PROJECT:

Value Engineer, Certified Value Specialist (CVS)

PO Box 1115

Evergreen, CO 80437

(303) 918-4170

Call if needed (FAX)

smartin@value-engineering.com

PO Box 25007

DFC, Bldg 67, D-8170

Denver, CO 80225-0007

(303) 236-9120 Ext 237

845 J Quince Orchard Blvd

Gaithersburg, MD 20878

(301) 903-1290

PO Box 398705

Cincinnati, OH 44253-8705

(513) 648-3118

(513) 648-3076 (FAX)

Idaho Technologies

2525 Freemont Avenue

Idaho Falls, ID 83415

(208) 526-4624

PO Box 3020

1 Mound Road

Miamisburg, OH 45343

(513) 865-3986

(513) 865-4402 (FAX)

Cost Estimating

PO Box 25007

DFC, Bldg 67, D-8170

Denver, CO 80225-0007

(303) 236-9120 Ext 239

Butte Industrial Park

PO Box 4078

Butte, MT 59701

(406) 494-7412

This report is the result of a "formal" Value Study Team (VST) effort. A formal VST is comprised of people with the desired expertise who are not notably involved in the project or process. The VST takes a "fresh look" at the concept to see if this examination, using value methodology applied to the current collected data, can create alternatives which can better fulfill the client needs at the greatest recognized attainable value.

Value Engineering (also known as Value Management, Value Analysis, and Value Planning) has been extremely successful for both private and Governmental entities. As a result, Government has mandated its use, through its regulatory powers, in all Governmental operations. This VE report has the substance required to demonstrate that quality VE methodology was used throughout this study, as stipulated under the mandated Governmental VE program (as recommended by the Department of Interior and Bureau of Reclamation guidance) and recommendations of practitioners in the VE profession.

The Value Study Team (VST) wishes to express thanks and appreciation to Project Director, Mark Dehring, Mike Skriba and the other members of the OU4 team, and Nina Akgündüz, who fully and cordially provided all requested information and consultation on the project design. The success of the VST effort could not have been possible without the full cooperation shown by these personnel.

The VST wishes also to express thanks and appreciation to those listed on the Consultation Record of this report. The cooperation and helpfulness of those consulted contributed greatly to the technical foundation and support of the VST's deliberations and proposals.

The objective of using value methodology is to achieve the best value for the user of the projects designated. Only with the full team effort, as shown by all involved, can this goal can be achieved. This study represents the product of such an effort.

The Value Study Team (VST) consisted of expertise from chemical professions, construction, civil engineering, radiation technology, and waste management specializations. The team had their first group meeting on January 8, 1995. The VEST concluded the full formal team efforts on January 12, 1995, with a presentation to the DOE and Fernald Environmental Restoration Management Corporation (FERMCO) staff.

The VST made three formal proposals (developed to the point that the proposals were complete enough for comprehensive presentation at the completion of the study as an "alternative recommendation"). The team also identified ten additional items that are recommended for further study. These ideas have the potential for increasing the value of the project, but were not developed by the team into a formal recommendation due to time constraints or other factors.

Summary of Proposals:

Formal proposals are ideas which were examined in detail by the VST and determined to have significant potential to generate technical and/or economical advantages to the owners, users, and/or others affected by the project. These recommended alternatives are respectfully submitted for consideration and adoption by the involved project parties.

Due to time constraints and other factors, life-cycle potential savings value of the recommendation were not fully evaluated during the value study. However, the total estimated initial expenditure savings of the evaluation completed during the value study, if all independent monetary savings proposals are accepted, are estimated at about $100 million. In addition, all proposals have value added features which are expected to improve the final product. (Value added features are defined as proposal attributes that the study team believes will improve the project in non-monetary or unquantifiable ways, e. g. time, quality, and safety. Increased initial or life-cycle costs, if any, are expected to be more than offset by the apparent added nonmonetary value, and/or have undetermined cost savings which will exceed the projected increased proposal cost.) All three proposals can be essentially implemented independent of all other proposals.

A very brief description and the minimum potential value of the proposals are:

1. Optimize the Vitrification Pilot Plant (VITPP) to make it practical to transition it for use as the production plant. This proposal includes value added features and has the potential to reduce costs by about $52 million, after reducing the gross savings by the cost of proposal implementation and this study.

2A. Institute solidification and stabilization methods for the materials in Silo 3. This proposal includes value added features and has the potential to reduce costs by about $68 million, after reducing the gross savings by the cost of proposal implementation and this study. If practicable, the bentonite caps in silos 1 and 2 should be similarly treated and would also produce substantive savings.

3. Ship materials to Nevada Test Site (NTS) by rail and transfer to trucks in Nevada for the final leg into NTS. This proposal is principally a value added proposal. This proposal has the potential to reduce costs by about $4 million, as estimated within the value study constraints, and after reducing the gross savings by the cost of implementation and this study.

Summary of Additional Items for Further Study.

Ten additional items for further study were also recommended. These are items that, due to time constraints, the lack of apparent large significant savings or value added during initial idea evaluations, complexity of idea, or scope of the idea (as compared to the study scope), make further investigation by the VST, within their limited time constraints, inadvisable. They are respectfully submitted for further consideration and development to add value for the project. They were not developed to the detail of the previous alternative proposals by the VST. Briefly, these ideas are:

Recommendations to exploit site-wide potential of vacuum extrusion and stabilization technology.

Robot performance at other sites has been of questionable value and their use at the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP) should be carefully evaluated.

Installation of a cage around each of the Silos 1 and 2 slurry intakes may avoid plugging.

FERMCO should interact with Hanford and other similar site personnel to share their experiences.

