UPDATING THE INEEL EIS BASELINE MODEL
Bradley S. Bowman, P.E.
Jason Associates Corp
477 Shoup Ave
Idaho Fall, ID 83402
Roger Twitchell
U.S. DOE-ID
785 DOE Place
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
Rick Sullivan
Jason Associates Corp
477 Shoup Ave
Idaho Fall, ID 83402
ABSTRACT
The Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory (INEEL) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Baseline model combines the best numerical features of a spreadsheet with the visual strengths of a process map. It provides a scenario planner capable of delivering multiple option scenarios in a minimum amount of time. Additionally, scenarios are delivered with a full suite of waste stream information unique to the parameters of the desired scenarios. The model has been used to anticipate possible INEEL Waste Management alternatives given multiple facility and process specific cut sets required due to recent changes in waste management policies.
INTRODUCTION
The Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel and Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory Environmental Impact Statement1 (DOE PSNF and INEEL EIS) establishes an environmental baseline. It analyzes the environmental impacts of conditions that existed, of operations that were ongoing, and of proposed and alternative future actions from the perspective of a single point in time. The integrated sitewide environmental modeling and impact analyses conducted for the EIS stopped when the Final EIS was issued. In order to meet the schedules outlined in the Settlement Agreement between DOE, the Navy, and the State of Idaho, DOE-ID began work on EIS level documentation for two major actions. The environmental baseline established for the EIS was updated. This required assembling and modeling data from sitewide environmental monitoring, from projects that have been implemented since the Final EIS was issued, and for the combination of actions contained in the EIS Record of Decision (ROD). This paper summarizes the analysis, methodology, implementation and results of the associated computer modeling project.
ANALYSIS
Updating the EIS Baseline model consisted of two major efforts; gathering quantified waste stream information and obtaining facility process information necessary to determine the output of all product, exhaust or waste flows emanating from each facility.
Because of the current emphasis on waste management practices, information on quantity of waste volume and characterization of waste streams were readily available. Information was obtained from EIS's, the Baseline Environmental Management Report (BEMR) and supporting documentation, and annual Waste Information documents for Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF), radiological and non-radiological waste.
After the information packets, including modeling equations, parameters, and input data were developed, they were sent to each facility representative for review. As the review comments were received, the information was modeled or updated as appropriate.
Upon completion of the modeling and update effort, each facility model was run and the results were graphed. These graphs were analyzed for continuity over the operations schedule of the facilities, bounding conditions and trends. Upon acceptance of the individual facility model, the facility waste streams were tied to the associated site waste stream accumulators and verified to contribute according to the operating campaigns planned. These results were then verified to meet sitewide treatment storage and disposal requirements as dictated by current and planned facility capacity.
METHODOLOGY
The INEEL Baseline was modeled using a matrix format with facilities as the ordinate, waste streams as the abscissa and intersecting nodes marking submodels which performed calculations specific to the facility mission. Waste streams were listed in a hierarchical order dependent upon the treatment scenarios, such that waste product and residue volumes would model downwards to their respective input waste model. This made programming and verification checks on the model construction layer significantly easier to follow to completion while ensuring daughter waste streams were accounted for at the highest possible level.
From the model construction layer, submodel were constructed to accurately depict the structure, flow rate, accumulative capacity and operating schedules of the facilities. Converters were used to send waste volumes from their incipient location to secondary and tertiary waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities for further operations and quantification into desired flow down waste treatment streams, until they were in final stable form.
Using this format and the capabilities of the iThink Analyst 4.0.2 software, we were able to comprehensively track and report both individual facility waste streams and comprehensive site waste totals. Additionally, sufficient data mapping controls necessary to support facility and site mission changes were maintained by this format. If necessary, it is possible to remove all data associated with the change request in a comprehensive and all encompassing manner utilizing the Find feature of the Analyst software.
IMPLEMENTATION
Forty facilities at the INEEL were modeled or updated with respect to both their process specific and project input to the following site waste streams:
Figure 1 is an example of the interfacility INEEL SNF Waste Steam Model, specifically the flow between the TRA PBF Fuel Storage and the CPP 666 Wet Storage Facility.
Fig. 1. Interfacility Waste Stream Model
In order to allow for intrafacility modeling, the submodel feature of the iThink Analyst2 was utilized for changes in current facilities operating parameters, (i.e., increases or decreases in process flow rates), future facility or "proposed actions", and additions or deletions (whole facilities). This allowed for rapid changes in small process specific parameters and also facilitated entire project deletion. Figure 2 is an example of intrafacility modeling that shows the Wet and Dry Fuel loading process at the CPP facility.
Fig. 2. Intrafacility Sub Model
RESULTS
Using the methodology described in the above "Description of Work" section, each INEEL waste stream was both graphically and numerically modeled. With each facility providing input to one or more of the waste streams, a graphical and/or tabular output of the INEEL specific waste stream was possible, in addition to each facility specific waste streams. With the ability to rapidly change operating parameters and/or entire facility functions, numerous "what if" scenarios were created to ensure that possible future actions could be dealt with, given the waste stream combined carrying capacity of the available treatment, storage and disposal units at the INEEL until the year 2035.
An example of the graphical output for the INEEL site SNF inventory is shown in Figure 3.
Fig. 3. Graphical Output of Selected Waste Stream
SUMMARY
In the ongoing effort to clean-up large facilities with a wide range of radioactive waste streams, the ability to adapt to new technology, changing regulations and budget shifts requires quick thinking and contingency planning. The use of modeling tools can allow the extrapolation of a wide range of possible scenarios. The knowledge that an organization can accommodate situations outside of the expected outcome allows these forward thinking groups the ability to benefit from change and use it to their advantage.
REFERENCES