Text

Summary of ACNW 44th Meeting in Kennewick,Washington (Hanford) & Associated Briefings on DOE & Us Ecology Facilities on 920625.Related Documentation Encl
	ML20045E301
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1992
From:	Eiss A; NRC
To:	; NRC
Shared Package
ML20045E274	List: ML20045E272; ML20045E297; ML20045E301; ML20045E302; ML20045E678;
References
	FOIA-93-134 NUDOCS 9307010346
	Download: ML20045E301 (75)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:g .a 4 5 i-jK

f_

a 3 UNITED STATES o 3 E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WAsHtNoTON. D.C. 20EiU6 N *** / 9 5", Y y 4' 'y wh,y/(f o$ (,9 June 30, 1992 / NOTE TO: Files FROM: Abraham L. Eiss

SUBJECT:

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW) MEETING AT KENNEWICK, WA AND ASSOCIATED BRIEFINGS ON DOE AND U.S. ECOLOGY FACILITIES The ACNW held its 44th meeting in Kennewick, Washington (Hanford) on the afternoon of June 25,1992. ' During the two and one-half days prior' to.that meeting, the committee, its staff and I had the opportunity to visit several facilities in the Hanford area and to be briefed by Department of Energy (DOE), DOE contractors, and U.S. Ecology personnel regarding their facilities and programs. ACNW and NRC. staff attending these meetings included the following: Dr. Dade Moeller, Chairman ACNW Georgio Gnugnoli, ACNW' staff Dr. William Hinze, ACNW member Howard.Larson, ACNW' staff Dr. Martin'Steindler, ACNW member Stanley Schofer~, ACNW staff-Raymond Fraley, Exec Dir ACNW' John Linehan, NMSS (June.25 only) Richard Major, ACNW staff-Abraham Eiss, NMSS The following sections identify and briefly summarize the various meetings L held during our visit. A. Tuesday. June 23. 1992 - U.S. Ecoloav Low-level Radioactive Waste Site U.S. Ecology operates-the-low-level radioactive waste. facility located on the Hanford reservation under a lease from the: State of Washington, which, in turn,-leases the disposal site and~ surrounding acreage from the Department of Energy. We met at this facility.with: Richard Sauer, U.S. Ecology Vice-president (Louisville) Tom Hayes, U.S. Ecology Hanford facility manager Barry-Bede, U.S Ecology staff-- +] ' Marcel Bergeron,lBattelle PNL part-time) Earl Fordham, Washington Stat epartment-of' Health on-site inspector at. U.S.-Ecology facility(part-time) Mr. Sauer indicated that U.S. Ecology has_ broad interests in waste management-beyond the Hanford facility. _The company.is proposed operator for other planned low-level waste sites including those in California and Nebraska. U.S.' Ecology also operates.the LLW facility at Beatty, Nevada..This-is a-relatively small.-facility that is scheduled to be~ closed at the end of this ,--year. From an economic point of view Mr. Sauer believes there~are more I planned low-level waste facilities than warranted and that disposal costs at .9307010346;930412: JPDR~.FOIA j* .FACAROS93-134.-PDR ~ 4 ".) lJ TJ J. t a