Silo 3 waste and the bentonite cap of all three silos should be removed from the project's vitrification process option.

FERMCO should investigate treating Silo 3 and the bentonite materials by solidification and stabilization.

FERMCO should visit Western Environmental Technology Office, Butte, Montana, to take advantage of the off-gas system information they have available.

Separate high activity wastes during processing to remove "hot" wastes from bulk materials.

Examine the optimum size of the operations and support staff for the OU4 project.

Privatization of OU4 project's feature components.

The Feed Materials Production Center (FMPC) in Fernald, Ohio, is a 1,050 acre facility about 18 miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio, (See Figure 1). FMPC was the manufacturing site for producing uranium-metal products for the United States' Defense Programs for more than 37 years. On July 10, 1989, production operations were indefinitely suspended and in February 1991, the Department of Energy (DOE) formally submitted its plan to permanently end production at the site. Since 1989, the primary DOE mission at the FMPC site, is to accomplish restoration of the facility grounds and achieve environmental compliance. Only about 55 acres were affected by the production process; the remaining portion of the site was leased out for livestock grazing.

In 1986, the DOE and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into a consent agreement wherein the DOE agreed to comply with various Federal and State pollution control regulations, including those under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and to address the remediation of inactive waste sites, waste storage sites, and other on-site facilities. Portions of the agreement were updated in 1990 and subsequent years. The agreement defines five Operable Units (OU): OU1, the waste pit area; OU2, other waste units; OU3, production activity areas; OU4, silos 1-4; and OU5, environmental media (Figures 2 and 3). However, recently some of the OU designations have been blurred to allow restoration activities to proceed more effectively.

The DOE overall plan is to achieve compliance with all applicable environmental requirements and clean up the inactive sites and facilities by the year 2010. The Fernald Field Office has been very aggressive in its environmental cleanup activities to meet that goal. This operation and the overall environmental site effort is referred to as the Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP).

The drainage area of the site lies within the north-south corridor of the 100- and 500-year Paddy's Run floodplain. The aquifer underlying the site is the Great Miami Aquifer (with about 500,000 of the local population using it) and is designated a sole source aquifer by the EPA under the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act (Figure 4).

Operable Unit 4

OU4 is defined as a geographic area that includes Silos 1 and 2 (K-65 Silos), Silo 3 (Metal Oxide Silo), the unused Silo 4, and their ancillary structures (Figures 2, 3, and 5). The Record of Decision (ROD) for remediation of the OU4 site was completed in December 1994.

The OU4 units are:

Silos 1 and 2 - Constructed in 1951. Silos 1 and 2 were used for the storage of radium-bearing residues which were the by-products of uranium ore processing. Silos 1 and 2 received approximately 216,300 ft³ of residues from 1952 to 1958. Silo residues contain elevated levels of Ra-226, Pb-210, Th-230 and natural uranium. In the past Radon was known to have emanated from the silos through cracks and structural joints. The berms and subsoils surrounding the silos contain localized areas of elevated levels of Pb-210 and Po-210. A layer of Bentogrout (consisting of 30 percent bentonite clay in water) was placed over the K-65 residues to contain released radon.

Due to deterioration, in 1963 site workers repaired the concrete coating around each silo and constructed an earthen berm around them to counter-balance the outward load of the silo contents. The berm also protected the silo walls from weathering and served as a radiation shield. The berm was expanded in 1983 to reduce soil erosion.

Silo 3 - Constructed in 1952 and used to store dry powdery waste that was dewatered in an evaporator and spray-calcined or kiln-dried from raffinate filtrate generated during refinery operations. Silo 3 contains approximately 137,500 ft³ of calcined residues consisting of aluminum, calcium, iron and magnesium oxides; sodium salts; 39,500 pounds each of uranium and thorium; and a very small amount of radium and other metal oxides.

Silo 4 - Constructed in 1952 and designed to receive dry materials similar to Silo 3. Silo 4 was never used. Except for rainwater infiltration, which has been observed in the past, it remains empty today. Silo 4 is not considered a current or potential threat to human health and the environment.

Ancillary Structures, supporting the silos consist of:

K-65 Decant Sump Tank and its contents.

A Radon Treatment System.

A portion of a concrete pipe trench and other concrete structures.

The earthen berm surrounding Silos 1 and 2.

The soils beneath and immediately surrounding Silos 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Perched groundwater that may be encountered in the vicinity of the silos during the implementation of cleanup activities.

The materials within OU4 exhibit a wide range of properties (Figure 6 and Tables 1-5) . Most notable are the elevated direct radiation associated with the K-65 residues in Silos 1 and 2 versus the much lower direct radiation associated with cold metal oxides in Silo 3. Even more significant are the much lower levels of contamination associated with the soils and building materials, like concrete, within the OU4 Study Area. To account for these differences, and for the varied cleanup alternatives applying to each waste type, OU4 was segmented into three subunits. These subunits are described as follows:

Subunit A: Silos 1 and 2 contents (K-65 residues and bentonite clay caps) and the sludge in the decant sump tank

Subunit B: Silo 3 contents (cold metal oxides)

Subunit C: Silos 1, 2, 3, and 4 structures; contaminated soils within the OU4 boundary, including surface and subsurface soils and the earthen berm around Silos 1 and 2; the decant sump tank; the radon treatment system; the concrete pipe trench and the miscellaneous concrete structures within OU4, any debris (i.e., concrete, piping, etc.) generated through implementing cleanup of Subunits A, B,and C. and any perched groundwater encountered during remedial activities.

