DOE, Washington State Looking to Start WTP
LAW Facility Ahead of Other Portions of Plant
Mike Nartker
WC Monitor
4/11/2014
An interim pretreatment system to allow the Department of Energy to move forward with a proposal to begin operation of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant’s Low Activity Waste Facility ahead of other portions of the plant is currently estimated to cost approximately $300 million, a senior DOE Office of Environmental Management official said late this week. DOE has asked Hanford tank farms contractor Washington River Protection Solutions to prepare a cost and technical proposal for initial design activities for an interim pretreatement system, but acting Principal EM Deputy Assistant Secretary Jim Owendoff provided one of the first projected cost estimates for such a facility at a hearing held by the Senate Armed Forces Strategic Subcommittee. “We submitted a … construction data sheet for that as part of the ’15 budget, and there is a cost range that I want to say is about $300 million, roughly. But it’s very small when you compare that to the main Pretreatment Facility that will serve the bulk of the material,” Owendoff said.
Moniz: Direct Feed to LAW ‘The Way to Go’
DOE is looking to startup the Hanford vit plant’s LAW Facility, along with its Analytical Laboratory and other support facilities (collectively known as ‘LBL’), ahead of the other portions of the plant that still have technical issues that need to be fully resolved—the High-Level Waste and Pretreatment facilities. An interim pretreatment facility would be needed as part of such an approach to separate out the low-activity portion of Hanford’s tank waste for direct feed into the LAW Facility ahead of operation of the main Pretreatment Facility.
In testimony before the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee this week, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz said he is “very confident” in the proposed phased startup approach for the Hanford vit plant. “I’m really very confident that this phased approach, starting with DFLAW is the way to go. DFLAW will require one new facility but a very standard technology to clean up cesium basically. And that will allow us to get going,” Moniz said. “Then on the other pieces, the pretreatment plant and the high-level waste [facility], well, we just said, ‘Look, our approach is let’s be realistic. We can set some early milestones, but we have to resolve these technical problems on criticality and other things, and that will give us the baseline that we need for the rest of the project.” He added, “I believe in many ways this framework really is a tremendous improvement … not only because the other framework couldn’t work but also because, frankly, starting with the low activity waste and gaining the experience of operating this manufacturing facility, producing glass, et cetera, will be invaluable.”
DOE Cleanup Chief Questions Need for New Tanks
The idea of starting up the WTP LAW Facility ahead of the rest of the plant is one area of agreement between DOE and Washington state as they negotiate a modification to the 2010 consent decree that governs the cleanup of Hanford’s tank waste. DOE began negotiations with the state on modifying the consent decree after the Department warned the state that it is at risk of missing the remainder of the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant-related milestones in the consent decree, as well as some milestones tied to waste retrieval from Hanford’s single-shell tanks. However, while DOE and Washington state agree on a phased approach for starting up the WTP, they disagreed on when the LAW Facility should go into operation in proposals released last week. DOE envisions beginning operation of the LAW Facility by the end of 2022, but Washington state wants the facility to begin operation in 2019.
Meanwhile, DOE cleanup chief David Huizenga this week questioned another of the proposals Washington state has put forth to modify the consent decree —the need for new double-shell tank storage capacity. Under the state’s proposal, DOE would be required to establish 8 million gallons of new double-shell tank capacity—4 million gallons by 2022 and the remainder by 2024. DOE may also be responsible for establishing further double-shell tank capacity beyond the initial 8 million gallons if seen as necessary to keep tank waste retrievals on track under the state’s proposed schedule. “Our view is we should stay focused on the mission at hand,” Huizenga said when asked about Washington state’s proposal during a hearing the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee held on DOE’s Fiscal Year 2015 cleanup budget.
He went on to say, “We think the waste that is currently stored in the double-shell tanks can be safely stored for the foreseeable future. … We believe that the best approach is to keep monitoring and stay focused on the long-term approach of making glass.” Huizenga did note, though, that DOE is looking to build a new Tank Waste Characterization and Storage Facility to help prepare waste for processing at the WTP that would have some new tank space.
DOE Seeks Answers on State’s Call to Pump Tank
On the sidelines of this week’s House hearing, Huizenga also said DOE has questions over an order Washington state recently issued to have the Department begin by Sept. 1 the removal of liquid waste from a damaged double-shell tank at Hanford. Waste has been found to be leaking between the inner and outer shells of Tank AY-102, and DOE had proposed to wait until at least March 2016 to begin emptying the tank. In its order, though, Washington state directed DOE to start removing sludge from the tank, in addition to liquids, by Dec. 1, 2015; and to complete removal of enough waste to determine the cause of the leak by Dec. 1, 2016.
Concerning Washington state’s order, Huizenga told WC Monitor, “We have asked for some clarification of some of the issues in the pump order, and we’re trying to better understand exactly what their overall goals and intentions are. We know they feel we should pump it, but we want to make sure that if we do pump it, we’re doing that in a safe manner.” The waste in the tank is considered to be ‘high heat,’ and there are concerns that removal of the liquid in the tank could lead to an increase in temperature and thereby increase corrosion rates and potentially lead to hydrogen gas generation. “So there are potential issues associated with taking too much supernate off of the tank and we need to make sure that if we’re ultimately going to pump the tank, we’re going to leave it in a safe condition,” Huizenga said.
