3 Matching Results

Search Results

Advanced search parameters have been applied.

PROJECT W-551 INTERIM PRETREATMENT SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY SELECTION SUMMARY DECISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Description: This report provides the conclusions of the tank farm interim pretreatment technology decision process. It documents the methodology, data, and results of the selection of cross-flow filtration and ion exchange technologies for implementation in project W-551, Interim Pretreatment System. This selection resulted from the evaluation of specific scope criteria using quantitative and qualitative analyses, group workshops, and technical expert personnel.
Date: August 12, 2008
Creator: EA, CONRAD
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

SLUDGE TREATMENT PROJECT COST COMPARISON BETWEEN HYDRAULIC LOADING AND SMALL CANISTER LOADING CONCEPTS

Description: The Sludge Treatment Project (STP) is considering two different concepts for the retrieval, loading, transport and interim storage of the K Basin sludge. The two design concepts under consideration are: (1) Hydraulic Loading Concept - In the hydraulic loading concept, the sludge is retrieved from the Engineered Containers directly into the Sludge Transport and Storage Container (STSC) while located in the STS cask in the modified KW Basin Annex. The sludge is loaded via a series of transfer, settle, decant, and filtration return steps until the STSC sludge transportation limits are met. The STSC is then transported to T Plant and placed in storage arrays in the T Plant canyon cells for interim storage. (2) Small Canister Concept - In the small canister concept, the sludge is transferred from the Engineered Containers (ECs) into a settling vessel. After settling and decanting, the sludge is loaded underwater into small canisters. The small canisters are then transferred to the existing Fuel Transport System (FTS) where they are loaded underwater into the FTS Shielded Transfer Cask (STC). The STC is raised from the basin and placed into the Cask Transfer Overpack (CTO), loaded onto the trailer in the KW Basin Annex for transport to T Plant. At T Plant, the CTO is removed from the transport trailer and placed on the canyon deck. The CTO and STC are opened and the small canisters are removed using the canyon crane and placed into an STSC. The STSC is closed, and placed in storage arrays in the T Plant canyon cells for interim storage. The purpose of the cost estimate is to provide a comparison of the two concepts described.
Date: August 24, 2009
Creator: J, GEUTHER; EA, CONRAD & D, RHOADARMER
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

SLUDGE TREATMENT PROJECT PHASE 1 SLUDGE STORAGE OPTIONS ASSESSMENT OF T PLANT VERSUS ALTERNATE STORAGE FACILITY

Description: The CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) has recommended to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) a two phase approach for removal and storage (Phase 1) and treatment and packaging for offsite shipment (Phase 2) of the sludge currently stored within the 105-K West Basin. This two phased strategy enables early removal of sludge from the 105-K West Basin by 2015, allowing remediation of historical unplanned releases of waste and closure of the 100-K Area. In Phase 1, the sludge currently stored in the Engineered Containers and Settler Tanks within the 105-K West Basin will be transferred into sludge transport and storage containers (STSCs). The STSCs will be transported to an interim storage facility. In Phase 2, sludge will be processed (treated) to meet shipping and disposal requirements and the sludge will be packaged for final disposal at a geologic repository. The purpose of this study is to evaluate two alternatives for interim Phase 1 storage of K Basin sludge. The cost, schedule, and risks for sludge storage at a newly-constructed Alternate Storage Facility (ASF) are compared to those at T Plant, which has been used previously for sludge storage. Based on the results of the assessment, T Plant is recommended for Phase 1 interim storage of sludge. Key elements that support this recommendation are the following: (1) T Plant has a proven process for storing sludge; (2) T Plant storage can be implemented at a lower incremental cost than the ASF; and (3) T Plant storage has a more favorable schedule profile, which provides more float, than the ASF. Underpinning the recommendation of T Plant for sludge storage is the assumption that T Plant has a durable, extended mission independent of the K Basin sludge interim storage mission. If this assumption cannot be validated and the operating costs of ...
Date: April 29, 2009
Creator: WW, RUTHERFORD; WJ, GEUTHER; MR, STRANKMAN; EA, CONRAD; DD, RHOADARMER; DM, BLACK et al.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department