On the basis of the evaluation of final alternatives, the selected ROD remedial action for OU4, one of five operable units at the FEMP, is a combination of Alternatives 3A.1/Vit - Removal, Vitrification, and Off-site Disposal - Nevada Test Site (NTS); 3B.1/Vit - Removal, Vitrification, and Off-site Disposal - NTS; and 2C - Demolition, Removal and On-Property Disposal. These alternatives apply to Subunits A, B, and C, respectively. The major components of the selected remedy include:

Removal of the contents of Silos 1, and 2, and 3 (K-65 residues) (cold metal oxides) and the decant sump tank sludge.

Vitrification to stabilize the residues and sludges removed from all the silos and decant sump tank.

Off-site shipment for disposal at the NTS of the vitrified contents of Silos 1, 2, 3, and the decant sump tank.

Demolition of Silos 1, 2, 3, and 4 and decontamination, to the extent practicable, of the concrete rubble, piping and other generated construction debris.

Removal of the earthen berms and excavation of contaminated soils within the boundary of OU4, to achieve remediation levels. Placement of clean backfill to original grade following excavation.

Demolition of the vitrification treatment unit and associated facilities after use. Decontamination or recycling of debris prior to disposition as a part of OU5 operations.

On-property interim storage of excavated contaminated soils and contaminated debris in a manner consistent with the approved Work Plan for Removal Action 17 (improved storage of soil and debris), pending final disposition in accordance with the Records of Decision for OU3 and OU5, respectively.

Institutional controls of the OU4 area such as deed and land use restrictions.

Potential additional treatment of stored OU4 soil and debris using OU3 and OU5 waste treatment systems.

Pumping and treatment as required of any contaminated perched groundwater encountered during remedial activities.

Disposal of OU4 contaminated debris and soils consistent with the ROD for OU3 and OU5, respectively.

The remedy specifies off-site disposal of vitrified contents of Silos 1, 2 and 3 at the NTS. At the time of the ROD's signing, the Department of Energy Nevada Operations Office (DOE-NV) was in the process of preparing a site-wide Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the NTS. Shipments of OU4 vitrified waste are not proposed to begin until after the planned completion of the EIS for the NTS.

The planned date of completion of the EIS for the NTS is December 1995, at which time a Record of Decision is expected to be issued. Shipments of low-level waste generated from the remediation of OU4 are not proposed to begin until mid-1997, which should be after the planned completion of the NTS site-wide EIS. Given these time-frames, DOE does not anticipate the NTS EIS schedule will negatively impact the OU4 remediation schedule discussed in the OU4 ROD.

The containerized vitrified product will require interim storage at the FEMP site prior to its transportation to the NTS for disposal. The purpose of this interim storage is two-fold; first, the vitrified product will require verification sampling in order to certify that each production lot has met specific performance and waste disposal criteria; and second, the Fernald waste shipping program will need a buffer staging area where the material can be safely managed prior to its shipment to NTS. It has been anticipated that the interim storage area will be need to accommodate a maximum interim handling capacity of approximately 90 days of vitrification production.

The decision regarding the final disposition of the remaining OU4 contaminated soil, debris, and contaminated equipment from clean up will be placed in abeyance, until completion of the ROD for OU3 and OU5 remedial actions. This was done in order to take full advantage of planned and in progress waste minimization treatment processes by these operable units. This strategy also enables the integration of disposal decisions for contaminated soils and debris on a site-wide basis.

In the event that the OU3 remedy for debris and the OU5 remedy for contaminated soils can feasibly include OU4 debris and materials, a ROD amendment to the OU4 ROD will not be necessary. Should unforeseen circumstances preclude the integration of OU4 soil and debris into the OU3 and/or OU5 treatment and disposal decisions, the disposal decision for OU4 contaminated soils and debris is to be documented in a ROD amendment for OU4 in accordance with Section 117(c) of CERCLA and United States EPA guidance. Such a ROD amendment will provide the public and the EPA further opportunity to review and comment on the final disposal option for OU4 soils and debris.

In reaching the remedial alternative decision, the DOE evaluated other alternatives for each subunit, in addition to no action. The other alternatives were: (a) Subunit A - Silos 1 and 2 Contents: (1) Removal, Cement Stabilization, Off-Site Disposal at Nevada Test Site; (b) Subunit B - Silo 3 Contents: (1) Removal, Vitrification, On-Property Disposal; (2) Removal, Cement Stabilization, On-Property Disposal; (3) Removal, Cement Stabilization, Off-Site Disposal at Nevada Test Site; (c) Subunit C - Silos 1, 2, 3, and 4 Structures. Soils. and Debris: (1) Demolition, Removal, Off-Site Disposal at NTS; (2) Demolition, Removal, Off-Site Disposal at Permitted Commercial Facility.

A more detailed description of the alternatives is provided in the Decision Summary of the ROD, that was incorporated by reference in the ROD. CERCLA's nine criteria set forth in 40 CFR Part 300, of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan were used to evaluate the alternatives.

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

The selected remedy must protect human health and the environment, comply with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and be cost effective. The remedy should utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment. It should also reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.

This selected ROD remedy will result in contaminated debris and soil being dispositioned by OU3 and OU5, respectively. Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances (i.e.. contaminated soil and debris) remaining on site, above health-based levels, a review will be conducted every 5 years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.

All practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from implementation of the selected remedy are to be adopted. During excavation activities, sediment controls will need to be implemented to eliminate potential surface water runoff and sediment deposition to Paddy's Run. Final site layout and design will include all practicable means (e.g., sound engineering practices and proper construction practices) to minimize environmental impacts.

