QA Perspective from an NQA-1 Vendor - srs.gov · – Snubbers, ASME Section XI issues – NDE...

QA Perspective from an NQAQA Perspective from an NQA--1 Vendor1 VendorByBy

Mike McNamaraMike McNamaraPresidentPresident

THOR Treatment TechnologiesTHOR Treatment TechnologiesSeptember 16, 2010September 16, 2010

2

Introduction and BackgroundIntroduction and Background• THOR Treatment Technologies, is an LLC formed by URS

Corporation and Studsvik of Sweden, in 2002.• TTT was formed to bring the Steam Reforming process,

used by Studsvik for treatment of commercial radioactive waste at their plant in Erwin, TN since 1999, into the DOE complex.

• THOR?– THermal Organic Reforming

• All of TTT’s work requires the application of NQA-1

3

Introduction and BackgroundIntroduction and BackgroundThermal Organic Reforming• THOR uses 2 privately funded, patented, intellectual property

protected, non-incineration forms of thermal organic treatment:– Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR) of radioactive liquid

waste destroys organics and binds radionuclide's in an insolublematrix using superheated steam, along with co-reactants, in a fluidized bed reactor

– Autoclave pyrolysis of TRU waste, evaporates any liquids and destroy the organic content of TRU and mixed waste streams

4

Steam Reforming OverviewSteam Reforming Overview• Used extensively in the US and abroad for

thermal treatment processes– 100 years experience– Biomass gasification– Syngas production– Metal reduction– Chemical processes– Petroleum refinery applications– Pulp and paper industry

• Successfully deployed on commercial nuclear production scale– Studsvik Processing Facility for >10 years

5

Studsvik Processing FacilityStudsvik Processing Facility• Full-scale facility treats

commercial power plant waste– Radionuclide retention in solid

product >99.99%– >200,000 cu ft of LLW processed– >1,600 shipments– LLW dose rates up to 500 R/hr (Cs)– Waste feed: ion exchange resins,

plastics, cellulose, carbon, oils:• High salt content waste• High organic content

– Developed mineralization additives– 28 months from start of design to LLW

operations– Air permit (State of TN)– Radioactive materials license (State of

TN)

Studsvik Processing Facility, Erwin TN

6

FLUIDIZED BED STEAM REFORMINGFLUIDIZED BED STEAM REFORMING

7

Steam Reforming Treatment ProductsSteam Reforming Treatment Products

THOR Mineral Waste Form

THOR Monolith

8

TTT Current ProjectsTTT Current Projects-- Summary Summary

NQA-1

NQA-1

NQA-1

QA

8/2009—9/2015

11/2007—9/2010

5/2005—12/2012

Performance Period

Savannah River Remediation LLC

(SRR)

Design, procurement, fabrication and start-up support services for a THOR® FBSR Process to treat ~300K gallons of radioactive waste

Savannah River SiteTank 48 Waste Treatment

Department of Energy (DOE-EM-31)

Demonstrate THOR® FBSR Process for Treatment of Hanford LAW and WTP SW waste streams

Advanced Remediation Technologies (ART) Phase II

CH2M WG Idaho, LLC, (CWI)

Provide process start-up technical support for the IWTU facility, employing the THOR®

FBSR Process to treat ~1 million gallons of radioactive sodium bearing waste

Idaho Cleanup Project (ICP) Integrated Waste Treatment Unit (IWTU)

CustomerObjectiveProject

9

TTT Current Projects TTT Current Projects –– IWTU IWTU

• Background– TTT Mission: Demonstrate process, design, and assist with start-

up of a THOR® facility to treat ~1 million gallons of sodium bearing waste at INL

– Contract awarded to TTT May 2005– Carbonate flow sheet pilot plant and reporting work completed

August 2006; facilitated construction start April 2007– Mineralizing pilot plant work and reporting completed July 2007– Most of detailed design (CD-3) completed by TTT when CWI

assumed all design agency functions in late 2008– Currently supporting ORR and start up

10

INTEC INTEC ––IWTU Facility For Sodium Bearing IWTU Facility For Sodium Bearing Waste TreatmentWaste Treatment

11

IDAHO ENGINEERING SCALE DEMONSTRATION

Mix Tanks and Product Receiver Reformer and Filter

12

TTT Current Projects TTT Current Projects –– ART ART

• Background– Mission: Demonstrate capability of THOR® Process to convert

Hanford LAW and WTP SW waste streams into a final waste form suitable for long-term on-site disposal

