Abstract The Feed Materials Production
Center at Fernald, Ohio produced uranium-metal products for the defense program for more than 37 years. Since 1989, when operations were suspended, the Department of Energy's mission
has been to achieve compliance with applicable environmental requirements and clean up the inactive sites and facilities. The Department of Energy separated the Fernald site into five
(5) specific clean up areas, called Operable Units. This paper reviews the value study performed on the remediation measures outlined for Operable Unit Four (OU-4) in the 1994 Record
of Decision.
Background
Operable Unit Four consists of Silos 1 through 4 and their ancillary structures, located in the southwestern quadrant of
the Fernald site. Silos 1 and 2 contain about 216,300 cubic feet of radium bearing residues that were by-products of uranium ore processing. The residues emit radon gas which has been
contained inside the tanks by various interim actions to berm around and cover the tanks with soil and/or bentonite clay mixtures. Silo 3 contains about 137,500 cubic feet of dry powdery
waste residues in approximately equal proportions of aluminum, calcium, iron and magnesium oxides, and sodium salts. Silo 3 materials contain only small amounts of radium and other metal
oxides. Silo 4 was never used and is not a hazard. The ancillary structures include a decant sump tank, a radon treatment system, a portion of concrete pipe trench and concrete structures,
the soils immediately beneath and surrounding the silos, and ground water that may be perched in the immediate area.
The 1994 Record of Decision remediation actions consisted of 3 basic elements:
(1) Remove, vitrify (turn into a glass composite), package and ship the hazardous materials in Silos 1, 2 and 3 and the
decant sump tank to the Nevada Test Site for permanent storage. Vitrification would be initiated by processing material in a small Vitrification Pilot Plant (VITPP) and the process
would be completed by a second, larger plant Fernald Residues Vitrification Plant (FRVP).
(2) Demolish the silos, decant sump tank, radon treatment system, concrete pipe trench and concrete structures, decontaminate
the debris to the maximum extent practical, and dispose of the waste materials on the site.
(3) Remove the silo's berms, covers and underlying soils (to remediation levels), and restore the natural grade with clean
fill. Demolish the vitrification unit and associated facilities, and decontaminate the debris to the extent practical. Store these materials on site for final disposition as a part
of the remediation actions for Operable Units Three and/or Five.
The Value Study
The study team received an initial briefing from the OU4 Project Director and members of the OU4 project team from both
the Department of Energy's Miamisburg, Ohio Field Office, and the Fernald Environmental Restoration Management Corporation (FERMCO) to familiarize them with the Fernald site, the Operable
Unit and the remediation proposal.
Consistent with the job plan, the team prepared a cost model and a Functional Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagram to
develop a common understanding of the project's functional elements and costs. The cost model highlighted the second, larger vitrification plant, (FRVP), as a high cost element since
it represented more than 62 percent of the total budget. The Functional Analysis System Technique (FAST) diagram identified "remove contamination" and "restore site"
as the project's basic functions. Additionally, the team found that FERMCO was considering removing the Silo 3 material from the scope of Operable Unit 4 and including their processing
as part of the Operable Unit 1 (Pit 5) remediation. This change had the potential to reduce the volume of material to be vitrified by about one-third. Additionally, the project team
indicated that because the project was significantly outside the budget and scheduled milestones, they were considering accelerating the procurement of the second vitrification plant.
Based on their evaluation of the available information, the team focused their attention on the removal process, specifically the second vitrification plant and alternative methods of
encapsulating the material for shipment that could comply with the Department of Transportation regulations and Nevada Test Site waste acceptance criteria.
In the speculation or focused brainstorming phase, the team proposed several ideas for processing the materials, packaging
the processed materials for shipment, and removing and transporting the materials, that targeted the high cost vitrification process and defined alternatives with the potential for significant
savings.
In the analysis and evaluation phase, the team reviewed, rated and ranked the ideas to identify those with the best chance
of success and the highest potential for added value. As commonly occurs, the team was forced to limit the number of ideas that would be developed into proposals because of time constraints.
The team based its evaluation of the ideas on the critical factors of environmental quality, time and cost.
The team created, expanded and refined their proposals in the development phase. The proposals were subjected to technical
and subjective analysis to assure that each could be presented with a high degree of confidence that it was both technically sound and capable of execution within the given environmental,
social and economic criteria and limits.
Proposals Presented
The team presented three proposals, where proposal 2 contained two alternatives, either of which could be implemented but
not both. The essence of the three proposals was:
(1) Vitrify the silo 1 and 2 materials with an enhanced version of the pilot plant (VITPP) that includes a second melter;
process the silo 3 materials separately (either using the inorganic stabilization and vacuum extrusion in proposal 2, or including them as part of Operable Unit 1's remediation, being
considered by FERMCO); and eliminate the second vitrification plant. This proposal had the potential to save almost $52 million.
(2A) Process Silo 3 Materials Only by vacuum extrusion with inorganic stabilization, using lime or Portland cement, and
activated carbon used for stabilization and/or a packing additive to retard radon release. This proposal had the potential to save almost $68 million.
(2B) Process All Materials by vacuum extrusion with inorganic stabilization, using lime or Portland cement, and activated
carbon used for stabilization and/or a packing additive to retard radon release. This proposal had the potential to save almost $96 million and 5 years.
(3) Transport the processed and packaged materials initially by rail and transfer to truck at a point close to final storage
location at the Nevada Test Site. This proposal had the potential to save almost $4 million.
Summary
Typical of most value studies, the team developed specific proposals with the potential to improve the project's value by
focusing on the project's function(s) and high cost elements. In this example, the proposals had the potential to reduce cost by about $100 million and construction time by as much as
5 years, which is a significant savings when contrasted against a study that lasted five days and cost about $63,000.
|