Relevant

Silo 3

Bentogrout

Bentogrout

0.5 Kg

Bentogrout

0.5 Kg

Silo 3

0.3 Kg

Silo 3

0.3 Kg

The VST team used the six-phase Value Methodology job plan in its operations. The six basic job plan phases and their operations are:

Phase 1. Information Phase

All possible information on the process and operational features within the scope of the study are collected, distributed, and analyzed. The components making up the features, their functions, and costs are determined. The criteria and limits affecting the project or projects are identified, and if necessary, ranked and/or assigned values. A Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagram is generated which shows the "why" and "how" and the "as the result of" or "at the same time" of functions being performed. The results are categorized, assigned to functions of note, and items for potential concentration of study team effort are identified.

Phase 2. Creativity Phase

Creativity methods such as "focused brainstorming" are used to generate the maximum quantity of ideas for consideration by the study team. This phase is also often referred to as the "speculation phase."

Phase 3. Analysis Phase

Ideas generated in the creativity phase are ordered, collected into concepts with similar features, solidified into potential alternatives for proposal, and ranked using one of a variety of techniques. The technique used for ranking in this study was performance of the function determination and study team consensus ranking. The resulting ranked potential alternatives are then evaluated with regard to their benefits, advantages, and risks.

Phase 4. Development Phase

VST members are assigned potential alternatives for further evaluated and developed into viable, efficient, and cost-effective proposals with increased value for the client and/or owner of the product or process.

The development process includes, but is not limited to, using team member expertise; consultation with staff performing the project or process; experts and outside vendors; polling others by survey or other means; consultations with the client and/or owner; and review of information resources (libraries, catalogs, and other materials). Steps required to implement the proposals are identified, and methods to resolve identified potential problems are determined. During this phase, a determination to drop a process from further consideration usually requires unanimous acceptance by the study team.

Phase 5. Presentation Phase

Items demonstrating added value, by monetary or non-monetary measurements, within the confines of the study period, are placed in report form for presentation and documentation as alternative proposals. During this phase, items recommended as alternative proposals must, generally, receive unanimous acceptance by the study team before presentation of the team's report. Items demonstrating potential added value to the client and/or owner that were not completely evaluated, due to time constraints or other reasons, are presented as "Additional Items Recommended for Further Study". The types of items may require extensive additional development activities beyond that available to the study team to determine if the items actually demonstrate the anticipated added value.

The owner, users, client, and other project or process parties take the study proposals into consideration and evaluate them for implementation. The staff coordinating the Value Study activity, and if needed, VST members, assist and monitor the evaluation to help all parties in implementing the added value features. Final estimates of the value of proposals is established. The status of the final determination of the proposals is reported to the Value Program coordinating staff. (Examples of the status classifications are: accepted or partially accepted with the revised estimated value of the accepted proposal parts, "withdrawn" due to the acceptance of another preferred and accepted proposal, and rejected with the reason for the disapproval of the proposal.) Statistics and Value Program activity results are compiled and reported to organizational management and Governmental authorities to monitor the effectiveness of the Value Program and its value studies.

The VST cost model was based on the conceptual project estimates provided by the design (or process) team as evaluated by the independent cost estimator for the selected preferred project concept. This cost model was developed by the VST and was used to focus on features with the greatest potential for savings and to highlight potential instances of value mismatch.

Unit prices were reviewed by the VST and Estimators to ensure reliability and applicability.

Cost savings and the original concept estimates are of the same general level of development. Unit costs and estimates may vary as final designs are pursued and refined.

(Sunk $30M of $40M)

(Add 20 percent to Ops cost)

*Demonstrate

*Reduce

Treat

*Save (FRVP)¹

Train

Demonstrate

Concept

Risk

Waste

Money

Staff

Progress

(VITPP Only $15M)

(Cost @ $102M)

(Add 20-30 percent to Eng/Equip/Const/Ops)

Treat

Transport

Relocate

Reduce

Waste

Waste

Waste

Risk

(FRVP Only $20M)

Reduce

Satisfy

Reduce

Improve

Hazard

Customer

Risk

Aesthetics

(W/O Escalation, Contingency and D&D)

(Excludes $12M cost of ROD to date)

Support

Track

Demonstrate

Manage

Operations

Progress

Results

Resources

(Say 20 percent = $46M)

The VST used the function analysis process to generate a Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagram designed to show the present ROD remedy preferred alternative from a functional point of view. The function analysis and resulting FAST diagram aided the VST in identifying design features that are critical to meeting requirements that support the critical functions, and those that meet noncritical design objectives. It also assisted the team in identifying any potential instances of value mismatches.

- Blending with other materials, i.e., OU1/Pit 5, and then shipping.

- Privatizing Silo 3 to obtain optimum benefits.

- Separating and placing some material so it can be disposed of on-site or ship to EnviroCare.

- Excluding bentonite.

- Optimization of piping heat retention appears to be a problem.

- Is the use of desiccant necessary?

- Use off-gas stream to preheat and dry the melter feed stream.

- Consider control base on the ammonia slip coming out after the selective catalytic reduction (SCR).

- Reevaluate need for water quench on the activated carbon filter by consulting with Mountain States Engineering (MSE) experience, Butte, Montana.

- No SCR on VITPP, it will use water quench. May be possible to delete both. Discuss with MSE to determine whether quench or SCR is needed in reevaluation.

- Non-slurry mechanical extraction of materials from silos. For example: an overhead clamshell, mechanical excavation to center and conveyor out; or vibrascrew.

- Drill in from the side (Auger method).

- Skeleton pump harbor.

