|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 21
PART 2: WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Part 2 of the report provides the rapporteur’s summary of the presentations and
discussions that took place at the March 13, 2007 workshop entitled Science and Technology
for Environmental Cleanup of DOE Sites. As noted in the Preface, this workshop was
organized by the National Research Council (NRC) to bring together regulators and other
interested parties to discuss current site conditions and science and technology needs. The
workshop agenda and participants are provided in Appendixes B and C, respectively.
OPENING COMMENTS
The organizing committee invited two speakers to provide opening remarks to help
establish the context for the day’s workshop discussions: Mr. Mark Gilbertson (Deputy
Assistant Secretary, Office of Engineering and Technology, DOE-EM) provided an overview of
DOE’s progress in site cleanup, future challenges, and DOE’s rationale for requesting the
workshop and Phase 2 study (the Phase 2 study is described in the report Preface). Ms. Terry
Tyborowski (Staff Assistant, House Committee on Appropriations, Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee) provided a congressional perspective on technology utilization in
DOE’s cleanup program.
Mr. Gilbertson noted that EM has made good progress in site cleanup, but great
challenges remain. With the successful closure of some smaller DOE sites (e.g., Rocky Flats
in Colorado and sites in Ohio), the cleanup program is becoming increasingly focused. Most of
the future cleanup work will be carried out at the DOE sites that are the focus of this workshop:
Hanford, Idaho, Oak Ridge, Savannah River, Paducah, and Portsmouth. It will cost an
additional $100 billion and require several decades to complete the currently planned cleanup
programs at these sites.
There are additional DOE sites (operated by the National Nuclear Security
Administration, Office of Nuclear Energy, and Office of Science) that could be added to EM’s
cleanup program in the future. At present, there is no indication that the cleanup challenges at
these sites are markedly different than what EM already faces at its current sites. However,
there is a substantial amount of new deactivation and decommissioning (D&D) work,
particularly at sites like Y-12 at Oak Ridge.
Congress has asked EM to provide its vision for bringing greater technical innovation to
bear in its cleanup program. That office is preparing a technology roadmap for Congress that
identifies targets of opportunity for the more effective use of cleanup technologies. An
abbreviated version of the roadmap is expected to be submitted to Congress at the end of
March 2007. The roadmap will be routinely updated in the future as new information becomes
available.
EM has requested this National Academies study to help with its roadmap
development efforts. EM hopes that this study can help identify opportunities to make targeted
investments in technology and to leverage the resources and capabilities of other
organizations, including other DOE offices. The primary focus of this workshop is to assess
whether EM is missing any technology development opportunities at its sites, specifically with
PREPUBLICATION COPY
21
OCR for page 22
Part 2: Workshop Summary 22
respect to high-level waste cleanup, soil and groundwater cleanup, D&D of facilities, and
waste and contamination containment.
The current centralized technology development program within EM for addressing
these cleanup challenges is small (about $20 million per year) and focused, unlike the $300
million to $400 million per year investments in the mid 1990s. However, there is a willingness
on the part of EM management to expand support if a new vision for technology development
can be articulated.
This workshop is the first phase of a two-part study. The second phase of the study18
will provide advice to EM on leveraging the resources and capabilities of other organizations,
including other offices within DOE, and preserving critical assets at the national laboratories so
that they are available to support the long-term cleanup mission. EM does not need to manage
the national labs to have access to their capabilities. However, EM does need to provide and
manage resources for people, programs, and facilities, and it needs to keep national
laboratory staff working on its problems.
EM now spends between $150 million and $200 million per year at national
laboratories for direct and indirect technical support of its cleanup projects. It is not clear,
however, that these investments are being managed in a strategic manner. The transfer of the
EM Science Program to the Office of Science is a case in point. When the Office of Science
contacted the sites for advice on high-level waste research, site responses focused on short-
term needs. The Office of Science interpreted this response as an indication that the sites did
not have any longer-term needs that could be addressed by the EM Science Program.
Consequently, the Office of Science decided to focus that program on subsurface research
instead. EM has reengaged the Office of Science to correct this miscommunication.
A member of the audience asked Mr. Gilbertson if EM was providing direct support to
the national laboratories. Mr. Gilberston responded that most EM support to the national
laboratories is presently being done through cleanup contractors. There might be opportunities
to provide funding directly to the labs in the future, but EM wants advice on capabilities and
infrastructure that should be supported. He noted that EM also invests about $20 million per
year in university research activities.
Another audience member asked whether the cleanup technology roadmap addresses
buried waste and spent fuel and nuclear materials management. Mr. Gilbertson noted that
buried waste is addressed in the roadmap under soil and groundwater cleanup needs. The
current draft of the roadmap does not address management of spent fuel or nuclear materials.
An audience member suggested that EM will need to provide a continuous source of
funding if it wants to maintain capabilities at the national laboratories. Mr. Gilbertson agreed
that critical capabilities need to be looked after by EM, but that there were other federal
agencies that could provide some of the needed funding. For example, the Department of
Homeland Security has picked up some of the research and development on sensors that was
formerly funded by EM.
Ms. Tyborowski began her remarks by noting that the Energy and Water
Development Committee is frustrated by the lack of utilization of new technology in EM’s
cleanup program. The committee has received complaints from companies about EM’s
18
As noted previously, the Phase 2 study is described in the Preface.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 23
Part 2: Workshop Summary 23
resistance to the use of company-developed technologies. At the same time, there is a legacy
of pauses, stops, and reevaluations of cleanup projects because technology does not get
inserted at the right time. The committee does not understand the reasons for the resistance to
new technology utilization.
The Energy and Water Development committee agrees that there is a need for more
innovative technology in the cleanup program. The committee is also happy to see that EM is
rebuilding its technology programs and is ready to support increased technology investments.
EM’s cleanup work needs to be done smartly by taking advantage of new technologies, rather
than the current focus on “fast” and “cheap.” EM’s use of design-build projects to cut costs and
save time is not working. The committee agrees with a GAO19 report that there should be a
gauge of technology maturity before a cleanup project moves forward.
The Energy and Water Development committee is encouraged that the National
Academies are looking at technology development needs. The Academies can speak
independently, and its reports cannot be edited by the Administration. It would be helpful to
Congress if the Academies could identify the barriers for inserting new technologies into the
cleanup program. It would also be useful to have advice on technology investment priorities
and criteria (e.g., safety and mortgage cost reduction) for prioritization.
During the question and answer session following Ms. Tyborowski’s formal remarks, a
national laboratory staff member offered comments about barriers to new technology
deployment. He noted that cleanup projects are contract driven: contractors get paid to
execute the contracts and are penalized if contract obligations are not met. There are few
incentives in current contracts for the deployment of new technologies. Also, there is often not
enough money to do all of the necessary planning up front, which requires that projects be
implemented in stages. It is hard to predict “show-stopper” problems until they are
encountered during project execution, and by that time there is pressure to spend additional
time and money to solve the problem rather than select another technology.
A cleanup contractor listed several obstacles for getting new technologies used in the
cleanup program: lack of continuity of site contractors; use of performance-based contracts
that lack incentives for contractors to use new technologies; and the cost of paperwork for
revisions to agreed-upon work, especially for safety documentation. In short, contractors have
zero or negative incentives for using new technologies.
