[XI El Ob/& 't ?D I I - UNT Digital Library/67531/metadc... · Section 3.3: New section with sludge...

ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE Pa00 1 Of 2

0 1.ECN 658 150 Pro]. ... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ECN

!. ECN Category (mark one)

3. Or ig ina to r ' s Name, Organization, 4 . US0 Required? 5. Date MSIN.and Telephone No.

Suppl ementa 1 il Di rec t Revision [ X I

[ I Temporary El Change ECN

K.L. Pearce. G1-23, 376-3782 [ X I Yes [ I No 04/04/2000 6. Pro ject Title/No.lWork Or r No 7. Bldg.lSys.lFac. NO. , 8. Approval Designator

<Dent Nuc 't ear Fuel Project N I A SQ ) b y O b / & ? D # M F 4 6 0 I I

ISM K-00-0472 & K-Li ke-00-0048 1%-Li k d MCO-00-044 ISO-Li ke# CVD-00-0152

9 . Document Numbers Changed by t h i s ECN 10.Related ECN No(s).

HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009.Volume 2 . Rev. 2 N/A

Standby Supersedure CancellVoid ( includes sheet no. and r e v . )

4a. J u s t i f i c a t i o n (mark one) : r i t e r i a Change [ X I Design Improvement [I Environmental [ ] F a c i l i t y Deactivation [I ,s-Found e1 F a c i l i t a t e Const [ ] Const. Error/Omission [ ] Design E r r o r / O m i s s i o r [I 4b. J u s t i f i c a t i o n De ta i l s levis ion t o r e f l e c t updated changes from revised path forward and new character izat ion data. lath forward f o r K Basin sludge has changed from treatment/processing t o emplacement o f :ontainerized sludge (wi thout treatment) i n T Plant u n t i l ' f i n a l disposal a t WIPP.

11. Related PO No.

N/A

S. D i s t r i b u t i o n ( inc lude name, MSIN. and no. o f copies) RFI F A q F 5TAMP

HANFO2D

;ee attached d i s t r i b u t i o n sheet.

DATE

2 a . Modif icat ion Work

c . .- - --'I A-7900.013-2 (05196) GEF095

12b. Work Package 12c. Modi f icat ion Work Complete 126. Restored t o Or ig ina l Condi- No. t i o n (Temp. o r Standby ECN only')

A--7900-01 3-1

1 Yes ( f i l l out B ~ L .

X I No (NA Blks.12b.

N/A N I A

Design AuthorityICog. Engineer Design AuthoritylCog. Engineer Signature & Date Signature & Date

1. ECN (use no. from pg. 1 )

Page 2 o f 2 658150 ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE 16. Design 17. Cost Impact 18. Schedule Impact (days)

ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION V e r i f i c a t i o n Required

I Improvement [NA] [I Yes I Addi t ional [NA] $ Addit ional [NA] $

[XI No Savings [NAI $ Savings [NAI $ Delay LNAI

t h a t w i l l be af fected by the change described i n Block 13. Enter t he af fected document number i n Block 20. SeismicIStrerr Analysis

19. Change Impact Review: Ind i ca te the re la ted documents (other than the engineering documents i d e n t i f i e d on Side 1)

iD0lW [I Tank Ca l i b ra t i on Manual [I [I [I [I [ I [I

Health PhySlCS Procedure

Sparer n u l t i p l e Un i t L i s t i n g [ I St re r r l 0e r ign Report

I n te r face Control Drawing

Ca l ib ra t i on Prmedure Test ProcedurerISpeci f icat im

W [ I [ I

: m t i c m a l Dengn C r i t e r i a

lperat i ng spec t f i c a t i on

I n s t a l l a t i o n Procedure C n p o n e n t Index

: ? i t l C a l i t y Spec i f i ca t i on

:mceptual Deriqn Report

:qu1pnent spec Maintenance Procedure AWE caded I t W

;Mist spec. fngineerlng Procedure H m f c tw Considerat,on

' r m u P m n t Spec ODerdtln9 IrlStPuCtlOn C w u t e r Software

iendor l n f o m t i m

H Hanual

operat ing Procedure E l f t t r i c C i r c u i t Schedule

Operational safety R e q u i r m n t IC% Praedure

IiFO Drdmng Process Control HanualIPlan

C e l l W r a n q m t Orawing

Essential Mater ia l Speci f icat ion PuPChaie Requisition

FdC PPoc Sdnp, Schedule T i ck le r File

InSpectiOn Plan

Inventory Adjustrent Request

[I [I w [I [I [ I [I

:nuironrental Permit r i

Process Flw Chart

:SAR/SAR

iafety EqU,pne"t L16t

l ad la t i on WOPX Permit

: n v i ~ m n t a l lnpact S t a t m t

: n v , r m t a l Rwrr

[I [I [ I [I [ I [I [I [I [ I [I r1 [ I [I r i

[ I [ I [I [I c1 [ I [I r i

~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~

! O . Other Affected Documents:

& Doc ment NumberIRevision Document NumberlRevi s ion Document Number Revision MM-& -5D -WM-S hR -Ob 2 , Rev 3LCQru ufr

(NOTE: Documents l i s t e d below w i l l not be revised by t h i s ECN.) Signatures below ind i ca te that t h e s ign ing organization has been n o t i f i e d of other affected documents l i s t e d below.

/fA'F-l3t')7.Rrv.S - ,

!I. Approvals

Iesign Author i ty C . A. P e t e r p n c,q& Signature Signature Date

PE

QA Safety

f i f e t y R. L . Gar re t t Design

Environ.

Other

Inv i ron:

l t h e r D. R . Precechtel

0 Design Agent

:og. Eng. K . L . Pearce d~'sQtz

R. E. Baker R O B &

W R T M E N T OF ENERG Y

Signature o r a Control Number t h a t t racks the Approval Signature

AODITIONAL

A-7900.013-3 (05/96) GEF096

DISTRIBUTION SHEET

Project Title/Work Order 105-K Basin MdtWldl Design Basis Feed Description for Spent Nuclear Fuel Project FdCi l i t i e s . Volume 2. Sludge. HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009. Volume 2. Rev 3

To Dis t r ibu t ion

EDT No. N/A

ECN No. 658150

I SNF From Sludge Handling Project

Text Text Attach. / With Only Appendix

MSIN All Only Name Attach.

EDT/ECN Only

R. R. Ames R. B. Baker D. E . Bullock F . M. Coony E. N. Dodd D. R. Duncan E . G . Erpenbeck R . L. Garret t E. M. Greager S . C . Klirnper B. J . Makenas K. M. McDonald F. J . Muller K . L . Pearce ( 2 ) S . H. Peck C. A. Petersen D. R. Precechtel W . W. Rutherford K Basin Project Files

Lockheed Martin Services Inc . Central F i l es

Numatec Hanford Corooration J . R. Frederickson J . A . Swenson

P a c i f i c Northwest National Laboratory T. J . Oeforest K. Rhoads W. A . Ross A. J . Schmidt S . F. Snyder

T4-56 X HO-40 X X3-76 X HO-19 X T4-61 X R3-86 X G1-23 X R3-86 X G1-29 X R3-86 X HO-40 X H8 - 44 X x3-85 X G1-23 X R3-26 X 61-23 X X3-85 X G1-23 X x3-85 x

81 -07 X

R3-86 X R3-11 X

K7-97 X K3-54 X K7-94 X K2- 12 X K3 - 54 X

T. L. Welsh R3-86 X

DOE Reading Room H2-53 X

A-6000-135 (01193) WEF067

v, HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009 Revision 3 Volume 2

105-K Basin Material Design Basis Feed Description for Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Facilities, Volume 2, Sludge

Prepared for the US. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management PfqeCt HanlMd Mansgsment COntnC(0r IM 670 US. Department of Energy under Contract DE-ACOB98RL132M)

Fluor Hanf ord P.O. Box lo00 Richland. Washington

Approved for public release; funhw disreminaion unlimited

H NF-S D-S NF-TI409 Revision 3 Volume 2

ECN 658150

105-K Basin Material Design Basis Feed Description for Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Facilities, Volume 2, Sludge

K. L. Pearce

S. C. Klimper

Fluor Hanford, Inc.

Fluor Hanford, Inc.

Date Published April 2000 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management Prqect Hanford Managsmant Contractor for the US. Department of Energy under Contnd DE-ACOgWRL13200

Fluor Hanf ord RO. Box 1000 Richland. Washington

STA 15 RCLEASE

Release Stamp

Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited

HNF-SD-SNF-TI409, Volume 2, Rev. 3

Key Words: Inventory, Chemical Inventory, Shielding Basis, Safely/Re.gulatory Basis

Sludge. 105-K Basin, SNF Project, Sludge Inventory, Design Basis FeeQ Radionuclide.

Abstract: Volume 2 provides estimated chemical and radionuclide hventories of sludge currently stored within the Hanford Site’s 105-K Basin This volume also provides estimated chemical and radionuclide inventories for the sludge ritreams expected to be generated during Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Project activities.

TRADEMARK MSCWMER Reference herein to any qmci(lc M m m d a l produd, proteas, or setvke by trade name, trademark, mimnufoturer, w otherwise, d m not neccaurlly comIiMe or imply ib endowment. recommendatlon. a hvoring by the U n b d Statas Government or any agency t h m d or it. conbaoton a WbCOnlRC1OR.

mi. report has bsen reproduced frm the bgt available copy.

RECORD OF REVISION

(3) Revision 0

OA

1

2

RS

(1) Document Number HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009 Page 1 of 4

Volume 2, Sludge

CHANGE CONTROL RECORD

I Authorizi

Released via ECN# 191383 (12/20/95)

(1) I)e,criptiw ol Change -Replace. Add. md Delete Page5 1 (7) Initial Reled\e ot HNF-SD-SNF-TI-CQ9, EDTR 613002

( 5 ) Cog tngr 1 WI. Willis 7/31/95

WL Willis 12/12/95

Released via ECN# 191383 (12/12/97)

Initial Release ECN-649401. This ECN initiates a Volume 2 to HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009.

Initiated release of HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume I , Fuel, Rev. 2, via ECN# 645117 on 8/12/98. All references to sludge were removed and are now included in Volume 2, Sludge. Released via ECN# 658150 (od/wC€l)

General: All references to sludge treatmentiprocess and the Tank Waste Remediation System have been removed. Path forward for sludge has changed to emplacement of containerized sludge in T Plant without treatment.

Editorial revisions throughout the document for clarification.

ChanEes include:

Section 1.1 is now “Background” and Section 1.2 is now “Purpose and Scope.” Changed to have the same format as Volume 1, Section 1.0.

Table 1.1: Deleted, scope is limited to defining the composition and amounts of sludge in various flow paths.

Moved last two paragraphs in section 1.2 (description of sludge) to Section 2.0

Section 2. I is now Sludge Locations and Section 2.2 is now Sludge Sources. Reversed order for clarification.

Section 2.4.3: Changed title from “Assumed Characterization Data” to “Estimated Characterization of Remaining Sludge”

Tables 2-1 and 2-2: Revised nominal inventory for sludge locations.

Section 3.0: Editorial changes to remove reference to “process.” Added new sludge stream KE3. Revised definition of sludge streams KEI and KE2.

Figures 3-1 and 3-2: Added sludge stream KE3 and bounding volumes.

r̂ ‘15

DL Sherrell 12/11/97

TAFlament 8/13/98

for Release

16) Cog. Mgr. Date WL Willis 7/31/95

IR Frederickson 12/20/95 IR Frederickson 1211 1/98 WW Rutherford 3/13/98

A-6000-135 (01193) WEF067

RECORD OF REMSION

2) Title

CHANGE CONTROL RECORD L Authorin

( I ) Document Number HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009 Page 2 of 4

Volume 2, Sludge

:3) Revision

4-6000-135 ((

(4) Description of Change - Replace, Add, and Delete Pages Section 3.2: Revised with updated characterization data.

Section 3.3: New section with sludge stream nominal and bounding volumes.

Tables 3-2 and 3-3: Revised nominal chemicaVradionuclide inventories for sludge streams. Added inventory for sludge stream KE3.

Sections 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7: Deleted, scope is limited to defming the composition and amounts of sludge in various flow paths.

Section 4.0: Additional references added. Old references deleted.

Appendix G. New appendix describing the statistical analysis of sludge data. Provides bounding values for sludge stream inventories.

Changes to Appendices A through F. Editorial changes throughout for clarification.

Revised particle s u e distribution (PSD) sections to reflect new characterization data. Added PSD curves.

Revised nominal composition tables. Added additional radionuclides. Added values for individual Pu isotopes (Pu- 238, h - 2 3 9 and h-240).

Revised reference lists.

Changes to Appendices A, B, and E: Added description of methodology used to split Pu239/240 into two separate isotopes and to determine value of Pu238.

Revised PCB estimates from maximum observed to mean value reported.

Appendix A changes:

(5) Cog. Engr.

I

/93) WEF067

for Release (6) Cog. Mgr. Date

RECORD OF REVISION

(3) Revision

(1) Document Number HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009 Page 3 of 4

Volume 2, Sludge

A-6000-135 (

CHANGE CONTROL RECOI

(4) Description of Change - Replace, Add, and Delete Pages Section A.3.3.3: Zeolite density value adjusted from 1.1 to 0.67 to reflect measurements obtained in the laboratory Split volume of zeolite between Weasel Pit and floor sludge.

Appendix B changes: Added data (new Table B-7) and descriptions for KE empty canister sludge throughout Appendix 8:

Table B-1: Physical properties provided for both canisters-full and canisters-empty.

Section B.2.1: Updated with new characterization data. Revised volume split for resin beads from 250 &m to 500 to reflect changes in KE Basin storage options.

SectionB.3.3.2: ChangedOIERdensityfrom 1.1.6to 1.2to reflect MSDS data.

Appendix C changes: Updated reference for chemical and radionuclide values. Makenas 1999 replaces Silvers 1998.

Table C-2: U value adjusted from 443000 pg/g to 61 1000 @g/g to reflect the recommendation in updated reference to use uranium-laser results only and not use the ICP data.

Table C-3: U values adjusted for internal sludge samples (SSLI, SSLZ and SSL3) to reflect the recommendation in updated reference to use uranium-laser results. Deleted column SSL2d. Values in column SSLZ adjusted from analytical data to an average of the analytical data and the duplicate data.

Table C-4: Adjusted chemical composition values to reflect changes on Tables C-2 and C-3. BaO and Cr203 values added. Replaced Si02 with Residual Solids; value also deleted. Value is for elemental Si not residual solids.

Table C-5: Added more complete list of radioisotopes. Deleted column SSL2dup. Values in Column SSLZ adjusted from analytical data to an average of the analpcal data and the duplicate data as listed in updated reference.

Appendix D: Deleted this section. No additional KW data will be obtained. Base assumption is KE Basin sludge data bounds KW Basin sludge.

Appendix E changes: Table E-1 , footnotes: Deleted part of footnote 2, density from sample 96-23 is included in c&ulation of the mean.

‘93) WEF067

Authorizc

(5 ) Cog. Engr.

For Release

3) Cog. Mgr. Date

RECORD OF REVISION

(2) Title 105-K Basin Material Design Basis Feed Description for Spent Nuclear Fuel Pr

(1) Document Number HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009 Page 4 Of 4

Volume 2, Sludge

! (3) Revision

CHANGE CONTROL RECOF

(4) Description of Change - Replace, Add, and Delete Pages Section E.3.4.2: Added value for bounding mass of grafoil.

Appendix F changes: Updated reference for chemical and radionuclide values. Makenas 1999 replaces Silvers 1998.

Table F-2: Deleted Column CS4 dup. Values in Column CS4 adjusted from analytical data to an average of analytical data and the duplicate data as listed in updated reference. Ca, P, and U values adjusted to reflect values in updated reference.

Table F-3: U adjusted from 731000 pg/g to 918000 pg/g to reflect values in updated reference.

Table F-4: Adjusted values to reflect changes in Tables F-2 and F-3.

Table F-5: Added more complete list of radioisotopes

ct Facilities, Volume 2, Sludge

Authorize

(5) Cog. Engr.

For Release

16) Cog. Mgr. Date

A-6000-135 (01/93) WEF067 - _ . .,.., . ..-, .

"FSD-SNF-TId09, V d u m ~ 2, RN. 3

105-K BASIN MATERIAL DESIGN BASIS FEED DESCRIPTION

FOR SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL PROJECT FACILITIES,

VOLUME 2, SLUDGE

Authors:

K. L. Pearce S. C. Klimper

April 2000

i

HNF-SD-SNF-'TI-009, Volume 2, Rev. 3

This page intentionally left blank.

.. 11

HNF.SD.SNF.TI.009. Volume 2. Rev . 3

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................ 1

2.0 105-KBasin Sludge ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Sludge Locations ........................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Sludge Sources .............................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Sludge Volumes ............................................................................................................ 6 2.4 Current Inventory Basis ................................................................................................ 6

2.4.1 2.4.2 Existing Characterization Data .................................................................... 7 2.4.3 2.4.4 Mass Balance Determinations ...................................................................... 8

Characterization Data Background .............................................................. 6

Estimated Characterization of Remaining Sludge ....................................... 8

105-K Basin Sludge Streams ............................................................................................. 15 3.1 Sludge Stream Bases .................................................................................................. 15

Sludge Stream KE1 .................................................................................... 18 Sludge Stream KE2 ..................................................................................... 18 Sludge Stream KE3 ..................................................................................... 18 Sludge Stream KWl ................................................................................... 19 Sludge Stream KW2 ................................................................................... 19

3.1.6 Sludge StreamKW3 ................................................................................... 19 3.2 Sludge Stream Particle Size Distributions ................................................................. 20 3.3 K Basin Feed Stream Volumes .................................................................................. 22 3.4 Nominal Sludge Stream Design Feed ........................................................................ 22

ChernicaVRadionuclide Inventow Totals ................................................... 22

3.0

3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5

3.4.1

4.0 References .......................................................................................................................... 25

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. KE Basin Floor and Pit Sludge Characteristics ..................................................... A-1 Appendix B. KE Basin Canister Sludge Characteristics ............................................................. B-1

Appendix E. KW Basin Canister Sludge Characteristics ............................................................ E-1 Appendix F. KW Basin Fuel Wash Sludge Characteristics ......................................................... F.1 Appendix G. Statistical Analysis of K Basin Sludge Data ......................................................... G-1 Appendix H, Peer Review ........................................................................................................... H-1

Appendix C. KE Basin Fuel Wash Sludge Characteristics .......................................................... C-1 Appendix D. KW Basin Floor and Pit Sludge Characteristics ................................................... D-l

iii

HNF.SD.SNF.TI.009, Volume 2. Rev . 3

LIST OF FIGURES

2-1

3- 1

3-2

3-3

Schematic of KE and KW Basin Overview ......................................................................... 4

K East Basin Sludge Locations, Volumes, and Feed Streams ........................................... 16

K West Basin Sludge Locations, Volumes, and Feed Streams .......................................... 17

Weight Percent Particle Size Distributions for K Basin Feed Streams ............................. 21

LIST OF TABLES

2-1

2-2

3-1

3-2

3-3

Nominal Inventory for KJ3 Basin Sludge Locations .......................................................... 10

Nominal Inventory for KW Basin Sludge Locations ......................................................... 12

Nominal and Bounding Volumes for Settled Sludge Feed Streams .................................. 22

Nominal Inventory for KE Basin Sludge Feed Streams .................................................... 23

Nominal Inventory for KW Basin Sludge Feed Streams ................................................... 24

iv

HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 2, Rev. 3

DQO IWTS IXC IXM KE KE Basin KW KW Basin OIER PCB PSD RH-TRU SNF SNF Project TVP U. S. DOE USQ

LIST OF TERMS

Data Quality Objective Integrated Water Treatment System Ion exchange column Ion exchange module K East 105-KJ2 Basin K West 105-KW Basin Organic ion exchange resin Polychlorinated biphenyl Particle Size Distribution Remote-Handled Transuranic Spent Nuclear Fuel Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Tech View Pit United States Department of Energy Unresolved Safety Question

V



vi

HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 2 , Rev. 3

105-K BASIN MATERIAL DESIGN BASIS FEED DESCRIPTION FOR SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL PROJECT FACILITIES, VOLUME 2, SLUDGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Metallic uranium Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) currently is stored in two water-filled concrete pools, 105-KE Basin (KE Basin) and 105-KW Basin (KW Basin), at the United States Department of Energy (U. S. DOE) Hanford Site, in south eastern Washington State. The Spent Nuclear Fuel Project (SNF Project) is responsible to DOE for operation of these fuel storage pools and for the 2100 metric tons of SNF materials that they contain. These fuel storage pools also contain hazardous substances that primarily result from the degradation of the SNF. The hazardous substances consist of the SNF, sludge, debris, and water. In the past, large quantities of contaminated water leaked fkom the basins into the underlying soil and groundwater. Because of this, the U.S. Department of Energy-Richland Operations Office has determined that the hazardous substances stored in the basins present a potential threat to human health and the environment, and that a non-time-critical removal action conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation. and Liability Act of 1980 is warranted to reduce this threat. The SNF Project mission includes safe removal and transportation of all sludge from these storage basins to a more secure storage state in the 200 East Area. To accomplish this mission, the SNF Project modifies the existing KE Basin, KW Basin and T-Plant facilities.

