NDA Letter Template

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Low Level Waste Team US Visit - Report Programme Directorate Report Low Level Waste Team US Visit D Weatherburn 28 November 2005 Page 1 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Low Level Waste Team US Visit - Report Executive Summary The NDA LLW team has learned much from the recent US visit and the objectives of the trip have been fully realised. The US is probably some 15 – 20 years ahead of the UK in some aspects of decommissioning and in handling high volumes of solid LLW. Consequently, it is important that we now incorporate key learning into forthcoming Invitation to Tender documentation for the LLWR Drigg site which is scheduled to be competed commencing summer 06. Sites visited have covered significantly different geological and climatic environments. There is clearly no current single solution that easily satisfies the UK LLW requirement. However over coming months it is essential that NDA work closely with industry to develop a bespoke UK solution which best satisfies NDA’s unique and challenging requirements. It is vital that the ITT developed allows industry to offer innovative solutions based upon their experience gained over decades of client orientated LLW Management. US companies that we have seen are more than capable of delivering the step change that is required in UK to drive down costs and cope with the diverse nature and increased volumes of waste that result from accelerated decommissioning activities. Key points to note from the visit, and points that should be set as targets to be realised for future LLW operations in UK, are: a. Production line type operations This was one of the most notable differences between UK and US operations. Working practices witnessed showed mature methods of working in high volume environments at all of the sites visited. b. Serious volumes of “real work” Linked to 4a, there was a real emphasis on physical work NOT the ‘enabling’ paperwork. This is an area where focused effort is required in the UK to bring about the necessary change. It reflects a business and regulatory environment changing from construction and operations activities to decommissioning. c. Proven low and high tech solutions deployed in variety of climatic environments Learning can be applied to the UK market based on lessons from the US experience. Commercial focus, without degradation of safety standards, has to drive fit-for-purpose solutions. d. Innovation in practice Many of the concepts identified in NDA’s first draft strategy are common place working practices in the sites visited typically waste minimisation techniques, incineration and metal smelting. It is this expertise that contractors through competition will bring to the table to stimulate cost effective Page 2 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Low Level Waste Team US Visit - Report future LLW management operations. US companies have been seen to identify and apply innovation at both a corporate and an individual level. e. Exemplary stakeholder relations The US companies provide significant community benefit through various socio economic activities within rules set out in clear frameworks and guidelines. This covered things such as good neighbour initiatives, community support programmes and job creation which the team felt demonstrated exemplary stakeholder relations. f. Fit-for-purpose facilities This was a real eye opener. There was no evidence of over engineering at any of the facilities visited, all having substantial safety and environmental documentation supporting this. Typically a vehicle maintenance workshop at ERDF Hanford essentially comprised a temporary modular construction tent. Similarly plant engineering equipment was adequate for the job required of it, no more no less. g. Robust contract structures DoE has placed careful consideration to focus on high level outputs without placing undue burden on Tier 2 and Tier 3 sub contracting procedures. There was a clear emphasis on incentivisation via appropriate contract clauses to encourage sustained performance across key areas of work. Para 11 below details specific areas that should be investigated further as part of development of the future LLW management strategy. It should be noted that change will be gradual. The marked stepped change is likely to come about with the introduction of a new LLW management facility/facilities. Background Objectives NDA team members with primary responsibilities linked to Low Level Waste management undertook the visit to several US LLW sites to investigate: Waste minimisation techniques – typically categorisation, incineration, metal smelting and compaction practices. Operational techniques employed at US facilities across differing geological and climatic environments. Socio economic management in environments where accelerated decommissioning of nuclear sites is already well established. Opportunities for re-use and re-cycling. Opportunities for cost reduction within UK LLW management by adopting more cost effective working practices. Page 3 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Low Level Waste Team US Visit - Report The approach adopted fully aligns with NDA’s draft strategy document. It is deemed essential that NDA develops and maintains an intelligent customer status in the LLW management arena to enable aspirations set out in the strategy to be