Hanford Overview Joe Franco Deputy Manager Richland Operations
- Slides: 30
Hanford Overview Joe Franco, Deputy Manager, Richland Operations Office Steve Pfaff, Director, Tank Farms Programs, Office of River Protection October 4, 2018
Hanford: Most Complex and Challenging Site in EM Two Field Offices • Richland Operations Office • Office of River Protection Three Cleanup Components • River Corridor • Central Plateau • Tank Waste
Historical Overview 1940 s – Building Hanford 1944 -1989 –Producing Plutonium Present – Shifting Focus to Central Plateau 1990 s, 2000 s – Cleaning Up Near Columbia River
Plutonium Production Process 100 Area: Nine reactors operated to change a portion of the uranium to plutonium in nuclear reactions. 300 Area: Uranium was sent here to be fabricated into more than 20 million fuel rods for Hanford reactors. 100 Area 300 Area 200 Area 40 miles between 300 and 100 20 miles between 100 and 200 Area: Hundreds of facilities, including the Plutonium Finishing Plant, operated to remove plutonium from reactor fuel rods and manage waste generated during the chemical separations processes.
Hanford Cleanup Collaboration The Tri-Party Agreement (signed in 1989) • Agreement between the U. S. Department of Energy, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency WA Hanford Advisory Board (HAB) • Comprising 32 seats from the public and interest groups Elected officials and Tribal leaders • Support from regional and national elected leaders • Engagement with the four separate tribal nations EPA DOE
Richland Operations Office
Major Richland Cleanup Activities • Maintain safe, secure, and compliant activities, facilities and operations • Continue stabilization and demolition of Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) • Stabilize second Plutonium Uranium Extraction (PUREX) facility waste storage tunnel (PUREX Tunnel 2) • Continue groundwater pump-and-treat operations and implement additional groundwater remedies • Continue River Corridor cleanup • Continue design for transferring cesium and strontium (Cs/Sr) capsules to dry storage • Support limited repackaging of large transuranic containers and waste drums • Continue to maintain and upgrade Hanford Site infrastructure
Richland’s Recent Successes Facilities, Waste Sites • Remediated highly radioactive waste site near river (618 -10 Burial Ground) • Stabilized waste storage tunnel that partially collapsed in May 2017 (PUREX Tunnel 1) Groundwater • Operating treatment facilities above original capacities; record volume treated in 2018 (more than 2. 2 billion gallons)
Plutonium Finishing Plant • Final stop in plutonium production, began in 1949 • Among highest-hazard facilities in DOE • Contamination events in June and December 2017 • Demolition work stopped in December • Root cause analysis • DOE expert panel review of plan for resuming demolition • Demolition resumed in September with additional safety controls, monitoring
Sludge Treatment Project • 35 cubic yards (27 cubic meters) of radioactive sludge in K West Reactor Basin near Columbia River • Began removing sludge in June 2017 • Project schedule: Remove approximately 20 containers of sludge by September 2019
PUREX Tunnels • Partial collapse of Tunnel 1, May 9, 2017 • 20’ x 20’ collapse of dirt cap over tunnel storing equipment • Crews filled the hole with dirt and sand; placed large plastic cover entire tunnel • Filled Tunnel 1 with engineered grout • Tunnel 2 at risk for potential collapse • DOE selected use of engineered grout for Tunnel 2 stabilization
Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility • Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF) provides safe underwater storage for 1, 936 highly radioactive capsules containing the elements cesium and strontium • The cesium and strontium were removed from the waste in tanks reduce the temperature • DOE plans to move the capsules into dry storage • Dry storage would mitigate the possibility of a release of radioactive material in the unlikely event of a major earthquake
324 Building • 324 Building contains radiological and non-radiological laboratories, support facilities, and administrative areas • The 324 Building is one of the last buildings that remains to be demolished in the 300 Area • During demolition preparation, a breach was discovered in the base of the building • Samples indicated highly radioactive contamination has leaked into the soil immediately beneath the 324 Building • A mockup facility is being used by workers to test remediation activities in a safe environment
Infrastructure • DOE will reconfigure, rejuvenate, and right-size infrastructure essential to the Hanford Mission • 54 projects required to provide necessary infrastructure and support for Direct Feed Low Activity Waste and support for other Hanford missions • Water/sewer, electrical, roads, IT systems, facility maintenance, emergency services, fleet vehicles
Office of River Protection
ORP Mission To safely manage the waste in Hanford’s underground tanks while delivering the waste treatment capability needed for waste immobilization and final disposition. Vision To be a high-performing and innovative organization that is safety conscious, employee-focused, and committed to successfully achieving our environmental mission safely and efficiently.