The KE Basin contains about 1,150 metric tons of the SNF, stored underwater in 3,672 open-top canisters. This SNF has been stored for varying lengths of time ranging from 8 to 24 years. Much of the SNF stored in the KE Basin is damaged; it has been estimated that about 1 percent of the original mass of the fuel has corroded and contributed to the radioactive sludge in that basin (DOE 1996). The remainder of the SNF, approximately 950 metric tons, is stored underwater in the KW Basin in 3,821 closed canisters.

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of this document is to describe the design basis feed compositions for materials stored or processed by SNF Project facilities and activities. This document is not intended to replace the Hanford Spent Fuel Inventoly Baseline (WHC 1994), but only to supplement it by providing more detail on the chemical and radiological inventories in the fuel (see Volume 1) and sludge (this volume). This document does replace the previously documented sludge inventories in Packer (1998). Packer (1998) will only be used as a reference, as applicable, for previously completed designdanalyses.

Sludge inventories are required to support evaluation of specific facility and process considerations during the development of new storage and processes for the K Basin sludge. The inventories serve as input for nominal and bounding case conditions and calculations for design

1


evaluations. The approach for using the inventories during design evaluations is to calculate the proposed facility flowsheet. The process flowsheet would then provide a basis for material compositions and quantities that are used in follow-on calculations (Le., accident analysis, shielding, etc.).

The scope of this document includes defining the inventories (1) for KE and KW Basins sludge locations (pit sludge, floor sludge, canister sludge, and wash sludge components) and (2) for the sludge feed streams to be interim stored in the 200 East Area. This document utilizes the most current characterization data available to define the various sludge inventories. This document will be revised as new data are acquired and released.

2


2.0 105-K BASIN SLUDGE

Both the KE and the KW Basins contain contaminated (Le., radioactive, PCB etc.) sludge. Sludge on the floor and in the pits of the KE Basin is a mix of fuel corrosion products (including metallic uranium, and fission and activation products), small fuel fragments, iron and aluminum oxide, concrete grit, sand, dirt, operational debris and biological debris. The large quantity of fuel corrosion products in the KE Basin floor and pit sludge is a result of the open tops, and in some cases open-screened bottoms, of the fuel storage canisters. Because the SNF stored in the KW Basin was placed in closed containers before storage, most of the corrosion products were retained within the canisters and the sludge buildup in the KW Basin is of much smaller volume than that in KE Basin. The small quantity of sludge on the floor of the KW Basin appears to consist primarily of dust and sediment; the floor sludge is not expected to contain significant amounts of fuel corrosion products because the KW Basin canisters have closed tops and bottoms. Only one of the pits (North Loadout Pit) in the KW Basin contains a significant amount of sludge and is likely to consist of a mix of sand and fuel corrosion products. Sludge in the KE and KW Basin fuel storage canisters consists primarily of fuel corrosion products.

The sludge in the basins is commingled with SNF and is not considered a waste; however, when the sludge is separated from the SNF and removed from the basins, it will classify as Remote-Handled Transuranic (RH-TRU) waste and be dispositioned as a waste (Loscoe 1999). For the purposes of differentiating SNF and debris from sludge, any material less than or equal to 0.64 cm (0.25 in.) in diameter is defined as sludge.

2.1 SLUDGE LOCATIONS

A schematic of the K Basins is shown in Figure 2-1. The five remote pits connected to each basin are the North Loadout Pit [also called the Sandfilter Backwash Pit], the South Loadout Pit, the Dummy Elevator Pit, the Tech View Pit, and the Weasel Pit. Another area that is connected to each basin is the Discharge Chute.

Sludge in the KE Basin is located on the floor of the Basin, in the fuel canisters and in four of the five pits (North Loadout Pit, Dummy Elevator Pit, Tech View Pit and the Weasel Pit). In KE Basin, the sludge in the Discharge Chute and the South Loadout Pit has been pumped into the Weasel Pit. In KW Basin, sludge is located on the floor (in very small quantities compared to KE Basin), in the fuel canisters, in the Discharge Chute and in four of the five pits (the South Loadout pit sludge was pumped into the Tech View pit). The North Loadout Pit is the only pit in KW Basin that contains an appreciable amount of sludge.

Recirculation of basin water results in some sludge migration throughout the basin. In addition, there is sufficient decay heat from the fuel canisters in KE Basin to drive convection currents that further promote sludge migration.

3

I-

+=-

-SD-SNF-TI. -009. Volume 2, Rev. 3

. . A

4


The KE Basin Weasel Pit is screened fiom the main basin by a 37 micron screen so that most of the sludge pumped into the pit is retained until it has had time to settle out (this operation occurs in KE Basin only). However, some fine particulate sludge still escapes back into the main basin, along with all dissolved material. The North Loadout Pit and Discharge Chute are isolated from the main basin.

Canister sludge and what is referred to as “fuel wash sludge” are currently located in the fuel canisters. The canister sludge is the sludge that resides on the bottom of the canisters. The canister sludge in KE Basin is described as “empty” canister sludge and “full” canister sludge. The “empty” canister sludge is that sludge which resides in fueled canisters that contain no fuel elements whereas the “full” canister sludge is that sludge which resides in fueled canisters that contain fuel elements. The fuel wash sludge is the sludge within the fuel elements (Le., internal sludge), on the fuel cladding (i.e., coating material), and part of the element itself (i.e., fuel pieces). The fuel wash sludge will be generated during the processing of fuel elements for dry storage.

During the various cleanup activities (i.e., fuel, water and debris) in the basins, most of the sludge that resides in the locations described previously in this section will be pumped to interim storage areas (such as settler tanks, knockout pots, basin pits, or other vessels). The interim storage areas will be used to control the concentration of sludge and particulate in the basin water. Detailed discussion of the interim storage areas and the resulting sludge streams is provided in Section 3.0 of this document.

2.2 SLUDGE SOURCES

The sludge in the KE and KW Basins is or will be generated from a variety of sources.

Fuel elements are oxidizing where cladding has been breached, thereby contributing uranium oxide and fission products to the sludge. In KE Basin, some oxidized fuel may have fallen to the floor of the basin through screens in the bottoms of some canisters N o d . Co-Product and Mark 0 canisters).

The KE Basin is an unlined concrete pool. As the facility ages, concrete grit comes loose from the walls and falls to the basin floor.

The basins are enclosed but the structures are not weathertight. High winds cause dust and other pollutants (dirt, insects, bits of tumbleweed, etc.) from the outside environment to enter the facilities and, ultimately, the storage pools.

Painted carbon steel storage racks sit in the storage pool to hold the fuel canisters in place. As these racks age, they present a source of rust corrosion and paint chips.

The aluminum canisters in KE Basin were corroded over a two-year period when chlorine was used as a biological control agent.

5

"F-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 2, Rev. 3

The origin of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), found sporadically in the sludge solids, is unknown.

During basin operations, ion exchange column (IXC) screen failure allowed zeolite (Zeolon 900H) to be discharged into the KE Basin. Sludge analyses indicate that mixed resin beads (purolite) also are present in KE Basin; possible pathways into the basins for this resin are via the IXC discharge water and the ion exchange module (IXM) vent system.

Deterioration and destruction during lid removal of the KW canister lid gaskets has resulted in graphite-based materials being present in the KW canister sludge.

Particulate matter resulting from back washing the sandfilter, which is part of the skimmer cleaning equipment, contributes to the sludge in the North Loadout Pit (also designated Sandfilter Backwash Pit).

Sludge dislodged during fuel cleaning activities (Le., "fuel wash" sludge). Before dry storage, the fuel storage canisters will be placed into a primary washing machine that will be used to remove sludge from the surface of the fuel elements. Removing sludge from the fuel elements depends on the sliding action of the fuel elements against one another and the release of the solid particles by the rinsing action of a water jet. Based on the physical state of the stored fuel, as observed by underwater video records; the hown brittleness of irradiated uranium metal (Swanson et al. 1985); and the fractured state of the uranium within the breached fuel (Swanson 1988), further breakage of the fuel elements is expected that will dislodge corrosion products, corroded uranium metal pieces, zirconium cladding, pieces comprising both uranium and zirconium, and loosely adhered materials (such as fuel element coating and internal sludge).

2.3 SLUDGE VOLUMES

The total as-settled sludge volume in KE Basin, including floor, pits, canister, and fuel wash sludge ranges from a nominal value of approximately 43.8 m3 to an upper bound of approximately 57.8 m3. Current as-settled volume estimates of sludge in the KW Basin ranges from a nominal value of approximately 6.74 m3 to a maximum of approximately 10.9 m3. Sludge depths, volumes, and locations documented in Baker (1998) are baseline data. The as- settled sludge nominal and bounding volumes for each location are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 for KE Basin and KW Basin, respectively.

2.4 CURRENT INVENTORY BASIS

2.4.1 Characterization Data Background

The majority of the characterization data used for definition of the composition and physical characteristics of the K Basins sludge come fkom characterization campaigns conducted by the Hanford Site SNF Project. Each major characterization campaign was based on a set of

6


data quality objectives and a corresponding sampling and analysis plan that had concurrence from the project stakeholders involved. The sampling and analysis plans (Welsh et al. 1995, 1996, 1997) were developed to ensure reasonable representativeness of the samples as defined by the Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) (Makenas et al. I995,1996b, 1996~). The characterization data (including quality assurance supporting information) generated from analysis of the sludge samples was summarized in project documents (Makenas et al. 1996a, 1997, 1998, 1999a, 1999b) to provide integrated databases for the ShF subprojects to use as a basis of design.

2.4.2 Existing Characterization Data

Sludge sample analysis campaigns have been conducted for the KE Basin floor and Weasel Pit, the KE Basin canisters, and the KW Basin canisters (Makenas et al. 1996% 1997, and 1998, respectively). These campaigns have developed basic data on (1) sludge volumes in the KE Basin Weasel Pit and canisters (KE Basin floor sludge volumes were reported previously in Baker [1995]) and (2) detailed chemical, radionuclide, and physical properties of the sludge in these locations.

The characterization samples were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma spectrometry for metals concentrations and by radiometric counting techniques to determine total alpha, 24'Am, 239'240Pu, total beta, '37Cs, @%o, %r, and other radionuclide concentrations of sludge samples on a dry basis. The sludge samples were analyzed for total inorganic carbon (carbonate or bicarbonate) by a wet chemical acidification and for total organic carbon by oxidation in persulfate. The weight fraction of acid-insoluble residue was determined by gravimetric methods. Additional other physical and chemical analyses (for example, particle size, X-ray diffkaction, and anion concentrations by ion chromatography) also were performed and reported consistent with applicable DQOs related to specific path forwards for the sludge at the time of the campaigns. The results of these sample analyses were used to determine the chemical and radionuclide constituents in the KE Basin floor, Weasel Pit, and canister sludge and in the KW Basin canister sludge.

Limited analyses of samples taken earlier from the KE Basin North Loadout Pit (also referred to as the Sandfilter Backwash Pit) also have been reported (Warner 1994). These samples were obtained as a result of a resolution plan to resolve an unresolved safety question (USQ) regarding continued sand filter backwash operation, therefore, the analytical data obtained for the North Loadout Pit is based on a different set of objectives than those developed for the floor, Weasel Pit and canister sludge. A sampling and analysis plan (Bechtold 1994) was prepared to obtain the additional information. The results of this sample analysis were used to determine the chemical and radionuclide constituents in the North Loadout Pit.

The characterization data used to define the fuel wash sludge was taken from the analyses performed on samples from fuel elements taken from the K Basins (Makenas et al. 1999b). Analyses were performed on the fuel element coatings, on subsurface sludge obtained from the five elements, and on the residue collected kom the bottoms of the shipping containers.

7


2.4.3 Estimated Characterization of Remaining Sludge

Analyses of sludge fiom the KE Basin Tech View Pit and Dummy Elevator Pit and from the KW Basin floor, Discharge Chute and pits are not currently available. Therefore, the current sludge inventory estimates for the KE Basin Tech View Pit and Dummy Elevator Pit are based on assuming that sludge in these locations will be similar to, or bounded by, the characteristics of the Weasel Pit sludge. It was assumed, however, that the Tech View Pit and the Dummy Elevator Pit do not contain zeolite material.

The characteristics of the KW Discharge Chute and pits (i.e., Weasel, Tech View, South Loadout, Dummy Elevator Pits) sludge are based on assuming that sludge in these locations will be similar to, or bounded by, the characteristics of the KE Basin Weasel Pit sludge. It is assumed, however, that the zeolite and PCBs found in the KE Basin Weasel Pit will not be in the KW Discharge Chute and pits sludge. The characteristics of the KW floor sludge are based on assuming that this sludge is similar to, or bounded by, the characteristics of the KE Basin floor sludge. It is assumed, however, that the organic ion exchange resin (OIER), zeolite and PCBs found in the KE Basin floor sludge will not be in the KW floor sludge. The characteristics of the KW North Loadout Pit sludge are based on assuming that this sludge is similar to, or bounded by, the characteristics of the KE Basin North Loadout Pit.

2.4.4 Mass Balance Determinations

A mass balance was determined for each sludge location using the analytical and residual results obtained from the characterization campaigns described in section 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 and the assumptions given in section 2.4.3 above. The calculations assumed the elemental analyses to represent the likely materials uranium dioxide (UOz), uranium oxide ( U 3 0 7 ) , uranium hydrate (U04.4H20), uranium hydride ( U H 3 ) , aluminum hydroxide (Al[OH]3), aluminum oxide (A1203), femc oxyhydroxide (FeO[OH]), calcium oxide (CaO), and C02 (used to represent carbonate). These compounds were combined with the remaining trace elements and the residual solids to determine the mass balance for the dried solids for each sludge location. The sludge was analyzed by acid digestion of the material followed by wet chemistry of the resulting liquid. The “residuals” are the solids of the samples that did not dissolve in the acid solution (typically “ 0 3 , H 2 0 2 , and HCI). The residuals were typically indicated to contain Si02 and Ti02 (Makenas 1999b). The overall balance of material in the sludge thus considers the “residuals” as well as the element concentrations. These calculations are presented in Appendices A through F. It is assumed that the databases (as defined in the Appendices) used for each of the sludge locations (floor, Weasel Pit, North Loadout Pit, canisters, wash machine) are an accurate reflection of the sludge located in the K Basins. These databases were used because they represent the best available current estimates of the sludge compositions for each location.

While it is recognized that a comprehensively defensible mass balance would require more information than is available, an estimate of solids compositions expected in each feed stream is necessary to adequately define those design parameters that will influence transport and storage of the sludge . To achieve the solids estimate, one or more compounds were chosen to represent each analyte reported in the characterization data. The compounds were chosen based on the likely oxidation products for the analytes and on x-ray diffraction results reported in

8


the characterization reports. While the set of oxidation products identified may be somewhat limited, this approach minimizes the number of compounds being tracked. The mean concentrations of the compounds were calculated from the mean concentrations of the elements on a dry basis, thereby allowing the calculation of a wt% solids value for each compound without having to account for the water content of as-settled sludge. As expected, the mass balance does not account for exactly 100 percent of the material. The difference between what is expected for 100% accountability and what can actually be accounted for based on the data and compound assignment is assigned to a category called “balance.” A positive “balance” indicates a portion of the expected sludge was not accounted for in the compound assignments. A negative value indicates that the compound assignments account for more than 100% of the material balance.

The chemical and radionuclide data presented in the KE and KW sludge characterization reports are representative of the constituents found in the sludge locations within the basins. However, numerical averaging of the data may be representative of homogeneous mixing of all sludge, because the data were taken from basin areas (floor, Weasel Pit, and canisters) having different depths of sludge, and the data in the characterization reports are not statistically weighted to the volumes of sludge present in different regions of the basin. Averaging the Weasel Pit and North Loadout Pit sludge constituents was considered representative of a homogeneous sludge. The material in each of these pits has been pumped in and allowed to settle, it was therefore assumed that the sludge has been reasonably uniformly deposited within these pits. Depth (or volume) weighted average concentrations for the floor and canister sludge samples, which have a large variability in sludge depths, were not used in the mass balance calculations. Other high and low sludge depths exist that were not sampled. To verify that the application of a volume-weighted averaging approach would be significantly more accurate might require more samples, across the basins, be taken. This approach was not deemed a requirement by past DQO evaluations.

A summary of the sludge inventories for each of the sludge locations is presented in Table 2-1 for the KE Basin sludge locations and Table 2-2 for the KW Basin sludge locations. The chemical compounds included in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 are a subset of those identified in Appendices A through F. The available laboratory measurement methods identified elements and crystalline compounds. A technical interpretation of these data has been made to provide the feasible set of compounds for general use by designers and analysts for the SNF Project. Other interpretations of the data may be possible given specific applications and analyses, therefore, where critical the user should be cognizant of the actual data measured (see Appendices A through F) and the assumptions used to define the compounds provided herein.

9


Table 2-1. Nominal Inventory for KE Basin Sludge Locations.

10


Table 2-1. Nominal Inventoly for KE Basin Sludge Locations (continued).

mass% 2% mass% 7.61E-03 6.94E.03 7.25E-03 6.55E-03 =?I mas% 6.53E-01 6.62E-01 7.64E-01 7.19E-01 MU m a s % 6.45E-02 8.BoEQ2 8.57E-02 8.95E-02 mI I

11


Table 2-2. Nominal Inventory for KW Basin Sludge Locations.

Gnfoil I a/cm' I I I I I I I mPu dcm' 7.63E-08 7.71E-08 7.63E-M 7.63E-08 3.09E-08 7.63E-08 BDPU dcm' 8.48EM 8.57E-05 8.48E-05 8.48E-05 3.46E-05 8.48E-05 "PU aim' 1.27E-05 1.28E-05 1.27E-05 1.27E-05 5.18846 1.27E-05 Balance dcm' 7.WE-02 4.08E-02 7.WE-02 7.WE-02 2.19E-01 7.WE-02

12


Table 2-2. Nominal Inventory for KW Basin Sludge Locations (continued).