Another contractor noted that new technologies such as solvent side solvent extraction,
which will be used to process salt waste at Savannah River in place of in-tank precipitation,
have taken years to reach maturity. He suggested that EM should look to the nuclear industry
for mature technologies to add to its cleanup toolbox.
A state regulator expressed support for the development of the cleanup technology
roadmap. She noted that the closure of tanks at the Savannah River Site will be carried out
from 2010-2022, and that not all of the tools necessary to close the tanks are available at
present. She commented that there is still time to develop such tools, and that regulatory
drivers can provide the necessary pressure and incentives to do so.
19
Department of Energy: Major Construction Projects Need a Consistent Approach for Assessing
Technology Readiness to Help Avoid Cost Increases and Delays. GAO-07-336, March 27, 2007.
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-336.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 24
Part 2: Workshop Summary 24
Another state regulator noted that without continued regulatory pressure, cleanup
progress tends to stall. He also commented that regulators have the flexibility to allow EM to
introduce new technologies into its cleanup projects.
CLEANUP CHALLENGES AT FOUR DOE SITES
Panel sessions were organized for each of the four large DOE sites: Hanford, Idaho,
Oak Ridge, and Savannah River. For each panel session, a DOE staff member initiated the
discussion by providing comments on site science and technology gaps and/or the underlying
site technology needs and cleanup challenges. The panelists were then invited to provide
comments on these DOE-identified gaps (or the underlying technology needs and cleanup
challenges) and to identify other gaps that require attention. The DOE speakers and panelists
were also encouraged to comment on the science and technology gaps identified in the
workshop discussion paper—particularly with respect to the current relevance of those
identified gaps to their sites. Following panel comments, questions and comments from the
audience were invited.
Savannah River Site
Cleanup challenges and technology needs at the Savannah River Site were reviewed
by Panelist Pat Suggs (Chemical Engineer, DOE Savannah River Operations Office, Salt
Processing Division). She noted that the primary objective of the cleanup program at the site is
to meet federal facility agreement commitments for waste retrieval and tank closure,
solidification of high-level waste at the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF), and
processing and disposal of low-activity waste at the Salt Processing Facility (SPF). While
meeting these regulatory commitments, DOE-EM is also trying to preserve working tank
space, which is in very short supply, for its current and future waste processing operations
(e.g., operation of the H Canyon,20 DWPF, and the Salt Waste Processing facility [SWPF]).
EM’s principal high-level waste cleanup challenges include:
1. Removal of residual high-level waste from tanks and waste transfer lines:
Removal of sludge “heels” (i.e., the sludge remaining after bulk waste retrieval
is completed) from tanks, especially tanks with internal obstructions such as cooling
coils.
Removal of waste from the spaces (annuli) between the inner and outer tank
containments in tanks that have leaked.
Removal of residual waste from transfer lines between tanks and other
facilities.
2. Reduction of sludge mass to be sent to the DWPF for immobilization in glass.
3. Improvements in waste processing to preserve working tank space to support
future site operations.
20
DOE-EM has proposed to extend the operation of the H Canyon at the Savannah River Site through
2019 to process 26 metric tons of highly enriched uranium and two metric tons of plutonium, mostly from
aluminum clad spent fuel that is now being stored at the site.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 25
Part 2: Workshop Summary 25
Savannah River is examining a number of technologies for meeting these cleanup
challenges. For residual waste removal, the site will employ an oxalic acid cleaning technology
in two tanks. However, the use of oxalic acid can cause hydrogen generation and can have
downstream processing impacts.
The site hopes to develop an alternate technology that does not have these impacts
for future tank cleaning operations. The site also hopes to employ new mechanical cleaning
technologies in tanks with cleaning coils, especially technologies that use little or no added
water.
Recent analytical projections indicate that there is more mass such as aluminum, iron,
and nickel in the sludge waste in the tanks than initially anticipated. These projections are
based on samples of sludge waste sent to the DWPF for vitrification. Under worst case
projections, it could take 12 years to process the additional sludge mass, and this processing
could produce an additional 2000 canisters of vitrified (glass) waste. EM currently spends
about $500 million per year on its high-level waste operations at the site, so the incentive for
mitigating this risk by reducing the excess sludge mass is very high. EM has not yet identified
clear final technologies for sludge mass reduction. The site has some historical experience
with tank farm aluminum dissolution by sodium hydroxide that could be used to reduce sludge
mass. The site plans to involve industry and other national labs/DOE sites to identify
alternative technologies.
For waste processing improvements, the site hopes to implement technologies to
improve waste throughput in the DWPF, possibly through a combination of higher waste
loadings in glass (current waste loadings are 37-38 percent), new melter technologies, and
relaxing current compositional standards for glass products. The site will also examine
approaches for speeding up the preparation of sludge batches to be fed to the DWPF and for
minimizing the addition of water during sludge processing.
Panelist David Wilson (Bureau Chief, South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control) commented that high-level waste cleanup was the highest priority for
the state of South Carolina; getting the tanks closed is “paramount” to the state. Cleaning
tanks with cooling coils, tanks with waste in the annuli, and waste transfer lines are significant
technical challenges. The state is also interested in the disposition of surplus plutonium, which
is being consolidated at the site. Some of this surplus plutonium could be used in mixed oxide
(MOX) fuel, but some may have to be processed through the DWPF. Disposition of this
material is a significant concern to the state.
Panelist Shelly Sherritt (Federal Facilities Liaison, South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control) reiterated the state’s interest in tank closure and also noted
the state’s interest in minimizing the quantity of radionuclides left onsite from high-level waste
cleanup. The state is relying on the SWPF to remove radonuclides from the tank waste, but
the state does not want Savannah River to “put all of its eggs” in the SWPF basket. An
important lesson from the site’s transuranic waste cleanup program is that targeted
technologies can be used in innovative ways to meet cleanup goals. This approach is now
beginning to be extended to the high-level waste cleanup program, for example, through the
use of new technologies to treat the waste in Tank 48 (from the unsuccessful in-tank
precipitation process) to remove about 800,000 curies of radioactivity.
Other technology needs at the site include advanced technologies for characterizing
and stabilizing residual waste in the tanks; technologies to improve waste storage in tanks to
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 26
Part 2: Workshop Summary 26
minimize risks and “chip away” at the conservatism that limits operational flexibility; advanced
soil and groundwater remediation technologies; and low-worker-risk technologies for
characterizing retrievable transuranic waste that is now being stored in soil-covered drums on
pads.
Panelist John Marra (Associate Laboratory Director, Savannah River National
Laboratory) noted that the high-level waste at Savannah River is relatively uniform in
composition and that there are established disposition pathways for this waste. The site has
encountered surprises in processing some of this waste (e.g., the recent analytical projection
of a larger-than-anticipated sludge mass in the tanks), and the limited working space in the
tanks continues to hinder operational flexibility. The current operating environment is
conservative from a safety standpoint, which further limits operational flexibility. The carbon
steel construction of the tanks limits options for in-tank processing of waste as well as waste
retrieval.
The site has been very successful in maintaining the high-level waste tanks in a safe
condition, which tends to promote a status quo operating mentality that can prevent progress
from being made. In particular, there is a tendency to wait for “best” cleanup solutions that are
more complex and time consuming to implement.