River Protection Project
Tank Farm Mission Safely maintain 56 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste § 1943 -1964: 149 single-shell tanks (SST) § 1968 -1986: 28 double-shell tanks (DST)
Hanford Tank Farms Compared to Other Sites Hanford Tank Farms Ø Ø 177 underground carbon steel storage tanks § 149 single-shell tanks § 28 double-shell tanks § 56 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste 176 million curies of radioactivity § 106 million curies of previously removed strontium and cesium – stored in capsules Ø 240, 000 tons of complex chemical waste Ø Five major facilities were used for Hanford waste generation Total number of gallons contained within tanks at various DOE sites
Tank Waste Treatment: Waste Composition Typical Double Shell Tank
Tank Retrieval Technologies
Tank Farms Supporting Facilities Effluent Treatment Facility 242 -A Evaporator 222 -S Laboratory
Protecting Our Workers
WTP Mission: Immobilize Waste in Glass Molten glass and waste in a melter Simulated vitrified waste in a container Simulated vitrified waste High-level waste (tall) canisters and low-activity waste containers
WTP Project Overview WTP Project – $16. 8 B+ capital project (largest in DOE) • • • Pretreatment (PT) Facility High Level Waste (HLW) Facility Low Activity Waste (LAW) Facility Analytical Laboratory Balance of Facilities (BOF) LAW • • • LAW / Lab nearing completion BOF in startup / commissioning Direct Feed plan for startup HLW • Technical issues caused delays • BOF also supports HLW/PT PT • Three remaining technical issues • Resolution anticipated in FY 2018
Direct Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLAW) Direct Feed Low-Activity Waste – Phased feed approach using a tank-side process to provide initial feed for LAW Facility operations DFLAW Advantages: • Enables near-term waste treatment and places approximately 75% of the WTP in operation • Addresses liquids, the most mobile form of tank waste and creates double-shell tank space • Near-Term - supports organizational, cultural, and skills / experience development through the transition from construction to operations • Longer Term - provides valuable lessons-learned to aid construction, startup, and commissioning of the remaining portions of WTP
DFLAW Overview
Tank-Side Cesium Removal (TSCR) • Ion-exchange to remove cesium (proven technology – Fukushima) • Leverages functional characteristics of Tank Closure Cesium Removal (TCCR) system designed for Savannah River Site • Tank-side / limited infrastructure requirements • Design, build, test, delivery cycle supports DFLAW schedule • Pre/post-ion exchange filtration to remove undissolved solids and media fines • Hydrogen retention mitigation and enclosure ventilation skid TCCR TSCR Conceptual Layout
DFLAW Summary DOE recognizes the urgency of the cleanup mission and the need to continue to achieve safe and efficient progress Continuing to make progress toward DFLAW operations DOE and its contractors are aligned on the approach and are working to increase confidence in achieving DFLAW operations as soon as December 2021 and no later than December 2023 DOE is committed to continuing to work with regulators, tribal nations, and stakeholders
Questions?
- Deputy manager wikipedia
- Richland one school district
- Lauren super pine richland
- Paulding county reservoir
- Craig hanford
- Project portfolio management hanford ibm
- Hanford
- Hanford
- Overview of airport operations
- Manifesto of a head girl
- Deputy jody hull
- Which ics functional area arranges
- Brain hemorrhage
- Onondaga county sheriff civil division
- Eft deputy chief
- Direct characterization in the crucible act 1
- Confused deputy
- Daniel stephens md deputy commissioner
- Mark stowers
- Heidi frechette
- Deputy medical director
- Deputy head of division
- Senior manager vs general manager
- Portfolio manager synergy manager parental developer
- Scope of operations management
- System center operations manager
- Ambulance operations manager
- Franco-prussian war results
- Franco malerba bocconi
- Franco donzelli
- Franco capozza