ML090990055

NYSERDA Comments on Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project to the Us Department of Energy (Enclosure 3)

ML090990055
Person / Time
Site:	West Valley Demonstration Project, P00M-032
Issue date:	04/01/2009
From:	Bembia P State of NY, Energy Research & Development Authority
To:	Bower B NRC/FSME, US Dept of Energy, West Valley Demonstration Project
References
Download: ML090990055 (12)

Text

Enclosure #3:

"Additional NYSERDA Comments on the Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project to the U.S. Department of Energy"

NYSER10A New York State Energy Research and Development Autharity Vincent A. Delorio, Esq., Chairman Toll Free: 1 (866) NYSERDA 7

www.nyserda.org

• info@nyserda.org April 1, 2009 Mr. Bryan C. Bower, Director U.S. Department of Energy West Valley Demonstration. Project 10282 Rock Springs Road West Valley, NY 14171-9799

SUBJECT:

Additional NYSERDA Comments on the Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project, dated December 3, 2008.

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is providing the enclosed comments on the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project, Rev. 0 (Phase 1 DP), dated December 3, 2008. Appendix D, Rev. 1, dated March 2009, was also reviewed.

NYSERDA engaged an Independent Expert Review Team (IERT) to supplement staff review of the Phase 1 DP. As a result, NYSERDA comments are presented in three separate documents:

"NYSERDA Comments on the Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy" (Enclosure 1)

Independent Review of the Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project, March 25, 2009 (Enclosure 2) 0 "Additional NYSERDA Comments on the Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project to the U.S. Department of Energy" (Enclosure 3),

NYSERDA respectfully requests that DOE provide a written response describing how NYSERDA's individual comments and the concerns raised by the IERT will be addressed in DOE's next revision of the Phase 1 DP.

Any questions regarding the enclosed comment packages should be directed to Paul Piciulo, Ph.D., at (716) 942-9960 extension 4378.

Sincerely, EST VALLEY SITE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Paul J.

q

~ a irector PJB/09amd016.plp Main Office West Valley Site New York City Buffalo Albany Management Program 485 Seventh Ave., Suite 1006 Larkin at Exchange Building 17 Columbia Circle 10282 Rock Springs Road New York, NY 10018 726 Exchange Street, Suite 821 Albany, NY 12203-6399 West Valley, NY 14171-9799 Phone: (212) 971-5342 Buffalo, New York 14210 Toll Free: 1 (866) NYSERDA Phone: (716) 942-9960 Fax: (212) 971-5349 Phone: (716) 842-1522 Phone: (518) 862-1090 Fax: (716) 942-9961 Fax: (716) 842-0156 Fax: (518) 862-1091

Messr. Bryan Bower Page 2 April 1, 2009 PLP/amd

Enclosures:

1. "NYSERDA Comments on the Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy"

2.

Independent Review of the Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project, March 25, 2009

3. "Additional NYSERDA Comments on the Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project to the U.S. Department of Energy" cc:

K. I. McConnell, USNRC (w/Enc. 3)

L. W. Camper, USNRC (w/Enc. 3)

C. J. Glen, USNRC (w/Enc. 3)

R. Tadesse, USNRC (w/Enc. 3)

P. A. Giardina, USEPA (w/Enc. 3)

M. N. Maloney USDOE-WVDP (w/Enc. 3)

E. E. Dassatti, NYSDEC (w/Enc. 3)

G. A. Baker, NYSDOH (w/Enc. 3)

H. Brodie, NYSERDA-Albany (w/o enc.)

D. A. Munro, NYSERDA-Albany (w/Enc. 3)

J. C. Kelly, NYSERDA-WV (w/Enc. 3)

A. L. Mellon, NYSERDA-WV (w/Enc. 3)

P. L. Piciulo, Ph.D., NYSERDA-WV (w/Enc. 3)

B. J. Garrick, IERT (w/Enc. 3)

File #60203 (w/Enc. 3)

NOTE: Enclosures 1 &2 were distributed under separate cover (Letter, Paul Bembia to Dr. Keith I. McConnell, USNRC, "NYSERDA Comments on the Phase I Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project, dated December 3, 2008," dated April 1, 2009).

PJB/09amdO I6.plp

Additional NYSERDA Comments on the Department of Energy's Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project, Dated December 3, 2008

1

'Sec

'hion,

-.4

'(Tqb eiF.,.r.....Comment

.. Prop o sed R esolutio n....