The Savannah River National Laboratory receives $60 million to $70 million per year
for EM-related work; much of this funding is project directed. In the past, the lab received
direct funding to work on EM problems, but direct funding was eliminated when the cleanup
work was “projectized.” It is difficult to sustain research and development programs in the
absence of direct funding.
Questions and Discussion
Questions from the audience covered a wide range of cleanup and closure challenges,
some of which were not mentioned by the panel is its initial round of comments. Ms. Suggs
was asked whether current EM investments in tank cleanout technology development were
sufficient to meet site needs. She responded that current investments were project directed
and were being made in real time. This work is also being carried out in real tanks because the
site does not have a cold test facility (a realistic mock up of an actual tank). Additional funding
can always be used, but such funding is hard to find. Dr. Marra commented that cleanup
schedules and budgets require that technology development be done in parallel with actual
cleanup.
The panel was questioned about the level of technology development for cleanout of
tanks with cooling coils. Ms. Suggs noted that tank cleanout is the site’s first priority to meet
regulatory milestones. She reiterated that oxalic acid and other methods are being tried. Dr.
Marra commented that there is debris in many tanks (e.g., measuring tapes, spent zeolite from
ion exchange columns) which also makes cleanout difficult. Ms. Sherritt commented that the
state of South Carolina will not approve closures of tanks that contain too much residual
waste. She also noted that the schedules for cleanout of Tanks 18 and 19 are being adjusted
so that EM can try new retrieval technologies.
Ms. Suggs was asked whether the lack of knowledge about tank waste composition
was hindering progress in the program. She responded that characterization is carried out on
an as-needed basis. The contractor samples the waste that is removed from tanks to obtain
characterization information.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 27
Part 2: Workshop Summary 27
Ms. Suggs was also asked to elaborate on needs for post-closure monitoring. She
noted that DOE plans to monitor the tanks after closure but has not yet developed detailed
plans to do so. She speculated that monitoring might involve instrumentation in the tank
annuli.
Dr. Marra suggested that EM might also want to try some new monitoring approaches,
for example, placing instrumentation directly into the grouted tanks. He also commented that it
is hard to find funding for monitoring technology development.
An audience member asked Ms. Suggs to elaborate on technology priorities for D&D of
site facilities. She responded that the site’s priorities are worker protection and
characterization of hot spots. EM needs to determine whether it is better to fix contamination in
place or remove it. The audience member asked whether current technologies were sufficient
for containing contamination in place. Ms. Suggs commented that EM was testing some
technologies (e.g., phosphate cements), but additional technologies might be needed. Dr.
Marra commented on the importance of leveraging technology development from other
organizations in other parts of the world.
An audience member asked whether retrieval of buried waste was an important site
cleanup challenge. Ms. Sherritt noted that EM must retrieve transuranic waste stored on pads,
but this was not as critical an issue as high-level waste retrieval. A regulatory decision has
already been made to leave waste in place in the burial grounds at the site.
Finally, an audience member asked whether the timeframe for technology development
and deployment (“10 years or more”) described in the workshop discussion paper (which is
incorporated into Part 1 of this report) was realistic. Dr. Marra commented that 10 years is not
a bad number for deployment of innovative technologies. He pointed out that the success of
such deployments can be enhanced through the use of test facilities. He offered as an
example the deployment of new waste processing and vitrification technologies in the DWPF.
While that facility was being designed and constructed, the site operated a pilot facility at a
cost of about $30 million per year to work on technology issues. Ms. Suggs commented that it
takes three to four years to develop simple technology. She commented on the importance of
early and sustained technology investments so that contractors have the technology when
they need it.
Idaho Site
Panelist Scott Van Camp (Assistant Manager, DOE Idaho Operations Office) opened
the discussion with a short presentation of that site’s cleanup challenges and technology
needs. The Office of Nuclear Energy is the landlord of the site; EM is responsible for site
cleanup. This cleanup is proceeding under several agreements, including a 1995 Settlement
Agreement with the state of Idaho. This settlement dictates cleanup requirements and
milestones. EM has initiated a project (the Idaho Cleanup Project) that accelerates compliance
with some of the agreement milestones.
The Idaho Site’s principal cleanup challenges include the following:
1. Waste retrieval and treatment
Calcine retrieval (from bins) and treatment
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 28
Part 2: Workshop Summary 28
Sodium bearing waste treatment
Tank closure
Spent nuclear fuel management, including treatment of sodium- and epoxy-
bonded fuels
2. Soil and groundwater cleanup
Retrieval of targeted waste
Monitoring of installed caps
Monitoring of contamination migrating through fractured basalt 200-700 feet
(60-210 meters) below the surface
Long-term stewardship of groundwater contamination and radioactive waste left
in place
3. D&D of highly radioactive structures
Calcine waste retrieval and treatment is the primary cleanup challenge at the site.
About 4400 cubic meters (160,000 cubic feet) of highly radioactive granular calcine waste is
being stored in stainless steel bin sets inside of reinforced concrete silos. The waste must be
remotely retrieved and processed into a waste form that is suitable for eventual disposal in a
geologic repository. The site is testing a retrieval technology for breaking up clumped waste
and vacuuming it out of the bins. The site has not yet selected technologies for processing the
waste for storage and disposal. The Settlement Agreement stipulates that by 2035 the calcine
waste must be put into a form that is ready to be transported to a repository.
The sodium bearing waste challenges are more schedule than technology driven.
There are about 900,000 gallons (3.4 million liters) of mostly liquid waste being stored in
stainless steel tanks at the site. This waste will be retrieved and processed using steam
reforming to produce a dry granular waste form. The waste may eventually be disposed of in
an underground repository in New Mexico (the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant). The Settlement
Agreement stipulates that the sodium bearing waste be removed from the tanks by 2012 and
transported out of the state by 2018.
The tanks at the site are constructed of stainless steel, so the high-level waste did not
have to be neutralized for storage. Consequently, the tanks contain only minor amounts of
solids. This greatly simplifies the process for retrieving waste and cleaning the tanks. Once the
tanks are emptied they will be filled with grout. The site has already begun to grout some of
the smaller tanks.
DOE has an agreement with the state of Idaho for the retrieval of targeted waste from
the Radioactive Waste Management Complex at the site. Current technologies for carrying out
this retrieval are labor intensive. Caps will have to be installed over waste burial sites and their
long-term performance will have to be monitored. Contamination in the vadose zone and
groundwater will also have to be monitored over the long term.
The site contains many highly contaminated facilities (reactors and chemical
processing facilities) that must be deactivated and decommissioned. The primary technical
challenge is to characterize and remove contamination in the high background radiation
environments in these facilities. Additionally, there are pipelines and other structures under a
facility at the site that have high radiation fields (up to 1600 rads/hour). Technologies are
needed for remote remediation of this waste, otherwise the facility might have to be
demolished to access and remediate the contamination.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 29
Part 2: Workshop Summary 29
Spent nuclear fuel is also being stored at the Idaho Site. Some of this fuel contains
organic (epoxy bonded fuel) and reactive (sodium bonded fuel) components. These
components must be removed as part of fuel processing for storage and disposal. Less
expensive methods are needed for this processing.
Some spent fuel has already been put into canisters (“canned”) for storage and
eventual disposal. Technologies are needed for non-intrusive characterization of canned fuel
that may have damaged cladding.