The VST considered several methods of eliminating Silo 3 from OU4 vitrification processing. Two major methods discussed were:

1. Add Silo 3 contents to the scope of OU1 (Pit 5).

2. Develop Silo 3 as a separate OU4 project.

The first method is currently being evaluated by FERMCO, therefore the VST did not develop this alternative further. The only comments on this method are reported under Additional Ideas for Further Study section concerning adding Silo 3 to the scope of work for OU1 remediation effort. It is also the VST's understanding that FERMCO is presently evaluating the potential to "privatize" significant portions of the OU1 remediation. The cost to add Silo 3 to this study would be low and would facilitate overall site integration.

The second method of developing a stand alone project was more thoroughly reviewed by the VST. The team agreed that a stand alone treatability study to support processing (by vacuum extrusion) Silo 3 wastes should be developed. Therefore, a separate value proposal for this alternative was prepared and will be submitted for consideration as Proposal No. 2.

The idea of creating a privatized project for the remediation of Silo 3 was also considered (see the Additional Ideas for Further Study section). Privatizing the remediation of Silo 3 would allow potential vendors to present alternative remediation strategies to the DOE, other than vitrification. It was, however, difficult for the VST to anticipate and develop these alternatives. The vacuum extrusion technology was considered the most promising of the potential technologies, and was therefore presented as Proposal No. 2 as a OU4 crew implementation item.

The VST believe that the advantages of deleting the Silo 3 material from the OU4 vitrification project are extremely significant, and it is our recommendation that the initiative to exclude Silo 3 continue to be pursued.

The current plan for remedial actions at OU4 are to vitrify all waste media materials contained within Silos 1-3, and the bentonite caps of Silos 1 and 2. The plan calls for the design, development, and testing of the VITPP and the design, development, construction, and operation of a FRVP to complete the remedial action. Design and construction of the VITPP is almost complete at the time of this value study. Due to delays, the plans now call for the design of the FRVP to begin before much of the testing operations of the VITPP are known.

Proposal:

The VST proposes the deletion of the FRVP, effort and the vitrification treatment of the Silo 3 waste and the bentonite cap from the current plans. Wastes from Silos 1 and 2 would be treated through use of the present VITPP system. This will require additional capacity for the VITPP system, but will result in better utilization of capital assets, generate cost savings, and still result in schedule attainment. The Silo 3 waste and most of the Silos 1 and 2 bentonite caps would be treated by another means, such as that proposed in Value Proposal No. 2. (FERMCO is already evaluating the possibility of taking advantage of an alternative treatment of Silo 3 waste.)

There are two major reasons to delete the FRVP from the overall OU4 project. First, because of schedule delays, it appears that the VITPP test runs to support FRVP design and fabrication have become somewhat disconnected. While the original schedule allowed VITPP data to feed directly to the FRVP design, the current schedule partially negates this benefit. Therefore, the risk associated with the FRVP will be only minimally negated by the lessons learned from the VITPP. Second, it appears that the VITPP melter may be capable of greater throughput than originally anticipated. Discussion with Ian L. Pegg of the Catholic University of America indicate that the VITPP melter may be capable of processing 5-ton/day. (For the purposes of this study, an assumed production capacity of only 3-ton/day was used.)

It appears that it is feasible to install another 3-ton/day melter similar in design and construction to the VITPP parallel to the nearly completed VITPP melter. Rudimentary throughput calculations at 3-ton/day glass production with a 80 percent waste loading and a 25 percent on-stream factor indicate that processing can be started in FY 1998 and be completed by FY 2004. This would allow the completion of the remediation of Silos 1 and 2 wastes by the year 2004, in accordance with the current schedule and Record of Decision.

The use of two 3-ton/day melters to achieve the clean-up of Silos 1 and 2 waste appear reasonable given the current capacity of the VITPP. (A predryer would be used if needed.) Additionally the use of two similar melters will increase the overall system reliability, minimize spare parts inventory, decrease training cost, and eliminate risks associated with the FRVP.

Taking advantage of equipment already on site and costs to date appears to provide cost savings of $50 million to the Government. Given the relatively short period of operation in which to amortize the equipment, it does not appear logical to expend a tremendous amount of money for a high-capacity unit that would be used for a relatively short period of time.

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION PROPOSAL NO. 1

Minimizes personnel training requirements.

Increases process reliability through the use of two melters.

Minimization of spare parts requirements.

More effective use of on-site equipment on-site.

Eliminates need and risk associated with the design, construction, start up and operation of a new facility (FRVP).

Eliminates D&D of a second facility.

Continue operating a familiar facility.

More flexibility and less risk in meeting schedule milestones.

Does not include Silo 3 metal media. (Silo 3 treatment is included on separate Value Study Proposal. However, if schedule is extended, Silo 3 could be vitrified by this method too.)

Does not include bentonite layer. (Included in separate Value Study Proposal, but could be similarly treated if schedule impacts acceptable.)

Must operate VITPP for 6 years more than originally anticipated. However, the entire process can still be completed by 2004.

Install and operate for production the FRVP.

Install a second parallel melter to increase reliability of the plant.

Do not design or install FRVP.

Process Silo 3 and bentonite caps by another treatment method.

Significant cost savings, if more than $50,000,000.

If Silo 3 waste included in vitrification, the schedule would need to extend beyond 2004.

The VITPP is in startup testing with operation scheduled for March, 1996. The FRVP is presently scheduled to be designed and built concurrently with the VITPP.

Proposal:

Proceed with operation of the VITPP and optimize it as much as practical to allow its use as a production facility. Place the FRVP on hold until VITPP data is available to support proceeding with a 24-ton/day unit. In addition, evaluate several suggestions for: a) reducing the amount of feed materials for the vitrifier, and b) increasing the VITPP throughput. Also consider using the VITPP as a production unit and not proceeding with the FRVP. Alternatively, install a second parallel VITPP melter and use the VITPP as a production unit.