realised. The intention is that lessons learnt will be incorporated into ITT documentation currently being developed as part of UK LLW Strategy development. NDA working in conjunction with industry subject matter experts will develop a UK solution that delivers the required stepped change in current performance. The aim is to drive down costs significantly below the £1800/m3 being incurred presently at LLWR Drigg for LLW disposal. NDA Team make-up The multi disciplinary team comprised: Steve Dixon – LLWR Drigg Competition Commercial Manager Jo Fisher – Low Level Waste Strategy Manager Amy Gill – LLWR Drigg Programme Controls Manager. Lesley Sewell – LLWR Drigg Commercial Manager Dave Weatherburn – LLWR Drigg Site Programme Manager The itinerary was developed specifically to see how US contactors and DoE manage LLW treatment and disposal across significantly differing geological and climatic conditions. Potential learning to be taken into consideration when developing the bespoke UK solution, likely to start in earnest post competition of the LLWR Drigg site in Dec 06, are captured in the Executive Summary points above and Way Forward section below. Sites Visited Annexes 1 through 4 provide a brief summary of salient points for each of the sites visited. Annex 5 summarises discussion with DoE at Oakridge. Annex 6 provides contact details of people met during the visit. Additional site publication material is available upon request should the reader require further site specific functional information. Specific details are: a. b. c. d. e. f. Annex 1 – Barnwell Visit Key Notes. Annex 2 - Oakridge Visit Key Notes. Annex 3 – Envirocare Utah Visit Key Notes. Annex 4 – Hanford Visit Key Notes. Annex 5 – DoE Discussion Key Notes. Annex 6 – List of US Companies and Contacts Page 4 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Low Level Waste Team US Visit - Report Way Forward It is recommended that the Low Level Waste team: a. Deliver a high level presentation of findings to those with a vested LLW interest within NDA. b. Make this report available on the NDA website so that our SLCs, potential new SLCs, colleagues and peers can benefit from the information presented. c. Feed key learning in line with the Executive Summary and Way Forward into ITT development to ensure that a framework exists to indeed deliver the required stepped change. d. Challenge current practices – locally and nationally. e. Develop a robust/ cohesive LLW strategy including a “Driggcentric” strategy. This should focus on establishing a culture which will allow realisation of : (1) Production line type operations. (2) Focus on “real work”, minimum enabling paperwork without compromising safety. (3) Introducing innovation to drive down costs – e.g. incineration with volumetric reduction of 200:1. (4) Exemplary stakeholder relations. (5) Fit-for-purpose facilities. The Bear Creak facility design and procedures/waste management innovations could potentially be implemented in the UK. A similar site could be envisaged in the UK, centralized (motivated/hands on team) waste sorting to treatment routes, 1 or possibly 2 large scale incinerators, metal melt technology. (6) Robust contract structures. DoE contracts are tied to ‘end points’ and therefore the baseline is simply an assumption of activities required to meet the endpoint. (7) Incentivising consignees to reduce volumes. Need to realise opportunities through waste generators undertaking consistent, improved, waste inventory management, sorting and reporting. Need NDA guidance on inventory and strategic direction on waste type/stream strategies (8) Initiating additional waste segregation/categorisation – currently UK pays an unnecessary premium for VLLW. (9) Challenge use of ISO containers. (10 Focus on waste tracking and forecasting. Waste tracking is critical and an area of weakness presently the UK. Note This report is a collation of team members’ inputs - considerable additional material in the form of presentations, photographs, brochures and personal notes is also available. Page 5 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk 1. Annex 1 Barnwell (South Carolina) Visit Key Notes General/ Technical: a. Chem-Nuclear Systems, a wholly owned subsidiary of Duratek operates a LLW disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina. The 235-acre facility occupies property owned by the state of South Carolina and leased to Chem-Nuclear Systems. The Barnwell Waste Management Facility operates under the authority of Radioactive Material License 097 issued by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. b. Since the disposal facility began operation in 1971, about 821,200 m3 or 90% of the available disposal volume has been used. The Barnwell site is the most expensive of the commercial disposal sites primarily because of high state taxes placed on disposal. Barnwell accepts Class A, B, and C LLW. Although the site historically accepted waste from any location, South Carolina recently formed the Atlantic Compact with the states of Connecticut and New Jersey and is phasing out waste from outside that compact over time. c. Disposal for wastes in classes A, B (2-3Sv equivalent contact dose material) and C (200-300Sv contact dose equivalent material) in separate trench types. UK LLW category ~ equivalent to lowest end US Class A category wastes. d. Disposal is via a series of trenches and pits with vaults, (concrete boxes), being