Panelist Nick Ceto (Program Manager, Office of Environmental Cleanup, Hanford/INL
Project Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]) identified the primary technical
challenge at the site as characterizing and managing chemical and radioactive contamination
in the vadose zone and burial grounds. Additional technologies are needed for characterizing
and retrieving buried wastes that do not rely on visual inspection and that do not raise worker
safety issues.
Additional work on in situ stabilization technologies is also needed. Caps are a favorite
DOE technology, but they are not a favorite technology of EPA or the public. Their long-term
effectiveness is unknown, and they have limited effectiveness when contamination is located
in the deep vadose zone. More work is needed on assessing the effectiveness of capping
technologies, as well as other technologies to characterize and stabilize waste in the deep
vadose zone.
Conceptual model development for groundwater is a technical challenge across DOE
sites. These models work well when the subsurface is homogeneous and flow is by matrix
processes. The models work poorly for complex sites like Idaho and many other DOE sites
where fracture flow dominates.
Technology development to address these issues is important, and EM has time to
carry out research and development (R&D) to address many of its problems. EPA advocates
the use of life cycle baselines that include technology development activities. Having an
agreed-upon baseline that includes technology development activities can provide a rallying
point for regulators and stakeholders.
There is a tendency at DOE sites and national laboratories to “reinvent the wheel,” and
not enough emphasis is placed on information sharing and using already available tools in site
cleanup. EM needs to be more thoughtful about when to delay cleanup to allow time for
technology development and when to move forward. Leaving technology development to
cleanup contractors is not appropriate: There is not sufficient continuity for long-term work, and
parochial business interests can interfere. EM should have the leadership responsibility for
funding and managing its R&D activities.
Panelist Kathleen Trever (Coordinator, State of Idaho INL Oversight Office) noted
that DOE-EM and regulators were working together to make a difference at the site, but that
the long time frames to solve some of the cleanup challenges do not match up well with
institutional and political realities. Frequent changes in administrations and DOE management
make it difficult to sustain support for technology development over 10-year timeframes. A
good example of this difficulty was the development of a roadmap for the vadose zone. A great
deal of effort was put into developing this roadmap, then EM’s priorities shifted and the
roadmap was never implemented.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 30
Part 2: Workshop Summary 30
Buried waste retrieval and D&D of facilities will be carried out at the site over the next
10 years. These D&D activities will place workers into high hazard environments. DOE-EM
might ask workers about their safety concerns and use their answers to focus its R&D work.
Stabilization of residual contamination is another important cleanup challenge.
Evaluating the long-term performance of caps and grout are specific technology challenges.
Some work is already being carried out on grout performance, but additional work is needed to
ensure that this stabilization technology works as anticipated.
R&D can help to ensure that the nation does not repeat the waste and environmental
management problems of the past. This is especially important if society continues to rely on
nuclear power and the United States decides to reprocess spent fuel. DOE’s biggest cleanup
challenges revolve around the tank farms and wastes generated from previous reprocessing
activities.
Questions and Discussion
An audience member commented that the impediments to introducing the steam
reforming technology (for immobilization of sodium bearing waste) at the site were “non
technical,” and he asked about the status of that technology. Mr. Van Camp noted that steam
reforming came out on top after an evaluation of several technologies. The technology
selection process was identified by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board as a model
project for DOE. Ms. Trever noted that a pilot plant in Colorado helped to sort through some
technical issues associated with this technology. Previous commercial experience with the
technology was also helpful for getting regulatory approvals. DOE management was opposed
to vitrification at Idaho because of its costs and problems with implementation at Savannah
River and Hanford. Mr. Van Camp noted that Savannah River is using the Colorado pilot plant
for testing another waste form.
Another audience member asked EPA and DOE panelists why their cleanup priorities
were different. Mr. Van Camp noted that DOE technology needs for buried waste cleanup
ranked below other cleanup needs. Mr. Ceto commented that both DOE and EPA were
concerned about vadose zone contamination. He also noted that the management of buried
waste in the Subsurface Disposal Area being conducted under CERCLA (Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) is of interest to both EPA and the
state, but the state works most closely with DOE on spent fuel management issues.
The panel was asked to comment on the risks from transuranic waste in piping
beneath a facility at the site and whether it was contributing to contamination of the vadose
zone. Ms. Trever responded that the extent of contamination or the risks are presently
unknown.
Mr. Ceto was asked to elaborate on his comments about the vadose zone. He
responded that his major concerns were uncertainties in characterization and lack of
technologies to retrieve or stabilize contamination. Ms. Trever commented that another
concern was how contamination moves in the vadose zone and what methods were available
for remediating it.
An audience member asked Mr. Van Camp how EM planned to dispose of classified
wastes at the site. Mr. Van Camp noted that special nuclear materials are being disposed of in
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 31
Part 2: Workshop Summary 31
several ways: some are being sent to the Nevada Test Site or Oak Ridge, and some waste
was being disposed of onsite.
Another audience member noted that in recent congressional testimony, Assistant
Secretary Risploi estimated that remediation of the burial grounds at the Idaho Site could cost
$250 million per acre. He asked the panel to comment on opportunities for removing or
stabilizing this buried waste. Mr. Van Camp responded that DOE and regulators are currently
in discussions about how much waste will be retrieved. Mr. Ceto commented that there is a
preference in CERCLA for waste treatment and permanent remedies. Ms. Trever noted that
some combination of retrieval, stabilization, and caps were likely to be needed. She reiterated
her earlier comment about the importance of assessing and addressing worker safety
concerns in technology development programs.
Mr. Ceto also commented that buried waste is a “very big issue” across the DOE
complex and that in-situ stabilization technologies are ripe for research at all sites. He noted
that the public has a hard time understanding the difference between pre-1970 versus post-
1970 wastes, which have the same characteristics but are managed differently (land disposal
was used for pre-1970 waste, but deep geological disposal is required for post-1970 waste). It
is important to explain to the public why it is acceptable to leave waste behind regardless of its
origin. The public is interested in waste consolidation under small caps.
There was an exchange between an audience member and the panel over the use of
monitoring to improve subsurface models. Mr. Van Camp noted that there are a large number
of monitoring wells at the Idaho Site, and that data from these wells are used to assess and
improve site models.
Finally, an audience member commented that there was subsurface R&D being done
in the Office of Science and other federal agencies and asked Mr. Van Camp how the site
accesses this work. Mr. Van Camp noted that the sites work through Deputy Assistant
Secretary Gilbertson’s office to access work at other offices. Cleanup contractors also have
mechanisms to access this work. Ms. Trever commented that site access to this work is “hit or
miss.” The Idaho National Laboratory has a vadose zone research program, but the program
is not fully operating. It is not clear whether or how information from this and other programs is
factored into site cleanup decisions.
Oak Ridge Reservation
The Oak Ridge Reservation is a multi-mission site. DOE’s Office of Science manages
the Oak Ridge Office (ORO), which includes the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and
East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP). The National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) manages the Y-12 National Security Complex. DOE’s Office of Environmental
Management (EM) is responsible for remediation at ETTP (including D&D of the former
gaseous diffusion complex) and for cleanup of the watersheds in which ORNL, Y-12, and
associated waste disposal facilities are located. ORNL and Y-12 are undergoing
modernization, construction of new facilities, and Y-12 is undergoing a footprint reduction. At
these sites there are many surplus and dilapidated buildings that are not yet within EM’s scope
of work but that need to be demolished before soil and groundwater cleanup can be
completed.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 36
Part 2: Workshop Summary 36
contaminated materials from site cleanup. Dr. Gawarecki commented that she was satisfied
that recycling of decontaminated nickel would not pose any risk to the public.