The following features were identified by the VST as methods to implement the optimization of the VITPP to be used as a production facility or to improve the schedule.

IMPLEMENTATION FEATURES FOR VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 1B

Decrease overall schedule.

Reduce transportation and disposal costs.

Increase initial costs.

Initial schedule delay for modifications. (Delay should be made up by increased production capacity.)

IMPLEMENTATION FEATURES FOR VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 1D

May increase melter throughput.

Reduce total number of waste containers.

* This option is not compatible with gem segregation suggestion.

Initial cost impact to VITPP.

Schedule for VITPP may be initially lengthened.

Possible devitrification, but may not be significant in this instance. (Must do treatability study to determine.)

IMPLEMENTATION FEATURES FOR VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 1F

Decrease waste processing period.

Reduce costs.

Improve probability of meeting ROD schedule.

Decrease costs for tests.

Demonstrate progress.

May initially extend schedule (However, it should be made up during operation).

IMPLEMENTATION FEATURES FOR VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 1H

Decrease maintenance requirements.

Increase on-stream time.

Eliminate plugging.

Eliminate leakage.

Potential initial schedule impact.

Additional engineering design.

IMPLEMENTATION FEATURES FOR VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 1J

Improve safety.

Will increase VITPP costs.

IMPLEMENTATION FEATURES FOR VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 1K

Reduce vitrification time.

Reduce costs.

Reduce cost of transportation and disposal of vitrified product.

IMPLEMENTATION FEATURES FOR VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 1L

Reduce the volume of waste to be vitrified.

Reduce total volume of waste treatment residuals.

Reduce number of waste disposal boxes.

Reduce transportation costs.

Reduce vitrifier melter operating temperature.

Use non-molybdenum electrodes.

Identify new vitrification waste additives.

IMPLEMENTATION FEATURES FOR VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 1M

Improve safety.

Simplify off-gas system.

Could eliminate need for process system carbon beds.

Initial cost increase to VITPP.

IMPLEMENTATION FEATURES FOR VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL NO. 1N

Improve probability of having needed personnel.

Improve cost estimate credibility.

Meet conduct of operations/conduct of maintenance criteria.

Cost-effective treatment of the silo wastes requires a balance of: 1) sufficient treatment to mitigate radon release and satisfy toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) durability requirements, 2) volume reduction to optimize shipping and disposal, and 3) safe and reliable design to support operations and stakeholder concurrence.

Though vitrification seemed to satisfy all of these requirements, knowledge gained since the signing of the OU4 ROD indicates significant cost growth for deployment, and subsequent technical findings which may make reevaluation prudent.

Cost increases are due to unforeseeable complications such as: 1) the need for extensive testing of the innovative melter prototype, 2) the potential for fire due to nitrate absorption in the activated carbon used for radon capture, 3) decreasing the expected volume reduction by melting from 50 or 60 percent to 20 percent due to increased glass forming additives, and 4) schedule delays.

The material in Silo 3 is radically different from the material in Silos 1 and 2 (K-65 material). By-product material from processing higher assay pitchblende ores was pumped into Silos 1 and 2 as a slurry. The resulting sludges contain significant amounts of radium which is the major concern driving the selected decision to vitrify.

Silo 3 contains very fine metal oxide powder resulting from processing normal uranium ores. The powder was pneumatically conveyed into Silo 3 and contains only negligible amounts of radium.

Vitrification of the Silo 3 contents would probably not be the selected alternative even if Silo 3 were considered apart from Silos 1 and 2. First, the radionuclide content does not warrant the expensive vitrification step for safe disposal. Second, the fact that Silo 3 contains 15 percent SO₄ makes it a very poor candidate for vitrification and has greatly complicated the processing of the K-65 material where the real problem exists. Third, stabilization of the silo wastes with lime or cement meets TCLP durability requirements for RCRA metals as proven by treatability studies. Though reduction of radium leachability was not as effective with inorganic stabilizers as vitrification, disposal in the arid environment at the NTS effectively eliminates the drinking water exposure pathway. Finally, radon release must only be delayed sufficiently to allow decay to solid-phase plutonium. This can be readily accomplished by adding activated carbon to the stabilizing mixture or as a layer in the packaging, or both if necessary. (This concept may be patentable)

Though volume reduction by melting may still be greater than for stabilization, the added costs for shipping and disposal are believed to be more than offset by the high cost and complexity of the vitrification system. Use of the proven vacuum extraction technology developed for use at Mound would expedite treatment while eliminating many of the complexities caused by the high-temperature vitrification system.

The existing equipment at Mound could be used for treatability studies, and if successful, then used for waste treatment. The vacuum operation is ideal for containment of radioactive contamination and removal of the initial radon inventory which simplifies handling of the product for packaging and shipment.

Innovative adaptation of commercial vacuum extrusion technology to waste streams from steel mills, power plant fly ash, and sewage sludge has resulted in a proven process for volume reducing and stabilizing sludges and powders. Thus, redeployment of this innovative stabilization technology may be cost effective over the prototype vitrification technology initially selected. This reevaluation may also expedite treatment of silo wastes and allow substantial recovery of the planned schedule.

The VST proposes that the material in Silo 3 be mixed with either cement and/or lime and vacuum extruded into an optimum waste form for disposal at Envirocare, by rail if possible. If the radionuclide concentrations are too high to meet the EnviroCare WAC, then the material should be shipped to NTS in standard white metal boxes.

The VST proposes that the existing DOE-owned vacuum extrusion unit currently idle at Miamisburg be moved to Fernald. The portable equipment should be used to perform a treatability study of the Silo 3 contents to determine the optimum stabilization formulation. Next, the contents of Silo 3 should be processed at the extruders nominal 10-ton/hour production design rate.