• • m h :::*

40. General The tank and vault drying system is important to help Revise statements in the Executive Summary, and Chapters maintain the integrity of the high-level waste (HLW) 1 and 3 to more accurately describe the tanks' contents both tanks. Throughout the DP, statements are made about during and after the interim end state. Remove all language the tank and vault drying system being operational in from the DP that states the tanks will be empty (i.e., not the interim end state, and the tanks being empty. Such contain liquids) in year 2011.

statements are inaccurate. The tank and vault drying system may be operational before 2011, but significant heels consisting of liquids and solids (sludge) will remain in the tanks well beyond the interim end state.

41. General While NYSERDA is identified as the owner on the Revise the text on Pages ES-10, 1-4 and 2-4 to clarify the Provisional Operating License Number CSF-1, transition of responsibility for operations at the site to be NYSERDA has never had responsibility for the day-to-consistent with the following: In 1976, Nuclear Fuel day operations of the reprocessing facilities. The text Services informed New York State that.it intended to leave on Page ES-10 states:

"In 1976, without restarting, the reprocessing business and not renew the lease when the Nuclear Fuel Services withdrew from the reprocessing initial term expired at the end of 1980. The West Valley business and returned control of the facilities to Demonstration Project Act was enacted in 1980 providihg NYSERDA, the successor to the New York State Atomic for solidification of the high-level liquid radioactive waste and Space Development Authority."

from reprocessing, then decontamination and decommissioning of the facilities used in the solidification Similar text appears on Pages 1-4 and 2-4. The text on effort. In February 1982, Nuclear Fuel Services transferred Page 2-4 explains that NFS remained the site operator possession of the reprocessing facilities to the U. S.

until 1982, since no license amendments were made Department of Energy (DOE) for that purpose.

from 1976 to 1981. License Amendments 31 and 32 transferred the project premises?

to

DOE, and terminated the authority and responsibility for NFS (under the license) effective upon DOE's assumption of exclusive use and possession of the Project premises. While NYSERDA is identified on the CSF-1 as the owner of the property, NYSERDA has never had direct control of site facilities.

Executive Summary

42. Page ES8, Waste Management In order for the decommissioning of the MPPB to be Add a brief discussion to the Executive Summary regarding AreaArea 6 successful, the HLW canisters must be relocated to j the transfer of the 275 HLW canisters to a new location on Page 1 of 9

Additional NYSERDA Comments on the Department of Energy's Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project, Dated December 3,2008 Setin (Tale Fgue)Cbninent~

Proposed Resoluttion PaekI(Paragraph'L; w

Waste Management Area 6 (WMA 6). Since the new the Project Premises.

canister storage area is proposed for WMA-6, insert dialog on the new interim storage facility (on Page ES-

8) in the discussion on the WMA-6.

Section 1

43. Page 1-5, second paragraph The information related to the leak (which is the source Revise this section to state, "This contamination likely of the North Plateau Groundwater Plume [NPGP]) is resulted from multiple leaks of nitric acid solution...

inconsistent with Table 2-17 (Page 2-39) of this DP as well as Chapter 3, Section 3.11.5.1 of the 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

Documentation exists to support that multiple leaks occurred during the acid recovery process, thereby contributing to the NPGP.

44. Page 1-6, first paragraph The information related to the ventilation system Revise this section to state, "The cesium prong is an accident is inconsistent with Table 2-17 (Page 2-40) of impacted area that extends northwest of the Process this DP and Chapter 3, Section 3.11.5.1.of the 2008 Building as a result at least two ventilation system accidents DEIS. Specifically, there were at least two ventilation that occurred in 1968."

system accidents that contributed to what is known today as the "cesium prong."

45. Page 1-9, Section 1.6, Project In the discussion on implementing plans, the list should Add "Waste Management Plan" to the list of implementing Management and Organization include a "Waste Management Plan." Per DOE Order plans in Section 1.6.

435.1(4), a Waste Management Plan is needed to ensure that "DOE radioactive waste management activities shall be systematically planned, documented, executed, and evaluated."

46. Page 1-11, Section 1.7, Health The DOE Policy 450.4, Safety Management System Incorporate ISMS requirements into the overall Health and and Safety Program Policy, should be included in the list of applicable Safety Program.

requirements. This policy requires incorporation of an integrated safety management system (ISMS) into management and work practices at all levels.

Section 2 47.] Page 2-8,'third paragraph This section states that "Neutralizing the acid high-Revise this section to include actinide concentrations in the.

level waste prior to transfer caused most of the fission acidic HLW stream.

Page 2 of 9

Additional NYSERDA Comments on the Department of Energy's Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project, Dated December 3, 2008

Section, i

.(Table,Figure).Comment.

. Proposed Resolution product elements (the major exception was cesium) to precipitate out and form sludge at the bottom of Tank 8D-2."