A federal regulator in the audience asked what the state expected from performance
monitoring at the site over both the short and long term. Mr. Rector responded that over the
short term, the state was promoting the use of automated equipment such as air monitors.
Over the longer term, he noted that there are about 40 million pounds (18 million kilograms) of
uranium buried in trenches at the site that will require some kind of monitoring forever.
Hanford Site
Hanford is managed by DOE-EM, and cleanup activities are currently being conducted
by two different EM organizations: the Office of River Protection, which was created by
Congress, is responsible for retrieving, processing, and immobilizing high-level waste, closing
tanks, and remediating or stabilizing subsurface contamination associated with tank leaks. The
Richland Field Office is responsible for the remainder of site cleanup, including soil,
groundwater, and facility cleanup.
Panelist John Morse (Senior Technical Advisor for Soil and Ground Water
Remediation, DOE Richland Office) opened the discussion by reviewing the Richland Field
Office’s cleanup challenges and technology needs. He noted that the office has three cleanup
priorities:
1. Contaminants that have reached or have the potential to reach the Columbia River.
2. Contaminants that have the potential to migrate through the vadose zone to
groundwater.
3. Deactivation and decommissioning of site facilities.
Radioactive and chemical contamination exists at over 1500 locations on the site and
in about 80 square miles (200 square kilometers) of groundwater. Some groundwater
contamination has reached the Columbia River. The groundwater contaminants of primary
concern include carbon tetrachloride, chromium, strontium, technetium, and uranium, the latter
of which has been found to be more mobile in some environments than anticipated.
The site is evaluating and deploying several technologies to sequester strontium and
uranium contaminants: for example, near the Columbia River, an apatite barrier is being used
to sequester strontium, and polyphosphate is being used to sequester uranium. In addition,
phytoremediation is being evaluated to remove strontium from the shallow soil (vadoze zone)
and in-situ reductive techniques are being tested for reducing chromium (VI) to chromium (III).
DOE's Office of Science recently awarded a five-year grant to scientists at Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory to develop an improved understanding of uranium geochemistry and also
to develop improved fate and transport analysis methods. There is a 5 square mile [13 square
kilometer] carbon tetrachloride groundwater plume beneath the Central Plateau in the 200
West Area that is the result of past discharges of an estimated 500 to 1000 metric tons of
carbon tetrachloride, a significant portion of which is believed to still be in the vadose zone. A
standard approach (pump and treat) is currently being used to contain this plume. More
effective technologies are needed.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 37
Part 2: Workshop Summary 37
Although groundwater contamination at the site is extensive, most subsurface
contaminants are being held up in the vadose zone, especially beneath the Central Plateau.
Some of these contaminants (e.g., uranium and technetium) are migrating toward the
groundwater. Locating, characterizing, and remediating or stabilizing this contamination are
important technical challenges.
The Richland Field Office has already begun to deactivate and decommission
production reactors and fuel fabrication facilities and laboratories along the Columbia River.
There are large fuel processing facilities (canyons) and waste management facilities on the
Central Plateau that will be the subjects of future cleanup decisions. The Central Plateau is
heavily contaminated and will require long-term stewardship even after facility cleanup is
completed.
Panelist Steve Wiegman (Senior Technical Advisor, DOE Office of River Protection)
described the Office of River Protection’s cleanup challenges. There are 53 million gallons
(200 million liters) of high-level waste and 177 underground tanks on the Central plateau at the
site. The tanks, which have carbon steel shells, have exceeded their design lives, and some
single containment (i.e., single-shell) tanks have leaked waste into the subsurface. EM is
moving the waste from these tanks into newer double containment (i.e., double-shell) tanks
that have not leaked any waste.
At present, the site has no capabilities for treating its high-level waste, but the WTP
(Waste Treatment Plant) is being constructed on the Central Plateau for this purpose. When
completed, it will be the largest chemical treatment plant in the world. Completion of the WTP
has been delayed because of seismic concerns and other technical issues. There will be more
extended storage of waste in aging tanks than anticipated because of this delay.
The Office of River Protection has identified the following cleanup challenges:
1. Minimize the impacts of WTP delays on emptying the tanks.
2. Develop additional methods to immobilize low activity waste streams from the
WTP. The site is investigating several immobilization technologies, including bulk
vitrification and steam reforming.
3. Develop simpler tank-side processes for solid-liquid separations during tank waste
retrieval operations.
4. Develop alternate ways of dissolving waste in the tanks (e.g., fractional
crystallization) to enable in-tank separation of some chemical components.
5. Develop improved tank waste retrieval methods. Hanford has a cold test facility that
is used for realistic testing of waste retrieval technologies. The delay in completing
the WTP provides additional time to develop and test new technologies.
6. Improve waste processing efficiencies and waste loading in glass.
7. Develop improved methods to characterize waste and contaminated equipment,
the latter to support tank farm closure. There are hundreds of miles of piping and
other equipment that must be characterized.
8. Develop interim technologies to reduce surface water infiltration in the tank farms.
Infiltration around the tanks can drive subsurface contaminants deeper into the
vadose zone and groundwater.
9. Develop methods to characterize and remediate the vadose zone beneath the
tanks.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 38
Part 2: Workshop Summary 38
Panelist Nancy Uziemblo (Environmental Specialist, Washington State Department of
Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program) noted that the site has many cleanup challenges:
groundwater, soil, vadose zone, tanks, buildings, waste sites, and cribs. More progress has
been made in site cleanup in the last five years than at any time previously, largely in
response to regulatory pressures. It is important to the state of Washington that funding for site
cleanup continues so that this progress can be sustained.
Put simply, the state’s goal is cleanup and closure: The state wants DOE to empty
each tank and then close it. The goal is to remove as much waste as possible from these
tanks. Regulators need to be involved early in the planning for tank closure, and it is important
that they and EM be pursuing the same goals.
Innovative technologies will be needed to complete site cleanup. However, technology
development should not take funding away from site cleanup activities. There needs to be a
balance between looking for “best” solutions versus proceeding with currently available and
adequate technologies and approaches.
Panelist Nick Ceto (Program Manager, Office of Environmental Cleanup, Hanford/INL
Project Office, EPA) characterized the greatest cleanup challenge at the site as “vadose zone,
vadose zone, vadose zone.” Most of the radioactive and hazardous materials that were
released into the ground at the site are now in the vadose zone. Uranium and technetium in
the vadose zone are of particular concern because they are mobile. Remediating (e.g., flush
and collect) or stabilizing contamination in the vadose zone, especially in the deep vadose
zone, is a difficult technical challenge. Examples of specific cleanup challenges include the BC
Cribs on the Central Plateau, where the magnitude of intentional discharges of contaminants
exceeded the leaks from the tanks; and the 618-10/11 burial grounds located north of the 300
Area, which contain intensely radioactive transuranic waste, some of which has contaminated
the local groundwater.
The site has several other cleanup challenges: Tank waste retrieval, which has the
potential to exacerbate vadose zone and groundwater contamination if not done carefully;
cleanout and closure of the K-Basins in the 100 Area; and disposition of transuranic waste.