This processing is an option to blending Silo 3 waste with Pit 5 materials and would be used to support Value Proposal No. 1.

The VST proposes that either during or after the processing of the Silo 3 contents, the vacuum extrusion equipment be used to test the suitability of stabilization/solidification on the K-65 material.

K-65 slurry could be pumped to the extruder with sufficient fly ash and lime/cement added to achieve solidification. The existing radon would be removed by the vacuum system and deposited on the existing carbon beds. In-growth of radon is gradual, allowing 2 hours of processing time at up to 1 percent of the initial levels, and up to 20 hours of handling time with up to 10 percent.

If the process proves more suitable than vitrification for the K-65 material, then a production capable large vitrification plant would not be required.

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION PROPOSAL NO. 2A

Large reduction in estimated life-cycle costs.

Reduce processing time from 7 years to 2 years.

Proven treatment using low temperature, basic technology and chemistry.

Equipment already capitalized and available locally.

Future recovery of radium as medical resource from a grout matrix would be much more readily accomplished than from a fused matrix.

Vacuum milling and extrusion ideally suited to capture radon and contain dust.

Equipment can be revised for other applications, minimizing D&D costs.

Low temperature avoids the potential of thermal oxidation of potential Polychlorinated Bithenyls listed in vitrification treatability studies.

Eliminate generation of NO_x

Eliminate potential for high-temperature foaming and phase separation.

Eliminate need for exotic materials.

Stabilization of Silo 3 materials allows vitrification of other materials (if necessary) at lower temperature.

Lower radon retention may require addition of carbon to provide decay time.

Use of low-temperature stabilization expedites treatment with proven, yet innovative technology while eliminating unnecessary complications due to high-temperature processing.

Less durable waste form.

The plan presented to the VST uses trucks to transport OU4 vitrified product to NTS.

Proposal:

This proposal is to transport the vitrified product from OU4 material by rail to the NTS. The existing rail connection between the FEMP and the Cottage Grove Line is being upgraded as a result of OU1 activities. The product would have to be transferred to truck as the last leg since there is no rail line within the NTS. While the relative amount of savings is small, when compared to the entire project, the mount is still significant and allows several non-monetary benefits.

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION PROPOSAL NO. 3

Fewer trips required thereby safer for accident probability.

Cheaper cost of rail transportation.

Potential negative public reaction from towns close to truck routes.

Negative public reaction near North Las Vegas Rail Yard. (May be mitigated by use of creating staging site on spur out of town.)

Would require storage of rail cars as unit trains are assembled (planned OU1 site may be used).

Local stakeholders along rail line would oppose rail shipment.

Approximately $4,000,000,000 could be saved by transporting the OU4 material by rail versus truck.

Additional exposure due to handling.

I. WASTE PITS (OU1)

The wet and dry portions of the waste pits can be mixed and extruded to meet the WAC for moisture content at EnviroCare. If additional moisture removal is required, sufficient quicklime and fly ash can be added to meet the requirements.

Use of the extrusion equipment could completely eliminate the need to thermally dry any waste pit material. A commercially available 90 ton per hour extrusion plant could easily be installed on a turn-key basis as an alternative to complete privatization of the project.

II. WASTE PIT DENSIFICATION (OU1)

Some significant portion of the waste pit contents will have a bulk density of less than 70 pounds per cubic foot which will result in a penalty for low weight cars. Use of the extruder to compact the material will resolve this problem.

Control of the moisture/density relationship to within plus or minus 5 percent of the optimum is required at Envirocare or a penalty is imposed. The extrusion plant will allow this degree of control.

The true cost savings associated with volume reduction of the pit materials has not been established at Envirocare. Volume reduction of buried waste can be expected to reduce costs and minimize shipping and handling problems such as dusting, lower than optimum weight filling of containers, and avoidance of relative increased hazard of highway versus railroad movement of the waste material. However, the VST could not tie this concept down with Envirocare within the time constraints of the value study.

III. EXISTING DRUM INVENTORY

The bulk of the remaining drum inventory at Fernald consists of waste solids which could not be placed in the waste pits after they were closed by EPA in the late 1980's. Currently, the drums are being sent to NTS in white metal boxes for disposal.

Since the drums contain exactly the same material that is in the waste pits, it is proposed that they be unloaded and processed through the vacuum extruder. Ideally, the material could then be shipped with the pit waste to Envirocare by unit train. If the material for some reason still has to be shipped to NTS, the compacted waste could be loaded directly into the white metal boxes. The empty drums could be recycled and the total shipments to NTS could be reduced by 50 to 75 percent.

IV. ON-SITE ENGINEERED CELL

Large volume reductions of the materials going into the on-site cell are easily obtainable through extrusion methods. If DOE agrees to also lime stabilize the soils/sludge to retard uranium leaching, then perhaps the stakeholders would allow additional low-hazard materials such as the some of the OU1 pits to be stored on site. (Higher hazard sites such as the Silos would continue to be relocated to off-site in such plans.)

ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR FURTHER STUDY

(A LISTING OF ITEMS WITH POTENTIAL FOR COST OR OTHER VALUE IMPROVEMENT)

Consultations with other sites that have attempted to use this type of equipment will assist the project staff in learning how to avoid problems and may demonstrate methods to avoid the use of this troublesome equipment.

Avoiding these potential pluggings of the intake will reduce the potential for delays, and costs associated with temporary shutdowns.

Examine VE studies

$200/each

Teleconferencing with Hanford, and the EM-5O waste tanks focus area to share their results, should produce ideas applicable to OU4.