This statement is inaccurate as this acidic HLW contained more than the fission product elements, specifically actinides. When the acidic waste was neutralized during reprocessing activities, concentrations of actinides precipitated out into the sludge and were found at the bottom of Tank 8D-2, where residual amounts remain today.

48. Page 2-10, Table 2-5, "Estimated Radionuclide Content (in Use the report Rykken, L. E., "High-Level -Waste Table 2-5 Curies) of Tanks 8D-2 and 8D-4 at the Completion of Characterization at West Valley," June 2, 1986 for the Reprocessing," cites a reference by Eisenstatt, 1986.

inventory in Tanks 8D-2 and 8D-4.

Historically

speaking, the characterization report written by L. E. Rykken in 1986 has been the more widely used reference for inventory data. The Rykken report is based on physical sampling conducted for the HLW tanks, while Eisenstatt's work does not appear to be based upon any physical sampling.

49. Section 2.3.2, The text describes the placement of "at least three feet Clarify the cleanup goals (for such areas as the drainage Page 2-37, third paragraph of soil" over the contaminated sediments in the channels), when conditions vary from the conceptual site drainage channel. While the soil layer may exceed the model used to develop DCGLs.

one-meter thickness used for development of surface soil DCGLs, the remediation of areas like the drainage channel can achieve the surface soil DCGLs.

50. Page 2-39, In Table 2717, "Principal Radionuclides in Major Amend the table as indicated.

Table 2-17 Spills Occurring During NFS Operations," the second row of the last column states that "Line 7P-240-1-C failed inside the OGA in January 1968, and leakage drained from the OGA through the ARPR to the underlying soils. " This statement is inaccurate. The OGA would have drained through the Off-Gas Cell.

Section 3

51. Page 3-11, fourth paragraph The Groundwater Pump and Treat System description Correct the text.

_states that there were two recovery wells in the western Page 3 of 9

Additional NYSERDA Comments on the Department of Energy's Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project, Dated December 3, 2008 iCg_* ecin Proposed Resolutin fi 4(paragraph, Line,)"-

lobe of the plume. A third well was installed shortly after the start of the pump and treatment system began operation to improve the groundwater recovery from the plume.

52. Section 3.1.3, Page 3-12, fifth In the discussion on treatment of contaminated Integrate updated information on the design of the swamp full paragraph groundwater in the swamp ditch, the text states "The ditch mitigation measure into the document as suggested by permeable reactive barrier, which will be composed of footnote found on Page 3-12.

zeolite and aggregate and approximately 175 feet in length, will be installed along the seepage face to reduce by ion-exchange the amount of Sr-90... " The results from recent sampling activities (completed November 2008) along the leading edge of the plume have shown that the lateral extent of the contamination in the ditch is much less than previously thought, and the lateral extent of the mitigation is likely to be far less than what is currently published in this DP.

53. Section 3.1.3, Page 3-21,third The last paragraph describing NFS Special Holes states Incorporate a discussion of how and where the investigation paragraph that contaminated soil, tanks, and other materials were waste was disposed in this section.

generated during the n-dodecane and tributyl phosphate leak investigation in 1983; however, no mention of how or where the waste materials were disposed of is included.

54. Section 3.5.5, Page 3-58, Table Additional historical earthquake data can be found in Add additional earthquake data from the data compiled by 3-15 the database for the National Center of Earthquake the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.

Engineering Research.

Several earthquakes with magnitudes greater than three -are missing from the years 1954 and 1958.

55. Section 3.6.1, Page 3-63, The text states that the Bulk Storage Warehouse The paragraph should mention that the BSW was used as a second last paragraph (BSW) was used for general equipment and furniture PSF as well as a storage facility.

storage without mentioning its original use as the plutonium storage facility (PSF).

Section 4

56. Page 4-3, last paragraph This section states "Available radiological data on Correct this information to indicate that additional sampling 3,____

lastparagraphfacilities, systems, and equipment are generally and analyses will be conducted for the underground waste Page 4 of 9

Additional NYSERDA Comments on the Department of Energy's Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project, Dated December 3, 2008

-..,(Tale,Figure).......Comment Proee*so--..on Page#('aarhLie considered to be scoping data, with the exception of tanks.

data on the underground waste tanks, which have been appropriately characterized."

This statement is incorrect for at least two of the underground waste tanks (HLW Tanks 8D-1 and 8D-4), as these tanks have received/processed additional waste sinrce the sampling activities were performed.

Further, these tanks have not been physically sampled or analyzed, even though it is likely that there is residual solid waste affixed to the walls or physical structures in the tanks.

All of the HLW tanks and equipment must be adequately characterized.