The definition of transuranic waste is not risk-based (the definition is based on concentrations
and half lives), and DOE has the option of petitioning EPA if it wishes to change its approach
for managing this waste for specific cleanup projects.
Panelist Dirk Dunning (Program Coordinator, Oregon Office of Energy, Nuclear
Safety Division) highlighted plutonium migration in the vadose zone as a critical problem at the
site. Plutonium beneath the Plutonium Finishing Plant on the Central Plateau is moving in
ways that are not predicted by current site models. Plutonium beneath the Z Cribs near the
plant has migrated to depths between 20 and 100 meters (65 and 330 feet) and is moving
toward groundwater. Remediating or stabilizing this material will be difficult because it is so
deep. Advances in understanding of plutonium geochemistry in the past 7-8 years suggests
that plutonium bonds to some soil components and is slightly soluble in subsurface
environments.
The geology beneath the Hanford Site is complex, containing permeable horizontal
sedimentary layers, less permeable vertical clay dikes which cut across these layers, and
other lateral and vertical discontinuities. This complexity affects the movement of subsurface
contamination. Contaminants migrate laterally within the sediment layers and then move
vertically when they reach the dikes. Current site models are totally inadequate for predicting
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 39
Part 2: Workshop Summary 39
this behavior and therefore cannot be used for estimating risk. New models populated with
field data are needed, and needed quickly.
The site also requires new decision tools for high-level waste cleanup. In particular, the
site needs tools that can help EM make decisions about double-shell tank maintenance and
capacity management so that the tanks will be available when the WTP is operating.
Panelist Susan Leckband (Chair, Hanford Advisory Board) focused her comments on
sharing information and implementing technology in the cleanup program. Many DOE sites
have common problems, but the site personnel do not get together to share concerns. The
loss of funding for the Technical Focus Areas (TFAs) that provided cross-site communication
is partly to blame for this problem. DOE-EM should be a facilitator of information sharing rather
than a gatekeeper.
EM also needs to develop a process for the continuous implementation and sharing of
new technologies. The Hanford Advisory Board has developed a flowsheet for the Central
Plateau that identifies the entry points for new technologies during the cleanup process. The
board is working on similar flowsheet for groundwater cleanup.
Panelist Terri Stewart (Initiative Lead for Environmental Biomarkers, Battelle Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory) focused her comments on soil and groundwater cleanup
challenges at the site. Conceptual model development should be at the top of the list of
science and technology gaps in the workshop discussion paper. At the Hanford Site,
conceptual model development is needed to promote the better understanding of contaminant
behavior near the Columbia River and beneath cribs and tank farms on the Central Plateau
where contamination enters the subsurface flow system. This improved understanding leads to
improved remediation, especially cost-effective in situ remediation.
Hanford has had some success in understanding contaminant (especially cesium,
strontium, uranium, and technetium) behavior beneath the tank farms because of an EM
funded research project at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory that engaged scientists from
across the United States. The project was successful for several reasons: It involved good
researchers; it combined basic and applied research, it used “translators” who were able to
work with the researchers and cleanup contractors to communicate needs and results in
meaningful ways; and the researchers had access to site and field relevant samples. This
project produced 140 publications and provided important insights into key process that control
contaminant movement in the subsurface.
The site would benefit from additional research on how natural subsurface systems
work and how to take advantage of those systems to stabilize and immobilize contaminants.
The site also needs sampling and characterization tools that provide volumetric information to
support conceptual model development and post closure monitoring. Post closure monitoring
is at least three decades away, so there is still time to develop the necessary knowledge and
technologies. However, factoring post-closure concepts into current activities is important to
ensure that a lifecycle perspective drives today’s decisions.
Dr. Stewart concluded her remarks asking “What should be the mission of science on a
life cycle basis in the cleanup program?” She observed that to be effective, science and
technology development should not be driven by short-term needs alone.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 40
Part 2: Workshop Summary 40
Panelist Roy Gephart (Geohydrologist, Battelle Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory) focused his comments on high-level waste cleanup challenges at the site. The
Hanford Site holds 60 percent by volume and 40 percent by radioactivity of DOE’s nationwide
inventory of high-level waste. There are 89 different waste composition “envelopes” that the
WTP will eventually need to process. DOE knows what is in the tanks in a broad sense but
lacks detailed information. Completion of the WTP has been delayed until 2018—thirty years
after the Tri-Party Agreement was signed—which provides adequate time for a well-
considered science and technology program focused on waste characterization through
processing.
There are four major factors that will determine schedule and lifecycle costs for EM’s
high-level waste program at the Hanford Site: Waste volume to be processed, waste form
loading, waste form predictability and consistency, and facility operational effectiveness.
Controlling lifecycle costs is a key decision driver when carrying out short- and long-term
science and technology investments. Examples of specific technical challenges include the
following:
Predicting non-Newtonian fluid dynamics in waste processing, especially when
particles are introduced (e.g., settling velocities, slurry mobilization, turbulence,
scaling, and filtering).
Understanding the chemistry of multi-phase, high-salt systems during extended
storage and processing and its effects on tank corrosion, gas generation, and
transfer line plugging.
Understanding the chemistry of the liquid-glass transition to help predict the
properties of glass melts. Predicting the properties of glass melts made from
composition data alone and from the bismuth phosphate waste streams are
particular technical challenges.
There is great value for predicting waste formulations, waste loadings, and melter operations
by developing a sound scientific understanding of these issues instead of relying solely on
empirical knowledge.
Mr. Gephart ended his remarks by observing that none of this science will be done
without the continuity and retention of an experienced scientific staff. He suggested that DOE
needs to demonstrate a sustained commitment to funding research programs so as to
maintain a qualified scientific staff to support the growing science and technology needs of
DOE’s tank cleanup mission.
Questions and Discussion
A regulator in the audience asked about the performance requirements for containment
monitoring and what strategies were needed to carry out such monitoring. Mr. Ceto
commented that monitoring requirements were site specific. Under CERCLA, monitoring
performance goals are established up front. Mr. Weigman noted that EM has conducted a
performance assessment for in-place disposal of the emptied single shell tanks. This has
helped EM to think about how to monitor tank closures. The site is also examining electrical
methods to monitor for tank leaks during waste retrieval. If tanks can be cleaned out
thoroughly, then the long-term risks shift to the vadose zone (from the contaminants
discharged from past tank operations or resulting from tank leaks).
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 41
Part 2: Workshop Summary 41
An audience member commented on several issues raised by the panelists. He
observed that there is no pilot facility for the WTP at Hanford, even though the DWPF pilot
facility at Savannah River was considered to be a success. A pilot facility that was able to
reduce the required length of WTP operations, even by a small amount, could easily pay for
itself. He also suggested that the EM would benefit from having core expertise in fluid
dynamics to help deal with subsurface model complexities; hydrothermal processing (e.g., for
steam reforming) to widen the range of waste processing and waste form choices; and
multidisciplinary optimization under uncertainty to help manage the tank farms and the WTP.
He also commented that current subsurface models at the site combine sophisticated
hydrodynamics with overly simplistic chemistry.
Mr. Dunning responded to the last point, noting that the U.S. Geological Survey is
using multiple constructs for system models. Mr. Wiegman noted that model uncertainties
increase as one moves from the waste form through the vadose zone and into the
groundwater. Consequently, one needs to do a good job in making the waste form.
