. We identified first the criteria in three main areas, safety (not just the worker safety for implementation, but also protection of the public and the environment going forward) in the near term and the long term. We looked at implementation and what kind of experience we had with the solution. How long would it take? How much would it cost? Finally, we looked at a couple of criteria associated with future options. Did the interim stabilization option facilitate future disposal in place or removal? We didn’t want to do something in the near term that would make the job harder in the long term.

As a panel, we discussed each of those criteria in detail, and we rated each individual criteria from one to five, with one being the worst and five being the best. What I did was create spreadsheets and each panel member assessed the criteria individually, and we did that intentionally to avoid what is referred to as “group think” or one person dominating the discussion. I then took those individual inputs and determined the average score for each criteria, but also looked at the distribution and variance between scores. We used that as a way of targeting our discussions going forward. If one panel member rated a certain criteria very low and the other panel members rated it as high, it was something I flagged for further discussion. As panel members, we went through each one of those criteria, one by one, and reconciled any differences. We used that to come up with a consensus opinion.

Did that happen often? Was there a lot of reconciling that had to be done?

There were quite a few that had some variance, but the reconciling that had to be done was mainly because someone didn’t have experience. It was mainly misinterpretation of guidance or different understandings, but there were no major disconnects between panel members. Another thing we did was weigh the criteria differently, recognizing that not all criteria are created equally. For instance, we would rate something like worker safety as a “3” and cost was a “1.” We didn’t want to make decisions that were cost expedient but would compromise worker safety or protection of the public. The thing that was surprising was when we looked at the results of the analysis, the grouting option was the preferred option in both the raw scores, unweighted, as well as the weighted. That happens from time to time. I’ve done a lot of these evaluations, but it is kind of rare when that happens. It tells you that the option is clearly the preferred option, because it comes out on top, with or without weighing criteria.

In the report, you didn’t go into any specifics about kinds of grout that could be used. Should you have?

There were a couple of panel members who were grout experts, but we intentionally tried not to engineer the solution, but to provide input to the Department and Richland Operations Office so they could use it. We did talk quite a bit about what was going on with PUREX Tunnel 1, because that grouting operation was just getting started when we were doing the evaluation. So, we had that type of information, but we didn’t get into details about the engineering of the grout placement or grout composition, recognizing that not all grout is the same. Certainly, looking at it now, with the successful completion of Tunnel 1, a similar type of grout would be the place to start.

In reading the report, it doesn’t seem like you focused on the fact that Tunnel 2 design is so different. Will that affect the challenge of placing grout.

We did talk about that. We didn’t get into the engineering but, obviously, Tunnel 2 is much bigger, not only in length but in cross section, and it will be a significant evolution to emplace grout. We did talk about the fact that there will be some additional engineering needed. You can’t just move from Tunnel 1 to Tunnel 2 without looking at the differences in configuration.

Is the design-to-capacity ratio for Tunnel 2 really concerning for the panel members? How much time can be allotted for engineering?

One of the things we looked at very early on is the structural evaluation. For Tunnel 1, the wall timbers had a design-to-capacity ratio at 1.5, and any design-to-capacity ratio greater than 1 is concerning. For Tunnel 2, several of the components were just slightly above 1. So, one of the things we did talk about was, can we reduce some of the conservatism in that analysis or change the configuration, i.e. remove some of the structural load by taking some of the backfill off that would reduce the load on Tunnel 2 so the design-to-capacity ratio would come down below 1? We determined very quickly the risk associated with doing that, not just to the workers, but to damaging the tunnel, as well as the fact that it really didn’t solve the problem and kind of just kicked the can down the road. So, we looked at that structural evaluation, and while there are design-to-capacity ratios that are above 1, in my estimation, there is no imminent risk. The Department is continuing to monitor Tunnel 2 with extra surveillance and looking at potential shifts, so it is one of those things where there is certainly time to do the engineering, but it is not something where you want to wait forever. Our recommendation was to make the decision and move expeditiously.

Was there anything, now that the report has been written and you can look back, that you wished you would have included?