Previous Value Studies and their implementation records on similar Hanford operations should be reviewed to determine if those ideas can be utilized on OU4.

- Adding the material to the waste steam of OU5, pit 5 operations,

- Solidification and stabilization methods,

- Other techniques identified by vendors via privatization.

A study to determine the applicability of this method to Silo 1 and two materials would be needed.

A Value Study of the operation and support staff organization to relate functions required and needs should be conducted to determine the optimum staffing expertise and size. Certified Value Specialist consultants are available to assist in this task. (See team list and consultation list for contacts.)

Since the scope of work of several projects at the FEMP are being evaluated for potential privatization or performance-based procurement contracts, the VST evaluated several alternatives and improvements to the OU4 remedial design concept and agreed that several of these alternatives could be privatized.

The Waste Pits Remedial Action Project (formerly OU1) is currently being evaluated for potential "privatization" efforts. The VST determined early in the study process that several of the VST Proposals could be integrated into the OU1 effort, or developed as stand-alone privatization efforts.

Consequently, the VST proposes consideration of two potential privatization strategies:

Strategy No. 1: Add the contents of Silo 3 to the scope of the OU1 project (Pit 5).

Strategy No. 2: Remove, treat, and dispose of Silo 3 as a stand-alone

demonstration.

Strategy No. 1 would allow the OU1 vendor to utilize the approximately 700,000 cubic yards of contaminated waste within OU1 and OU4 Silo 3 material to develop the most appropriate blending ratios. The objective of the vendor should be to generate a waste product from OU1 Pit 5 and OU4 Silo 3 which would meet the WAC for the EnviroCare Disposal Site.

Strategy No. 2 would allow the vendor to demonstrate a viable treatment alternative for Silo 3 with the expectation that additional OU4 work could be obtained. The objective of the vendor should be to demonstrate a successful technology for the removal, treatment and disposal of OU4 Silo 3 materials such that the entire volume of Silo 3 could be remediated by the process. The contents of Silos 1 and 2 could potentially be added to the vendor's scope of work if Silo 3 materials are successfully remediated, although Silos 1 and 2 may require considerable modification to the vendor's system due to the different radiological hazards of their contents. The vendor could utilize any disposal location capable of receiving the treated product.

The performance specification under either the private sector procurements must be based on the lowest bid for the entire life-cycle of treatment, through placement at a suitable disposal site. This would provide the vendor a monetary incentive to cost effectively balance waste minimization with adequate treatment.

Any invitation for proof-of-principle or treatability studies must be linked to the award of follow-on work to the successful, low-cost vendor. The procurement must include obtaining adequate permitting, acceptable schedule for completion, and suitable profit based on satisfactory treatment, shipping and final disposal of wastes. Addition of the higher activity Silo 1 and 2 material should be at the option of the vendor, pending acceptance of the Silo 3 treatment and disposal by FERMCO. Final award must be based on satisfactory completion of fixed-price treatment through disposal of all Silo 1 and 2 wastes. Treatment technology should be left to the discretion of the vendor.

Due to the relatively low volume of wastes to be treated, and the capital-intensive development/construction of the proposed vitrification process, the investment is not amortized over a reasonable time period and the ratio of capital to operating dollars is inordinately high. This situation has good potential to benefit from privatization where used or developmental equipment can be deployed for treatment and the entire cost of equipment development/construction and D&D need not be borne by the treatment of one silo's wastes.

Reason to split off Silo 3:

The high sulfate content of the Silo 3 wastes necessitate higher temperature melting to preclude phase separation and foaming, which requires the design of a novel melter prototype rather than the use of proven technology. Treatment of Silo 3 wastes by blending or low-temperature stabilization eliminates the complication to vitrification while addressing the primary health risk of toxic metals. The other silo wastes may then be treated in a similar fashion if low-temperature stabilization is sufficient, or by lower temperature vitrification using a more conventional melter design.

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION FOR PRIVATIZATION STRATEGY NO. 1

The cost to evaluate would be moderate.

Reduce scope of OU4 which may schedule recovery.

Envirocare disposal will be cheaper than NTS.

Rail transport will be cheaper and safer than truck.

Low initial capital outlay.

RODs may need to be reopened for public comment.

RCRA determination of Silo 3 material may be unfavorable.

Inflexible disposal location.

ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION FOR PRIVATIZATION STRATEGY NO. 2

The market would generate potentially successful treatment strategies.

Low initial capital outlay.

Vendor shares risk through satisfactory completion.

In line with EM-30 privatization initiative.

Procurement could reduce DOE-directive requirements to allow lower-cost completion by NRC-licensee.

RCRA concerns.

Performance based procurement should expedite treatment and disposal of Silo 3 (Potentially Silo 1 and 2) wastes while developing technological capabilities in private sector. Costs will be fixed, but not necessarily lower than current plan.

ROD renegotiation may not be readily accepted by stakeholders.

Great way to introduce successful technologies into the FEMP, with limited capital investment in equipment.

(Name,Title, Company/Address)

(Telephone, Location)

(208) 526-4974

(208) 526-0042

Vitreous State Laboratory

The Catholic University of America

(202) 319-6700

Value Engineering Services Transworld

1861 Brevor Drive

Walla Walla, WA 99362

Solutions

9032 South Gray Fox Dr. Golden, CO 80439-6208

President,

Cost Improvement Management Services, Inc.

Box 1248

Golden, CO 80492

(Name, Author, Dates, etc.)

Five-Year Plan for

FY94-FY98, Volume III Public Concerns, DOE, August 1993.

FY93-FY97, DOE, August 1991.

I. L. Pegg, undated.

D. F. Bickford, October 1995.