Treatment & Immobilization of Hanford Radioactive Tank Waste
|
Report to
Congress Treatment & Immobilization of Hanford Radioactive Tank Waste |
1.0 Introduction
The Hanford Site Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) program is at a critical juncture. Two contracts were awarded in September 1996 for Phase I of a "privatization" initiative for waste treatment services. The contracts were awarded to teams led by BNFL Inc. (BNFL), a United States subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels plc, and Lockheed Martin Advanced Environmental Systems (LMAES). At the time of the Phase I awards, the contracts were structured into two parts: a 20-month Part A, scheduled to end in mid-1998; and an optional Part B, planned for approximately 14 years. The purpose of Part A was to establish the technical, operational, regulatory, business, and financial elements required by privatized facilities for provision of tank waste treatment and immobilization services on a fixed-unit-price basis. If authorized to proceed to Part B, contractor(s) would then design, build, permit, operate, and deactivate privately financed, low-activity waste (LAW) and (optionally) high-level waste (HLW) treatment plants. They would be paid for treated waste when it was delivered back to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for storage and disposal. Of the 20-month Part A period, 16 months were provided for the contractors to complete deliverables for submittal to DOE, and 4 months were provided for DOE to review and evaluate the deliverables and decide whether to authorize initiation of Part B by zero, one, or both contractors.
TWRS Phase I was designed to treat and immobilize between 6% and 13% of Hanford’s tank waste and serve as a demonstration of the elements that would be required in continuing this new contracting approach with the production-scale Phase II. In Phase II, DOE envisioned that the balance of the tank waste would be processed, the immobilized HLW sent to a geologic repository, the tanks closed, and the processing facilities decontaminated and decommissioned.
The two contractors submitted their Phase I, Part A deliverables as scheduled on January 26, 1998. DOE has evaluated those deliverables and completed its authorization-to-proceed decision process. This report describes DOE’s decision and provides information to support that decision.
1.1 Purpose of the Report
This report describes DOE’s first major decision on the privatization of the waste treatment and immobilization services under the Hanford Site TWRS Project Phase I. The report is also intended to satisfy the Congressional requirement for a 30-day notification period for privatization contract actions contained in Section 3132 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998.
DOE has carried out a detailed analysis to arrive at the Phase I, Part B decision described in this report. Moreover, in view of the importance of this Part B decision, DOE has involved more than 100 experts from outside the Department in the review of the decision process and the decision itself. As a result, DOE believes that the Part B decision is sound, represents good value and a flexible path forward, and will ultimately result in significant progress toward DOE’s cleanup mission.
1.2 Contents and Organization of the Report
This report is intended to provide the reader with a clear picture of the urgency and the technical challenges associated with initiating tank waste treatment at the Hanford Site. The report describes in detail the contracting approach that DOE has selected for TWRS Phase I as the solution for these challenges, and the reasons for selecting that approach compared to other options. The report is organized along the lines of the following key questions:
Appendices A and B are included to provide the reader with additional information on the TWRS Phase I decision process and external review of the decision. The current Construction Project Data Sheet for the project is set forth in Appendix C.
1.3 Mapping of Report to Congressional Reporting Requirements
DOE has compiled pertinent information in this report to clearly present the decision and its justification to the Congress. DOE has addressed the matters required in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. Table 1-1 maps these issues to corresponding sections of the report.
| Table 1-1. Congressional Reporting Requirements Mapping | ||
| Section3132(b)* | Reporting Requirement | Associated Section(s) |
| 2A | The anticipated costs and fees of the Department under the contract, including the anticipated maximum amount of such costs and fees | 5.6 and 5.7 |
| 2B | Any performance specifications in the contract | 5.2 and 5.3 |
| 2C | The anticipated dates of commencement and completion of the provision of goods or services under the contract | 5.4 |
| 2D | The allocation between the Department and the contractor of any financial, regulatory or environmental obligations under the contract | 5.2 and 5.5 |
| 2E | Any activities planned or anticipated to be required with respect to the project after completion of the contract | 5.8 |
| 2F | The site services or other support to be provided the contractor by the Department under the contract | 5.5 |
| 2G | The goods or services to be provided by the Department or contractor under the contract, including any additional obligations to be borne by the Department or contractor with respect to such goods or services | 5.5 |
| 2H | If the contract provides for financing of the project by an entity or entities other than the United States, a detailed comparison of the costs of financing the project through such entity or entities with the costs of financing the project by the United States | 5.6 |
| 2I | The schedule for the contract | 5.4 |
| 2J | The costs the Department would otherwise have incurred in obtaining the goods or services covered by the contract if the Department had not proposed to obtain the goods or services under this section | 5.6 |
| 2K | An estimate and justification of the cost savings, if any, to be realized through the contract, including the assumptions underlying the estimate | 5.6 |
| 2L | The effect of the contract on any ancillary schedules applicable to the facility concerned, including milestones in site compliance agreements | 5.4 |
| 2M | The plans for maintaining financial and programmatic accountability for activities under the contract | 6 |
| 3B | In the case of a contract under subsection (a) at the Hanford reservation, the report under paragraph (1) shall set forth—(A) the matters specified in paragraph (2); and (B) if the contract contemplates two pilot vitrification plants—(i) an analysis of the basis for the selection of each of the plants in lieu of a single pilot vitrification plant; and (ii) a detailed comparison of the costs to the United States of two pilot plants with the costs to the United States of a single pilot plant | N/A |
| *Section 3132(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. | ||
Proceed to next section