placed in both. e. Final cap configuration is standard and only 8ft thick. f. Site operates in wet climatic conditions not dissimilar to that of Cumbria. g. 5 licenses to operate from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) : Disposal site; calibration lab; environmental lab; nuclear plant services facility; consolidation facility. h. Since 73, progressive alteration and improvement to design from shallow trench 1 burial in 1973 to all waste in DHEC approved vaults from 1996 . i. Containerised Waste however Barnwell adopts less engineered solutions than Drigg whilst still within US regulatory requirements – i.e. shallow trench burial – no concrete engineered vault. j. The volume disposed has decreased from its peak receipts in 1979/80 (~70,000m3) to <10,000m3 in 2004/5, the key driver being increased State 2 disposal taxes, leading to reduction of waste at the point of generation plus higher volume, lower activity material now gets diverted to the Clive facility at Envirocare, Utah. k. In future restricted ‘customers’, from joining the Atlantic Compact3, will again severely limit the volume disposed each year, and therefore the longevity of the site 4 for receiving class B/C wastes from the compact . l. Use of on site DHEC inspector adds confidence and verification of control and compliance to the facilities disposal authorization m. Currently disposes of 1225 m3 per annum. n. 61 employees for 235 acre site – Drigg seems disproportionate. Not dissimilar to the Drigg LLWR Similar to perceived effect if Drigg LLWR charges were increased? (Drigg LLWR received 550*20m3 volume on average per year = ~11,000m3, again similar). Needs a National look at expected arisings against actuals to all disposal facilities to see if charge increases have actually altered minimisation practices at source 3 Conneticut and New Jersey paid $12M for ensured capacity of 800,000ft3 at guaranteed pricing 4 Duratek/Chem Nuclear intend to lobby for extended remit /scope as 2008 approaches. Until then, they are the only outlet for most B/C class wastes in the US. 2 1 Page 6 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk o. p. q. r. s. t. u. 2. Very minimal procurement – 1 person part time. Very positive stakeholder relationships – met local dignitaries – all fully supportive of operation. Assisted by the level of financial support given to the local community £3.25M benefit per annum through taxes and local support. This equates to 1215% of the counties total budget. Economic Development Groups determine how community benefits. Barnwell community support is considered exemplar! Time as well as money given back to the community. Typically school ecological trips (265 acres protected wetlands adjacent to the 235 acres, designated for LLW disposal), Barnwell appreciation day, public outreach programmes, otary membership – it goes on…… Costs associated with work in the local community are disallowable. Residents are within close proximity of the site. Site employees actively participate in local community events. Commercial a. b. c. d. e. Commercial site – not DoE. Pricing Mechanism: guaranteed pricing for customers with pre-agreed escalation. Cost reimbursable contract – all allowable costs are reimbursed with an uplift of 29%. Chem Nuclear Profit equates to approx 8% per annum. The site operator expressed reservations that the current contract may not represent the most favourable means of incentivisation. As this is a commercial site performance reports, comparable with UK reports, are not produced or deemed to be required 3. Costing a. b. The nominal disposal price for Barnwell is £8,000/m . Operation Costs £8.5 – £10M per annum. (1) Fixed costs (2) Variable (3) Taxes/Permits (4) Special Projects (5) Misc. & Federal Taxes c. d. 52% 15% 16% 5% 12% 3 e. South Carolina (SC) Budget and Control Board sets the price for disposal, the SC public service commission details allowable costs and the SC Office of Regulatory Staff audits actual costs. Future costs are forecasted annually and submitted to the State. Payment is made based on the forecast in advance of the work being carried out. Reconciliation to actual costs is carried out at the end of the year. Any interest Chem Nuclear has earned is returned to the State. If the actual costs exceed the estimate, the site must demonstrate where additional work has been performed. Incurred costs are audited annually. Page 7 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk f. g. £19M in Care and Maintenance fund (contribution made to the fund since mid 1970’s per unit disposal). £12M in separate Decommissioning fund established and contributed to since 1981. Page 8 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk Annex 2 Oakridge (Knoxville) Visit Key Notes 1. Bear Creak Waste Treatment Facility: a. General Technical (1) This is a specialist waste sorting and treatment facility focusing on minimising waste volumes and costs for the customers – the facility comprises: (a) A Super-Compaction Facility. This is very similar to the WAMAC facility at Sellafield. Other waste forms are however used to fill any voids within containers. (b) An Incinerator. Licensed to comply with all regulatory requirements, this facility can produce volumetric reduction of around 200:1. Notably the facility already takes waste from three European countries, (Germany, Belgium and Spain), returning only the waste ash. Cost of plant approx £4M. (c) A Metal Smelter allowing for re-use of waste metal products typically taking lead, recycling and selling “contaminated” blocks back into the market for shielding – ie not creating new contamination – typically manufacturing 10te shield blocks for reuse in accelerator beam path liners for the US DoE and Japanese customers, lead recycling into reusable products and innovation projects, e.g. potential reuse of fly ash into dry grout powder/kitty litter type material to assist with stability in transport as a secondary environmental benefit. (2) Duratek provide the full waste collection, waste processing, management and transport to appropriate disposal for their client. Operations run like clockwork. (3) 350 staff – 50 acre site of which 35 acres are in use at the present time. (4) Very compact and efficient facility. (5) Consignors do not categorise – simply despatch for sorting at facility. (6) Computerised waste satellite tracking monitors the waste via bar code for continuous tracking. (7) Employee innovation programme not only rewards but also encourages employees to propose then implement innovations – get about 600 ideas generated per annum. This is far more proactive system than we have in UK. Employees can benefit significantly if one of their ideas is implemented. (8) Ideal position to service market. (9) Recycled water for the incinerator to ensure no new contamination. (10) Owns own transportation company and takes ISO containers of waste for treatment from Belgium, Germany, Spain and other external customers as well as transporting waste to and from customers across the USA. Page 9 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk (11) There are no residents within close proximity to the facility, therefore work within the local community is not as intense as at Barnwell. (12) Performance of the facility is measured against a series of metrics which differ between departments (full list available upon request). (13) Customers supply waste forecast with little or no input from Waste Processing Facility staff. (14) Employees fundraise, families involved and work in the community, no formal structure in place as such, it just works! (15) All waste received centrally and hand sorted by a dedicated team of LLW operators that sort and segregate the waste in campaigns on a rotating sorting table. Standard PPE, no masks – hand rake, separate bags and route material to appropriate points for direction to treatment processes. Very efficient and well motivated (well paid) work force. (16) Forecast waste arisings based on customers predictions and look at historical trending. b. Commercial (1) c. Costing £100,000 per annum provided for community benefit - whole company ethos centred on community involvement, not just cheques. (2) £50M per annum income generated. (3) £45M per annum operating costs, which includes £16M transport costs. 2. Y12 (Oakridge Reservation Landfill) a. General Technical (1) 4 landfills, 2 active, lined (classified and unclassified) and 2 closed landfills, now being monitored and seeded over. (2) Construction/Demolition inert debris in cells with no leachate collection system and Garbage/Industrial waste classed as ‘Sanitary’ landfills – clay lined only for non-rad wastes (potential capacity to ~2030). (3) Hazardous and Mixed waste/rad waste in a double lined (geosynthetic) system (though zero to < VLLW equivalent activity). Continues to support operational waste as well as decommissioning. (4) Combination of tumble tipping and containerised encapsulation disposal. (1) Commercial operation Page 10 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk 3. EMWMF (Environmental Management Waste Management Facility). a. General Technical (1) The Oak Ridge on-site disposal facility, the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility (EMWMF), began operation in 2002. The EMWMF accepts waste from Oak Ridge Reservation remedial actions only. The waste will consists primarily of soil and debris as LLW, MLLW, and hazardous waste. Sources of debris are expected to be building decontamination and decommissioning at the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), and building and reactor D&D at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). 3 The EMWMF is being built in increments of 305,800 m . After each cell is filled, and capped and all cells are completed, one large contiguous cap will be installed to cover everything. Plans call for EMWMF to operate through FY 2010. Closure is projected to begin in FY 2005, when the first cell is filled. Current disposal is significantly behind the original planned curve. The impact of this is that pro rata disposal costs are at a disproportionate high level as Duratek are paid a minimum standard fee per month regardless of work levels. Waste arising predictions from consignor sites is an area where additional effort is being focused to resolve this matter. Hazardous and LLW facility. 6 million m3 of waste disposal capability. DoE decided on site location however design of actual siting of cells was subject to competition. Fixed price contract for the siting of the tip. 5 companies initially bid – dropped to 2 who were fully funded to complete final bid. th Currently 4 cells constructed, 5 cell in construction. £16M for design and construction. Contract for construction was fixed price with milestones. No payment made until first 90,000te of waste consigned – penalty – negative cash flow. Disposal is combination of tumble tipping and encapsulated containers. Final cap configuration 16ft thick. 