TECHNICAL A PPROACH

C‐E‐2 April 2014 Figure E1: Hanford Site ‐ Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant under Construction Much of DOE’s environmental management work at the Hanford Site is governed by the Consent Decree in the case of the State of Washington v. Chu, Case No. 08‐5085‐FVS and the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (TPA or Tri‐Party Agreement). DOE has informed the State of Washington that the achievement of a number of Consent Decree milestones is at serious risk.

E.1.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH

In the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Surplus Plutonium Disposition (SPD) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), DOE decided to implement the hybrid approach for the disposition of up to 50 MT of surplus plutonium by fabricating up to 33 MT into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel and immobilizing approximately 17 MT. [ROD 65 FR 1608] SRS was selected as the location for the 3 disposition facilities: the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility (PDCF), Plutonium Immobilization Facility, and Mixed Oxide Fabrication Facility (MFFF). Subsequently, in 2002, DOE announced its decision to cancel the immobilization portion of the disposition strategy due to budgetary constraints. [ROD 67 FR 19432] At the time of cancellation the Plutonium Immobilization Project (PIP) was in the early stages of design and was finalizing the conceptual design report. DOE was 2 years into a projected

C‐E‐3 April 2014

5‐year development and testing program that included waste form performance testing and qualification for licensing the waste form in the geologic repository.

As a result of the 2002 decision to cancel PIP, DOE had about 13 MT of surplus plutonium without a defined disposition path.4 _{In 2007, DOE announced its intention [NOI 72 FR}

14543] to prepare a Supplement EIS for Surplus Plutonium Disposition at SRS [DOE/EIS– 0283–S2] to evaluate the potential environmental impacts for alternatives to dispose of this material. This Notice of Intent identified DOE’s preferred alternative to construct and operate an immobilization facility within an existing building at SRS. This facility, known as the Plutonium Vitrification Project, would immobilize plutonium within a Lanthanide‐ Borosilicate glass inside stainless steel cans. The cans then would be placed within larger canisters to be filled with vitrified HLW in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) at SRS. The canisters would be suitable for disposal in a geologic repository. Since the glass vitrification technology was advanced in the 1990’s and early 2000 through the operational experiences of DWPF and through developmental testing associated with an americium vitrification project at SRS, it was selected as a preferred form for the Plutonium Vitrification Project over the ceramic form identified in PIP. The Plutonium Vitrification Project was authorized in 2005 to dispose of the up to 13 MT of plutonium at SRS. [Sell 2005] During this time, the project developed the conceptual design for the vitrification process, further developed the can‐in‐canister technology from the PIP project, and began the waste form performance testing and qualification program for licensing the waste form in the geologic repository. This vitrified glass can‐in‐canister waste form was identified as a potential waste form in the Yucca Mountain License Application. (See Figure E2) The project was subsequently cancelled in 2007.

The only two U.S. DOE sites that have significant quantities of HLW or that have the capability to encapsulate the waste into glass logs for ultimate disposal are SRS and the Hanford Site. The first site, SRS, has been using DWPF since 1996 to vitrify HLW into glass logs. Because a significant amount of SRS’s HLW has already been remediated, there is not enough HLW remaining to dispose of 34 MT of surplus plutonium. In addition, DWPF is scheduled to complete operations by 2032, well in advance of designing and constructing an immobilization facility to perform this mission. 4 _{Approximately 4 MT of unirradiated Zero Power Physics Reactor fuel at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) was part of}

the original 17 MT considered for immobilization and excess to weapons programs. For several years DOE set aside this material for other potential other uses, therefore this material was excluded from the scope of the SRS Plutonium Vitrification Project.

C‐E‐4 April 2014 Figure E2: High‐Level Waste Can‐In‐Canister Diagram The second location, the Hanford Site, is where DOE is constructing a new facility, the WTP, to vitrify its waste into glass logs. While there is enough HLW available to complete the 34 MT disposition mission, the Hanford Site deinventoried its plutonium not in fuel form in 2009, and its secure plutonium storage facility has been shut down. As a result, an immobilization option at the Hanford Site would require a new plutonium storage facility to be constructed or an existing facility significantly modified in addition to the new plutonium immobilization facility. Both of these facilities would be secure Hazard Category 2 facilities, which would require meeting stringent security and safety regulations. E.1.3 FACILITY CONSTRUCTION/MODIFICATION The Hanford Site construction/modification scope of work is broken out into projects: 1) Storage; 2) Immobilization; and 3) WTP Modification. Storage

