Columbia Generating Station, Energy Northwest Presentation Slide ...

618-11 Project StatusPresentation to NRC

Zach Dunham10/18/2012

618-11 Remediation Project

Protecting the Columbia River

Purpose of Meeting

• Provide informational update to NRC on planned efforts to remediate the 618-11 site

• Describe potential impacts to CGS

• Planned efforts to mitigate impact areas

• Discuss CGS Licensing Basis Impacts

2


Agenda

• Introductions • Overview/Review of 618-11 Site• Status & Schedule for Remediation

• Non-Intrusive Characterization (NIC)• Site Infrastructure• Remediation – Phase 1 (Trenches & VPUs)• Remediation – Phase 2 (Caissons)

• Overview of Supporting Safety/Impact Analysis• DOE• EN

• CGS Licensing Basis Impacts

3

Protecting the Columbia RiverOverview / Review

of 618-11 Site 4


618-11 Project Drivers

• CERCLA Record of Decision signed in 2001 Technology alternative selected requires removal of waste from

trenches, VPUs, and caissons; treating as necessary and disposing.

• Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order Tri-Party Agreement between State of Washington, EPA, and

the DOE Legally binding agreement with enforceable milestones

Milestone M-16-00B – Complete by Sept 2018 all 300 area remedial actions (including 618-10 and 618-11 Burial Grounds)

5

Overview / Reviewof 618-11 Site


618-11 Remediation Project

Existing Vehicle Barrier

Aerial View of 618‐11 Site(Adjacent to CGS)

UPR 600-22*

618‐11 Site

New Vehicle Barrier

UPR – Unplanned Release Site6

North


618-11 Burial Ground

• Operated by DOE from 1962 – 1967• 375 x 1000-ft rectangle oriented east-west• Approximately 8.6 acres in size• ~50,000 yd3 of DOE defense waste in:

3 trenches (88% of total) 50 vertical pipe units (VPUs)(11% of total) 4 caissons (1% of total)

• Estimated Inventory for 618-11 Site 4,200 Ci Sr-90 5,300 Ci Cs-137 226 Ci Am-241 132 Ci Pu-239 639 Ci Pu-241 330 kg Beryllium

7



Waste Forms / Potential Hazards


8


• Low- to high-activity radioactive waste including fission products

• Spent nuclear fuel residues• Plutonium-contaminated waste• Residual quantities of chemical waste associated

with laboratory and fuel manufacturing processes• Solid waste contaminated with beryllium • Tritium


VPU’s

Trenches


Trench 1

Trench 2

Trench 3

50 - VPU’s

4 - Caissons

9



Trench Wastes618-11 Burial Ground

Typical Hanford Trench During Remediation

10


NOT FROM618-11


Trench Wastes618-11 Burial Ground

Hanford Drums from Previous Remediations

11


NOT FROM618-11


Vertical Pipe Unit (VPU)618-11 Burial Ground

12


• VPUs are constructed of five 55-gallon drums

• Each VPU is 22 inches in diameter and 15 feet long

• 50 VPUs at 618-11


Actual Geophysical InformationTypical Caisson Design

Caissons (Will be included in Phase 2 Remediation)618-11 Burial Ground

13


Protecting the Columbia RiverStatus & Schedule

for Remediation 1414


Start with 618-10 to Gain Experience• 618-10 Site

• Similar waste types (VPUs & Trenches)• Located ~3.5 miles south of CGS

• Non-Intrusive Characterization Complete • Lessons Learned Applied to 618-11

Number of analyses per VPU Response/control of contamination

• Trench Remediation• In Progress• Lessons Learned being captured

• VPU Remediation • Will be initiated prior to 618-11 VPU efforts• Lessons Learned will be applied to 618-11

Approach to Remediating 618-11 Site

Status & Schedulefor Remediation15


Remediation of 618-11 will be Performed in Two Phases

• Non-intrusive Characterization (Completed)

• Phase 1 – Remediation (~Spring 2014 Start) Trench Campaign VPU Campaign UPR-600-22