– Phase 2 contract awarded September 2007– Completed FBSR pilot plant work July 2008– BSR work at SRNL in 2008/2009 produced final monolith waste

forms that show considerable promise to meet Hanford Site mission

– On going BSR (hot) work at SRNL

13

SRR Tank 48 ProjectSRR Tank 48 Project

• Background– Completed initial pilot plant demonstration test in 2006 – 3 Phases of additional pilot demonstration pilot plant work

completed in 2009– Design, procurement, fabrication and support awarded to TTT on

8/3/09– Scope includes design and fabrication of a FBSR plant to treat ~

300,000 gallons of waste stored in the SRS Tank 48– FBSR to be installed by SRR in existing Bldg. 241-96H at the SRS

14

BenchBench--Scale Demonstration SystemsScale Demonstration Systems

SRNLBench-Top Steam Reformer

15

Savannah River Site Tank 48 ProjectSavannah River Site Tank 48 Project

16

17

TTT’s Quality Assurance ProgramTTT’s Quality Assurance Program

• 18 Criteria from NQA-1– Criterion 1 (Organization) through 18 (Audits)

• Policy Statement that:– Reinforces integrity– Discusses Price Anderson Act application– Assigns management of the QA Program to the QA Manager– Assigns QA Program Ownership to the President

• QA Introduction Section that Discusses:– Application of the QAP– Project specific implementation procedures– The Graded approach to quality

18

Perspective From an NQAPerspective From an NQA--1 Vendor1 VendorSome Lessons Learned from the Nuclear Environment• Technical issues

– Base materials (piping, plate, structural shapes, forgings, castings) – Welding: (IGSCC, hydrogen cracking, delayed cracking, materials,

consumables, fit up, WPS/PQR’s, welder qualification, documentation)– High strength bolt problems (friction vs. bearing connections, A325 vs.

A490)– Rebar problems (bending, dimensional tolerances, welding)– Concrete problems (mix designs, slump, constituent storage, vibration,

weather, curing, testing)– Nelson stud welding problems– Snubbers, ASME Section XI issues– NDE problems (RT, UT, PT, MT)– Too numerous to mention, but $100’s of millions spent

19

Perspective From an NQAPerspective From an NQA--1 Vendor1 VendorSome Lessons Learned from the Nuclear Environment• Non Technical issues

– Training of personnel– Graded approach to quality and spent fuel storage programs– Commercial grade dedications– Configuration management

• QA Programmatic Issues– Institutional memory– Use of non NQA-1 vendors– New management– New markets– New personnel– Cost cutting initiatives– Client requested changes– Overall industry atrophy of NQA-1 knowledge and experience

20

Perspective From an NQAPerspective From an NQA--1 Vendor1 VendorThe Role of the QA Program Owner;

• The QA manager typically reports to a management level where there is sufficient independence from cost and schedule considerations.– This is usually the QA Program owner

• The QA program owner must be capable of assuring compliance withall applicable QA, regulatory and contractual requirements and for developing and maintaining a culture of continuous improvement and high integrity.– How does the QA program owner do this?– Quality issues must never be off their radar screen!

21

Perspective From an NQAPerspective From an NQA--1 Vendor1 VendorQA Program Essentials

– Identification of conditions adverse to quality• The production line• Audits• Surveillances• Inspections• Tests• Examinations

– Evaluating the condition and the specifics of non compliance• Understanding the condition• Applicable documents• Regulatory requirements• Perspective of the client and the vendor

22

Perspective From an NQAPerspective From an NQA--1 Vendor1 VendorQA Program Essentials• The Corrective Action Process

– Conditions adverse to quality, DR’s, NCR’s, etc.– Screening and evaluation– Significant conditions adverse to quality– Extent of condition– Root cause evaluations– Measures to prevent recurrence– Effectiveness of corrective actions

23

Perspective From an NQAPerspective From an NQA--1 Vendor1 VendorSummary• Quality is everyone’s responsibility• You cannot inspect quality into the work• Quality begins with the contract

– QA program– Execution procedures– Personnel knowledge and training– Workers provided with the time and resources to perform– Compliance with documented requirements– Documentation of results– Management’s visible support of quality– Continuous improvement of the QAP