A g. underutilized sites will be very high. For example, at Hanford, the amount of waste buried each year has decreased from a pet of 1.4 million cubic feet to the 1991 ' level of 300,000 cubic feet. A further large decline is anticipated next year, when the. facility will be restricted to waste generated in the Northwest Compact (and possibly the Rocky Mountain Compact if an agreement is finalized). A further complicating factor according to Mr. Sauer is the operation of the Envirocare facility in Utah under a state licanse. Envirocare is also located within the Northwest compact area and is taking business away from U. S. Ecology's already diminished workload. Sauer stated that Utah's licensing of Envirocare is incompatible with NRC's Part 61 specifically with regard to 10 CFR 61.7(c)(1) which requires that the disposal site must be owned by the Federal or State government before an operating license may be issued. He indicated that his company has filed or will file suit to compel NRC to enforce that requirement. He also stated that, under its Utah license, Envirocare is able to receive and dispose of certain forms of mixed waste and is the only facility in the country having that authority. A tour of the Hanford LLW site indicated that, consistent with information provided at the briefing, waste disposal is proceediag at a low rate. Only a small staff, 25 or 30 total, operate on a single shift. Separate locations are used for Class A and B-C waste. As allowed in Part 61, the facility handles Co-60 contaminated hardware containing upwards.of 50,000 curies and giving readings of 30,000 R/hr at the surface. Disposal of such highly radioactive material requires remote handling and adequate advance preparation, but a number of such burials have been made. The State of Washington has two full-time on-site inspectors, one dealing with radiological safety, the other with environmental issues. B. Wednesday. June 24 and Thursday Mornina. June 25. Department of Enerav Facilities at Hanford The ACNW group met with several DOE staff and contractor personnel including Phil Hamrick, Deputy Manager of Richland Operations and John Tseng, Director of DOE's Hanford Program Office. Also present at these meetings was Joe Bunting, formerly of NRC, who is now with SAIC and whose staff provides technical support for Mr. Tseng's-operation. Mr. Hamrick, in his opening remarks, made the following points: - Hanford is now in a cleanup mode that will require about 30 years to complete. The FY 1993 environmental budget for the Hanford site is approximately $1.3 billion. DOE has no. planned use for the site' following cleanup. - DOE is working with local agencies and the public to replace the Federal government as the principal employer at Hanford. The site visits' and technical. discussions that followed focused on the cleanup problems at Hanford and the measures being taken to resolve them. = Emphasis was on the former' production reactors and on the liquid and other wastes stored.in 177 storage tanks on the site. Other areas requiring extensive cleanup include the former chemical processing plants and contaminated soil or .a

-C " crib" areas where contaminated wastes (chemical and radiological) were dumped at various times during the site's operating history.

1. Production Reactors Cleanup issues at the N Reactor, the last built and operated at Hanford, were reviewed'in some detail.

Like all Hanford production reactors, fuel was loaded at the front face and spent fuel was pushed out at the back face where it dropped into a discharge pit. The falling fuel was slowed by a trampoline device, but a number of fuel elements suffered varying degrees of damage during the drop. As a result, there is extensive contamination in the discharge pit and.in the storage basin to which the discharged fuel was moved prior to removal from the reactor facility for chemical processing. Also contributing to the contamination problem is the choice of carbon steel as the construction material for most piping at the N Reactor facility and the lack: of corrosion inhibitors in the water used at the facility. Similar problems have been encountered at other production reactors as they have been decommissioned. B Reactor is a special case. This, the first reactor at Hanford and the world's first large scale reactor, has been designated a National Historic Hechanical Engineering Landmark. There is considerable support-for preserving B Reactor and restoring it so that visitors can see it as it was during operation.

2. Tank Waste Westinghouse Hanford Company, a DOE contractor, is managing the Tank Waste Remediation System at the Hanford site.

John Tseng', 00E, and Harry Harmon, Vice President of Westinghouse Hanford and Manager of the Tank Waste Remediation System Division, briefed us on this issue. Over the years liquid and slurry wastes were stored in 149 single-shell tanks and' 28 double-shell tanks. These tanks now hold over 60 million gallons (about 400 megacuries) of radioactive waste. Most tanks contain sludge on the bottom and a crust of varying thickness above the liquid. Sixty-six of the single-shell tanks are believed to have leaked an estimated 1 million gallons into the soil _beneath the tank farms. Primary cause of the leaks was determined to be stress corrosion cracking in weld areas. Welds in the double-shell tanks, which are of more recent construction, were stress relieved at 1100*F. No leakage has been detected in any of these tanks. Principal safety issues associated with the waste tanks were identified as follows: - Hydrogen accumulation in Tank 101-SY (double-shell) and possibly others. Gas is released from Tan'k 101-SY at approximately 100 day intervals. Ferrocyanide mixtures in 24 tanks could be explosive. Organics and nitrates in 8 tanks could react or explode. - Heat generation in one tank (106-C) results in a need for continuous cooling. - Although criticality is believed not to be a problem, there is inadequate documentation,.particularly with regard to the older tanks, to assure that criticality will not occur'. Initially, remediation will focus on treatment and disposal of LLW contained 4 in the double-shell tanks, presumably because this material is better

I characterized and more readily treated. The intent is to solidify the wastes in a grout treatment facility and to dispose of the treated grout in reinforced concrete near-surface vaults. The grout treatment facility and the first group of vaults have been constructed. HLW remaining in the tanks would be vitrified in a plant yet to be constructed and would be disposed of in a geologic repository.

