Technical Support for Project Development for Secondary Liquid Waste Treatment

Work Description:

The scope of work included development of information necessary as input to an alternative down selection for the management strategy of secondary liquid waste from the WTP Pretreatment Facility and the WTP LAW Facility.  Tasks included:

1. Alternative Identification and Screening – Alternatives were identified for managing the secondary liquid wastes from the WTP Pretreatment Facility and the WTP LAW Facility. The alternatives were developed in conjunction with Secondary Liquid Waste Treatment Project-specified participants. The alternatives examined included both waste recycle options and waste treatment options. Below are an initial set of recycle and treatment options that were identified and screened.

The waste recycle options included, at a minimum:

  • Return of the secondary liquid waste to a new storage location near the double-shell tanks for evaporation in the 242-A Evaporator with concentrate sent to a double-shell tank and condensate sent to the Liquid Effluent Retention Facility (LERF).
  • Direct return of the secondary liquid waste to a double-shell tank for evaporation in the 242‑A Evaporator.
  • Return of the secondary liquid waste to a new storage location near the double-shell tanks and evaporation of the secondary liquid waste in a new evaporator with concentrate sent to a double-shell tank and condensate sent to LERF.
  • Transfer of the secondary liquid waste to LERF for evaporation at the Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF) with concentrate sent to a double-shell tank.
  • Transfer of the secondary liquid waste to LERF for evaporation at a new evaporator near LERF with concentrate sent to a double-shell tank and,
  • Transfer of the secondary liquid waste to LERF; batch transfer secondary liquid waste from LERF to a new storage location near the double-shell tanks for evaporation in the 242-A Evaporator, or a new evaporator, with concentrate sent to a double-shell tank and condensate sent to the LERF

The waste treatment options included, at a minimum:

  • Construct and operate an ETF-replacement facility for treatment and concentration of waste constituents with concentrated waste placed in a low-temperature waste form (e.g., phosphate ceramic, alkali-aluminosilicate geopolymer, hydroceramic cement), assuming waste will be staged at LERF and treated liquid will be discharged to the existing State-Approved Liquid Disposal Site.
  • Upgrade/modify the ETF producing a solidified waste form using a low temperature waste immobilization technique (e.g., phosphate ceramic, alkali-aluminosilicate geopolymer, hydroceramic cement), assuming waste will be staged at LERF and treated liquid will be discharged to the existing State-Approved Liquid Disposal Site
  • Construct and operate a new facility for treatment of waste via filtration, ion exchange and/or reverse osmosis only (i.e., no concentration of liquid wastes and subsequent solidification of concentrated liquid waste). Non-regenerable media and filters are transferred to high integrity containers for dewatering and disposal. Treated liquid is discharged to the existing State-Approved Liquid Disposal Site and,
  • Construct and operate a new facility for treatment of waste via fluidized-bed steam reforming and subsequent encapsulation of the steam reformer product in a monolithic form.

All identified alternatives were screened (go/no go) to identify a short list of proposed alternatives for engineering data packages development.  The proposed set of identified alternatives and screening criteria were presented to the decision support board.  The decision support board reviewed the set of identified alternatives.

2. Develop Engineering Data Packages – An engineering data package was developed for each alternative evaluated in detail. Each engineering data package was to contain:

  • input data (includes feed stream source term – provided by WRPS), functions, requirements, assumptions and constraints
  • process description;
  • plant capacity;
  • block schematics;
  • site and facility layout;
  • process flow diagram for main process systems and material balance flowsheet identifying all major components and all constituents of concern;
  • major equipment description including process equipment and utility equipment lists with equipment size and throughput information and utility usage and availability;
  • discussion of physical interfaces and the impacts to those interfaces;
  • evaluation of the throughput capacity for the system; examination of environmental impacts including permitting, aerial, liquid and solid discharges;
  • final waste form description including a discussion of disposal performance;
  • examination of radiation protection and ALARA (e.g., shielding concerns from concentrating high energy gamma emitting radionuclides such as 137Cs);
  • initial hazard categorization and evaluation of nuclear safety impact;
  • occupational worker industrial safety evaluation;
  • constructability evaluation;
  • operability, maintainability and reliability evaluation;
  • flexibility and adaptability to changes in scope (e.g., feed composition, feed quantity, feed rate, additional feed streams such as Submerged Bed Scrubber waste). Waste treatment options shall consider the sensitivity of the process and its operation to making waste that will be acceptable for disposal at the Integrated Disposal Facility;
  • selected technology maturity including establishing the technology readiness level (TRL) and identifying the development necessary to achieve TRL 8, if necessary;
  • complexity of the alternative;
  • evaluation of required testing (factory acceptance testing, construction acceptance testing, operational acceptance testing);
  • identification of major technical, project and programmatic risks including assignment of the risk owner and qualitative risk analysis (probability, consequence and trigger metrics or conditions). Risk analysis for waste treatment alternatives shall consider the sensitivity of the alternative to changes in the feed composition or quantity and to the addition of other feed streams (various percentages of submerged bed scrubber blowdown including 100%).;
  • project schedule that includes a start of operations during the second half of FY2018;
  • provide all necessary input to estimate the total project cost based on general planning/study estimate. Estimates were performed by WRPS’ Estimating Services;
  • provide all necessary input to prepare an annual operating cost magnitude estimate that includes consumables. Estimate were performed by WRPS’ Estimating Services;
  • provide all necessary input to prepare a decontamination and decommissioning general pre-conceptual/magnitude estimate. Estimates were performed by WRPS’ Estimating Services.

3. Provide Support During Selection Process – Provided technical support/presentation material based on engineering data packages and provided presentations in selection workshops/meetings with the decision support board which will select the preferred alternative to recommend to the Department of Energy (DOE).

4. Document Decision Results – Prepared a summary document of all workshops/meeting results and recommendation(s). The summary report briefly reiterates the decision process and approach from the decision plan (to be prepared by the decision board) and summarizes the results of the alternative identification and screening workshops and the decision workshops. All recommendations of the decision support board were documented.

Start / End Date:

March 2011 through September 2011

Back to Project Summaries