13



14


3.0 105-K BASIN SLUDGE STREAMS

3.1 SLUDGE STREAM BASES

Figures 3-1 and 3-2 show the KE and KW Basins sludge locations with their respective nominal and bounding as-settled volumes and interim storage areas, respectively. The sludge locations are those areas in the basins where sludge now resides (Le., main basin floor, pits, and canisters). During the various cleanup activities (Le., fuel, debris, water, and sludge) within the basins, the sludge will be moved &om these locations to interim storage (Precechtel and Julyk 1998). The interim storage areas (i.e., settler tanks, knockout pots, basin pits, or other vessels) are used to define six-sludge feed streams. This section provides the bases for the development of the six-sludge feed streams composition and characteristics. The composition and characteristics of the six-sludge feed streams are based on the data provided in Section 2.4 and Appendices A through F of this document.

In KE and KW Basins, integrated water treatment systems (IWTS) will be provided to support removal of fuel, sludge, and debris from the basins. In KW Basin, the IWTS will transfer the collected sludge materials fiom fuel-cleaning activities to two interim storage areas; (1) IWTS Knockout Pots for particles greater than 500 pm and less than 0.64 cm, and (2) Settler Tanks for particles less than 500 pm. The sludge in KW Basin that is currently in pits and on the floor will not be consolidated in one interim storage area; these sludges will be pumped directly to the Sludge Loadout System during sludge retrieval activities. On Figure 3-2, it shows an interim storage area for the KW Basin floor and pit sludges; these sludges are combined because it is anticipated that the characteristics of the sludges in these locations will be similar. However, the floor and pit sludge in KW Basin will not in actuality be transferred to an interim storage area.

In KE Basin, the IWTS will handle two sludge streams; (1) Floorpit sludge and (2) canister fuel wash sludge (i.e., sludge materials from fuel-cleaning activities). In order to address criticality concerns, these two sludge streams must be handled separately and placed in separate stagingktorage areas (Precechtel2000). The Weasel Pit and the Tech View Pit (TVP) are the two areas available in KE Basin for storage of these sludge streams. Preliminary designs indicate Floorpit sludge will be interim stored in the Weasel Pit. A feasibility study was conducted to determine if the KE fuel wash sludge could be stored in an isolated section of the TVP. This arrangement would allow a simplified KE IWTS to be used. The study concluded that storing the fuel wash sludge in the TVP would be acceptable provided the maximum allowed size of the particles is limited to 500 pm diameter pieces (Precechtel 1999). Therefore, it is assumed that the canister fuel wash sludge will be separated into two streams based on a particle size cut at 500 microns. Based on this preliminary design information, three sludge streams have been defined for the KE Basin and are as shown in Figure 3-1. It should be noted that the KE Basin stream definitions are subject to change until completion of the definitive design phase of the KE IWTS.

15

~

I I I HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 2. Rev. 3

I

- 1

E I # e 0" E a E a a

e

U 0 C

!i 5 m E e Y 0 ul U 3 E c 0

k! 3 a -

16

HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009. Volume 2, Rev. 3

.

$ 8 8 I- ee t

d

17

8

x


3.1.1 Sludge Stream KE1

Interim storage for sludge stream KE1 will be in the KE Basin Weasel Pit (or Tech View Pit) (Figure 3-1). This sludge stream consists of as-settled sludge (less than or equal to 6350 pm in diameter) retrieved from the various KE Basin pits and floor areas (Bays 1 ,2 and 3). This stream also will include full canister sludge (i.e., sludge inside canisters that contain fuel elements) that has fallen through the screened perforation and slots in the canister barrels to the floor during fuel retrieval activities. The following were used to define sludge stream KE1 (see Appendices A and B of this document for detailed discussion).

100 vol% of the floor and pits sludge particles less than or equal to 6350 pm

83 vol% of the sludge particles in the full canisters will fall to the floor (Pitner 1999) .

100 vol% of the sludge in empty canisters (Le., contains no fuel elements) has been dumped onto the main basin floor and is now commingled with the floor sludge.

100 vol% of OIER in the floor sludge will be less than 6350 pm.

83 vol% of the OIER from the full canister sludge will fall to the floor.


Interim storage for sludge stream KE2 will be in containers similar to KW IWTS Knockout Pots (Figure 3-1). This sludge stream consists of as-settled sludge [less than or equal to 6350 pm (0.25 in.) and greater than 500 pm in diameter] collected from the canister removal and fuel wash activities. The following were used in defining sludge stream KE2 (see Appendices B and C for detailed discussion).

5 vol% of the full canister sludge particles will be greater than 500 pm in diameter.

100 vol% of the fuel pieces will be greater than 500 pm.

16 vol% of the OIER in the full canister sludge will be greater than 500 pm,


Interim storage for sludge stream KE3 will be in the TVP (or Weasel Pit). The sludge may be stored in containers (such as a storage tank or other vessel) placed in one of the pits or in the basin itself. This sludge stream consists of as-settled sludge [less than or equal to 500 pm in

18


diameter] collected ffom the KE IWTS system. The following were used in defining sludge stream KE3 (see Appendices B and C for detailed discussion).

12 vol% of the full canister sludge will be less than or equal to 500 pm.

100 vol% of the internal sludge will be less than or equal to 500 pm.

100 vol% of the fuel element coating particles will be less than or equal to 500 pm.

1 vol% of the OIER in the full canisters will be less than or equal to 500 pm.

3.1.4 Sludge Stream KW1

An interim storage location for sludge stream KW1 currently is not planned, as discussed in Section 3.1. This sludge stream consists of the as-settled sludge [less than or equal to 6350 pm (0.25 in.) in diameter] retrieved from the various KW Basin pit and floor areas (Figure 3-2). The assumption that sludge stream KWl is bounded by sludge stream KE1 is likely conservative with respect to the radionuclide inventory. The volume of sludge in sludge stream KWl (4.66 m3) is quite low compared to sludge stream KEl volume (42.6 m'), therefore, the impact of this assumption on the design of the transport and storage containers is judged to be low.


Interim storage for sludge stream KW2 will be in IWTS Knockout Pots (Figure 3-2). This sludge stream consists of sludge [less than or equal to 6350 pm (0.25 in.) and greater than 500 pm in diameter] collected from the canister removal and fuel wash activities. The following were used in defining sludge stream KW2 (see Appendices E and F for detailed discussion).

100 vol% of the fuel pieces will be greater than 500 pm.

100% of the Grafoil' gasket particles ftom the canister sludge will be greater than 500 pm.


Interim storage for sludge stream KW3 will be in settler tanks (Figure 3-2). This sludge stream consists of as-settled sludge [particles less than or equal to 500 pm in diameter] collected from the KW IWTS system. The following were used in defining sludge stream KW3 (see Appendices E and F for detailed discussion).

100 vol% of the canister sludge (minus Grafoil gasket particles) will be less than or equal to 500 pm.

Grafoil is a trademark of the Lamons Metal Gasket Company. 1

19


100 vol% of the internal sludge will be less than or equal to 500 pm.

100 vol% of the fuel element coating particles will be less than or equal to 500 pm.

3.2 SLUDGE STREAM PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS

Particle size distribution (PSD) curves for sludge feed streams KE1, KE3, KW1 and KW3 are shown in Figure 3-3. PSD curves for sludge streams KE2 and KE3 are not included on the plot as no data exists on the PSD of the fuel pieces. The error bars in the figures indicate the highest and lowest value measured for each particle size range (high-low bars). A line is used to connect the points, but this line is only provided to guide the eye to the next point and should not be used to interpolate values between points.

Different measurement techniques were used in the PSD analyses to cover the large range of particle sizes in the K Basin sludge (Le., submicron to 6350 pm). Specifically, sieving with wire mesh screens was used to segregate and quantify the PSD of the larger particles (250 to 6350 pm), and optical techniques were used to analyze the PSD of the smaller particles (between -0.12 and 710 pm). Particle size distribution information for the K Basins sludge (floor, pits, canisters, and fuel wash) is provided in Appendices A through F. The following assumptions/weighting factors were used to create the sludge stream PSD curves.

KE1 = 0.43 KE Weasel Pit sludge PSD + 0.50 KE floor sludge PSD + 0.06 KE full canister sludge PSD + 0.01 KE empty canister sludge PSD.

KE3 = -500 pm fkaction of KE full canister sludge (i.e., contains no particles greater than 500 pm)

KWl = 0.8 KF! Weasel Pit sludge PSD + 0.2 KE floor sludge PSD (underlying assumption is KW floor ,and pit sludge is similar to KE floor and pit sludge).

KW3 = -500 pm fraction of KW canister sludge PSD.

20


B

. . . .

. . . .

n

r

- I E

E - 9 tj

3 a n Y 6

P

I L

+ - I*)

E L

Y a 2: M


Stream Stream Stream Stream KE1 m2 KE3 KWl

Stream Stream KW2 KW3

Nominal Volume

Bounding Volume

3.4 NOMINAL SLUDGE STREAM DESIGN FEED

0.29 m3 0.94 m3 4.66 m3 0.20 m3 1.88 m3 42,6 m3

54.8 m3 0.72 m3 2.3 m3 7.00 m3 0.57 m3 3.29 m’

The chemical and radionuclide inventories for each of the six sludge feed streams were determined by applying the assumptions stated in Section 3.1 to the mass balance determined for each of the various sludge locations as described in Section 2.4.

3.4.1 ChemicaYRadionuclide Inventory Totals

Table 3-2 provides an inventory estimate for KE Basin sludge streams KE1, KE2, and KE3. Table 3-3 provides an inventory estimate for KW Basin sludge streams KW1, KW2, and KW3.

22


Table 3-2. Nominal Inventory for KE Basin Sludge Feed Streams.

23


Table 3-3. Nominal Inventory for KW Basin Sludge Feed Streams.

24


4.0 REFERENCES

Baker, R. B., 1998, (External Letter to K. L. Pearce, W C ] “Revised Estimates of Sludge Volumes In K East and K West Basins,” DESH-9857199), DE&S Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Baker, R. B., 1995, Summary Status of K Basins Sludge Characterization, WHC-SD-SNF-TI-006, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford, Company, Richland, Washington.

Bechtold, D. B., 1994, Report ofLaboratory Test Plan for Analysis ofKE Basin Backwash Pit Samples, WHC-SD-NR-TW-021, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford, Company, Richland, Washington.

DOE, 1996, Management of Spent Nuclear Fuel from the K Basins at the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOEIEIS-O245F, Addendum, Final Environmental Impact Statement, U. S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.

Loscoe, P. G., 1999, (External Letter to R. D. Hanson [FDH], “Contract No. DE-AC06- 96RL13200 - K Basins Sludge Classification,” DOE-RL: 00-SFD-043), U. S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., A. J. Schmidt, K. L. Silvers, P. R. Bredt, C. H. Delegard, E. W. Hoppe, J. M. Tingey, A. H. Zacher, T. L. Welsh, R. B. Baker, 1999a, Supplementary Information on K-Basin Sludges, HNF-2367, Rev. 0, prepared by Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc. for U. S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., T. L. Welsh, P. R. Bredt, G. R. Golcar, A. J. Schmidt, K. L. Silvers, J. M. Tingey, A. H. Zacher, and R. B. Baker, 1999b, Analysis ofhternal Sludge and Cladding Coatings from N-Reactor Fuel Stored in Hanford K Basins, HNF-3589, Rev. 0, prepared by Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., for U. S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., T. L. Welsh, R. B. Baker, G. R. Golcar, P. R. Bredt, A. J. Schmidt, and J. M. Tingey, 1998, Analysis of Sludge from Hanford K West Basin Canisters, HNF- 1728, Rev. 0, prepared by DE&S Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., T. L. Welsh, R. B. Baker, E. W. Hoppe, A. J. Schmidt, J. Abrefah, J. M. Tingey, P. R. Bredt, and G. R. Golcar, 1997, Analysis of Sludgefiom Hanford K East Basin Canisters, HNF-SP-1201, Rev. 0, prepared by DE&S Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

25


Makenas, B. J., T. L. Welsh, R. B. Baker, D. R. Hansen, and G. R. Golcar, 1996a, Analysis of Sludge from Hanford K East Basin Floor and Weasel Pit, WHC-SP-1182, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., K. L. Pearce and R. B. Baker, 1996b, Data Quality Objectives for K West Basin Canister Sludge Sampling, WHC-SD-SNF-DQO-012, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., K. L. Pearce, and R. B. Baker, 1996c, Data Quality Objectives for K East Basin Canister Sludge Sampling, WHC-SD-SNF-DQO-008, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., K. L. Pearce, and R. B. Baker, 1995, Data Quality Objectives for K East Basin Floor and Weasel Pit Sludge Sampling, WHC-SD-SNF-DQO-005, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Packer, M. J., 1999, 105-K Basin Material Design Basis Feed Description for Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Facilities, Volume 1. Fuel, HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 1, Rev. 3, Numatec Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Packer, M. J., 1998, K Basins Sludge Inventory Composition, HNF-SD-SNF-TI-053, Rev. 0, Duke Engineering & Services Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Pitner, A. L., 1999, Revised Estimates of K East Basin Canister Type Distribution and Sludge Content, HNF-5362, Rev. 0, Numatec Hanford Corporation, Richland, Washington.

Precechtel, D. R., 2000, Functional Design Criteria for the K East Basin Integrated Water Treatment System, HNF-SD-SNF-FDC-002, Rev.3, Fluor Daniel Hanford, Richland, Washington.

Precechtel, D. R., 1999, Feasibility Study of Interim Storage of K East Basin Fuel Wash Sludge in the Tech View Pit, SNF-5269, Rev. 0, Fluor Daniel Hanford, Richland, Washington.

Precechtel, D. R., and J. L. Julyk, 1998, Functional Design Criteria for the K Basins Sludge Retrieval System, HNF-SD-SNF-FDC-005, Rev. 1, prepared by DE&S Hanford for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Swanson, J. L., 1988, Recent Studies Related to Head-End Fuel Processing at the Hanford PUREXPlant, PNL-6609, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Swanson, J. L., L. A. Bray, H. E. Kjarmo, J. L. Ryan, C. L. Matsuzaki, S. G. Pitman, and J. H. Haberman, 1985, Laboratory Studies of Shear/Leach Processing of Zircalloy Clad Metallic Uranium Reactor Fuel, PNL-5708, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

26


Warner, R. D., 1994, Safety Evaluation of the Plutonium and Uranium Content of the K East Basin Sandfilter Backwash Pit, WHC-SD-WM-TA-152, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Welsh, T. L., R. B. Baker, B. J. Makenas, and K. L. Pearce, 1997, Sampling and Analysis Plan for Sludge Located in Fuel Storage Canisters of the 10.5-K West Basin, HNF-SD-SNF-PLN-020, Rev. 0, prepared by DE&S Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Welsh, T. L., R. B. Baker, B. J. Makenas, and K. L. Pearce, 1996, Sampling and Analysis Plan for Sludge Located in Fuel Storage Canisters of the 105-K East Basin, WHC-SD-SNF-PLN-016, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Welsh, T. L., R. B. Baker, B. J. Makenas, and K. L. Pearce, 1995, Sampling and Analysis Plan for Floor Sludge of the 10.5-K East Main Basin and Weasel Pit, WHC-SD-SNF-PLN-006, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

WHC, 1994, Hanford Irradiated Fuel Inventoiy Baseline, WHC-SD-SNF-TI-001, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

27



28


APPENDIX A

KE BASIN FLOOR AND PIT SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS

A- 1



A-2


APPENDIX A

KE BASIN FLOOR AND PIT SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS

A.l.O INTRODUCTION

This appendix identifies referenceable characteristics of the sludge located on the K East Basin floor, Weasel Pit, and North Loadout Pit. In August and September 1995, fifteen samples were collected from the main basin floor and five samples from the Weasel Pit (Makenas et al. 1996). In November 1993, 13 separate locations in the North Loadout Pit were sampled. Each sludge sample was collected in a sample container using specially designed equipment that ensured a representative core sample was collected from each location. Chemical, radiological, and physical properties for the floor (only thirteen samples analyzed), Weasel Pit, and North Loadout Pit sludge have been determined and are reported in Makenas et al. (1996) for floor and Weasel Pit sludge and Warner (1994) for the North Loadout Pit sludge.

None of the canisters stored in the KE Basin have lids on them, allowing some mixing of sludge from all potential sources. However, the primary sources of sludge for the floor and Weasel Pit remain the degradation of infrastructure (basin walls, storage racks, and the outsides of canisters) and the introduction of particulate from the air. Therefore the sludge consists primarily of iron oxides, aluminum silicates, and silicon oxides with some fuel element and canister component oxidation products.

The North Loadout Pit receives the water and particulate matter resulting from backwashing the sandfilter. The sludge in this pit is a mixture of sand, chemical precipitates, corrosion products and miscellaneous debris (which includes such materials as paint chips, wood fibers, and so forth).

A.2.0 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

A summary of the physical properties of the “as-settled” sludge (Le., the sludge as it sits in the basin) on the basin floor, in the Weasel Pit, and in the North Loadout Pit are presented in Table A-1, The physical properties were determined from the data reported in the characterization documents Makenas et al. (1996) for floor and Weasel Pit and Warner (1994) for the North Loadout Pit.

A-3

HNF-SD-SNl-TI-009, Volume 2, Rev. 3

Table A-1. KE Floor, Weasel Pit and North Loadout Pit "As-Settled" Sludge Physical

' Estimation of Bredt et al. (1999a, Section 3.6). ' Higher and lower points of the response curves shown in Makenas et al. (1996, Fig. I2,13, pp. 1-13,1-14). 4Mean density of 14 floor density measurements listed in Makenas et al. (1996, p. C-11). 'Estimation of "mV" range at pH 7 as shown in Makenas et al. (1996, Fig. I8a, p. 1-23), Weasel Pit volume includes volumes from Tech View and Dummy Elevator Pit Locations. ' Mean density of 6 Weasel Pit density measurements listed in Makenas et al. (1996, p. C-11). 'Estimation of "mV" range at pH 7 as shown in Makenas et al. (1996, Fig. I8b, p. 1-23), 'Mean density of 13 North Loadout Pit density measurements listed in Warner (1994, p. 27). NM =Not measured.

A.2.1 PARTICLE SIZE

Particle size distribution (PSD) information for K Basin floor and Weasel Pit sludge is compiled and reported in Bredt et al. (1999b). During the PSD analyses, different measurement techniques were used to cover the large range of particle sizes in the K Basin sludge (i.e., submicron to 6350 pm). Specifically, sieving with wire mesh screens was used to segregate and quantify the PSD of the larger particles (250 to 6350 pm), and optical techniques were used to analyze the PSD of the smaller particles (between -0.12 and 710 pm). In Bredt et al. (1999a) additional information on the particle size distribution of KE floor sludge has been generated. The approach used in Bredt et al. (1999b) to integrate the two data types was to assume the density of the particles was uniform from 0.12 to 6350 pm. In Bredt et al. (1999a), new particle size data on the consolidated floor sludge sample have been combined with the new dry particle density data and with the previously collected optical data to provide a more complete estimate of the particle size distribution anticipated for the floor sludge. Integrating the new data with the earlier data leads to a revised floor PSD curve, in which the floor sludge appears coarser than previously projected.

The integrated PSD curves for the KE floor and Weasel Pit sludge are shown in Figures A-1 and A-2, respectively. The error bars in the figures indicate the highest and lowest value measured for each particle size range (high-low bars). A line is used to connect the points, but this line is only provided to guide the eye to the next point and should not be used to interpolate values between points. Particle size analyses were not conducted on the North Loadout Pit sludge.