3 years from contract award date to site receiving first consignment. 50-60 trucks are currently received per day, this will have increased to 150 by 2007 No real issues getting approval for new cells. Once approval was given for sites, any new cells within the sites were simply notified – no new approval required. Clear synthetic liners as membranes for walls – not concrete but constructed to modern landfill design. Waste tumble tipped – 50:50 debris/soil split. Radiological protection – separate contract. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) Page 11 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk (18) Transport – separate contract. (19) Consigners provide waste forecasts, which are variable in accuracy. Duratek have little input into the waste forecast generation. (20) Liner waste design and 1000 year cap life design, 13 field crew (4 heavy equipment operators, 9 labourers) on average 8 hour day, 5 days a week – most people who started in 2002, still work on site. (21) Most waste uncontainerised (50:50% split between debris and soil. Some soil imported to meet layering/cover requirements). (22) Bulk items grouted in situ (partial innovation in these ‘eco-blocks’ for potential recycling of liquid LLW in the concrete mix). (23) ‘Supersacks’ used for asbestos and some sediments as workers do not use respirators. (24) Water management is very much a large part of the job, by pumping out ponded water from rainfall in trenches and added dust suppression water, plus collection of any contact water or leachate. It was reported that 70% of contact water is clean. b. Commercial (1) Prime contract with DoE competitively bid – won by Bechtel Jacobs. Tier 2 for operation of sites given to Duratek. (2) Duratek receives a fixed fee each month. Where waste received exceeds 3 7000m per month a premium is payable. (3) The DoE balanced spend on cleanup and legal/planning to focus on doing work, partnering with regulators, rather than studying problems – although it was noted that the transition has not necessarily been a smooth one c. Costing (1) Disposal costs at EMWMF are in the range of £79.52/m . (2) Pricing – fixed fee to operate the site based on assumed volume of receipts. Less receipts – no change – more receipts – pro rata increase. (3) Total cost of site design and construction approx. £16M. 3 Page 12 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk Annex 3 Envirocare (Utah) Visit Key Notes 1. General Technical a. Envirocare of Utah, LLC, a 543 acre site is a commercial radioactive waste disposal facility located 80 miles west of Salt Lake City in western Tooele County. The facility began operation in 1988. The site is located on an ancient lake bed just west of the Cedar Mountains. Land surrounding Envirocare is sparsely grazed open range land. Radioactive wastes are disposed of by modified shallow land burial. Envirocare is licensed by the Division of Radiation Control to dispose of naturally occurring radioactive materials and Class A LLW. Envirocare is not currently allowed to accept Class B and C LLW. Since 1996, Envirocare has treated and 3 buried nearly 1 million m of DoE LLW and MLLW, and this volume represents over half of their total waste buried. No one living within 50 mile radius. Very low precipitation 6cm per year. Poor quality groundwater. On site waste treatment ops including encapsulation. Protective of human health monitoring for 500 years. Volumetric capacity 150 million cubic yards. A Business Relations team interface with the consigners on a regular basis in order to update waste forecasts. A detailed 3 month look ahead is produced. Only take LLW – no requirement to monitor staff for radiation levels. Will not accept packages with less than more than 15% void space. All waste is tracked by GPS – in house system developed. Used for regulatory approval. Envirocare works closely with the consigners to establish waste forecasts and determine where the waste is best treated i.e. at site or at the disposal facility. Waste consignments tend to align with the forecasts. Currently approx. 10-15 years disposal available. Envirocare are already applying for further disposal capacity some 10 years before required !! Envirocare employs 300 operatives at the site working 24 hour shifts. 85% of waste is transported to the site via rail, with the remaining 15% being transported via road. 3 In 2005 approx 22,000,000ft of waste will be consigned. Native rock, all natural material embankments with liners and some waste forms containerized. Very poor quality groundwater discharge zone, twice as salty as the sea and no vegetation. Groundwater protection engineering in place to protect as if it was drinking water standard, assuming a residential potentially exposed group of people at the perimeter of the site. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. q. r. s. t. u. For Class A waste, the PCSC must only provide for 100 year institutional control (300yr/500yr for Class B/C respectively). Page 13 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk v. w. x. 2. Design life minimum 100 yr, though modelled out to 2000 years. Looked at 29 other sites in Utah, carried out seismics, flood analysis(!) and archaeological studies, never had any indigenous species. y. Landfill lined and engineered for max probable flood event (6”/hr), water table 30’ below ground level. z. 90 monitoring wells, 32 continuous air monitoring stations, 63 sampling stations, 9 vegetation sampling stations, dozens of temporary air sampling stations. aa. On site lab for waste characterization (statistical sampling). bb. ~700,000m3 waste disposal/yr though it has varied. To date 4 million m3 equivalent disposed. (Nb. more waste received in 1 day at Clive, than in 1 year at rd Bradwell and in 1/3 of the operational time, has received and managed 4 times that of the Drigg LLWR). cc. Large scale infrastructure projects underway and recently purchased extended land area for management operations. dd. Bulk, containerized, component disposal. With dedicated regulators on site permanently. ee. 300 people on site plus 100 contractors (most work actually done by in-house personnel), subcontract for construction. ff. 24/7 shifts, buses provided for staff. gg. Privately owned company working to a business case, with strategy and plans and weekly meetings to discuss receipts/schedule. hh. On site treatment capability (organic separation, mixed waste treatment, size reduction, washing etc). ii. DoE purchased ‘Unit trains’ – 1 long with 60 cars travelling together to increase efficiency of transport and expedite service and travel typically 200 miles in 5 days. Commercial a. b. Commercial operation. Envirocare has established a number of contracts with private and government entities to accept waste for disposal. Envirocare’s contracts with DoE contain various clauses and exceptions, but the lowest rate per the present DoE-Ohio 3 contract for disposal of contaminated soil is £103/m ; for debris the lowest rate 3 is £297/m . These rates may be higher based on modes of transport, oversize debris, and container types. For example, drums shipped by truck cost more. Surcharges are imposed for cleaning trucks or railcars, as appropriate, for release from the site. Similar surcharges are imposed to clean and release containers that were not used for disposal (i.e., waste is emptied from the containers onto the ground for the bulk disposal areas). Positive discrimination principles were being applied for use of local labour. c. 3. Costing Page 14 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk a. b. c. d. Envirocare negotiates and agrees the rates for disposal with the consigners. DoE tend to be given the best rates. Disposal Cost £100-300/m3. Community benefit arrangements recycle between 2-5% of annual budget back. Equates to around £5M per annum. Annual operating costs not provided. Page 15 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk Annex 4 Hanford Visit Key Notes 1. Hanford Site – General Comments a. Site area 572 square miles. b. Severe contamination problems across large parts of this land mass effectively means that the area will require indefinite institutional control. c. Largely accepted by local community as Hanford site is a major contributor to the local economy. d. Approx. 12,000 employees with an total site budget of $1bn per annum. e. DoE employs somewhere in the region of 260 staff to oversee this facility. f. In 1988 the site mission changed from being Operational to Clean Up. 2. US Ecology: a. General Technical (1) The state of Washington’s commercial LLW disposal site has accepted waste since 1965 on a 100-acre tract within the DOE’s Hanford Site. The land is leased to the state and subleased to US Ecology Inc. The site operates under radioactive materials licenses issued by the Department of Health and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Since 1993, it has been the regional commercial LLW disposal site for 11 western states. To date, the site has taken in about approximately 3 424,700 m of waste. US Ecology Inc. operates the disposal facility, which accepts Class A, B, and C LLW and naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material but does not accept MLLW. The disposal site serves the Northwest Compact but can receive waste from the Rocky Mountain Compact, other than DoE waste, if the waste is released for disposal by the Rocky Mountain Compact. Trenches unlined due to arid nature of site. No leachate collection or liners. 95% of all waste received is Class A, with 95% of activity coming from Class B and C On state land on long term lease from the Federal Government managed by an American Ecology Company. VERY dry arid site, therefore because of that have made the case for disposal of LLW and ILW equivalent waste in unlined trenches with no leachate collection (no rain!). 300ft to groundwater. Regional facility for North West and Rocky Mountain compact. All waste is containerised. Site employs 22 operatives. 3 850-1500m of waste is consigned per annum. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Page 16 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk (10) Progress reporting requirements are not placed on US Ecology. (11) Each trench has a ‘monument’ stating when it was opened (year), when closed (year), volume buried, by product material in curies, amount of special nuclear material buried, and total Kgs. (12) Very steep trenches, 45’ deep and 150’ x 850’ at base (1:1 slope sides). Stacked layers of blown sand. 22 in total so far (13) Perpetual care and maintenance of closed facilities and State holds the C&M and closure funds as for other sites. (14) 100 acres permitted for disposal, no need to permit each trench if same design used, simply notify State when needing to construct new. Overall ‘Comprehensive Facility Utilisation Plan’ in place. (15) All manifest information logged, though no sampling and verification. (16) Using recycled backfill (high fluorine content soil from Framatome pond clearing works) agreed to backfill on site, rather than to a hazardous waste disposal site. b. Commercial (1) (2) (3) Site has fixed and variable operating costs which have to be recovered through the disposal unit rates. As the waste consignments have reduced the unit rate for disposal has increased in recent years. Unit rates for disposal are regulated by the Commission. A reconciliation is carried out annually and any costs over recovered are rebated to the consigners. Monopoly operation, determined by State government and the ‘revenue requirement’ agreed with customers and approved by Washington Transport Commission. ‘Rate regulated’ since 1993. $5million over 6 years fixed income, therefore every year, customers polled for 12 month waste volume predictions and the cost per volume is then calculated for that year. Site appears to be starved of work which drives up costs. (4) c. Costing (1) The nominal disposal price for contact-handled Class A waste is 3 approximately £1,430/m based upon a number of sub-rate elements that typically work out to approximately that value. Annual operating costs are approx. £2.3M. Most costs tend to be fixed and largely on environmental monitoring. The tariff rate includes a percentage of money to be paid back to Hanford residents – typically £150 is given to the community for every cubic metre consigned. Pricing is set by compact as it is a monopoly. Fixed rate for operating the site based on anticipated volumes. If more is consigned then the tariff rate is reduced and rebated to all customers. If less that it is added on to the following year’s prices. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Page 17 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk 3. Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility - ERDF a. General Technical (1) The Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) is the heart of a major part of cleanup operations at the Hanford Site. It is a disposal facility for the contaminated soil and materials that are being excavated at the sites along the Columbia River. Construction of the first two cells began in May 1995, and the first shipment of waste was received on July 1, 1996. Each cell is 152 meters (500 feet) wide at the bottom, 21 meters (70 feet) deep, and over 304 meters (1,000 feet) wide at the surface. (2) Currently, ERDF receives about 3,500 tons per day, and is expected to receive about 14 million tons of waste in the overall Hanford cleanup. 3 ERDF's current designed capacity is 4.5 million m in 6 cells. ERDF receives only waste that is being cleaned up at Hanford CERCLA sites. Hanford has been operating the ERDF for disposal of on-site CERCLA 3 waste since 1996 and has disposed of over 2,703,786 m of waste. Disposal operations are projected to continue through 2020. (3) Duratek operates the site for WCH (WGI, Bechtel Jacobs, CH2MHill) cleanup consortium. All sites are ‘GoCo’ Government owned, Company operated. (4) Timescales from conception to receiving first consignment 3 years, total cost of £30M. (5) The site employs 21 operatives and 12 health physic personnel. (6) 160 containers are received per day, 2 shifts are worked at 10 hours each. (7) Containers are owned by the consigners. (8) ERDF validate paperwork and samples waste for quality control and approval authority. (9) Planning approvals for additional cells take approx. 6 months. (10) Cell construction cost £4M, cell capacity 600,000m3 (11) 95% containerised waste – 160 containers per day. Run as a tier 2 to Washington Group Closure Hanford. (12) LLW and hazardous waste accepted including double bagged asbestos. (13) Also bulk tipped waste – 50 containers/day. (14) Staffing 21 Duratek and 10 WGH. (15) On site vehicle maintenance facility – “fit for purpose” typically modular construction maintenance facility. (16) Huge efficiency. (17) Waste received in 20yd3 containers (dump trucks) and receives between 160 and 225 a day (330,000 containers rec’d to date). (18) Lower end Class A waste ~ equivalent to VLLW classification wastes. Mostly bulk dumped from intermodals or barn gate trucks. (19) Receive double bagged asbestos (level D PPE worn). Page 18 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk (20) Client undertakes co-ordination, 3 week rolling schedule/liaison with generators and helps with transportation. (21) For some toxic metals, some treatment is undertaken to work with the WAC. (22) Tripartite agreement exists with State of Washington, US EPA and DoE and Indian tribes to agree cleanup milestones, objectives and end state. (23) Water added for dust suppression and consignors add water to help with transport/consignment consistency. (24) Leachate collected in 250,000 gallon storage tanks. Effluent treatment facilities and transferred underground 15 miles for evaporation. Powdered concentrate returned in 55gallon drums. (25) Waste tracking done with WCH tier 1, similar to EMWMF arrangements. (26) Container queue transfer area organized by disposal type/area so can tell where to unload them. EXTREMELY ORGANISED. (27) Approval for new cells done in pairs, due to design of leachate collection system and on average build every 4 years. Positively supported as the facility serves Hanford cleanup wastes only. Permitted area allows for up to 28 cells, right up to and adjacent US Ecology property. b. Commercial (1) Cost reimbursable contract – fee associated with acceptance levels. (2) The Prime Contractor is Washington Closure Hanford (WCH), Duratek are the Tier 2 subcontractor operating the site c. Costing (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ERDF receives £455k per quarter for operating the site. Once consignments in a quarter exceed 20,000 tonnes, a premium of £4 per tonne is payable. Currently approx. 