A new plutonium storage facility or modification to an existing facility would have to be constructed to receive and store the plutonium oxide from SRS and LANL. The Hanford Site would have to reconstitute a security program to protect significant quantities of weapon‐ grade plutonium including reconstituting a Human Reliability Program (HRP) to ensure the

C‐E‐5 April 2014 reliability of the workers with access to this material. The building blocks of the storage facility would include:

Material receipt capability for “Secure Transport” vehicles: The plutonium would be transported to the Hanford Site using the NNSA’s Office of Secure Transportation (OST). An enclosed off‐loading area would be required that provides sufficient security features during receipt of the transport vehicles. Equipment required for shipping container receipts would include a fork lift, drum hoist, drum scale, barcode reader, non‐destructive analysis (NDA) confirmatory measurement device, and instruments for radiological control personnel. Backup power supply would also be required for the transportation vehicles.

Vault storage: A 10,000 position secure Hazard Category 2 plutonium vault that can store either DOE‐STD‐3013 cans or shipping containers such as the 9975, 9977, or ES‐3100 would be needed. The vault or vaults must meet nuclear safety, life safety, and fire protection codes including independent and redundant nuclear safety systems where appropriate, fire suppression and detection systems, and multiple egress paths. DOE safeguards and security features would also be required. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards most likely would also be required for a minimum of 3 MT of plutonium which is currently under IAEA safeguards at SRS. The IAEA material would have to be in a segregated area with cameras and tamper indicating devices for IAEA monitoring.

Material surveillance program: The Hanford Site would need to reconstitute a plutonium surveillance program in accordance with DOE‐STD‐3013 to verify corrosion and pressurization conditions would not occur over a 50‐year period that might compromise the integrity of the cans during storage. The standard requires both destructive and non‐ destructive examination of the cans in storage. The glovebox for the destructive analysis must have a can puncture device with gas sampling capability, can opener, can cutter to take samples for corrosion testing, scales, and a method to sample the plutonium. In a separate area, the Hanford Site would need to reconstitute the capability to perform destructive analysis of the can itself for corrosion testing, and analytical analysis of the plutonium. For non‐destructive surveillance, a digital radiography system (x‐ray capability) would be required to observe the amount of pressurization within each inner can. This option assumes that LANL would continue with the shelf life program as required by DOE‐STD‐3013 and that this function would not transfer to the Hanford Site.

DOE‐STD‐3013 packaging capability: To meet the 50‐year storage criteria for plutonium as required by DOE Order, the Hanford Site would need to reconstitute the DOE‐STD‐3013 packaging capability to repackage plutonium prior to start‐up of the immobilization capability. This would include an inert glovebox with furnaces to stabilize the plutonium to 950° Celsius, driving off moisture that might be absorbed on the plutonium and a DOE‐STD‐ 3013 canning system.

Material control and accountability measurement area: Measurement area would be required, including drum counting and can counting capabilities. If IAEA safeguards were required, a separate IAEA counting area and equipment might also be needed.

C‐E‐6 April 2014

Balance of plant: This would include the support functions, e.g., electrical systems, fire systems, building and process ventilation systems, and diesel generator building.

Security: Significant security upgrades would be required since the Hanford Site no longer stores large quantities of SNM other than in fuel form. These upgrades would include, for example, reactivating or establishing a new intrusion detection system, alarm stations, surveillance systems, entry control facility, security vehicles, weapons armory, and weapons training facility.

Immobilization

A plutonium immobilization facility would need to be constructed at the Hanford Site. The throughput required for 34 MT over a 15‐year period would be approximately 100 cans per week (rounded conservatively), resulting in 4,000 cans per year over the 15‐year period, resulting in approximately 60,000 cans based on a 10‐month production year. The actual total number of cans required is 56,667 (rounded to 60,000) to dispose of 34 MT, therefore with each WTP canister containing 28 cans, approximately 2,024 HLW canisters would be required to package the plutonium. Based on the amount of HLW displaced per canister due to the immobilized plutonium, the vitrification plant at WTP would create approximately 250 additional HLW canisters, about an additional half‐year of production at WTP. 5 _{Similar security features would be required for this facility, as would be in the}

storage facility. The immobilization process, as depicted in Figure E3, is broken down into the following building blocks and is based on the now cancelled Plutonium Vitrification Project.