A-4

"F-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 2, Rev. 3

A- 5

~ ~~ ~~

HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009. Volume 2. Rev. 3

8 z 0

0 0 z

0 2

2

3

1 0

A-6

~


A.3.0 KE BASIN FLOOR AND PIT COMPOSITIONS

This section establishes the chemical and radionuclide composition of the KE floor, Weasel Pit, and North Loadout Pit sludge locations. To establish these sludge compositions, the characterization data in Makenas et al. (1996) were used for floor and Weasel Pit sludges and the characterization data in Warner (1994) were used for the North Loadout Pit sludge.

A.3.1 CHEMICAL CONTENT METHODOLOGY

Based on the analyte concentrations (pg of analyte per g dry sludge) for each sample given in Makenas et al. (1996, Appendix D), a mean concentration value was calculated for each analyte in the floor and Weasel Pit sludge. For floor sludge sample M-13, insufficient data is given in Makenas et al. (1996) to rigorously calculate the mass fraction of each layer, therefore a straight average of the layer data was used. Analyte concentrations for each North Loadout Pit sample are given in Warner (1994) (units are in micrograms of analyte per milliliter of as-settled sludge and weight percent of solids). To calculate a mean concentration value for each North Loadout Pit analyte, the units were first converted to micrograms of analyte per gram of dry sludge using the reported data and the weight percent of solid in the as-settled sludge. Less-than values were excluded from the calculations. No attempt was made to use volume weighting (i.e., weight the data according to depth of sludge where sample was taken) to adjust the mean value for the floor, Weasel Pit or North Loadout Pit sludge. The mean analyte concentrations are assumed to be representative of the whole volume of KE floor, Weasel Pit, and North Loadout Pit sludges.

To account for the total solids found in the floor, Weasel Pit and North Loadout Pit sludges, the mean analyte concentrations were converted to the most probable oxidation product concentrations. This is based on the knowledge that the sludge from the floor and Weasel Pit is almost entirely the result of oxidation, and the North Loadout Pit sludge is a mixture of sand and oxidation products. The following equations demonstrate how this was done, using aluminum as an example.

The primary aluminum compound identified was aluminum oxide (Makenas et al. 1996, Appendix K).

Atomic Weight A1203 = 101.96 g/mole Atomic Weight AI = 26.98 g/mole

Oxide Factor = Io1.96 = 1.89 53.96

The amount of aluminum compound in the dry floor sludge was determined by multiplying the mean concentration of aluminum (68,876 pg/g of dry floor sludge, see Table A-6) by the oxide factor.

A-7

HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 2, Rev 3

Location Floor, Weasel Pit, and North Loadout Pit Sludge

68,876 pgAI x 1.89 = 0.1301 ~ A l 2 Q 3 g dry sludge g dry sludge

Dividing the mean concentration per cubic centimeter of as-settled sludge by the mean concentration per gram of dry sludge, it was determined that there is 0.318 gram of dry floor sludge per cubic centimeter of as-settled floor sludge. This allows the following calculation.

Wt% Breakdown of Uranium into Compounds

U UO2 U,O, U0,'4H20 UH, 1 .o 49.5 49.5 0.0 0.0

O.l3OlgAl2@ x 0.318gdrysludge = 0 . 0 4 1 4 g A l 2 ~ g diy sludge em3 as-settled sludge cm3 as-settled sludge

A.3.1.1 Chemical Composition of the Uranium Compounds

Multiple uranium compounds have been identified in the floor and Weasel Pit sludges. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses were not performed for the North Loadout Pit sludge; therefore, the assumptions for calculating the uranium compounds for floor and Weasel Pit sludge also are assumed for the North Loadout Pit sludge. To make a reasonable assumption for the mass of uranium compounds in the sludge, it has been assumed that the primary sources of uranium are oxidation products and small amounts of uranium metal, as shown in Table A-2. Not knowing the amount of free oxygen in the water, it has been assumed that the oxides will be split about 50-50 between the two listed oxide products and that the amounts of other potential oxides will be negligible. Hydrates and hydrides are expected to be negligible.

A.3.1.2 Chemical Composition of the Aluminum Compounds

Table A-3 identifies the aluminum compounds that are expected in the floor, Weasel Pit and North Loadout Pit sludges. The choice of aluminum oxide for the floor sludge is meant to be representative of multiple possible compounds (e.g., aluminosilicates) that are found in sand, dirt, and concrete walls. It is not meant to represent pure alumina but instead to allow a reasonable mass balance estimate of the aluminum compounds. Even though aluminum hydroxide is the corrosion product created from the aluminum canisters being in water, none was identified by XRD in the floor and Weasel Pit sludges. Therefore, the floor and Weasel Pit sludges are assumed to contain only aluminum oxide. XRD analyses were not performed for the North Loadout Pit sludge, therefore, the assumptions used in calculating the aluminum compounds for the floor and Weasel Pit sludges also are applied to the North Loadout Pit sludge.

A-8



Al(OH), Al,O, 0.0 100.0


A.3.1.3 Chemical Composition of the Iron Compounds

Iron hydroxide was the most common iron compound identified in the XRD results for the floor and Weasel Pit sludges (Makenas et al. 1996, Appendix K). Because iron hydroxide was identified in 11 of 16 samples, while no other iron compounds were identified in more than 2 samples, it has been assumed that all iron will be accounted for as iron hydroxide, as shown in Table A-4. XRD analyses were not performed for the North Loadout Pit sludge; therefore, the assumptions used in calculating the iron compounds for the floor and Weasel Pit sludges also are applied to the North Loadout Pit sludge.

FeO(0H) 100.0

Table A-4. Weight Percent of Iron Compound in KE Floor and Pit Sludges. Wt% Breakdown of Iron into Compounds

A.3.1.4 Chemical Composition of the Insoluble Solids

The residue samples left after nitric acid digestion were analyzed by XRD. The residues consisted primarily of sand, TiO, and (Al, Na, Ca, Mg, and Si) oxides. The values for floor and weasel pit sludge residue concentrations are reported in Makenas et al. (1996, Appendix D).

Sludge samples from the North Loadout Pit were dissolved with nitric and hydrochloric acids. XRD and polarized light microscopy of the residues indicated the residues are composed primarily of SO,. The residue concentrations, for the North Loadout Pit are reported in Bechtold (1994).

A.3.2 RADIONUCLIDE METHODOLOGY

Based on the radionuclide inventory for each floor and Weasel Pit sample given in Makenas et al. (1996, Appendix D) (units are microcuries per gram of dry sludge), a mean value for each of the radionuclides in the floor and Weasel Pit sludges was calculated. The radionuclide inventory for the North Loadout Pit sludge is given in Warner (1994) (units are in microcuries per milliliter of as-settled sludge and weight percent of solids). To calculate a mean value for the radionuclides in the North Loadout Pit sludge, the units were first converted to

A-9

~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~


niicrocuries per gram of dry sludge using the reported data and the weight percent of solids in the as-settled sludge.

The characterization data recorded two values for americium. The mean for americium is an average of the two reported values. The averaged North Loadout Pit americium values are from Warner (1994). The characterization data provides a value for Pu239/240 only. To calculate the individual Pu isotope 239, the isotope ratios from KE Basin radioactivity inventories (Table 3.6 of Packer 1999) were used. Pu240 was then calculated from the difference between the measured Pu239/240 and the calculated Pu239 values. The assumption is that the nominal isotope distribution for the KE sludge is equal to the nominal isotope distribution in the KE fuel inventory. Several of the Pu238 data are below the detection limit; therefore, values for Pu238 were determined from the average measured ratio (excluding the less than values) of Pu238 to Pu239/240 multiplied by the average measured value of PU239/240. No attempt was made to use depth weighting to adjust the mean values. The mean values then are assumed to be representative of the whole volume of KE floor, Weasel Pit and North Loadout Pit sludges. Mean values for the mass percent breakdown of the uranium by its various isotopes for floor, Weasel Pit, and North Loadout Pit sludges were also determined.

A.3.3 MISCELLANEOUS CONSTITUENTS

Three miscellaneous components, were identified in the KE floor sludge; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), zeolite resins and organic ion exchange resins (OIER). This section provides the basis for the reported quantities of these three constituents.

Two miscellaneous constituents were identified in the KE Weasel Pit sludge; PCBs and zeolite resins. This section provides the basis for the reported quantities of these two constituents.

No miscellaneous constituents were identified in the KE North Loadout Pit sludge.

A.3.3.1 Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Five sludge samples from KE floor sludge were analyzed for PCBs; 4 of these samples were below the quantitation method. For these samples, the method quantitation limit was used as the value for determining the average PCB concentrations. Concentration data for the calculations is taken from Makenas et al. (1999, Appendix B). The mean PCB concentration (nominal) settled sludge basis is calculated to be 38 ppm.

Two samples were analyzed for PCBs in the Weasel Pit sludge; one in duplicate and one analyzed four times. To determine the mean PCB concentration all six data points were averaged. Concentration data used in the calculations was taken from Makenas et al. (1999, Appendix B). The mean PCB concentration (nominal) settled sludge basis is calculated to be 74 ppm.

A-10


A.3.3.2 Organic Ion Exchange Resin

A.3.3.2.1 Possible Sources of Resin Beads.

The medium used in the ion exchange columns (IXC) and ion exchange modules (IXM) is Purolite NRW-37 mixed-bed resin (an organic ion exchange resin [OIER]). The IXCs were retired from service in 1991; the IXMs are currently used in the KE Basin. No process knowledge indicates resin beads were released into the basins; however, spherical resin beads were observed during wet sieving tests conducted with KE floor, Weasel Pit (Silvers 1998), and canister sludge samples (Makenas et al. 1997).

Potential pathways for the OIER to enter the KE Basin were investigated. One pathway is via the IXC system. Discharge water from the IXCs was directed into a collection tank (i.e., sump) located in the Sandfilter Backwash Pit. The overflow from this sump was drained, via a “6-in.” pipe, into the West Bay. The discharge from the pipe was above the canisters. Therefore, it is possible that resin beads from the IXCs were washed into the basin via the discharge from the “6-in.’’ pipe.

A second pathway for the OIER to have entered the basin is via the IXM system. When the IXMs were first put into service, the vent system did not have screens installed. During changeout, resin beads were observed coming up through the vent system. Because the vent system discharges into the South Loadout Pit, this would be a possible path for the resin beads to enter the basin. The IXMs were operated from 1984 to 1993 without screens. The physical amount of beads that escaped from the IXMs, however, was very small according to K Basin engineers.

Another possible pathway for the OIER to have entered the Weasel Pit is through a “3-in.” PVC pipe that was routed from the Sandfilter Backwash Pit to the Discharge Chute. During dose reduction activities this “3-in.’‘ PVC pipe was removed. Several hot spots were measured in the pipe, and it was speculated that the dose came from captured resin beads. The contents of the discharge chute were pumped into the Weasel Pit in 1994; therefore, the presence of resin beads in the Weasel Pit could be from the transfer of Discharge Chute material into the Weasel Pit.

A.3.3.2.2 Quantity of Purolite NRW-37 Resin Beads.

Characterization data show resin beads in one of the two sieved KE Basin floor samples (Sample KES-H-08). The sample with beads was obtained from Bay 3 (the West Bay); the sample with no beads was obtained from Bay 1 (the East Bay). None of the floor samples from Bay 2 (the Center Bay) were sieved. From visual observation (Silvers 1998) it was estimated that 75 vol% of the floor sample (H-OS) comprised beads.

Characterization data indicated that the bottom layer of sample KES-TZO had a “significant” fraction of resin beads (Makenas et al. 1997, page 1-8). This sample was later subjected to wet sieving. No resin beads were reported in the sieved and presieved fractions.

A-1 1

This discrepancy is being investigated but to date has not been resolved. One other sample (KES-S-19 from the Weasel Pit) also was analyzed by wet sieving. Visual observation of the sieved fractions did not show resin beads in this sample either. It is therefore concluded that the Weasel Pit does not contain OIER. If definitive data are provided on the percentage of beads observed in the samples, the value of OIER in the KE Weasel Pit will be adjusted accordingly.

The following assumptions were used to estimate the nominal volume of OIER in the KE Basin floor sludge. (1) Because the pathways for beads to enter the basin are both through Bay 3, and no beads were found in the one sieved sample from Bay 1, it is assumed that only Bay 3 contains OIER. (2) It is assumed that a small quantity (approximately 1 ~01%) of beads entered Bay 3 through the IXM vent system before the screen was installed. (3) It is estimated that there is 11.1 m3 of “floor” sludge in Bay 3. (4) 12.5% of Bay 3 sludge volume contains 75 vol% beads. (5) 12.5% of Bay 3 sludge volume. contains 1 vol% beads. The nominal estimate of OIER is then calculated as: (0.125)(11.1 m3)(0.75 +0.01) = 1.05 m3.

The OIER concentration in the KE Basin floor sludge was calculated assuming an OIER density of 1.2 gkm’ (MSDS):

1.05E+06 cm3 OIER X 1.2 g OIER = 0.058605 g OIER 21 .5E+06cm3 sludge cm3 OIER cm3 sludge

For a bounding value, it is assumed that 25 vol% of the Bay 3 sludge volume contains OIER. The bounding volume of OIER is calculated as: (0.25) x (1 1.1 m3) = 2.78 m3.

A.3.3.2.3 Organic Ion Exchange Resin Radionuclide Content.

Radioisotope

The radionuclide content for the OIER on a dry solids basis are provided in Table A-5. It is assumed the radionuclide content in the OIER would be equivalent to the values reported for Sample KES-H-08 (Makenas et at. 1996) because this sample contained approximately 75 vol% OIER.

Table A-5. Organic Ion Exchange Resin Radionuclide Content - Dry Solids.

PCVP

’ I Mean of Alpha Energy Analysis (AEA) and Gamma Energy Analysis (GEA) results.

I I

A-12


A.3.3.3 Zeolite

According to K Basins personnel (Hoefer 1997), four screen failures are known to have occuned in the IXCs during the KE Basin fuel segregation campaign (1983/1984). When the screens failed, the entire contents of the IXCs were flushed to the Discharge Chute. Each failed screen released approximately 0.14 m’ (5 Et3) of zeolite (Zeolon 900) for a total of approximately 0.57 m3 (20 Et’). The material in the Discharge Chute was pumped into the Weasel Pit in 1994. One of the floor samples (H-08) contained approximately 35 wt% zeolite (Schmidt et al. 1999). Therefore it is assumed that the zeolite is split between the Weasel Pit and floor sludge with 75 wt% assumed in the Weasel Pit.

The zeolite concentration in the KE Basin sludge was calculated assuming a density of 0.67 gkm’ (bulk density measured in the laboratory):

0.57E+06 cm’ zeolite X 0.67 g zeolite = 0.037812 g zeolite 10.1 OE+06 cm’ sludge cm3 zeolite cm3 sludge

For a bounding value, it is assumed that the volume of zeolite has an uncertainty of 30%. The bounding volume of zeolite is calculated as: (1.30) x (0.57 m’) = 0.74 m’.

A.3.4 KE FLOOR, WEASEL PIT, AND NORTH LOADOUT PIT SLUDGE FINAL COMPOSITIONS

The nominal chemical, radionuclide, and miscellaneous component compositions for the KE floor, Weasel Pit, and North Loadout Pit sludges are presented in Tables A-6, A-7 and A-8, respectively.

A-13


Table A-6. KE Floor Sludge Nominal Composition.

A-14


Table A-7. KE Weasel Pit Sludge Nominal Composition.

A-15


Table A-8. KE North Loadout Pit Sludge Nominal Composition.

A-16

~


A.4.0 REFERENCES

Baker, R. B., 1998, (External Letter to K. L. Pearce, [”C] “Revised Estimates of Sludge Volumes In K East and K West Basins,” DESH-9857199), DE&S Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Bechtold, D. B., 1994, Report ofLaboratoiy Test Plan for Analysis ofKE Basin Backwash Pit Samples, WHC-SD-NR-TRP-021, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Bredt, P. R., C. H. Delegard, A. J. Schmidt, K. L. Silvers, 1999a, Testing and Analysis of Consolidated Sludge Samples from the I05 K East Basin Floor and Canisters, 40143- RPTO1, Rev. 1, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Bredt, P. R., J. M. Tingey, and A. J. Schmidt, 1999b, Compilation and Integration of K Basin Particle Size Analysis Data, 30855-05, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Hoefer, V. L., 1997, (Personal Communication with D. R. Precechtel, November 25,1997), DE&S Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., A. J. Schmidt, K. L. Silvers, P. R. Bredt, C . H. Delegard, E. W. Hoppe, J. M. Tingey, A. H. Zacher, T. L. Welsh, and R. B. Baker, 1999, Supplementary Information on K-Basin Sludges, HNF-2367, Rev. 0, Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., T. L. Welsh, R. B. Baker, E. W. Hoppe, A. J. Schmidt, J. Abrefah, J. M. Tingey, P. R. Bredt, and G. R. Golcar, 1997, Analysis of Sludge from Hanford K East Basin Canisters, HNF-SP-1201, Rev, 0, prepared by DE&S Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., T. L. Welsh, R. B. Baker, D. R. Hansen, and G. R. Golcar, 1996, Analysis of Sludgefi-om Hanford K East Basin Floor and Weasel Pit, WHC-SP-I 182, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

Packer, M. J., 1999, 105-K Basin Material Design Basis Feed Description for Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Facilities, Volume I , Fuel, HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 1, Rev. 3, prepared by Numatec Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Schmidt, A. J., C. H. Delegard, K. L. Silvers, P. R. Bredt, C. D. Carlson, E. W. Hoppe, J. C. Hayes, D. E. Rinehart, S. R. Gano, and B. M. Thomton. 1999, Validation Testing of the Nitric Acid Dissolution Step Within the K Basin Sludge Pretreatment Process, PNNL- 12120, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

A-17

Silvers, K. L., 1998, (External Letter to R. P. Omberg, [DESH], “Transmittal of Report “K Basin Sludge Scoping and Supplementary Analyses”, PNNL 28507-05) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Warner, R. D., 1994, Safety Evaluation of the Plutonium and Uranium Content of the K East Basin Sandfilter Backwash Pit, WHC-SD-WM-TA-152, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

A-18


APPENDIX B

KE BASIN CANISTER SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS

B-1

~



B-2


Basin Location

Canisters - Full

Canisters - Empty

APPENDIX B

Volume’ Mass D e n s i e Settling Zeta Viscosity’ (m’) (Mg) (dcm’) Time’ Potential4 3.0 5.85 1.95 80% @ 1 hr 0 to -48 mV 20 P a s @ 0.1 s-I

@ P H 7 to 0.01 Pas @ 500 S-I

0.001 s-’ to 0.04 Pa.s @ 500 s-’

0.4 0.46 1.16 80%@1 hr -15mV@ 10000 Pa5 @ PH 7

KE BASIN CANISTER SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS

B.l.O INTRODUCTION

This appendix provides the characteristics of the sludge located in the K East (KE) Basin fuel storage canisters. In April 1996, nine sludge samples were collected from different storage canisters located throughout the KE Basin (Makenas et al. 1997). Two of the nine sludge samples were from empty canisters (Le., canisters that contain no fuel elements); the remaining seven samples were collected from full canisters (Le, canisters that contain fuel elements). Each sludge sample was collected in a sample container using specially designed equipment that ensured representative material was collected from each canister. Chemical, radiological, and physical properties have been determined and are reported in Makenas et al. (1997). The majority of the sludge from the full canisters consisted of uranium oxides and, in some cases, uranium hydrates. Unoxidized uranium metal or uranium hydride were not detectable by X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis; however, hydrogen generation (plus trace fission gases) was observed in the laboratory. Sludge from empty canisters consisted primarily of iron oxides and iron hydroxides.