60,000 tonnes are consigned per quarter. The contractor earns approx. 12% profit. Annual operating costs are approx. £16M Very similar waste streams received, though ~300 radionuclide profiles for each site on the Hanford reservation based on sampling. Well understood and relatively homogeneous, therefore ~ £17/m3 equivalent average cost here Page 19 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk Annex 5 DoE Discussion Key Notes 1. Typical DoE strategy for LLW sites DoE Prime Contractor Tier 2 Day-to-Day Operation of Sites 2. Typical contracting methodology is targeted to an end-state with a very broad scope and is a cost plus incentive fee. Fee levels are typically in the level of 2% – 15%, (notably with 2% being paid even on failing contracts). There is clearly a contracting methodology focused on being fair to the contractor. Fee determination is done on a monthly basis. DoE lead stakeholder groups. Socio economic discussions are at 3 tiers namely a good neighbour policy, a community support programme and job creation – all within a frame work which is deemed acceptable. These are allowable costs under the terms of the contract. Typically approx 1% of site budget, not profit, is fed back to local community by contractors with strict guidelines for funds utilisation. Typical contract length of 5 yrs. In Oakridge the DoE has a budget of £550M. DoE has 70 representatives. Use PBIs to focus contractor efforts. Comprises aggressive but achievable milestones. The number of NDA staff will have an impact on the types of contracts that can be let. For example, Cost Reimbursable Contracts with Performance based Incentives require an increased level of client representation. 3. 4. 5. 5. 6. 7. 8. Page 20 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Where the DoE have moved towards cost reimbursable contracts, the fee is based upon a sliding scale still with aggressive milestones. In this type of contract the scope of work is very general, with defined end points. The baseline does not form part of the contract, thus making contractor applications for change control difficult. The baseline is used for reporting performance and monitoring progress. Earned Value Performance reporting is provided to the DoE. Site specific stakeholder groups are funded by the Government. Audits and assessments are carried out whenever required and with regard to any work stream. Huge community involvement in definition of clean-up and end use to document the ‘Record of Decision’ (ROD). Contracts are made very broadly to avoid frequent change. Therefore baseline changes do not constitute contract change. ‘Keep it simple’. DoE local recommendation was for NDA to decouple the baseline/NTWP from the contract, though use the baseline to monitor and track monthly progress. Page 21 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk Annex 6 List of US Companies and Contacts Company Duratek Site Bear Creek, Tennessee Name Assef Azadeh Michael F Johnson Al Johnson Philip L Gianutsos Angela Fox Troy Eschelman Sarah Schaeffer Jim Buckley Ken Mullins C Paul Deltete Regan E Voit Jim Latham Bob Prince Bernie Laverentz Don Moak Dale E McKenney Local Barnwell County officials Barnwell County Library meeting Martin G Gardner Mayor Tim Moore Mayor Edward Lemon Mayor Tommy Rivers Freddie Houston Pickens Williams, Jr Ms Carolyne Williams Various Kaylin Loveland Paul Larsen Daniel B Shrum Jeffrey L Gardner Tim Barney Dana Simonsen Tom Hayes Michael R Ault Stephen H McCracken Title Vice President, Commercial Integration President, Commercial Services Group Vice President, Technology Application & Innovation Radiation Safety Officer Finance Manager Technical Manager Facility Manager (EMWMF) Hazardous Waste Manager Y12 Landfill Site Manager Senior Vice President Senior Vice President, Disposal Group Facility Manager President and CEO Vice President and General Manager Vice President and Deputy General Manager Western Operations Vice President, Waste Stabilisation and Disposition Manager, Sampling & Well Services Retired Mayor of Snelling Optometrist and Mayor of Barnwell Pharmacist and Mayor of Williston Chairman, Barnwell County Council Barnwell County Administrator Superintendent, Barnwell School District Various Senior Director Business Development Director of Technology Solutions Director of Safety & Compliance Vice President of Operations Senior Vice President Client Services Manager Vice President & General Manager Facility Manager Assistant Manager for Environmental Management Oak Ridge, Tennessee Columbia, South Carolina Richland, Washington Envirocare Barnwell Rotary Club Meeting Clive Facility, Utah US Ecology DoE Richland, Washington Oak Ridge, Tennessee Page 22 of 22 Pelham House Calderbridge Cumbria CA20 1DB T +44 (0)1946 785800 F +44 (0)1946 785801 www.nda.gov.uk