Another audience member asked the DOE panelists to comment on technology needs
for spent nuclear fuel and excess nuclear materials, especially cesium and strontium capsules.
Mr. Morse noted that these were currently not significant technology needs relative to other
site needs. DOE is using standard engineering for sludge cleanup in the K-Basins and is
examining possible waste forms for dry storage of the cesium and strontium capsules.
Eventually, those capsules and the site’s spent fuel will be disposed of in a geologic
repository. Mr. Wiegman commented that EM may end up shipping the cesium and strontium
capsules directly to the repository.
An audience member noted that these discussions ignore the uncertainties for disposal
of high-level waste. Mr. Wiegman commented that the site’s high-level waste would eventually
need to be disposed of in a repository, and the sooner that happened the better. But
regardless of when that occurs, vitrification and some on-site storage will still be required.
An audience member asked the panel how to interpret the apparent lack of focus on
D&D at Hanford: Are there no needs, or has the site not yet looked at them? He also
commented that lessons learned from D&D of the U Plant at Hanford are potentially applicable
to Savannah River, which has similar kinds of facilities. Mr. Morse commented that Hanford is
now performing facility D&D. There are 3,000 buildings at the site that present a range of
difficulties. Some innovative technologies have been applied.
A regulator in the audience asked whether EM is using risk-based performance
approaches for designing remedial actions, and he suggested that there should be multi-
agency efforts to establish such approaches. He also asked how EM handles knowledge
management so that project managers can take advantage of past experience. Mr. Ceto
commented that risk is an important consideration in CERCLA cleanups, and that removal
actions can be used for high-risk problems.
An audience member asked if Hanford was confident that it had the necessary barrier
technologies it needed for site closures. Mr. Morse responded that the site has an active
program on barriers and continues to collect data from field lysimeters and test beds like the
Hanford Cap. The site has accumulated 10-12 years of data. The site is a year away from
emplacing its first barrier, which will be monitored. Mr. Dunning observed that subsurface
heterogeneity at the site complicates the use of barriers, especially for contaminants in the
deep vadose zone. The ratio of lateral to vertical transport in the subsurface of the Hanford
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 42
Part 2: Workshop Summary 42
Site is 1000:1 because of the horizontal layering and vertical dikes. This makes it difficult to
estimate barrier “shadow zones” in the subsurface. Assuring long-term barrier performance is
also a challenge: the Collins Ranch barrier21 was expected to last for 500 years, but it is failing
and will need to be replaced in about 20 years. Mr. Gephart observed that 60 percent of solid
waste at the site is pre-1970 waste. What to do with that waste is a “sleeping dog issue”
because of its mixture of transuranic and non-transuranic waste. Mr. Dunning noted that this
pre-1970 waste contains a large amount of plutonium.
PROMOTING THE EFFECTIVE USE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
IN DOE SITE CLEANUP
For its final session, the workshop organizing committee invited presentations on
promoting the effective use of science and technology in the DOE-EM cleanup program. David
Maloney (Director, Technology—Nuclear Group, CH2M Hill) provided a cleanup contractor’s
perspective, and David Kosson (chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Vanderbilt University) and Chuck Powers (professor, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Vanderbilt University) provided perspectives from CRESP (Comprehensive Risk
Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation).
Perspectives from a Site Cleanup Contractor
Dr. Maloney described technology program “lessons learned” on the development and
use of new technologies in cleanup of the Rocky Flats Site, a 6000-acre (24 square kilometer)
weapons components production facility near, Denver, Colorado. About 600 acres (2.4 square
kilometers) of the site was industrialized. The site was shut down in 1989, and cleanup was
completed in 2006. The site is now a wildlife refuge.
The original schedule and costs for closure of the Rock Flats Site were 2060/$37
billion. EM and the cleanup contractor (Kaiser Hill) were able to reduce closure schedule and
costs to 2010/$7 billion and later 2006/$6 billion through contracting and technology
innovations. Even though the site was closed on an accelerated schedule, the cleanup
contractor, with EM support, was able to successfully incorporate new technologies into its
cleanup activities. In fact, the closure schedule and cost targets could not have been met
without the continuous improvements made possible through the development and use of new
technologies.
Several factors were responsible for promoting the use of new technologies in site
cleanup. Most notably, cleanup was carried out under a performance-based (rather than
milestone-based) contract. Also, EM provided about $30 million in funding over 8 years to
address contractor-identified technology development needs and also encouraged the
contractor to tap the expertise in EM’s technology development organization. There was an
estimated 30:1 return on this investment in terms of cost savings to the cleanup program.
Based on his Rock Flats experiences, Dr. Maloney identified three factors that promote
greater technology use and impacts in the cleanup program: risk-based planning, technology
21
Collins Ranch is a Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action (UMTRA) Project disposal cell near
Lakeview, Oregon.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 43
Part 2: Workshop Summary 43
integration, and project integration. Risk-based planning must be carried out throughout the
cleanup project using PRA (programmatic risk assessment). This is a probabilistic statistical
method for estimating technology, schedule, and other risks in the baseline for a cleanup
project. It is carried out at a detailed activity level (typically at Work Breakdown Structure levels
7, 8, and 9) and uses Monte Carlo techniques to develop a distribution of risk estimates. It can
be used to identify at-risk activities and help to focus resources (and technology planning) on
identified technology risks before they become actual problems.
Like PRA, technology development must be integrated throughout the entire cleanup
project and must be carried out as a partnership between the contractor and DOE. Technology
innovation must be built into project baselines (i.e., “pre-baselined”), and the expectation of
continuous technical improvement should be reflected in project costs and schedules.
Proactive planning for off-baseline technology alternatives should be pursued for
activities that are identified as “high risk” by the PRA; multiple technology pathways (i.e.,
incremental improvements to current baseline technologies and off-baseline technology
development) should be investigated until the identified risks are under control; and on-ramps
should be established to bring successful new technologies into the cleanup program. On
ramps are especially important for long-duration and multi-component projects. The design
and engineering of such projects should be able to accommodate new or improved
technologies during their life cycles. This is more costly up front but less costly over a project’s
life.
Contracts and regulatory standards can promote or inhibit technology innovation.
Contracts that promote innovation are performance based (rather than milestone based) and
provide schedule and cost targets through project completion; transfer schedule control to
contractors; and transfer of responsibility and risks for technology use to contractors.
Contractors in turn may transfer some of this risk to subcontractors such as technology
vendors. Many technology vendors are risk averse, so such risk transfer can sometimes be
difficult. Cost sharing between contractors/vendors and DOE can be a way to overcome this
aversion. National laboratories also act as contractors and can be incentivized by DOE to take
risks.
Technology innovation is also promoted by performance-based (rather than technology
based) regulatory standards. In performance-based regulatory regimes, regulators in many
cases are willing to consider the use of alternate technologies if credible performances bases
can be established. However, cleanup contractors must take the initiative for requesting
consideration of off-baseline approaches.
Finally, technology innovation can also be promoted through predictable funding
mechanisms. These include “local banking” of funds for technology development at sites that
are under the control of the technology program manager working with the line project
manager and can be accessed without an extensive proposal process. These funds can be
grants or cost shared depending on risk. There can also be a “fenced bank” that is reserved
for technology development at the site and possibly retained by the contractor for additional
technology development activities through project completion.