B.2.0 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

B-3


B.2.1 PARTICLE SIZE

Particle size distribution (PSD) information for K Basin canister sludge is compiled in Bredt et al. (1999a). During the PSD analyses, different measurement techniques were used to cover the large range of particle sizes in the K Basin sludge (Le., submicron to 6350 pm). Specifically, sieving with wire mesh screens was used to segregate and quantify the PSD of the larger particles (250 to 6350 pm), and optical techniques were used to analyze the PSD of the smaller particles (between -0.12 and 710 pm). In Bredt et a1 (1999b) additional information on the particle size distribution of KE full canister sludge has been generated. The approach used in Bredt et al. (1999a) to integrate the two data types was to assume the density of the particles was uniform from 0.12 to 6350 pm. In Bredt et al. (1999b), new particle size data on a consolidated KE full canister sludge sample have been combined with the new dry particle density data and with the previously collected optical data to provide a more complete estimate of the particle size distribution anticipated for the full canister sludge. Integrating the new data with the earlier data leads to a revised full canister PSD curve, in which the full canister sludge appears finer than previously projected.

Integrated PSD curves for the KE full and empty canister sludge are shown in Figures B-1 and B-2, respectively, The error bars in the figures indicate the highest and lowest value measured for each particle size range (high-low bars). A line is used to connect the points, but this line is only provided to guide the eye to the next point and should not be used to interpolate values between points.

B.2.1.1 Organic Ion Exchange Resin

The manufacturer's specifications for Purolite NRW-37 indicate that the beads are between 16 and 40 mesh (US. Standard); less than 5% are greater than 1.2 mm and under 2% are less than 0.4 mm. Laboratory examinations of a limited number of samples have shown that approximately 70% (number average) of NRW 100 and 90% (number average) of NRW 400 are greater than 500 pm (wet). Approximations were made for the volume percent of beads above 500 pm. For NRW 100, most of the below 500 pm beads are about 425 pm (0.0402 mm3); while most of the above 500 pm beads are around 700 pm (0.18 mm3). From a volume perspective, 0.7(0.18)/[0.7(0.18) + 0.3(0.0402)] = 0.91 or 91% by volume are greater than 500 gm.

For NRW-400, most of the below 500 pm beads are about 450 pm (0.0477 mm3); while most of the above 500 pm beads are around 900 pm (0.382 mm3). From a volume perspective, 0.9(0.382)/[0.9(0.382) + 0.1(0.0477)] = 0.99 or 99% by volume are greater than 500 pm. The actual material in the K Basins is NRW-37, which is 1 part NRW-100 (40% by volume) and 1.5 part NRW-400 (60% by volume), therefore the volume of OIER above 500 pm is 0.97(0.4) + 0.99(0.6) = 0.96 or 96% (volume average). It is assumed that canister beads will be split between streams KE2 and KE3, with 96% going to KE2 and 4% going to KE3.

B-4


r

0 0 :: z 0 0 0

O r 0 d 0 g c o r. In 0 0 0 z


0 0 c

T 3 W N v) W

.-

.e" E

E-6


B.3.0 KE CANISTER SLUDGE COMPOSITION

This section establishes the chemical composition of the K East canister sludge. The characterization data in Makenas et al. (1997) were adapted for this activity.

B.3.1 CHEMICAL CONTENT METHODOLOGY

Based on the samples’ analyte concentrations given in Makenas et al. (1997, Appendix E) (units of characterization data were milligrams of analyte per gram of dry sludge), a mean concentration value for each analyte was calculated (less than values were not included in the calculations). No attempt was made to use depth weighting to adjust the mean value. The overall mean value does not include sample 96-01, because this sample yielded very different chemistry results when compared to other samples. The assumption was made that there was an inhomogeneity or dilution problem. For samples 96-04,96-06 and 96-1 1, the mass fractions (on a dry basis) for the layers formed during settling were determined using settled solids volume, settled sludge density and % water data. These fractions were then multiplied by the concentration data (dry basis) to give the average sample concentration (i.e., recompiled sample). The mean analyte concentrations are assumed to be representative of the whole volume of K East canister sludge.

The canister sludge is almost entirely the result of oxidation; therefore, to account for the total solids found in the sludge, the mean analyte concentrations were converted to the most probable oxidation product concentrations. The following equations demonstrate how this was done, using aluminum as an example:

The primary aluminum compound expected is aluminum hydroxide:

Atomic Weight Al(OH)3 = 77.99 glmole Atomic Weight AI = 26.98 glmole

Oxide Factor = 77.99/26.98 = 2.89

The amount of aluminum compound in the dry canister sludge was determined by multiplying the mean concentration for aluminum (39,622 pg/g of dry sludge, Table B-S), by the oxide factor

39,622 AI x 2.89 = 0.1145 gAI(OH)3 g dry sludge g dry sludge

B-7


Location Full Canister Sludge Empty Canister Sludge

Dividing the mean concentration per cubic centimeter of as-settled sludge by the mean concentration per gram of dry sludge, it was determined that there are 1.264 grams of dry canister sludge per cubic centimeter of as-settled canister sludge. This allows the following calculation:

Wt% Breakdown of Uranium into Compounds

U uo2 U@, U0,.4H20 u H 3

5.0 45.0 45.0 0.0 5.0 1 .o 49.5 49.5 0.0 0.0

B.3.1.2 Chemical Composition of the Aluminum Compounds

Table B-3 identifies the aluminum compounds that are expected in the full and empty canister sludge. The choices of aluminum hydroxide for the sludge from full canisters and aluminum oxide for the sludge ffom empty canisters are meant to be representative of multiple possible sources (sand, dirt, concrete walls) of sludge in the canisters. They are not meant to represent pure aluminum compounds but rather to allow a reasonable mass balance estimate of the aluminum compounds. Aluminum hydroxide was the most common aluminum compound identified in the XRD results for the K West (KW) canister sludge (Makenas et al. 1998, Appendix G). It is assumed that the primary aluminum compound in the K East full canister sludge will, therefore, also be aluminum hydroxide. Aluminum hydroxide was not identified in any of the floor or pit sludge samples, therefore, it was assumed that the floor and pit sludge only contained aluminum oxide. The sludge in the empty canisters is more characteristic of floodpit

B-8


Location Full Canister Sludge Emutv Canister Sludge

sludge will, therefore, also be aluminum hydroxide. Aluminum hydroxide was not identified in any of the floor or pit sludge samples; therefore, it was assumed that the floor and pit sludge only contained aluminum oxide. The sludge in the empty canisters is more characteristic of floodpit sludge than it is of full canister sludge; therefore it is assumed that the aluminum compound in the sludge from empty canisters will be aluminum oxide.

Wt% Breakdown of Aluminum into Compounds

Al(OH), A1,0, 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

B.3.1.3 Chemical Composition of the Iron Compounds

Iron hydroxide was the most common iron compound identified in the XRD results for the canister sludge (Makenas et al. 1997, Appendix J). It was assumed that all iron will be accounted for as iron hydroxide, as shown in Table B-4.

Table B-4. Weight Percent Iron Compounds in KE Canister Sludge. Wt% Breakdown of Iron into Compounds I

I

Location I FeO(OH) I I I ~ , - --, I Full and Empty Canister I 100.0 I

B.3.1.4 Chemical Composition of the Insoluble Solids

Sludge samples fkom KE canisters were dissolved in nitric acid. Some residues were left after digestion and analyzed by XRD. The XRD results indicated the residues are composed primarily of SO,. Residual solid weight data were not reported; therefore no residual solids values are assumed for the canister sludge.

B.3.2 RADIONUCLIDE METHODOLOGY

Based on the radionuclide inventory for each sample given in Makenas et al. (1997, Appendix E) (units of characterization data are microcuries per gram of dry sludge), a mean value for each of the radionuclides was calculated. The characterization data recorded two values for americium. The mean for americium is an average of the two reported values. The characterization data provides a value for Pu239/240 only. To calculate the individual Pu isotope 239, the isotopic ratios from KE Basin radioactivity inventories (Table 3.6 of Packer 1999) were used. Pu240 was then calculated from the difference between the measured Pu239/240 and the

B-9


calculated Pu239 values. The assumption is that the nominal isotope distribution for the KE sludge is equal to the nominal isotope distribution in the ICE fuel inventory. Several of the Pu238 data, for the full canister samples, are below the detection limit; therefore, values for Pu238 were determined from the average measured ratio (excluding the less than values) of P d 3 8 to Pu239/240 multiplied by the average measured value ofPu239/240. The Pu238 values reported for the empty canister sludge samples were used to calculate the mean value. No attempt was made to use depth weighting to adjust the mean values. The mean values are assumed to be representative of the whole volume of K East canister sludge.

B.3.3 KE CANISTER MISCELLANEOUS CONSTITUENTS

Two miscellaneous constituents were identified in the KE canister sludge; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and organic ion exchange resins (OIER). This section provides the basis for the reported quantities of these two constituents.

B.3.3.1 Polychlorinated Biphenyl Concentration

Based on the samples’ PCB concentrations given in Makenas et al. (1997, Appendix H) (units of characterization data were milligrams of analyte per kilogram of as-settled sludge), mean concentration values for the PCBs were calculated. Two analysis campaigns were conducted; Initial Analysis and Reanalysis. A higher mean was obtained from the initial analysis. Also, the results from data quality indicators (matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate) from the initial analysis were better than the results obtained during the reanalysis. Consequently, the nominal value for PCBs in the KE Canister sludge is based on the results from the initial analysis. The summary statistics that include the “less than values” are used in the analysis. The mean PCB concentrations (nominal) settled sludge basis for the full canister and empty canister sludge are calculated to be 0.196 ppm and 0.680 ppm, respectively.

B.3.3.2 Organic Ion Exchange Resin

The pathway for OIER to enter the KE canister sludge is also via the ion exchange column (IXC) system as described in Appendix A. The IXC discharge water drains into the basin through a “6-in.” pipe. Because the pipe outlet is located above the canisters, it is possible that the beads dropped into the canisters when the sump overflow was drained into the basin via the “6-in.’’ pipe.

Characterization data show resin beads in one of three, sieved canister samples. Two of the canister samples (96-1 1 and 96-06) were obtained from Bay 3 (the West Bay); the other sample (96-04) was obtained from Bay 2 (the Center Bay). Sample 96-1 1 had resin beads. From visual observation it is estimated that 10% of sample 96-1 1 comprises beads. Spherical beads also were noted lodged on top of spent fuel in KE near where beads were found on the KE Basin floor (Pitner 1995).

B-10


The following assumptions were used to estimate the nominal volume of organic resin

(1) Because the pathways for beads to enter the basin are both through Bay 3 and no beads in KE Basin canister sludge:

beads were found in the one sieved sample from Bay 2, it is assumed that only Bay 3 contains organic resin beads.

(2) 25% of the Bay 3 canister sludge volume contains 10% beads. (3) There are approximately 1.13 m3 of canister sludge in Bay 3. The nominal estimate

of OIER is calculated as (0.25)(1.13 m3)(0.10) = 0.028 m3.

The OIER concentration in the KE Basin canister sludge was calculated assuming an OIER density of 1.2 g/crn3 (MSDS):

O.O28E+O6 cm3 OIER X 1.2 8; OIER = 0.01 1 2 0 ~ OIER 3.0E+06cm3 sludge cm3 OIER cm3 sludge

For a bounding value, it is assumed that 25% of the Bay 3 canister sludge volume contains OIER. The bounding volume of OIER in the canister sludge equals 0.28 m3.

B.3.4 FINAL KE CANISTER SLUDGE COMPOSITION

The nominal chemical, radionuclide and miscellaneous compositions for the KE canister sludge are presented in Tables B-5 and B-6.

B-11


Table B-5. KE ‘‘Full’’ Canister Sludge Nominal Composition. -

B-12


Table B-6. KE "EmDN' Canister Sludge Nominal Comuosition

B-13


B.4.0 REFERENCES

Baker, R. B., 1998, (DESH Internal Letter to K. L. Pearce, W C ] “Revised Estimates of Sludge Volumes In K East and K West Basins,’’ dated August 1998), DE&S Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Bredt, P. R., J. M. Tingey, and A. J. Schmidt, 1999a, Compilation and Integration of K Basin Particle Size Analysis Data, 30855-05, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Bredt, P. R., C. H. Delegard, A. J. Schmidt, and K. L. Silvers, 1999b, Testing and Analysis of Consolidated Sludge Samples from the I05 K East Basin Floor and Canisters, 40143- WTOl, Rev. 1, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., T. L. Welsh, R. B. Baker, E. W. Hoppe, A. J. Schmidt, J. Abrefah, J. M. Tingey, P. R. Bredt, and G. R. Golcar, 1997, Analysis of Sludge from Hanford K East Basin Canisters, HNF-SP-1201, Rev. 0, prepared by DE&S Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., T. L. Welsh, R. B. Baker, G. R. Golcar, P. R. Bredt, A. J. Schmidt, and J. M. Tingey, 1998, Analysis of Sludge from Hanford K West Basin Canisters, HNF-1728, Rev. 0, prepared by DE&S Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Packer, M. J., 1999,105-K Basin Material Design Basis Feed Description for Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Facilities, Volume 1. Fuel, HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 1, Rev. 3, prepared by Numatec Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Pitner, A.L., 1995, KEast Basin Underwater Visual Fuel Survey, WHC-SD-SNF-TI-012, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington.

B-14


APPENDIX C

KE BASIN FUEL WASH SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS

c- 1



c-2


APPENDIX C

KE BASIN FUEL WASH SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS

C.1.0 INTRODUCTION

This appendix provides the characteristics of the K East Basin (KE Basin) fuel wash sludge components expected to be generated in the processing of fuel elements for dry storage. Before being sent to dry storage, the fuel storage canisters will be dumped into a primary washing machine that will be used to remove sludge from the surface of the fuel elements. Removing sludge from the fuel elements depends on the sliding action of the fuel elements against one another and the release of the solid particles by the rinsing action of a water jet. Due to the physical state of the stored fuel, it is expected that the washing process will cause further breakage of the fuel elements and will dislodge corroded uranium pieces, zirconium cladding, pieces comprising both uranium and zirconium, and loosely adhered materials (such as coatings and internal sludge). This dislodged material is referred to as the “fuel wash” sludge components: fuel pieces, coating, and internal sludge. A screen inside the washing machine separates particles less than 6350 pn (canister sludge and wash sludge components) from the fuel elements and fragments. From the washing machine, the sludge is then pumped to integrated water treatment system (IWTS) Knockout Pots. A feasibility study was conducted to determine if the KE fuel wash sludge could be stored in an isolated section of the Tech View Pit (TVP). This arrangement would allow a simplified KE IWTS to be used. The study concluded that storing the fuel wash sludge in the TVP would be acceptable provided the maximum allowed size of the particles is limited to 500 pm diameter pieces (Precechtel 1999). Therefore, it is assumed that the fuel wash sludge will be separated into two streams based on a particle size cut at 500 microns.

Experimental tests on the cleaning process have not been done; therefore, no samples of actual KE Basin fuel wash sludge exist. However, examinations were made of the surface and/or subsurface of a KE Basin fuel element. The examinations included collection of coating pieces from the fuel cladding and particles recovered from cracks in the fuel and from beneath the cladding material. Often the particulate material was accompanied by large (0.64 to 1.27 cm [0.25- to 0.5-in.]) pieces of fuel. In general, no great quantities of sludge or particulate fuel were found beneath the cladding breaches. However, substantial residue sample was obtained by straining the water from the spent fuel element container (SFEC) (shipping container used to transport the fuel element to the 300 Area hot cells), suggesting that loose fuel material escaped from breached areas during shipping and handling activities (Pitner 1997). The subsurface particles from the fuel elements and the residue from the SFECs make up the internal sludge. During the examinations, fuel pieces were also obtained; analyses were not performed on the fuel pieces. Characterization data from the subsurface fuel examinations (Makenas et al. 1999) and KE Basin fuel elements (Packer 1999) form the basis of the fuel wash sludge inventory.

c-3


Fuel Wash Component

Coating

Volume Mass Density (m3) (Mg) W m 3 )

0.061 0.092 1.49

0.518

0.149

Internal Sludge

Fuel Pieces

C.2.1 WASH SLUDGE COMPONENTS PARTICLE SIZE

1.55 3.0

1.64 11.0

This section provides the basis for particle size distributions for the three components of the wash sludge (coating, internal sludge, and fuel pieces). These distributions are estimated to calculate the composition of the sludge feed streams following particle separation in the IWTS knockout pot (cut at 500 pm).

C.2.1.1 Coating Material Particle Size

Data do not exist that delineate particle size measurements for the coating particles after the fuel washing operation and the subsequent transfer to the IWTS knockout pot. However, scanning electron microscopy images of the coating indicate that these materials are primarily flocculent agglomerates of submicron particles (Abrefah et al. 1998). It is likely that the particle sizes of the materials removed from the cladding will be below 500 pm after the fuel cleaning operation and the transfer to the IWTS knockout pot.

C.2.1.2 Internal Sludge Particle Size

Particle size distribution analyses (PSD) were performed on residual sludge samples R1 and R5 Bredt et al. 1999). Samples R1 and R5 were obtained h m the bottom of the SFECs that were used to transport KE and KW, fuel elements, respectively. During the PSD analyses, different measurement techniques were used to cover the large range of particle sizes in the K Basin sludge (i.e., submicron to 6350 pm). Specifically, sieving with wire mesh screens was used to segregate and quantify the PSD of the larger particles (250 to 6350 pm), and optical techniques were used to analyze the PSD of the smaller particles (below 710 pm). The PSD results for sample R5 indicate that all the solid particles or agglomerates were less than 500 pm in diameter, whereas 42.6 wt% of solids in sample R1 were above 710 pm. The large chunks in

c-4


R1 could be crushed by applying moderate pressure with a pair of tongs. These observations suggest that the large particles were agglomerates most likely generated by partial drymg of R1 before the samples were received at the Radiochemical Processing Laboratory (RPL, 325 Building). Thus, it is speculated that the R1 and R5 samples may have had similar wet sieving distributions if the samples had not dried prior to this testing. Based on these results, all of the particles in residual sludge sample R1 are anticipated to be below 500 pm.

The integrated PSD curve for the residuayintemal sludge is shown in Figure C-1. The error bars in the figures indicate the highest and lowest value measured for each particle size range (high-low bars). A line is used to connect the points, but this line is only provided to guide the eye to the next point and should not be used to interpolate values between points. It is assumed that all of the KE Basin internal sludge will reside in IWTS storage containers designed for particles less than or equal to 500 pm.

C.2.1.3 Fuel Pieces Particle Size

Currently no data exist on the fuel pieces, however, particle sizes for three spent nuclear fuel test samples that disintegrated after an oxidation run in a moist helium atmosphere were estimated from photographs. The average particle sizes for the three samples are 852 microns, 2241 microns, and 1160 microns (Abrefah 1999). Additionally, visual examination of the fuel pieces removed from the fuel element during the subsurface examinations show the pieces to be relatively large (i.e., greater than 500 pm). It is therefore judged reasonable to consider that 100 vol% of the fuel pieces will be above 500 pm.

C.3.0 KE BASIN WASH SLUDGE COMPOSITION

This section provides the basis for determining the chemical and radionuclide compositions for each of the wash sludge components (coating, internal sludge and fuel pieces). The elemental data are essential to identify solid phases in the fuel wash sludge components. These compositions are then used in defining the mean wash sludge component inventories.