Material receipt capability for “Secure Transport” vehicles: The plutonium would be transported within the Hanford Site, from the vault storage facility to the immobilization facility using the onsite security force. An enclosed off‐loading area would be required that provides sufficient security features during receipt of the transport vehicles. Equipment required for shipping container receipts includes a fork lift, drum hoist, drum scale, barcode reader, non‐destructive analysis (NDA) confirmatory measurement device, and instruments for radiological control personnel. An area will need to be established to house the on‐site transport vehicle with a power source. 5 _{Currently, it is estimated that WTP will produce approximately 10,600 HLW canisters at a rate of 400 canisters per year.} The operation life is approximately 25‐27 years.

C‐E‐7 April 2014 Figure E3: Immobilization Process Flow Diagram* *Note: Oxidize metal step is not required at the immobilization facility since all material received into the facility will be in oxide form. Interim vault storage: Interim or lag storage area for up to 500 DOE‐STD‐3013 cans would be required to remove the DOE‐STD‐3013 cans from the shipping containers and provide storage until ready for the processing steps. Feed preparation: Feed preparation would receive the DOE‐STD‐3013 cans of oxide from material receipt storage and prepares the plutonium for processing. The plutonium would be crushed and screened to a particle diameter less than 1 mm and placed into cans loaded at 2 kg per can. Milling and mixing: The milling and mixing process step would combine the plutonium feed with Lanthanide‐Borosilicate (LaBS) glass frit. Plutonium oxide feed would be received into the milling and mixing glovebox from the feed preparation glovebox. Milling and mixing would be accomplished using an attritor mill to produce the necessary particle size

C‐E‐8 April 2014

to ensure dissolution and incorporation of the plutonium into the glass and a homogenous mixture. The resulting mix would be loaded into melter batch cans and sent to immobilization.

Immobilization: In immobilization, the plutonium feed/LaBS frit mixture would be vitrified into glass cans using a Cylindrical Induction Melter (CIM). The CIM is a compact, high temperature (1600° Celsius capability) melter. A platinum/rhodium (Pt/Rh) vessel would be used to contain the melt and a Pt/Rh drain tube would be used to discharge the molten glass into cans. It is estimated that 20 melter units would be required. The resultant glass cans would be transported to the bagless transfer unit. Bagless transfer: The bagless transfer would allow the glass can to be removed from the glovebox in a non‐contaminated state by emplacing the glass can in a bagless transfer can. It is estimated that three bagless transfer units would be required to obtain the throughput requirements. The bagless transfer cans would be transported to magazine loading/storage, canister load/ship.

Magazine loading/storage, canister load/ship: This area would receive the bagless transfer cans, assemble cans into magazines (long stainless steel cans containing 4 bagless transfer cans per magazine), store the magazines in an area capable of storing a minimum of 400 magazines, and assemble the can‐in‐canister assemblies that are suitable for filling with HLW glass. The empty WTP canister would be shipped to this plutonium immobilization facility where 7 magazines containing 28 immobilized plutonium cans would be placed into the empty WTP canisters. A temporary plug would be inserted over the opening and the canisters would be loaded into a shielded shipping cask for transport to WTP.

Non‐nuclear material handling: Non‐nuclear material handling would provide for the receipt and storage of non‐radioactive materials and containers used in the process. A storage building outside of the Security Area would be provided to facilitate off‐site vendor receipts. This building would supply approximately a one‐month supply of materials.

Waste handling/loading: The waste handling/loading would remove waste generated from the process. This building block removes waste from the generation point, performs the appropriate measurements, packages waste, and prepares waste for shipment to the disposal location.

Balance of plant: The balance of plant would comprise of the support functions required by the immobilization process, e.g., electrical systems, fire systems, building and process ventilation systems, diesel generator building, and the administrative support building.