Questions and Discussion
In response to a general comment from an audience member, Dr. Maloney observed
that under the performance-based completion contracts described previously, technology
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 44
Part 2: Workshop Summary 44
innovation is enhanced when DOE manages the contract rather than the contractor. Project
managers, not DOE, should be responsible for determining the project’s technology needs.
Another audience member asked Dr. Maloney to provide examples of innovative
technologies that helped make the Rocky Flats cleanup program a success. Dr. Maloney
identified three: a new technology to remove plutonium from surface contaminated objects
saved the project at least $105 million; the use of Standard Waste Boxes, which hold 10 times
the volume of waste drums, and the use of a high efficiency neutron counter (Super HENC) to
assay the boxes, saved about $146 million; and the implementation of passive reactive
barriers at the site saved about $155 million in completion and stewardship costs.
A regulator in the audience commented on the importance of tying cleanup plans to
land end uses and asked whether cost estimates for different end-use scenarios at Rocky
Flats had been estimated. Dr. Maloney responded that he never saw comprehensive cost
estimates for industrial versus residential versus wildlife refuge scenarios.
Another audience member asked Dr. Maloney to compare the contracting approach at
Rocky Flats to those at Hanford and Idaho. Dr. Maloney responded that the Hanford contract
had performance-based incentives but also contained milestones. It would have to be “opened
up” to be fully effective. Idaho has a closure contract, but the necessary culture change in
management had not yet been fully realized. An audience member commented that Hanford is
currently using a technology-based approach. A performance-based approach would simplify
environmental impact statements because only one case would need to be examined. Dr.
Maloney commented that the Hanford Site has limited flexibility to consider alternatives
because it has committed to making glass waste forms (for its tank wastes).
A DOE staff member from Hanford commented that Rocky Flats used hands-on
approaches for D&D at the site. Such approaches would not translate to other sites with larger
and more extensive facilities. Dr. Maloney noted that Rocky Flats used some remote control
equipment, but even the hands-on approaches are difficult. Building 771 at Rocky Flats was
characterized as the most dangerous building in the world before it was successfully taken
down. It was easy in hindsight, but that was certainly not the case when the work was being
planned and executed.
Perspectives from CRESP
Drs. Powers and Kosson briefly described three CRESP projects that provide some
lessons learned on technology development and use in cleanup programs. The first was a
project at Amchitka Island, Alaska, in which CRESP worked with affected groups (e.g., local
Aleut populations) and regulators as an “integrating independent organization” to develop
consensus on all of the technical factors relevant to site closure and monitoring of a site that
had been used for three underground nuclear tests between 1965 and 1972.
The second CRESP project was a December 2006 workshop on cemetitious materials
at the Savannah River Site in conjunction with Savannah River National Laboratory. The
objective of the workshop was, first, to develop a common understanding among DOE,
regulators, site operators, researchers, and other stakeholders concerning the state of the
science, current practices, and knowledge gaps; and second, to identify opportunities to
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 45
Part 2: Workshop Summary 45
improve the use of cementitious materials for waste management and reduce long-term
uncertainties associated with their use.
The third CRESP project involved a merit review of the C-Tank Farm Closure
Performance assessment at the Hanford Site. The objective of the review was to evaluate
whether the performance assessment appropriately considered the processes that could result
in future health impacts after tank farm closure and recommended improvements to the
performance assessment to make it a more effective risk communications vehicle.
Several lessons learned from these projects were identified: process is as important as
technology, and public involvement is essential to a credible process; cleanup project success
requires an accepting public and persuaded regulators and DOE decision makers; and all of
these require a carefully constructed, on-going, iterative process of engagement. Developing
an enduring trust with affected parties should be a central element of technology development
and deployment programs.
WORKSHOP WRAP-UP
Workshop Organizing Committee members Allen Croff and Carolyn Huntoon
identified some key messages from the workshop discussions: There was generally good
agreement among the workshop panelists on site cleanup challenges and R&D needs. These
include the following needs, listed generally in order of decreasing importance:
High-level waste and tank cleanup was a prominently identified cleanup challenge,
at Hanford, Idaho, and Savannah River; little or no relevant headquarters-directed
R&D is being sponsored at national laboratories.
Soil and groundwater contamination are substantial problems at all four sites.
Vadose zone contamination is an especially difficult problem at the western sites.
There does not appear to be much vadose zone or groundwater R&D within EM.
Deactivation and decommissioning: Specific needs include early planning for
stabilization and R&D on remote handling, paying special attention to worker
safety. Also, end state identification continues to be a challenge.
Buried waste: Specific R&D needs include balancing the extent of contaminant
removal with the cost and ecological impacts, and also waste retrieval and
stabilization.
Spent nuclear fuel and excess nuclear materials stabilization and packaging.
R&D is also needed to better understand the long-term performance of engineered
barriers such as caps and grout. Improving long-term monitoring effectiveness is another
important R&D need, especially to support the transition of sites from the EM cleanup program
to the Office of Legacy Management.
Several other general observations were also offered:
1. Congress has expressed support of technology development but wants
prioritization and removal of impediments to new technology deployment from the
private sector. Such impediments include aversion to, and penalties for, technology
risk-taking by cleanup contractors, as well as the long lead times required for
technology deployment.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
OCR for page 46
Part 2: Workshop Summary 46
2. EM senior management is also supportive of increased R&D investments.
3. The possible future transfer of additional sites and facilities to the EM cleanup
program will likely lead to new R&D needs, although it is presently unclear what
these might be.
4. The panelists identified examples of the successful application of new technologies
in the cleanup program. Some also identified the continuing need for developing
technology alternatives for high-risk cleanup problems, and the need for
cooperation across DOE sites.
5. There is a need to balance cleanup speed with completeness (i.e., “fast” cleanup
vs. “good” cleanup). Methods to help strike this balance are needed.
Workshop Organizing Committee chair Ed Przybylowicz commented on EM’s R&D
management challenges. He observed that these challenges are not that different from large
industrial organizations that have centrally funded and business-unit funded technology
development programs. The challenges include (1) creating a governance process to
effectively manage technology development and sharing; (2) communicating technology
needs, both internally (across sites) and externally (with Congress and the public); and (3)
managing the development of high-risk technologies, including knowing when to cut off
funding for technology development when a technology is no longer viable nor needed.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Mark Gilberston was invited to offer closing comments.
He noted that the future success of EM’s technology development programs depended on the
following factors:
Improving knowledge management.
Better sharing of ideas, concepts, and information on technology development. The
EM program is more focused than previously. Cross-site activities and public
communication need to be encouraged.
Balancing basic and applied research and technology development. There is still an
important role for new science within the EM cleanup program. How to rebuild the
science program, either through expanded investments in the Office of Science or
by other means, is an important challenge.
Assuring continuity of funding for technology development.
Tying technology development to cleanup baselines, especially to develop
additional alternative technologies for high-risk baselines.
FUTURE PLANS
This workshop summary will be used by DOE to inform the development of its
technology roadmap for Congress. It will also be used by the EM Roadmap Committee
(Appendix D) to carry out Phase 2 of this study. The committee’s final report, which will
address the study task outlined in the Preface, is expected in the fall of 2008.
PREPUBLICATION COPY
Representative terms from entire chapter:
workshop summary