C.3.1 KE WASH SLUDGE CHEMICAL CONTENT METHODOLOGY

(2.3.1.1 Coating Elemental Composition

Three KF! outer fuel elements (removed from KE canisters 2350E, 2540E, and 5427E) were brushed to remove the gray coating from the surface of the elements. Portions of the coating samples were analyzed using X-ray diffraction to identify the crystallographic phases present. The predominant species identified in samples from elements 2540E and 5427E were peroxide hydrate, UO4.4H2O, and dihydrate, U04.2H20 (Abrefah et al. 1998). In the coating sample from 5427E, the predominant species was U,O, (Makenas et al. 1999).

c-5


0 01

0 m 0 P-

0 N

0 0 0 0 c

0 0 z

0 0

0 c

.-

.- 6

0

C-6


Elements

Elemental data are available only on the coating sample from KE fuel element 5427E. This coating sample was subjected to inductively coupled plasma analyses (Makenas et al. 1999); the results are summarized in Table C-2.

CSI (pglg dry coating) Elements CSl (pg/g dry coating)

A1 B Ba Bi Ca Cr c u

76500 Fe 18600 1000 Mn 1370 543 Na 8700

Si - 1 1000 U 611000 510 Zn -

12300 Zr 4480

C.3.1.2 Internal Sludge Elemental Composition

The cladding around breached and cracked areas on one KE Basin fuel element was removed and subsurface particulate material was recovered from the top end, hanger, and lower end of the fuel element (Pitner 1997). The elemental compositions of these three internal sludge samples (SSLl, SSL2, and SSL3) were determined by inductively coupled plasma analyses (Makenas et al. 1999). The analyses are presented in Table C-3.

Element

A1 B Ba Bi

Sample Sample Sample SSLmean SSLl SSLZ SSL3

Sludge Sludge Sludge Sludge Pp/!zDry Irp/gDry I.rg/gDry Pg/&!Dry

4300 3150 4000 3,817

160 50.5 207 139

c-7


C.3.1.3 Wash Sludge Component Chemical Compounds

To determine the total solids found in the coating and internal sludge components, the oxide and hydroxide percentages were calculated using the likely oxidation state for each element (e.g. aluminum (111)). The very low level of other anions such as chloride, nitrate, and phosphate justifies this approach. The choice between oxide and hydroxide (which may sometimes appear arbitrary) was based on the following observations for the coating and internal sludge components.

Al(OH), has been observed in KW canisters and seems to result from the corrosion of the aluminum canister.

FeO(0H) often has been identified in KE canister and floor sludge.

UO, + 10% UH,: when uranium is corroding in water, the resulting corrosion product is a mixture of uranium oxide and uranium hydride. It has been shown that the UH3 percentage can vary between 2 and 9 wt% (Baker et al. 1966). As the presence of uranium hydride may impact the safety assessment of the transporthtorage container, a bounding value of 10% for the uranium hydride content was chosen for the internal sludge.

U04.4H,0 and U,O, have been identified in the coating; the best mass balance for the coating is obtained when using U04.4H,0.

The following equations demonstrate how the elemental data was used to convert to oxidation product concentrations (in weight percent) for the coating and internal sludge components. Aluminum is used as an example:

Atomic Weight AI(OH), = 77.99 g/mole Atomic Weight AI 26.98 g/mole

Oxide Factor = 77.99 = 2.89 26.98

The mean concentration of aluminum is 3,817 pg/g of dry sludge for the internal sludge component (the average of the three samples shown on Table C-3 was calculated to give the mean elemental concentration of each analyte). The weight percent of aluminum compound in the dry internal sludge was determined by multiplying the oxide factor by the mean analyte concentration then multiplying by 100.

C-8


The weight percent of aluminum compounds in the dry coating is determined by multiplying the oxide factor by the elemental concentration for aluminum, given in Table C-3, and multiplying by 100.

The composition of the fuel pieces generated in the primary washing machine are assumed to have the same composition as the KE Basin fuel elements (in particular, the U/Zr ratio will be identical). The composition of the fuel pieces is determined from the N Reactor fuel element data reported in Packer (1999, Table 2.1, page 5) . The composition of the fuel pieces is calculated as follows:

Uranium = 2.10/2.26 x 100 = 92.92 wt%

Miscellaneous = 92.92 - 6.55 = 0.53 wt %. Zirconium = 0.148/2.26 x 100 = 6.55 wt%

C.3.2 KE WASH SLUDGE COMPONENT CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Applying the assumptions and performing the calculations from Section C.3.1 for all identified elements and their associated oxide factor, the chemical composition for the coating, internal sludge, and fuel pieces was determined. The results are presented in Table (2-4.

Table C-4. Weight Percent of Wash Sludge Component Chemical Composition.

c -9


C.3.3 KE WASH SLUDGE RADIONUCLIDE METHODOLOGY

The radionuclide inventory for the coating and inteinal sludge components was determined from the radiochemistry results reported in Makenas (1999). Analysis for 90Sr was not performed for these samples. Therefore, the following equation was used to determine the "Sr content in the coating and internal sludge samples:

90Sr mensumd = @ h ~ r n d ) ~ ~ ~ o d g e # ~ ) ( P u d g e 3

where: Pu,,,easured = total measured plutonium reported in Makenas et al. (1999). PuOmgcn = total plutonium from ORIGEN data reported in Packer (1 999)

Sr,,,, = '%r from ORIGEN data reported in Packer (1999). 90

For the fuel pieces, the radionuclide inventory reported in Packer (1999, Table 3.6) presents ORIGEN results for KE Basin) has been used to derive a mean radionuclide inventory expressed in curies per gram of uranium.

C.3.4 KE WASH SLUDGE RADIONUCLIDE CONTENT

Table C-5 presents the radionuclide inventory for each of the three fuel wash sludge components. The fuel element coatings and internal sludge are designated CS and SSL, respectively.

C.3.5 KE WASH SLUDGE MISCELLANEOUS COMPOSITIONS

Organic ion exchange resins have been observed sitting on top of fuel elements in one canister (6753). These beads have been included in the KE canister sludge composition; therefore, it is assumed there are no organic ion exchange resins in any of the KE wash sludge components.

The only component from the KE wash sludge that has been analyzed for PCBs is the coating. A sample from a ScotchBrite abrasive pad that contained an unknown amount of CS 1 sample material was analyzed. The abrasive pad was used to scrape sample material free from the fuel or cladding substrate. The pad containing the held up sample material became part of the sample. No Aroclors were detected in any of the pad samples (Silvers 1998). Therefore, it is assumed that the fuel wash sludge components do not contain PCBs.

C.3.6 K EAST WASH SLUDGE FINAL COMPOSITION

Table C-6 lists the nominal chemical and radionuclide compositions of the KE wash sludge components (internal sludge, coating, and fuel pieces). The table also presents physical properties (mass, density, and volume) on dry and as-settled basis for each of the components.

c-10


Table C-5. KE Wash Sludge Radionuclide Inventory.

c-11


KE Fuel Wash Sludge

Coating

Conconhation of Concentration of Concentration of Internal Mass of dry Compound lor Compound for Compound for Sludge Fuel pieces sludge total CoaUng Internal Sludge Fuel Pieces

c-12


C.4.0 REFERENCES

Abrefah, J., 1999, Letter Report: Particle Sizes ofDisintegrated SNF Samples from TGA Oxidation Testing in Moist Helium, file/LB SNFCT99:04:R00, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Abrefah, J., S. C. Marshman, and E. D. Jenson, 1998, Examination of the Surface Coatings Removed from K-East Basin Fuel Elements, PNNL-11806, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Baker, M. McD., L. N. Less, and S. Orman, 1966, “Uranium + Water Reactions,” Trans. Farad. Soc. 62 (1966) 2513.

Bredt, P. R., J. M. Tingey, and A. J. Schmidt, 1999, Compilation and Integration of K Basin Particle Size Analysis Data, 30855-05, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., T. L. Welsh, P. R. Bredt, G. R. Golcar, A. J. Schmidt, K. L. Silvers, J. M. Tingey, A. H. Zacher, and R. B. Baker, 1999, Analysis ofInterna1 Sludge and Cladding Coatings from N-Reactor Fuel Stored in Hanford K Basins, HNF-3589, Rev. 0, prepared by Fluor Daniel Hanford Inc., for the U. S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington.

Packer, M. J., 1999, IO5-K Basin Material Design Basis Feed Description for Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Facilities, Volume I , Fuel, HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 1, Rev. 3, prepared by Numatec Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Pearce, K. L., and A. L. Pitner, 1998, KE Basin Sludge Volume Estimates for Integrated Water Treatment System, HNF-3166, Rev. 1, prepared by DE&S Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Pitner, A. L., 1997, K Basin Fuel Subsurface Examinations and Surface Coating Sampling, HNF-SD-SNF-TI-060, Rev. 0, prepared by DE&S Hanford Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Precechtel, D. R., 1999, Feasibility Study of Interim Storage of K East Basin Fuel Wash Sludge in the Tech View Pit, SNF-5269, Rev. 0, Fluor Daniel Hanford, Richland, Washington.

Silvers, K. L., 1998, (PNNL External Letter to R. P. Omberg [DESH] “K Basin Fuel Subsurface Sludge and Coating Analysis,” 28964-02), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

(2-13



C-14


APPENDIX D (DELETED)

KW BASIN FLOOR AND PIT SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS

This appendix has been deleted. The SNF Project has established a base assumption that the behavior and composition of floor and pit sludge in KW Basin are bounded by the floor and pit sludge in KE Basin (Interoffice Correspondence: E. W. Gerber, to D. W. Bergmann, Cancellation of K West Basin Sludge Sampling, 98-SNFEWG-004, dated December 15, 1999.). No additional KW data will be obtained.

D- 1



D-2

APPENDIX E

KW BASIN CANISTER SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS

E- 1

This page intentionally left blank

E-2


Basin Location

Canisters

APPENDIX E

Volume 1 Mass Density2 Settling Zeta Potential4 Viscosity5 (m3) (Mg) (g/cm3) Time3

1.01 2.71 2.68 80% @ 29 -28 to -34 mV 100 Pa*s @ 0.1 s-1 hr @ P H 7 to 0.5 Pa*s @ 300

s- 1

KW BASIN CANISTER SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS

E.1.O INTRODUCTION

This appendix provides the characteristics of the K West Basin (KW Basin) canister sludge contained in the he1 storage canisters. In December 1996, nine sludge samples were collected from nine different storage canisters located throughout the KW Basin (Makenas et al. 1998). Each sludge sample was collected in a sample container using specially designed equipment that ensured representative material was collected from each canister. Eight sludge samples contained enough material for analysis (Note, a ninth sample was attempted but proved to have too little material for analysis). Chemical, radiological, and physical properties have been determined and are reported in Makenas et al. (1998). The majority of the sludge from the fueled canisters consisted of uranium oxides and, in some cases, uranium hydrates, iron hydroxides, and aluminum hydroxide. The canister sludge also contained some uranium hydride as detected by X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses and large discrete flakes of graphite (from lid seals). This sludge has also exhibited hydrogen generation in the laboratory.

E-3


E.2.1 PARTICLE SIZE

Particle size data on the KW Basin canister sludge were compiled and analyzed to develop a comprehensive picture of the particle size distributions (PSDs) for this sludge type (Bredt et al. 1999). During the PSD analyses, different measurement techniques were used to cover the large range of particle sizes in the K Basin sludge (Le., submicron to 6350 pm). Specifically, sieving with wire mesh screens was used to segregate and quantify the PSD of the larger particles (250 to 6350 pm), and optical techniques were used to analyze the PSD of the smaller particles (below 710 pm). The results from sieving provided a distribution based on the mass of particles in different size ranges, while the results from optical techniques provided a distribution based on the volume of particles in different size ranges. The approach used in Bredt et al. (1999), to integrate the two data types, was to assume the density of the particles was uniform from 0.12 to 6350 pm. With this assumption, the volume percent of particles in a given range equals the mass percent in that range. Sieving showed, in conjunction with XRD, that the material above 710 pm (between 6350 pm and 710 km) was primarily Grafoil"' generated when the canisters were opened.

The integrated PSD curve for the KW canister sludge is shown in Figure E-1. The error bars in the figures indicate the highest and lowest value measured for each particle size range (high-low bars). A line is used to connect the points, but this line is only provided to guide the eye to the next point and should not be used to interpolate values between points.

E.3.0 KW BASIN CANISTER SLUDGE COMPOSITION

This section establishes the chemical composition of the KW canister sludge. The characterization data in Makenas et al. (1998) were used for this activity.

E.3.1 CHEMICAL CONTENT METHODOLOGY

Based on the analyte concentrations for each sample given in Makenas et al. (1998, Appendix C) (units of characterization data are micrograms of analyte per gram of dry sludge), a mean concentration value for each analyte was calculated (less than values were excluded from the calculations). No attempt was made to use depth weighting to adjust the mean value. The mean analyte concentrations are then assumed to be representative of the whole volume of KW canister sludge.

'Grafoil is a trademark of Lamons Metal Gasket Co.

E-4

~~


0 0 0 3 E:

0 vl m W 0

t-4 + - 0

X


To account for the total solids found in the sludge, and knowing that the sludge in the closed KW canisters are almost entirely the result of oxidation, the mean analyte concentrations were converted to the most probable oxidation product concentrations. The following equations demonstrate how this was done, using aluminum as an example.

The only aluminum compound identified was aluminum hydroxide (Makenas et al. 1998, Appendix G).

77‘99 - 2.89 Oxide Factor = - - 26.98

Atomic Weight Al(OH), = 77.99 g/mole

The amount of aluminum compound in the dry sludge was determined by multiplying the oxide factor by the mean analyte concentration for aluminum (20,446 pg/g of dry sludge, Table E-7).

Atomic Weight A1 = 26.98 glmole

0.0S91 g Al(0H ), g dry sludge

20,446 ” A’ x 2.89 = g dry sludge

Dividing the mean concentration per cubic centimeter of as-settled sludge by the mean concentration per gram of dry sludge, it was determined that there are 1.992 grams of dry sludge per cubic centimeter of as-settled sludge. This allows the following calculation.

0.0591g Al(OH), 1.992gdrysludge - - 0.1177g Al(OH), X ..

g dry sludge cm’ us - settled sludge cm3 us -settled sludge

The same calculation is performed for all identified elements and their associated compounds.

E.3.1.1 Chemical Composition of the Uranium Compounds

Multiple uranium compounds have been identified. To make a reasonable assumption for the mass of uranium compounds in the sludge, the following text was developed to document the basis for the assumed breakdown.

E-6


Location U I uoz I U30, I U0,.4H,O I u H 3

KW Canister Sludge I 5.0 I 45.0 I 45.0 I 0.0 5.0

Location KW Canister Sludge

E.3.1.3 Chemical Composition of the Iron Compounds

Iron hydroxide was the most common iron compound identified in the XRD results for the KW canister sludge (see Makenas et al. 1998, Appendix G). It has been assumed that all iron will be accounted for as iron hydroxide, as shown in Table E-6.

Table E-6. Weight Percent of Iron Compounds in KW Canister Sludge.

I Wt% Breakdown of Iron into Compounds

AI(OH), I A1,0, 100.0 1 0.0

I I Location I FeO(Om I I . I

KW Canister Sludge I 100.0 I

E-7


E.3.2 RADIONUCLIDE METHODOLOGY

Based on the radionuclide inventory for each sample given in Makenas et al. (1998, Appendix C) (units of characterization data are microcuries per gram of dry sludge), a mean value for each of these radionuclides was calculated. The characterization data recorded two values for americium. The mean for americium is an average of the two reported values. The characterization data provides a value for Pu239/240 only. To calculate the individual Pu isotope 239, the isotope ratios from KW Basin radioactivity inventories (Table 3.7 in Packer 1999) were used. Pu240 was then calculated from the difference between the measured Pu239/240 and the calculated Pu239 values. The assumption is that the nominal isotope distribution for the KW sludge is equal to the nominal isotope distribution in the KW fuel inventory. No attempt was made to use depth weighting to adjust the mean values. The mean values are then assumed to be representative of the whole volume of KW canister sludge.

E.3.3 KW CANISTER MISCELLANEOUS CONSTITUENTS

Two miscellaneous components were identified in the KW canister sludge; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and Grafoil’. This section provides the basis for the reported quantities of these two constituents.

E.3.3.1 Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Based on the samples’ PCB concentrations given in Makenas et al. (1998, Appendix E) (units of characterization data were milligrams of analyte per gram of as-settled sludge), a mean concentration value for the PCBs was calculated. The summary statistics that include the “less than values” are used for the calculation of the nominal and bounding PCB concentrations in the KW canister sludge. The mean PCB concentration (nominal) settled sludge basis is calculated to be 1.15 ppm.

E.3.4.2 Grafoil@

The estimated nominal mass of Grafoil” expected in KW canister sludge is 55.8 kg (Pearce and Pitner 1998) on a dry basis. It is assumed that the bounding mass is approximately 139.5 kg (dry basis).

E.3.5 KW CANISTER SLUDGE INVENTORY

The nominal chemical, radionuclide and miscellaneous compositions for the KW canister sludge are presented in Table E-7.

E-8


Table E-7. KW Canister Sludge Nominal Composition.

E-9


E.4.0 REFERENCES

Baker, R. B., 1998, (DESH Internal Letter to K. L. Pearce, [NHC] “Revised Estimates of Sludge Volumes In K East and K West Basins,”), DE&S Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Bredt, P. R., J. M. Tingey, and A. J. Schmidt, 1999, Compilation and Integration ofK Basin Particle Size Analysis Data, 30855-05, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., T. L. Welsh, R. B. Baker, G. R. Golcar, P. R. Bredt, A. J. Schmidt, and J. M. Tingey, 1998, Analysis of Sludge from Hanford K West Basin Canisters, HNF-1728, Rev. 0, prepared by DE&S Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Packer, M. J., 1999, 105-K Basin Material Design Basis Feed Description for Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Facilities, Volume I , Fuel, HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 1, Rev. 3, Numatec Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Pearce, K. L., and A. L. Pitner, 1998, K West Basin Sludge Volume Estimates for Integrated Water Treatment System, HNF-3165, Rev. 1, prepared by DE&S Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

E-10


APPENDIX F

KW BASIN FUEL WASH SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS

F- 1



F-2


APPENDIX F

KW BASIN FUEL WASH SLUDGE CHARACTERISTIC

F.l.O INTRODUCTION

This appendix provides the characteristics of the K West Basin (KW Basin) fuel wash sludge components expected to be generated in the processing of fuel elements for dry storage. Before being sent to dry storage, the fuel storage canisters will be dumped into a primary washing machine that will be used to remove sludge from the surface of the fuel elements. Removing sludge from the fuel elements depends on the sliding action of the fuel elements against one another and the release of the solid particles by the rinsing action of a water jet. Because of the physical state of the stored fuel, it is expected that the washing process will cause further breakage of the fuel elements and will dislodge corroded uranium pieces, zirconium cladding, pieces comprising both uranium and zirconium, and loosely adhered materials (such as coatings and internal sludge). This dislodged material is referred to as the “fuel wash” sludge components; fuel pieces, coating, and internal sludge. A screen inside the washing machine separates particles less than 6350 pm (canister sludge and wash sludge components) from the fuel elements and fragments. From the washing machine, the sludge is then pumped to the KW Integrated Water Treatment System (IWTS) Knockout Pots, which separates these sludges into two streams based on particle size.