C‐E‐9 April 2014

WTP Modifications

Modifications to the WTP vitrification plant would be required to support receipt of the immobilized plutonium cans. The specific modifications to WTP would not be known until design of the WTP vitrification plant is completed. However, based on the DWPF changes that were identified during the cancelled Plutonium Vitrification Project, it is expected that WTP would require receipt and handling capabilities for the canisters filled with immobilized plutonium cans. The immobilized plutonium canisters differ from typical DWPF/WTP canisters, in that they contain significant quantities of SNM, emit a significant amount of radiation6_{, and weigh significantly more. Security measures, including the}

potential use of a protective force would be necessary for receipt and movement of the immobilized plutonium canisters. Specific shielding and/or remote operation measures would be required to handle the canisters. Due to the weight of the can‐in‐canister assembly, modifications to existing canister handling equipment (loading dock, forklift, crane, etc.) would likely be required. The modified process steps are described below.

 The transport truck would arrive at the WTP vitrification plant at an upgraded/modified canister receipt bay. The shielded transport cask would be opened and a new bridge crane provided by this immobilization project would be used to remove the canister from the cask. It is expected that a “shielded shroud” would be needed for radiation shielding. The shroud could be designed to mate to the cask so the canister can be enveloped by the shroud as it is removed from the cask. The shrouded canister would be loaded onto a transport vehicle (e.g., forklift truck, motorized cart) for transfer through the canister storage area to the existing canister airlock area.  In the canister airlock, the canister would be removed from the shroud and positioned

for transfer to the melt cell using the “existing” monorail from the WTP vitrification plant. The addition of shielding and remote viewing capability would be required in this area. The canister would be grasped by the monorail hoist and taken to the melt cell entry hatch. Additional protective shielding and remote viewing capability would be provided for the operator during this operation. All non‐essential personnel must be excluded from the corridor during this evolution. The canister would be lowered through the entry hatch into the transfer cart then into the melt cell using the” existing” canister grapple and in‐cell crane.

 In the melt cell, the canister would be placed into existing storage racks for staging to the WTP melter using the in‐cell crane. A capability using the existing manipulator would be needed in the melt cell to remove the temporary canister plug from the can‐ in‐canister assembly. These plugs would become waste upon removal. Subsequent processing of the can‐in‐canister assembly would proceed similarly to processing a standard WTP canister.

With the production of approximately 250 additional HLW canisters, an additional glass waste storage facility was conservatively assumed in this option.

6 _{The combination of the LaBS frit (containing boron) and the plutonium feed materials would generate neutrons in the}

vitrified plutonium product through the “alpha, n” reaction. The neutron dose from this mixture has not been quantified but it is expected that shielding measures would need to be employed in the immobilization facility and in subsequent canister handling activities.

C‐E‐10 April 2014 E.1.4 KEY ASSUMPTIONS  NEPA analysis and ROD completed in a timely manner.

 Staffing available (both operations and security) in particular qualified, cleared, nuclear workers in the HRP.

 Successful negotiations with the State of Washington to ship at least 34 MT of plutonium into Washington pending identification and start‐up of the HLW geologic repository.

 Additional glass waste storage building to store the additional glass canisters produced.

 Until a geologic repository is identified, and the waste qualification requirements are established, same waste acceptance requirements as were established for Yucca Mountain assumed.

E.1.5 COST AND SCHEDULE

Immobilization requires construction of a multi‐billion dollar immobilization facility and potential construction or significant modification of a storage facility. In 1999, the cost to design and construct the immobilization facility was comparable to the MOX facility, with the cost estimates within $100 million of each other. The total lifecycle cost to operate the immobilization facility was slightly less than the cost to operate the MOX facility. Since then, the immobilization project was cancelled, and the MOX project has experienced significant cost growth with the latest contractor‐submitted baseline change proposal at $7.7 billion with an estimated annual operating cost of more than $500 million. This analysis uses a parametric comparison between MOX and immobilization to estimate the immobilization costs. Historically the estimated cost for the projects was comparable.

The immobilization project and the MOX project would have parallel processes in many respects, even though the plutonium is encased in glass in the case of immobilization and in a uranium oxide fuel ceramic in the case of MOX fuel. The largest difference in the processes that could drive a difference in relative cost is that the MOX project has an aqueous polishing step and the immobilization project would require changes to WTP. In very rough terms, the capital cost for the aqueous processing part of the MOX facility has been estimated in the past to be approximately 1/3 of the cost of the overall MOX project. The WTP modifications are estimated at $500 million which would include approximately