Not really. What I’ll tell you, having done this for 30 years, this was one of the cleanest evaluations I’ve ever been associated with. A lot of good work was done on PUREX Tunnel 1, and we took that into account, but we didn’t let it heavily influence our decision. I can’t stress enough that both the raw score and the weighted score favored the grout option. It is a clear indication that grout is the preferred alternative. It is really satisfying when it lines up that way.

-Contributor: Kristen Holmes

SRS Women in Nuclear Organization Boosts Outreach, Visibility

Savannah River Site Women in Nuclear (WIN) members attend the U.S. WIN 2017 National Conference in San Francisco. From left, Marie Widener, Kela Lofton, Natalia Johnson, and Jennifer Nelson.

AIKEN, S.C. – The Women in Nuclear (WIN) organization’s chapter at the Savannah River Site (SRS) is fostering a collaborative environment across the site and increasing the visibility of nuclear-related careers in the workforce and community, particularly for women.

Since its inception in 2015, SRS-WIN has inspired its members to develop leadership skills, network for professional development, and provide educational outreach to surrounding communities. SRS-WIN is an affiliate of U.S. WIN, which helps its members succeed in the nuclear industry, and provides networking opportunities and organized association to inform the public about nuclear energy and technologies.

SRS-WIN recently installed a new president and several new board members and intends to expand its reach at SRS and in the community. The chapter’s leadership includes employees from the SRS management and operations contractor Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS), liquid waste contractor Savannah River Remediation, EM’s Savannah River National Laboratory, and the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility.

Savannah River Site Women in Nuclear members participate in the 2017 Leadercast Women event in Atlanta. From left, Kela Lofton, Ashley Dernberger, Natalia Johnson, Francesca De Rienzo, Tamara Baldwin, Jennifer Darby, Brooke Kinard, and Dara Dixon.

The group is working to offer its members more opportunities to get involved in the community and develop themselves professionally, according to Kela Lofton, SRS-WIN president and SRNS F Area facility manager.

“We’ve experienced a large growth in membership over the last several years and that tells me we are filling a need that was previously untapped,” Lofton said. “I’m excited to lead SRS-WIN and help integrate the diverse group of Savannah River Site employees who aspire toward the same goals — benefits of nuclear science and technology, environmental stewardship, clean energy, and national security.”

Jennifer Nelson, SRS-WIN Steering Committee member and DOE acting manager for Mission Support, said the chapter creates an outlet for SRS workers to encourage each other and stay engaged.

“When we come together through unique organizations such as SRS-WIN, we’re able to share valuable insight and visions that otherwise would not be realized, and it is making a difference in the workplace,” Nelson said.

SRS-WIN holds social networking events for members to connect with leadership, peers, and mentors.

-Contributor: Ashley Dernberger

Hanford Contractor Recognized for Commitment to Hiring Veterans

CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company Chief Operating Officer Dan Wood accepts the 2017 Hire-A-Vet Award from David Brown, WorkSource Columbia Basin administrator.

RICHLAND, Wash. – Washington state honored EM Richland Operations Office contractor CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) for its commitment to hiring veterans.

CHPRC recently won the Employment Security Department of Washington State 2017 Hire-A-Vet Award for its ongoing commitment to creating and increasing employment opportunities for veterans.

Dan Wood, CHPRC chief operating officer, accepted the award on the company's behalf.

Carl Marsh uses his 23 years of experience in the U.S. Marine Corps as CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company’s facilities and property manager.

“We value the tremendous contribution veterans make every day,” Wood said. “We are proud to employ such dedicated individuals.”

CHPRC employs more than 200 people who once served in the armed forces. Carl Marsh, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and CHPRC’s facilities and property manager, says veterans bring a unique perspective to any organization.

“Veterans have the drive to work harder and faster; they bring a sense of comradery and push others to do better,” Marsh said.

The state’s Employment Security Department created the Hire-A-Vet Award in 2006 to call attention to the large number of unemployed veterans in Washington state and to recognize companies with a good track record of hiring veterans.

-Contributor: Destry Henderson

Like EM on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DOEEnvironmentalManagement