57. Page 4-15, Table 4-3, "Relative Fraction of Process Building Provide the technical rationale that supports the assertion second full paragraph Dominant Radionuclides" lists values that were that the geometric mean for the aboveground portions of the calculated based on geometric means of radionuclide MIPPB is representative and conservative of below-grade of distributions in the various Process Building areas.

the MPPB.

The first sentence of the second paragraph on Page 4-15 states "There are substantial variations among distributions in different areas." Why are geometric means being calculated for the radionuclide distributions in the M!PPB, and why are these distributions conservative?

In addition, will these aboveground MPPB ratios be used to determine the radionuclide ratios below-grade of the MPPB?

58. Page 4-19, This section states that "The Old Interceptor is Include information regarding the release of radioactive sixth paragraph expected to contain a significant amount of contamination to the Old Interceptor in Chapter 2, Section radioactivity based on available data, which include a 2.3.

gamma radiation level of 408 mR/hr measured near the tank bottom in 2003 (WVNSCO 2003). As noted'in Section 2, 12 inches of concrete was poured on the tank floor by NFS as radiation shielding. The New Interceptors and the Neutralization Pit are both expected to contain low levels of radioactive contamination." This statement relates to a release that occurred on February 14, 1967, and should be included Page 5 of 9

Additional NYSERDA Comments on the Department of Energy's Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project, Dated December 3, 2008 Page,#k(Pa4rakra~phjLine) in Chapter 2, Section 2.3 "Spills and Uncontrolled Release of Radioactivity."

59. Page 4-20, Values for Am-241, Cs-137 and Pu-241 differ in Table Compare the values in Table 4-9 against the data in the 2008 Table 4-9 4-9, "Estimated Radioactivity in the Underground DEIS (Appendix C, Table C-8), and update the table as Waste Tanks" as compared to the 2008 DEIS. Even appropriate.

with rounding to two significant figures, these values do not agree.

60. Page 4-22, Values in Table 4-10, "Estimated Radioactivity in the Compare Tables 4-10 and Table 2-21, and revise as Table 4-10 NDA," and Table 2-2, "Estimated Radioactivity in the appropriate.

NDA," (Page 2-45), are identified as containing the same information, yet do not agree.

61. Page 4-34, All of the data from the 1998 Geoprobe sampling Utilize all of the 1998 Geoprobe data to establish that the Figure 4-8 activity was not included in the evaluation, excavation area has been designed to capture all potential Specifically, Geoprobe Points 29 and 80 appear to below-grade concentrations exceeding the DCGLs.

increase in Sr-90 concentrations as the depth increases, up to approximately 30-40 feet below-grade.

The Include an evaluation of the 1994 Geoprobe data to support potential increase in Sr-90 concentrations in these areas planning the excavation area.

should be considered when designing the extent of the excavation depth and area.

Also, an evaluation of the 1994 Geoprobe data may help verify that the 1998 Geoprobe data has adequately bounded the soil and groundwater conditions for the extent of the excavation depth and area.

Section 6

62. Section 6.1, Page 6-2 Under the section on Applicable Requirements and Evaluate whether the 1997 DOE Standard is applicable to Guidance, the author cites NUREG/BR-0058 as the this DP. The Standard does not appear to have been issued, applicable source for the value in dollars for a person-as a final document - yet its use at other DOE sites is rem avoided.

However, the DOE Standard (DOE-widespread and well documented.

STD-ALARA 1) titled "Applying the ALARA Process for Radiation Protection of the Public and Environmental Compliance with 10 CFR 834 and DOE 5400.5 ALARA Program Requirements, Volume 1, recommends applying a range from $1,000 to $6,000 Page 6 of 9

Additional NYSERDA Comments on the Department of Energy's Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project, Dated December 3, 2008

ection, (Table, Fiue

-rpsedResolution per person-rem for ALARA evaluations.

Section 7

63. Section 7.3.2 What is the process for identifying a location for the Describe the process and characterization activities that will Page 7-10 new Canister Interim Storage Facility?

What soils be performed to identify the location for the new Canister characterization will be performed to support the Interim Storage Facility.

process?

64. Section 7.3.3, Pages 7-14 Throughout the overall discussion of hazardous Incorporate language into the DP acknowledging that through 7-19 material removal (e.g., lead shielding) and equipment potential recycling/reuse opportunities may be pursued for removal from the Process Building, there is no mention metal items and surplus equipment.

of recycling. The DOE National Center of Excellence for Metals Recycle, based in Oak Ridge, has been instrumental in recycling lead and other metals within the DOE complex.