• Phase 2 - Remediation (~2015 Start) Caisson Campaign

• All Activities Completed by September 2018

Status & Schedulefor Remediation

Schedule for Remediating 618-11 Site

16


NON-INTRUSIVE CHARACTERIZATION

Installation of Cone Penetrometers for VPU Characterization at 618-11



NON-INTRUSIVE CHARACTERIZATION

Activities conducted to support remedial action planning

• Conducted geophysical delineation of the caissons and VPU’s

• Installed 2 cone penetrometers at each VPU• Conducted in-situ radioactivity measurement

of each VPU using a gamma dose rate GM Probe

• Survey results showed highest radiation readings near bottom of VPUs18 VPUs < 100 mR/hr18 VPUs 100 mR/hr to 1 R/hr14 VPUs > 1 R/hr up to 9R/hr

• Results showed ~20 VPUs are suspected to be TRU Waste



Proposed Site Layout for Remediation Operations


Energy NorthwestCGS

Infrastructure to Support618-11 Remediation

clean soilstockpiles

clean soilstockpiles


UPR-600-22

CGS CAM’s

Drum Storage

Support Trailers

Dedicated Access Road


• Implement Controls derived from the “Hazards, Requirements & Consequences” such as: Limit the available ‘Material at Risk’ at any one time Utilize distance and barriers Plan immediate ‘response’ contingencies

• Apply Past Practices and Lessons Learned 3 Energetic Events & 1 Airborne Release (2007-2012)

• Monitor for Compliance ON SITE Sampling & Monitoring (personnel, equipment and field

placed devices, etc.) OFF SITE (visual observations, environmental sampling stations,

event-air monitoring stations, etc.)

Remediation Planning for 618-11



Trench Campaign


Trench Campaign at 618-10

21


Emission ControlsTrench Campaign (Past Practices & Lessons Learned)

Waste will be maintained below grade and covered with layer of clean cover soil after sorting.

Fixatives applied at the excavation face.

Exposed waste will be limited to the area of excavation.

All work suspended when wind speed exceed 20 mph.


Typical Trench Campaign

22


Drums are placed inside salvage drums at the edge of excavation using heavy equipment

Drums are cradled within the excavator bucket for removal

Spill Controls

Front-end loader is manned and staged during all drum handling

Fire Response


Trench Campaign (Past Practices & Lessons Learned)

23


Vertical Pipe Unit (VPU) Campaign

• Scope is to stabilize, characterize, retrieve, package and transport waste (50 VPUs at 618-11)

• Waste disposal will either be to DOE’s Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) or DOE’s Central Waste Complex (CWC) pending characterization





Vibratory Hammer

Over-Casing

Surrounding Soil

Over-Casing (~30-ft long x 4-ft diameter)

Drive Over-Casing Around VPU

VPU Surrounded in Over-Casing with some Adjacent Soil

Install Over-Casing

Step 1




Step 2In-Situ Stabilization

Auger Attachment

Augering Tool Enclosure

Rotary Drilling Rig

Over-Casing

VPU

In-Situ Stabilize Over-Casing ContentsPosition Drilling Rig over VPU





Step 3Characterization


Load sample into 55-gal

drumCore Sample String

Retrieve Representative Sample

On-Site Analysis for Shipping

CWC Analysis for Radiological Determination


Step 5

Step 4


Mass Excavation Removal

If Material Meets Disposal Facility Waste Acceptance Criteria



Load, Transport to ERDF

Grouted VPU

Grouted VPU

Grout TruckGrout Pump

Grout Swivel Head

Grout Injection

Step 4AGrout Injection




If Material Does Not Meet Disposal Facility Waste Acceptance Criteria

29

Retrieval Device

Waste Meeting ERDF WAC

Retrieval Enclosure

Conveyor

Retrieval System

Suspect TRU Waste to CWC

Grout Drums

Step 4BDrum by Drum Removal


Vertical Pipe Unit (VPU) CampaignFull Size-VPUs Proof of Concept Tests

• VPUs placed in 8’ diameter sleeves

• Backfilled around VPUs with Hanford surrogate soil

• Installed 4’ diameter over-casings

• Tests performed with various augers

• Retrieved materials using rock auger and bucket auger


Simulated VPU

Overcasing Installation

Auger Bit

Size Reduced VPU Contents

Protecting the Columbia RiverOverview of SupportingSafety/Impact Analysis31


DOE Safety Basis Analysis

• Documented Safety Analysis (10 CFR 830) Development of Material at Risk Hazard/Accident Analyses Dose Consequence analyses (Mitigated & Un-Mitigated)