Experimental tests on the cleaning process have not been done; therefore, no samples of actual KW Basin fuel wash sludge exist. However, examinations were made of the surface and/or subsurface of four KW Basin fuel elements. The examinations included collection of coating pieces from the fuel cladding and particles recovered from cracks in the fuel and from beneath the cladding material. Often the particulate material was accompanied by large (0.64 to 1.27 cm [0.25- to OS-in.]) pieces of fuel. In general, no great quantities of sludge or particulate fuel were found beneath the cladding breaches. However, substantial residue sample was obtained by straining the water from the spent fuel element container (SFEC) (shipping container used to transport the fuel elements to the 300 Area hot cells), suggesting that loose fuel material escaped from breached areas during shipping and handling activities (Pitner 1997). The subsurface particles from the fuel elements and the residue &om the SFECs make up the internal sludge. Characterization data from the subsurface fuel examinations (Makenas et al. 1999 and Silvers 1998) and KW Basin fuel elements (Packer 1999) form the basis of the fuel wash sludge inventory.

F.2.0 KW WASH SLUDGE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES

The physical properties were determined from the subsurface fuel examination data and are documented in Pearce and Pitner (1998). A summary of the physical properties for the “as- settled” fuel wash sludge components is presented in Table F-1.

F-3


(m3)

0.406 Coating

Table F-1. KW Fuel Wash Component “As-Settled” Sludge Physical Properties I Fuel Wash Component I Volume I Mass I Density

(Mg) (g/cmS)

0.609 1.49

0.518 1.55 Internal Sludge 3.0

0.149 Fuel Pieces

F.2.1 WASH SLUDGE COMPONENT PARTICLE SIZES

1.64 11.0

This subsection provides the basis for particle size distributions for each of the three components of the wash sludge (coating, internal sludge, and fuel pieces). These distributions are determined to calculate the composition of the sludge feed streams following particle separation in the IWTS Knockout Pot (cut at 500 pm).

F.2.1.1 Coating Material Particle Size

No data currently exist that delineate particle size measurements for the coating particles after the fuel washing operation and the subsequent transfer to the IWTS Knockout Pot. Visual observations indicated that the coating flakes off in approximately 1-in. pieces. It is anticipated that the coating will further break apart into pieces that are below 500 pm during the fuel cleaning operation and subsequent transfer to the IWTS.

F.2.1.2 Internal Sludge Particle Size

Particle size distribution (PSD) analyses were performed on residual sludge sample R5 (Bredt et al. 1999). Sample R5 was obtained from the bottom of the shipping container (SFEC) that was used to transport KW Basin fuel elements. During the PSD analyses, different measurement techniques were used to cover the large range of particle sizes in the K Basin sludge (Le., submicron to 6350 pm). Specifically, sieving with wire mesh screens was used to segregate and quantify the PSD of the larger particles (250 to 6350 pm), and optical techniques were used to analyze the PSD of the smaller particles (below 710 pm). The PSD results for sample R5 indicate that all the solid particles or agglomerates were less than 500 pm in diameter.

The integrated PSD curve for the residualhnternal sludge is shown in Figure F-1. The error bars in the figures indicate the highest and lowest value measured for each particle size range (high-low bars). A line is used to connect the points, but this line is only provided to guide the eye to the next point and should not be used to interpolate values between points. It is assumed that all of the KW Basin internal sludge will reside in the IWTS settler tanks.

F.2.1.3 Fuel Pieces Particle Size

Particle size data for the fuel pieces do not exist; however, particle sizes for three spent nuclear fuel test samples that disintegrated after an oxidation run in a moist helium atmosphere

F-4

HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 2. Rev. 3

I I \ I I I I I I I

I I I I

I _ .

I __

0 0 0 2

0 0 z

0 0 c

0

? 0

F-5


were estimated from photographs. The average particle sizes for the three samples are 852 microns, 2241 microns, and 1160 microns (Abrefah 1999). Additionally, visual examinations of the pieces removed from the fuel element during surface examinations show the pieces to be greater than SO0 pm. It is therefore judged reasonable to consider that 100 vol% of these pieces will be above SO0 bm.

F.3.0 KW BASIN WASH SLUDGE COMPOSITION

This section provides the basis for determining the chemical and radionuclide compositions for each of the wash sludge components (coating, internal sludge, and fuel pieces). The elemental data are essential to identify solid phases in the fuel wash sludge components. These compositions are then used in defining the mean wash sludge components inventories.

F.3.1 WASH SLUDGE CHEMICAL CONTENT METHODOLOGY

F.3.1.1 Coating Elemental Composition

Elemental analytical data are available for coating samples (CS2, CS3, CS4, and CS7) obtained from four KW Basin fuel elements. The elemental compositions of the coating samples have been determined by inductively coupled plasma analyses (Makenas et al. 1999). The results are summarized in Table F-2.

Table F-2. Coating Elemental Composition.

2Aluminum Rich Coating

F-6


Sample SSLS

Element pg/g dry sludge

Sample SSLS

Element pg/g dry sludge

AI I 19400 I Fe I 1100

Si Bi

B I I Mn I210

14000 Ba I 120 I Na I 4700

Cr

c u

200 Zn

Zr 560

Ca I Iu I 918000

F.3.1.3 Wash Sludge Component Chemical Compounds

To determine the total solids found in the coating and internal sludge components, the oxide and hydroxide percentages were calculated using the likely oxidation state for each element (e.g., aluminum (111)). The very low level of other anions such as chloride, nitrate, and phosphate justifies this approach. The choice between oxide and hydroxide (which may sometimes appear arbitrary) was based on the following observations for the coating and internal sludge components.

Al(OH)3 has been observed in K West canisters and identified by X-ray diffraction in coating sample CS4.

FeO(0H) has often been identified in K East canister and floor sludge.

E-7


U02 + 10% UH3: when uranium is corroding in water, the resulting corrosion product is a mixture of uranium oxide and uranium hydride. It has been shown that the U H 3 percentage can vary between 2 and 9 wt% (Baker et al. 1966). Because the presence of uranium hydride may impact the safety assessment of the transporthtorage container, a bounding value of 10% for the uranium hydride content was chosen.

U044H20 has been identified by X-ray diffraction on KE fuel elements.

The following equations demonstrate how the elemental data in Tables F-2 and F-3 were used to convert to the oxidation product concentrations (in weight percent) for the coating and internal sludge components:

Atomic Weight Al(OH)3 = 17.99 gho le Atomic Weight A1 26.98 g/mole

Oxide Factor = 77.99 = 2.89 26.98

The mean concentration of aluminum is 194,104 pg/g of dry material for the coating component. The weight percent of aluminum compound in the dry coating was determined by multiplying the oxide factor by the mean analyte concentration, then multiplying by 100.

The weight percent of aluminum compounds in the dry internal sludge were determined by multiplying the oxide factor by the elemental concentration for aluminum given in Table F-3 , then multiplying by 100.

The composition of the fuel pieces generated in the primary washing machine are assumed to have the same composition as the fuel elements (in particular, the U/Zr ratio will be identical). The composition of the fuel pieces then is determined from the N Reactor fuel element data reported in Packer (1999, Table 2.1, page 5). The composition of the fuel pieces is therefore calculated as:

Uranium =2.10/2.26 x 100 = 92.92wt% Zirconium = 0.14W2.26 x 100 = 6.55 wt% Miscellaneous = 92.92 - 6.55 = 0.53 wt %.

F.3.2 KW Wash Sludge Chemical Inventory

Applying the assumptions and performing the calculations, from section F . 3 . 1 , for all identified elements and their associated oxide factor, the chemical inventory for the coating, internal sludge, and fuel pieces was determined. The results are presented in Table F-4.

F-8


Table F-4. Weight Percent Component Chemical Composition.

F.3.3 KW WASH SLUDGE RADIONUCLIDE METHODOLOGY

The radionuclide inventory for the coating and internal sludge components were determined from the radiochemistry results reported in Makenas et al. (1999). Analysis for 90Sr was not performed for these samples. Therefore, the following equation was used to determine the 9% content in the coating and internal sludge samples:

where: PUmeas,red = total measured Pu reported in Silvers (1998) Puorigen = total Pu from origen data reported in Packer (1999) 90Srofigen = 90Sr from origen data reported in Packer (1999).

For the fuel pieces, the radionuclide inventory reported in Packer (1999, Table 3.7 provides ORIGEN results for KW Basin) has been used to derive a mean radionuclide inventory expressed in curies per gram of uranium.

F.3.4 KW Wash Sludge Radionuclide Inventory

Table F-5 presents the radionuclide inventory for the three fuel wash sludge components. The fuel element coatings and internal sludge are designated as CS and SSL, respectively.

F-9


Table F-5. KW Wash Sludge Radionuclide Content.

F.3.5 KW WASH SLUDGE MISCELLANEOUS COMPOSITIONS

The only component from the KW wash sludge that has been analyzed for PCB is the coating. Samples from the surfaces of four KW fuel elements (6743U, 7913U, 0161M, and 266711) were analyzed. All of the samples, except CS4, were ScotchBrite abrasive pads which contained an unknown amount of sample material. The abrasive pads were used to scrape sample material free from the fuel or cladding substrate. The pad containing the held up sample material became part of the sample. Sample CS4 is a precipitated material which was present on the fuel cladding in relatively large quantity. Therefore, CS4 sample material was collected without including the abrasive pad. No PCBs were detected in any of the pad samples. Coating sample CS4 reported a maximum PCB concentration of 0.081 ppm (Silvers 1998). Because of the low values reported for the coating materials and lack of data for the fuel pieces or internal sludge, it is assumed that the fuel wash sludge components do not contain PCBs.

F.3.6 KW WASH SLUDGE COMPONENT INVENTORY

The nominal chemical, radionuclide, and miscellaneous component inventories for the KW wash sludge components are presented in Table F-6.

F-10


Table F-6. KW Fuel Wash Sludge Component Nominal Composition.

~ ~~~

Balance ~ ~ . ~ .~ . ~ .. .~~

Mlscellaneous

F-1 I

~


F.4.0 REFERENCES

Abrefah, J., 1999, Letter Report: Particle Sizes of Disintegrated SNF Samples from TGA Oxidation Testing in Moist Helium, file/LB SNFCT99:04:R00, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Baker, M. McD., L. N. Less, and S. Orman, 1966, “Uranium +Water Reactions,” Trans. Farad. SOC. 62 (1966) 2513.

Bredt, P. R., J. M. Tingey, and A. J. Schmidt, 1999, Compilation and Integration of K Basin Particle Size Analysis Data, 30855-05, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Makenas, B. J., T. L. Welsh, P. R. Bredt, G. R. Golcar, A. J. Schmidt, K. L. Silvers, J. M. Tingey, A. H. Zacher, and R. B. Baker, 1999, Analysis of Internal Sludge and Cladding Coatings from N-Reactor Fuel Stored in Hanford K Basins, HNF-3589, Rev. 0, Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Pearce, K. L., and A. L. Pitner, 1998, K West Basin Sludge Volume Estimates for Integrated Water Treatment System HNF-3 165, Rev. 1, prepared by DE&S Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Pitner, A. L., 1997, KBasin Fuel Subsurjace Examinations and Surface Coating Sampling, HNF- SD-SNF-TI-060, Rev. 0, prepared by DE&S Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Packer, M. J., 1999, 105-K Basin Material Design Basis Feed Description for Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Facilities, Volume 1, Fuel, HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 1, Rev.3, prepared by Numatec Hanford, Inc., for Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Silvers, K. L., 1998, (PNNL External Letter to R. P. Omberg [DESH] “K Basin Fuel Subsurface Sludge and Coating Analysis,” 28964-OZ), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

F-12

~


APPENDIX G

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF K BASIN SLUDGE DATA

K. L. Pearce T. L. Welsh

G- 1



G-2


APPENDIX G

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF K BASIN SLUDGE DATA

G.l.O INTRODUCTION

The sludge inventory is based on the following three components.

Chemical and radionuclide sludge characterization data in terms of pg/g dry sludge or pCi/g dry sludge

Sludge volume data in terms of cm3 of as-settled sludge

Solids content in terms of g dry sludge/cm3 as-settled sludge

For most analytes from each sludge location (Le., floor, pit, canister) the chemical sludge inventory (g analyte) is equal to pg/g dry sludge times g dry sludge/cm3 as-settled sludge times cm3 as-settled sludge. The radionucide sludge inventory (Ci analyte) from each sludge location (Le., floor, pit, canister) is equal to pCi/g dry sludge times g dry sludge/cm3 as-settled sludge times cm3 as-settled sludge. If needed, the specific activity is then used to convert from Ci analyte to g analyte. Thus, sludge inventory can be represented by the following equation

I = x Y Z (1)

where X represents the chemical and radionuclide concentration, Y represents the solids content, and Z represents the volume. The data source for each component (X, Y, 2) for each sludge location is discussed in Appendices A through F.

In order to determine an upper bound for the sludge inventory it is necessary to estimate the variability associated with the measurements used to determine the sludge inventory. There are several methods used to estimate the variability. The most common is the sample variance (Var), which is usually denoted as s2. In this appendix, S2 will be used instead of s2. The standard deviation (S or STD), which is the square root of the variance, and the relative standard deviation (RSD), which is the standard deviation divided by the mean (nominal is used in this document to represent the mean value), are other ways of stating the variability estimate. range, which is the difference between the largest and smallest values in a sample, can also be used to describe the spread or variability of a data set.

The

Once the sludge inventory value and its associated variability are estimated for each analyte, then uncertainty statements can be calculated. Two different uncertainty statements are provided in this document. The first is a tolerance interval. Statistical tolerance limits are used to make statements about the population based on the data from a random sample of the population. Statistical tolerance limits furnish limits between which it is confidently expected to

G-3


find a prescribed proportion of the individual items of the population, e.g., there is 95% confidence that 95% of the population lie between the lower tolerance limit (LTL) and the upper tolerance limit (UTL). The second is a confidence interval for the mean value. Confidence limits can be determined so that the interval between these limits will cover a population parameter (like the mean) with a certain confidence, e.g., there is 95% confidence that the mean lies between the lower confidence limit (LCL) and the upper confidence limit (UCL). For both uncertainty statements, it was assumed that the data were from a normal distribution.

Thus, for each analyte two different bounding sludge inventory values are provided. The intended use of the data dictates the selection of the appropriate bounding sludge inventory value.

Some of the equations used to calculate the uncertainty estimates for the sludge stream functions (6) are as follows.

RSD (6) = S (f,) / ( f i ) , ( f i ) represents the nominal or mean value (2)

s (fJ = )vav(ji)

Therefore, by substitution:

RSD ( 6 ) = / (4) .

The square of the RSD is then

RSD2(f,) = Var ( f i ) / (fJ2 .

The variance is then determined by

(3)

(4)

(5)

Var (4) = (fJ2 x RSD2(fJ . (6)

For f = xyz, where x, y, and z are independent, the RSD2(f) is calculated using the following equation.

RSD2 (xyz) = RSD2(x) + RSD2(y) + RSD2(z) + RSD2(x)*RSD2(y) + RSD2(x)*RSD2(z) + RSD~(Y)*RSD~(Z) + RSD~(X)*RSD~(~)*RSD~(Z) (7)

G-4


The upper tolerance limit (UTL) and lower tolerance limit (LTL) for the data is

(LTL, UTL) = X 2 K x o,,~ (8)

where Xis the nominal or mean value of the function f, K is a factor for two-sided tolerance limits for normal distributions (found in tables - Handbook 91) and otoml is the square root of the Var(f,) from Equation 6.

The upper confidence limit (UCL) and lower confidence limit (LCL) for the mean is

where X is the nominal or mean value of the function f, t is from the Student’s t-distribution with (n-1) degrees of freedom (dn, umtal is the square root of the Var(fJ from Equation 6, and n is the number of observations (sludge samples) from which the mean and variability estimate were calculated.

G.l.l SLUDGE LOCATION COMPOSITION CALCULATIONS

The function (A,) used to calculate the sludge composition (i.e., chemical and radionuclide inventories) for each sludge location (i.e., floor, pit,’and canister) is defined by the following equation (see Appendices A through F for detailed discussion).

A, = gram (or pCi) = Ci * Fi * Vi (1 0)

where: Ci is the mean (nominal) analyte concentration in pg/g dry sludge or pCi/g dry sludge, Fi is the nominal solid content in gdry sludge/cm’ as-settled sludge (the factor used to convert the dry state analyses to an as-settled state), and Vi is the nominal as-settled volume in cm’ for the sludge location(s).

This methodology for determining the sludge composition (mean concentration times the mean solids content times the mean sludge volume) and the associated variability assumes that the data for each component of the equation is from a normal distribution. The uncertainty associated with this assumption is not known and has not been included in the total uncertainty for the sludge inventory.

The variance associated with the sludge compositions, Var(A,), is calculated using the following equation.

Var(A,) = V u (Ci Fi Vi) = (Ci Fi Vi)* x RSD2(Ci Fi Vi) (1 1)

where: Var(Ci Fi Vi) is the total uncertainty associated with the sludge compositions.

G-5


Assuming that Ci, Fi, and Vi are independent, the Var(A,) is calculated using the following equation.

Var(A,) = (Ci Fi Vi)’ x [RSD2(Ci) + RSD2(Fi) + RSD2(Vi) + RSD2(Ci)*RSD2(Fi) + RSD2(Ci)*RSD2(Vi) + RSD2(Fi)*RSD2(Vi) + RSD’(Ci)*RSD2(Fi)*RSD2(Vi)] (12)

The following sections describe the methodology employed when equations 10, 11, and 12 are not used to determine the sludge composition components and their associated uncertainties.

G.l . l . l Coating and Internal Sludge Variance Calculations

The variance for the coating and internal sludge radionuclide data is calculated using equation (12). However, the data for the chemical analytes is given on a weight percent basis. Therefore, the equation used to calculate the chemical composition is as follows.

A, (for coating and internal sludge) = gram = pi *Vi * Wt%i where:

pL is the density (assumed to be a point constant; i.e. no variability) and p, *V, = M, (M is the mass)

Assuming that M, and Wt%, are independent, the variance for the coating and internal sludge chemical analytes is calculated using the following equation.

Var(A,) = (M,*Wt%J2 x [RSD2(Wt%,) + RSD2(V,) + RSD’(Wt%,)*RSD’(V,)J (14)

G.1.1.2 Miscellaneous Solids and Fuel Pieces Variance Calculations

The OIER, zeolite, zircalloy-2, grafoil and he1 pieces do not have analytical data from which the uncertainty (RSD) can be determined, therefore, the uncertainty used in the calculations of the UTLs for these parameters employ the following h c t i o n

Var(XJ [(B-N)/3]’ (1 5)

where B is an independently determined bounding value and N (or Xi) is the nominal value.

If data are from a normal distribution, then approximately 99.7% of the data lie within the mean f 3 standard deviations (maximum - minimum = 60). Thus, if the bounding value is assumed to be the maximum value, the difference between the bounding and nominal values would estimate 3 0 .

G-6


The uncertainty in terms of RSD’ for these components is then determined by substituting the variance into equation (4).

RSD’ (xi) = var(x,) (xi)2 (16)

G.1.1.3 Sludge Volume Variance Calculations

Nominal estimates of sludge volumes in the K Basins were calculated using various methodologies (i.e, direct measurements of sludge in various sections of the Basins, cesium measurements in Basin water and visual observations of fuel elements, etc. [Baker 19981). Calculations of bounding estimates of sludge volumes were also made using various methods. Because not all methods would provide the data from which an estimate of the uncertainty could be calculated, the same methodology used for the miscellaneous solids and fuel pieces was employed to estimate the uncertainty associated with the sludge volume. Therefore, equation (15) was used to calculate Var(V,), the variance for the volumes.