Even items that cannot be free released have been reused within the complex at a significant savings to the Department. In one year, the Center found a use for over 54,000 metric tons of metal and equipment including suspect-contaminated lead, copper, hard drives, fume hoods, etc.ý At least two commercial facilities are licensed to receive contaminated lead and reprocess it into lead-lined shielded containers (beneficial reuse). At a minimum, this DP needs to make mention that recycling and reuse opportunities for metals and surplus equipment will be explored during decommissioning.

65. Section 7.3.3, Page 7-15, Removal of additional items (e.g., mercury switches, Address removal of additional hazardous materials that are Removing Hazardous and Toxic fluorescent lamps, circuit boards, and lead-based paint, likely to be present in the Process Building.

Materials etc.) that may be found in the Process Building. should be addressed in this section.

66. Section 7.3.8, Page 7-24 When the underground waste lines are located and Provide more information on the steps to be taken if removed to make room for the installation of the contamination, either radiological or chemical, is found in barrier wall, what happens if the characterization the liquid transfer lines. It may be prudent to remove the measurements show radiological or chemical lines if you already have the excavation open, crews constituents in the remaining sections in the ground?

mobilized and waste boxes staged.

Will the Project continue to remove sections of the Page 7 of 9

Additional NYSERDA Comments on the Department of Energy's Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project, Dated December 3, 2008 Secti on, n'

Page # (Paragraph, Lie) 0_

piping, or simply cap the lines and leave the contamination underground?

It is unclear as to what would be done with the information gathered from the characterization -measurements.

67. Section 7.3.8, Page 7-25 The third bullet states that "Disposing of the Consider using the clean soil from the Slurry Wall uncontaminated soil at an appropriate offsite disposal construction as backfill for the soil and sediment excavation facility" will take place during construction of the projects.

slurry wall. It seems illogical to haul clean material off-site, then turnaround and haul material from off-site back on-site to fill excavations.

Since clean backfill material (similar to native geologic material) is needed throughout Phase 1 activities, why not stage the clean soil from the slurry wall construction for later use as backfill material? What criteria would be used to screen soil for use as backfill?

68. Sections 7.11.3 and 7.11.4, The discussion of cutting and decontamination Add a brief description on the liquid nitrogen-based cutting Pages 7-43 through 7-46 methods does not mention liquid nitrogen-based and decontamination systems.

cutting and decontamination systems.

As the Nitrocisiontm systems were essentially developed under a

DOE-sponsored program at Idaho National Environmental Laboratory in the early nineties and considered a cutting edge technology,.it may be prudent to mention them in this section of the DP.

Further, the WVDP is in the proce~ss of procuring a Nitrocisiontm tool.

69. Section 7.12, Figure 7-15, Page The proposed schedule does not capture the installation Incorporate the installation of the hydraulic barrier on WMA 7-49 of a hydraulic barrier on the northwest side of the 2 into the schedule in a manner similar to that for the barrier WMA 2 excavation.

installation on WMA 1.

Section 8 1

This section states, "Acceptance criteria would be established to ensure repeatability of the data."

Acceptance criteria do not ensure data repeatability, rather they assure that data are within certain bounding conditions. Repeatability in samples is determined by Revise this statement.

Page 8 of 9

Additional NYSERDA Comments on the Department of Energy's Phase 1 Decommissioning Plan for the West Valley Demonstration Project. Dated December 3. 2008

,(Table, EtgFi&

.:.2

-Proti Pg#(Pa-rag~rah Lne)

I some form of duplicate analyses.

Section 9

71. Page 9-20, The first sentence of the last paragraph states, "The Provide justification for usage of the reference cited in the last paragraph amounts of 1-129 and Np-237 that might be found in-Phase 1 DP, instead of the historical reference.

The surface soil contamination, if any would be small." rationale should confirm that the report represents a Although this statement is accurate given the relative conservative approach to the Np-237 concentrations on this amount of other radionuclides present; the Np-237 site.

values cited in the reference document for this Phase 1 DP are significantly less

(-

50%)

than the concentrations present in other characterization documents for the site (Rykken, L. E., "High-Level Waste Characterization at West Valley," June 2, 1986)

72. Page 9-28, fifth full paragraph; The approach used to characterize subsurface piping in Explain the rationale for not including pipe probe Page 9-30, last paragraph WMAs 2 and 5 differs from the approach used in measurements to determine the total beta activity in WMAs WMA 1 (Page 9-26) in that a pipe probe is used to 2 and 5.

Are the beta contamination measurements determine total beta activity (along with smears conservative without this type of measurement?

samples for alpha and beta activity and exposure rates) in WMA 1, but is not employed for WMAs 2 and 5.

Page 9 of 9