• Fire Hazard Analysis (DOE Order 420.1B) Fire Protection Approach General Fire Protection Program & Features Task-Specific Fire Protection Programs & Features Design Fire Scenarios

• Emergency Preparedness Hazards Analysis (DOE Order 151.1C) Releases & Work Activities of Interest Distances of Interest DOE’s Emergency Action Level (EAL) Events Design Features, Controls and Results

Safety Basis Documentation

Overview of SupportingSafety/Impact Analysis32


• The hazard analysis considers initiators such as: Ignition sources Energy sources Explosive sources Chemical reactions External events Natural phenomena events

• The accident analysis evaluates events such as: Fires Spills Impacts (low and high energy) Explosions Deflagrations External and natural phenomena events

DOE Safety Basis Analysis



Energy Northwest will evaluate the DOE 618-11 Safety Basis for the following:

Impact on Columbia Generating Station

• Control Room Habitability • Dose to the Control Room personnel will not exceed

regulatory requirements• < 5 Rem during an accident.• < 4 mg/m3 beryllium concentration

• Access is available to all power block buildings and components

• Ability of workers to safely access the site and normal work locations

EN Impact Analysis



Impact on CGS Emergency Plan• CGS Emergency Plan has previously been revised to

incorporate EAL Classifications based on potential incidents at 618-11 during non-intrusive characterization.

• The Plan will be reevaluated to ensure it is adequate for the remediation phase.

• Impact on ERO facilities • Access to ERO facilities• Staffing of ERO• Appropriate EAL categorization of 618-11 Events• Consistency & coordination between DOE & EN

emergency plans

EN Impact Analysis



Impact on Security Plan • The vehicle barrier has been relocated to support 618-11 remediation

activities. Evaluate for other impacts.

Impact on the health and safety of the general public• All Energy Northwest employees, contractors and visitors are

considered members of the public with respect to DOE events. Dose to these individuals need to be maintained <100 mrem/year from routine operations at 618-11.

• Dose from an accident event (probability <10-2/year) would be maintained < 1 Rem/year (DOE Evaluation Limit).

EN Impact Analysis



Memorandum of Understanding • Two previous versions established

MOU for Non-Intrusive Characterization Efforts MOU for Implementation of Supporting Infrastructure

• MOU for remediation currently under discussion

This legal document outlines responsibilities of the 3 parties that will delineate actions to accomplish integration of the following:

• Emergency Plans for 618-11 and Columbia• Security• Lines of communications, emergency planning/reporting• Mitigation activities• Protection of Public Health & Safety• Liability (Personnel, Property & Business Losses)• Joint training & response drills

Overview of SupportingSafety/Impact Analysis

EN Impact Analysis

37

Protecting the Columbia River38

CGS Licensing Basis Impact


CGS Licensing Basis Impact• Utilize DOE Safety Basis analysis and documentation• Perform impact analyses of CGS systems

ALARA Emergency Preparedness Environmental Fire Protection Control Room Habitability Physical Security

• Identify mitigation and/or required changes to CGS Licensing Bases• Document in screening analysis ( eg. 50.59 / 50.54(p) / 50.54 (q) )• Submit appropriate documentation for NRC approvals• Coordinate with NRC during review process

39CGS Licensing Basis Impact

Protecting the Columbia River40

QUESTIONS?

Columbia Generating Station, Energy Northwest Presentation Slide ...

Documents

Transcript of Columbia Generating Station, Energy Northwest Presentation Slide ...