G.1.1.4 Sludge Mass Variance Calculations

The function (Mi) used to calculate the sludge mass for each sludge location (i.e., floor, pit, and canister) is defined by the following equation.

Sludge Mass (Mi) = Density (pi) x Volume (Vi) (17)

To calculate the as-settled sludge mass, density (p) is equal to the as-settled density and to calculate the dry sludge mass, p is equal to the solid content. The volume (V) term is the as- settled volume in both cases. The variance associated with the sludge mass, Var(M), is calculated using the following equation

Var (Mi) = Var (piVi ) = (piVi)’ x RSD’ (piVi) (18)

where: RSD2(pi Vi) is the total uncertainty associated with the sludge mass. Assuming that p and V are independent, the RSD’ (pi Vi) is calculated using the following equation.

RSD2(pi Vi) = [RSD2(pi) + RSDZ(Vi) + RSD’(pi)*RSD’(v,)] (19)

G.1.1.4.1 Fuel Wash Component Mass Variance Calculations

The fuel wash components (coating, internal sludge and fuel pieces) do not have analytical data from which the uncertainty can be determined. Therefore, the uncertainty estimates used for these parameters employ the same methodology used for calculating volume variances (discussed in section G. 1.1.2).

G-7


G.1.1.5 Degrees of Freedom

Bounds on the sludge inventory have been calculated using two methodologies. The first methodology is the tolerance interval (equation 8). The tolerance interval uses a factor K which is dependent on the degrees of freedom (dj) where dfis the number of observations used in calculating the mean and standard deviation (n) minus 1. The factor K is tabilized in Handbook 91. This particular reference provides the factor K by knowing n instead of n-1. The second methodology is the confidence interval for the mean (equation 9). The confidence interval for the mean uses a factor t +,,,2,df) where dfis as stated previously. The Students’-t is also tabilized in Handbook 91.

Varying numbers of samples were used in determining the uncertainty estimates of the analytes in each sludge location (i.e., floor, weasel pit, north loadout pit, KE canister, KW canister, coating and internal sludge). Therefore, the degrees of frecdom (dj) were based on the component of Var(A,) that was the major contributor to the Var(Ai). The associated number of analytical samples (n) associated with the major contributor was used to select the appropriate K factor. Since the dfare approximated, the uncertainty statements (tolerance interval and confidence interval for the mean) are also approximations.

For the OIER, zeolite, Zircalloy-2, grafoil and fuel pieces, n was conservatively assumed to be 3 and thus df =2.

G.1.1.6 Summary Statistics

The summary statistics for the sludge location compositions, are provided in Tables G-1 through (3-4. Tables G-1 and G-2 pertain to the tolerance intervals and Tables G-3 and G-4 pertain to the confidence intervals.

Tables G-1 and G-3 list the sludge composition for the KE Basin Pits (Weasel Pit, Tech View Pit, and Dummy Elevator Pit), the KE Basin Floor, the KE North Loadout Pit, KFi Canisters, KE Fuel Wash Coating, KE Fuel Wash Internal Sludge, and the KE Wash Fuel Pieces. It is assumed that the Weasel Pit data represented the other pits. The magnitude of the uncertainty associated with this assumption (weasel pit data represents the other pits) is unknown and has not been included in the total uncertainty for the sludge inventory. Tables G-2 and G-4 list the sludge compositions for KW Basin Pits (Weasel Pit, Tech View Pit, Dummy Elevator Pit, and Discharge Pit), KW Main Basin Floor, KW North Loadout Pit, KW canisters, KW Fuel Wash Coating, KW Fuel Wash Internal Sludge, and the KW Wash Fuel Pieces. It is assumed that (1) the KJ3 Basin Floor data represent the KW Basin Floor, (2) the KE North Loadout Pit data represent the KW North Loadout Pit, and (3) the KE Weasel Pit data represent the KW Basin Pits (Weasel Pit, Tech View Pit, Dummy Elevator Pit, and Discharge Pit). The magnitude of the uncertainty associated with this assumption (KE data represents the respective KW data) is unknown and has not been included in the total uncertainty for the sludge inventory.

G-8


The magnitude of the uncertainty associated with the assumption of types of compounds (see Tables G-1 through G-4) present in the sludge is unknown and has not been included in the total uncertainty for the sludge inventory.

G-9


G-10



G-12


G-13


G-14

HNF-SD-SNF-T1-009, Volume 2, Rev. 3

G-15


G-16


G-17


G-18


G-19


G.1.2 SLUDGE STREAM CALCULATIONS

The equations used to calculate the compositions for the six sludge streams are described in the following sections.

G.1.2.1 Sludge Stream KE1

KEI = Floor(f) + Pits@) +North Loadout Pit(np) + Empty Canisters(ec) + 83.33 vol%Fuel Canisters(fc)

where:

Pits@) = Weasel Pit + Tech View Pit + Dummy Elevator Pit

KE2 = 4.67 vol%*Fuel Canisters (fc) + Fuel Pieces (@)

f, = KE2 = (0.0467*V~cCfcFfc) + (VtpCtp)

G.1.2.3 Sludge Stream KE3

KE3 = 12 vol%*Fuel Canisters(fc) + Coating Sludge(cs) + Internal Sludge (is)

f, = JSE3 =(0.12*Vfc*CfcFfc)+ (M,,Wt%,J+ (MisWt%iJ

(2.1.2.4 Sludge Stream KWl

KW1 = Floor(wf) + Pits(wp) + North Loadout Pit(wnp)

where:

Pits(p) = Weasel Pit + Tech View Pit + Dummy Elevator Pit + Discharge Pit

G-20


G.1.2.5 Sludge Stream KW2

KW2 = Fuel Pieces (wfp)

f5 = KW2 = (V,&&)

G.1.2.6 Sludge Stream KW3

KW3 = KW Canister (wc) + Coating Sludge (wcs) +Internal Sludge (wis)

f6 = KW3 = (V,,C,,F,)+(M,,,Wt%,,,)+ (MWi,Wt%,J

G.1.2.7 Sludge Stream Variance

The variance associated with the compositions of the six sludge streams are calculated according to the following equation

Var (sludge stream 6) = Var (1 f,) = Var (fJ (assumption: 6 are uncorrelated) (26)

where:

Var (E 6) is the variance associated with the composition for sludge stream i.

The variance for each sludge stream is then determined using equations from section G. 1.1 with the corresponding sludge stream equation provided in sections G. 1.2.1 through G.1.2.6. For example, the sludge composition variances, Var(Ci Fi V,), for KE Basin sludge streams (KE1, KE2 and KE3), are calculated using the following equations.

G-2 1


Sludge Stream KEl

Var(KE1) = (27) (V,C,Fr)’*[RSD’(Cf) + RSD2(Ff) + [(Vb-Vn)/3]’/(Vf)’ + RSD2(Cf)*RSD2(Ff) + RSD2(Cr)*[(Vb-Vn)j3]’/(VJ2 + RSD2(Ff)* [(Vb-Vn)/3]’/(Vf)’+ RSD~(CJ*RSD~(FJ* [(v~-v~)~~I’ / (VJ’)I + (V,CpFP)**[RSD2(Cp) + RSD2(Fp) + [(Vb-Vn)J3l2/(Vp)’+ RSD2(Cp)*RSD2(F,) + RSD2(CP)*[(Vb-Vn)d3]’/(Vp)’+ RSD2(F,)* [(Vb-Vn)J3]’/(VP)’+ RSD~(C,)*RSD~(F,)* [(~b--Vn)~3]’/(V,)~] + (V,C,F,)’ [RSD2(CJ + RSD’(F,J + [(Vb-Vn)n/3]2/(V,,)2+ RSD2(C,)*RSD2(F,) + RSD2(C,)* [(Vb-Vn),/3I2/(V,)’+ RSD2(F,)* [(Vb-Vn),/3]’/(Vn)’+ RSD2(C,)*RSD2(F,)* [(Vb-Vn),/3]’/(VJ2] + (V,C,,F,)’ [RSD2(C,,) + RSD’(F,,) + [(Vb-Vn),,/3]’/(Ve,)’ + RSD2(CeC)*RSD2(Fec) + RSD2(Cw)* [(VbVn)J3I2/(VJ2 + RSD2(F,,)* [(Vb- V~).J~]’/(V,)’ + RSD~(C,,)*RSD~(F,,)* [(Vb-Vn),~3]’/(ve,)’] + (0.8333V,,C,F,)2 [RSD2(C,) + RSD2(F,) + [(VbVn),/3]2/(Vfc)2 +RSD2(C,)*RSD2(F,) + RSD2(C,)* [(Vb-Vn)fJ3]2/(VrJ2 + RSD2(F,)* [(Vb- WJ3l2~(VrJ2 + RSD’(CfJ*RSD2(Frc)* t(Vb-Vn)fc/312/(Vf321

Sludge Stream KE2

Var(KE2) = (28) (O.O467*V,*CrcF,)’ * [RSD2(Cf,) +RSD’(F,) +[(Vb-Vn)J3 ]’/(VrJ2 +RSD2(Cfc) *RSD2(F,) +RSD’(C,,)* [(Vb-Vn)fJ3]2/(Vfc)2 + RSD’(F,) *[(Vb-Vn),/31’/(V,)’ +RSD’(C,) *RSD2(FI,)* [(Vb-Vn),/3]2/(Vfc)2] + (V,C~)2*[[(Clo-Cn)d3]2/(C,)2 + [(v~-v~)J~]’/(v,)’ + [(~b-Cn)d31’/(~~)’* [(%-Vn)d3]’/(V,)’]

Sludge Stream KE3

Var(KE3) = (29) (0. 12*Vfc*CrcF,)’ * [RSD’(C,,) + RSD’(F,) +[(Vb-Vn)fJ3]2/(V,)2 + RSD2(C,)*RSD2(F,) +RSD2(C,)* [(Vb-Vn)fJ3]2/(VfJ’ + RSD2(F,) *[(Vb- V~),/~]’/(V~J’ +RSD’(C,) *RSD’(F,,)* [(Vb--~n),/3]’/(V,)’]] + (M,,*Wt%)2 * [RSD’(wt%)+ [(Vb--Vn),J3]2/(VCJ2+RSD2(wt%)* [(Vb-Vn),J3]2/(V,,)2] + (Mi,*Wt%)’*[RSD2(wt%)+ [(%-Vn)J3]’/(Vis)’ + RSD’(wt%)*[(Vb- vn),J3I’~(Vd2l

G-22


G.1.3 TOLERANCE LIMITS ON THE DATA

Statistical tolerance limits are used to make statements about the population based on the data fiom a random sample of the population. Statistical tolerance limits h i s h limits between which it is confidently expected to find a prescribed proportion of the individual items of the population, e.g., there is 95% confidence that 99% of the population lie between the lower tolerance limit (LTL) and the upper tolerance limit (UTL). An approximate 95,95 (95% confidence that 95% of the population lie between the UTL and the LTL) tolerance interval was calculated for each of the sludge streams chemical compositions, radionuclides, and mass. The upper tolerance limit (UTL) and lower tolerance limit (LTL) are calculated using equation 8 with the appropriate mean value and uncertainty estimate (described in previous sections of this appendix) substituted into the equation. It was assumed that the data were from a normal distribution.

The sludge stream mean composition, the degrees of freedom, the corresponding standard deviation, STD(C, Fi Vi), the relative standard deviation (RSD), and the approximate tolerance limits (UTL and LTL) are provided in Table G-5 for sludge streams KE1 and KWl, Table G-6 for sludge streams KE2 and KE3 and Table G-7 for sludge streams KW2 and KW3. The df(or n) are based on the component of Var(fJ that was the major contributor to the Var(fJ.

An approximate 95,95 tolerance interval was also calculated for various combinations of sludge streams, for example; 1) sludge streams KEl plus KW1,2) sludge streams KE2, KE3, KW2, KW3, 3) all six sludge streams and so forth. Tables G-8 through G-1 1 provide the tolerance limits for the stream combinations.

G.1.4 CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON THE MEAN

Confidence limits can be determined so that the interval between these limits will cover a population parameter (like the mean) with a certain confidence, e.g., there is 95% confidence that the mean lies between the lower confidence limit (LCL) and the upper confidence limit (UCL). An approximate 95% confidence interval for the mean was calculated for each of the sludge streams chemical compositions, radionuclides, and mass using equation 9 with the appropriate mean value and uncertainty estimate (described in previous sections of this appendix) substituted into the equation. It was assumed that the data were from a normal distribution.

The sludge stream mean composition, the degrees of freedom (dn, the corresponding standard deviation, STD(Ci Fi Vi), the relative standard deviation (RSD), and the approximate confidence limits for the mean (UCL,, and LCL,,& are provided in Table G-12 for sludge streams KE1 and KW1, Table G-13 for sludge streams KE2 and KE3 and Table G-14 for sludge streams KW2 and KW3. The df(or n) are based on the component of Var(f,) that was the major contributor to the Var(f,).

G-23


An approximate 95% confidence interval on the mean was also calculated for various combinations of sludge streams, for example; 1) sludge streams KEl plus KW1,2) sludge streams KE2, KE3, KW2, KW3,3) all six sludge streams and so forth. Tables G-15 through G-18 provide confidence limits for the stream combinations.

G-24


Table G-5. Tolerance Intervals for Sludge Streams KE1 and KW1.

G-25


Table G-6. Tolerance Intervals for Sludge Streams KE2 and KE3.

G-26


Table (3-7. Tolerance Intervals far Sludge Streams KW2 and KW3.

Lower/ Upper Tolerance Limits

G-21


Table G-8. Tolerance Intervals for KE Basin Sludge Stream Combinations.

G-28


Table G-9. Tolerance Intervals for KW Basin Sludge Stream Combinations.

G-29


Table G-10. Tolerance Intervals for Sum of KEKW Floor Sludge and Sum of KEKW Canister Sludge.

G-30


Table G-11. Tolerance Intervals for Sum of Six K Basin Sludge Streams.

G-3 1


Table G-12. Confidence Intervals for Sludge Streams KEl and KWl.

G-32


Table G-13. Confidence Intervals for Sludge Streams KE2 and KE3.

G-33


Table G-14. Confidence Intervals for Sludge Streams KW2 and KW3.

__. . . .-

G-34


Table G-15. Confidence Intervals for KE Basin Sludge Stream Combinations.

G-35


Table (3-16. Confidence Intervals for KW Basin Sludge Stream Combinations.

G-36


Table G-17. Confidence Intervals for Sum of KEKW Floor Sludge and KEKW Canister Sludge.

Residual solids

G-37


G-38


G.2.0 REFERENCES

Baker, R. B., 1998, (External Letter to K. L. Peace [NHC], “Revised Estimates of Sludge Volumes in K East and K West Basins,” DESH-9857199), DE&S Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Experimental Statistics, Handbook 91, United States Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Mary Gibbons Natrella, 1963, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 63-60072

G-39


G-40

~


APPENDIX H

PEER REVIEW

H- 1



H-2

HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009. Volume 2. Rev. 3

REVIEW CHECKLIST

locument Reviewed: HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 2 . Rev. 3, 105-K Basin Material Design Basis Feed Description f o r Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Facilities, Volume 2, Sludge

;cope of Review: Sections 1.0 through 3.0, Appendices A and B.

- Yes No NA 0 0 M ' w o o O O W E O 0 o o w Q O O w o 0 la00 $ l o o g o 0 o o & o o w d o 0 o o w (3-00 6300 O O W 0 0 w * d o 0

Previous reviews complete and cover analysis, up to scope of this review, with no gaps.

Problem completely defined.

Accident scenarios developed in a clear and logical manner.

Necessary assumptions explicitly stated and supported.

Computer codes and data files documented.

Data used in calculations explicitly stated in document.

Data checked for consistency with original source information as applicable.

Mathematical derivation checked including dimensional consistency of results.

Models appropriate and used within range of validity or use outside range of established validity justified. Hand calculations checked for errors. Spreadsheet results should be treated exactly the same as hand calculations. Software input correct and consistent with document reviewed.

Software output consistent with input and with resuits reported in document reviewed.

Limits/criteria/guidelines applied to analysis results are appropriate and referenced. Limits/criteria/guidelines checked against references. Safety margins consistent with good engineering practices.

Conclusions consistent with analytical results and applicable limits.

Results and conclusions address all points required in the problem statement.

Format consistent with appropriate NRC Regulatoty Guide or other standards.

Review calculations, comments, and/or notes are attached. - rtve-rJ , ~ r ( u Prc

Document approved.

9 @ r Q v t A ~ '0 KL p&,-

Rodft,d 3 S & d f rA 3-!-00 Reviewer (Printed Name and Signature) 0 Date

*Any calculations, comments, or notes generated as part of this review should be signed, dated and attached to this checklist. Such material should be labeled and recorded in such a manner as to be intelligible to a technically qualified third party.

H-3 A-W2-359 (Owe)


REVIEW CHECKLIST

locument Reviewed: HNF-SD-SNF-TI-009, Volume 2, Rev. 3, 105-K Basin Material Design Basis Feed Description for Spent Nuclear Fuel Project Facilities, Volume 2, Sludge

Scope of Review: Sections 2.0 and 3.0, Appendices C and F.

- Yes No NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

* Previous reviews complete and cover analysis, up to scope of this review, with no gaps.




Computer codes and data files documented



Mathematical derivation checked including dimensional consistency of results,


Software output consistent with input and with results reported in document reviewed.




Format consistent with appropriate NRC Regulatory Guide or other standards.

Review calculations, comments, and/or notes are attached.

Document approved.

*

3 - 5 - 0 0 Date

%LK s. Orkh Reviewer (Printed Name and Signa&)

*Any calculations, comments, or notes generated as part of this review should be signed, dated and attached to this checklist. Such material should be labeled and recorded in such a manner as to be intelligible to a technically qualified third party.

H-4 A-6002.359 (OUeS)

~~~

H"-SD-SNF;TI.oo9, VOIIUW 2, W. 1

REVIEW CHECKLIST

Iocument Reviewed. 4NF-SD-SNF-TI-009. Volume 2 . Rev 3, 105-K Basin Material Design Basis Feed Description for Spent Nuclear Fuel Prolect Facilltles, Volume 2, Sludge

Scope of Review: lppendices A through F.

- Yes No NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0




Necessary assumptions explicitly stated and supported. . Computer codes and data files documented.






Limitdcriterialguidelines applied to analysis results are appropriate and referenced Limits/criteria/guidelines checked against references. Safety margins consistent with good engineering practices.





Document approved.

*

C.e qeviewer (Printed Name and Signature)

'

'Any calculations, comments, or notes generated as part of this review should be signed, dated and attached to this checklist. Such material should be labeled and recorded in such a manner as to be intelligible to a technically qualified third party.

H-5 A-8002-359 (OUSS)

REVIEW CHECKLIST

locument Reviewed: ~NF-SD-SNF-TI-OO~, volume 2 , Rev. 3, 105-K Basin Material Design Basis Feed Description for spent Nuclear Fuel Project Facilities, Volume 2, Sludge

scope of Review: @4d* Fable 2 - 1 . Table 2-2, Table 3-z Table 3 - 3 and Appendix G.





Computer codes and data files documented.











Document approved.

'

3-5m.J B.A/ u u v u 3 - 1 - 0 2 2 Reviewer (Printed Name and Signature Date

'Any calculations, comments, or notes generated as pari of this review should be signed, dated and attached to this checklist. Such material should be labeled and recorded in such a manner as to be intelligible to a technically qualified third patty.

H-6 A-6002.359 (02/98)

Date post:	11-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times