3. Other Issues John Trixier, Battelle-PNL, showed the group the in-situ vitrification facilities on the Hanford site. PNL has demonstrated the process at laboratory and prototype scales and has now built and operated a full-scale system at Hanford and Oak Ridge. The full-scale equipment is housed in three trailers for portability. Maximum depth that can be achieved with the present equipment is about 5 meters; maximum melt dir~ ' ~ is about 8 meters. The largest melt to date weighed about 650 tom.

the r ' cess requires an alkaline soil. Therefore, soil pretreatment wouN te sum, at many sites. Battelle has formed a commercial compa~y to panoe ti s technology in the non-nuclear field. The group also drove past former (neic 0 n m.ir. facilities and the submarine reactor compartment bun A tert. Ema :ating each of these sites poses problems, but these were not cisc sej tr m) our visit. C. Thursday Afternoon. June 25. q m l / M Mss M g The formal meeting began with furtner prnent :tions by John Tseng and Harry Harmon on the Tank Waste Remediation S, in and by John Trixier on In-Situ Vitrification. These presentations are summarized in the preceding sections. The Committee also discussed two letters that will be sent to NRC staff. The first, which will be addressed to Mr. Bernero, deals with DOE's Site Characterization Plan for Yucca Mountain and indicates concern regarding the slow progress being made by DOE in resolving issues identified in the NRC Site Characterization Analysis and in submitting study plans to NRC. It also expresses concern about the slow pace of NRC staff review of those DOE study plans that have been received. The second letter will be addressed to Mr. Youngblood and will discuss the ACNW Working Group meeting on DOE's Early Site Suitability Evaluation (ESSE). The letter will note that the ESSE, which was prepared for DOE by SAIC, was intended.to provide early identification of fatal flaws at the Yucca Mountain site. It will also state that the limited review performed by the NRC/HLW staff was thoughtful and well done. The ACNW will raise several questions-regarding the ESSE itself, including deficiencies in.the peer review and lack of-adequate description of the use' of expert judgement in.the evaluation process. The letter will also ask that the NRC staff make it clear to DOE that lack of comment or, an issue does not imply that there is no problem . associated with that issue. Also discussed at the meeting were future' agenda items, and Chairman Selin's request for a supplemental report regarding a systems analysis approach for reviewing the entire HLW management and disposal program.

L. .y

q,;.

Distribution: R Bernero G. Arlotto M. Knapp W. Brown-

J. Linehan R. Major, ACNW 1

1

-~- ~ O . l',,t ,n. c,, >+", n'. AGENDA f W [Q r pr g l NRC/ DOE MEETING 1, 30 p. o g jJ e JULY.16,1992 s ' p k] ~' s y ry f

o 9

g4 " TOWER INN: P g K , ;lW RICHLAND, WASHINGTON p,9 *;,,~f mMk rW& Purposes: .00E will discuss its plans for processing DST waste, discuss whether they-are still consistent with NRC criteria, and plans for sampling and analyzing the grout feed. NRC and interested parties will get answers to their questions NRC and interested parties will express their comments, suggestions, issues and concerns. wh_Adf Nk 9:00 am - 9:15 am

Introductions

9:15 am - 9:45 am Overview of Tank Waste Remediation System-(TWRS) ' Presenter: J. Tseng, U.S. Department of_ Energy, Headquarters .9:45 am - 11:15 am Review of 1989 Agreement between DOE and NRC on Classification of Grout Feed as Low-Level Waste and. Current Status. - Historical background- - Review of 1989 agreement - Current estimates compared to 1989 agreement Presenter: D. D. Wodrich, Westinghouse Hanford Company U 11:15 am - 11:45 am Open Discussion t 11:45 am - 12:45 pm Break 12:45 pm - 1:30 pm. Grout Tank Waste Characterization- - Characterization process - Sampling plan - ' 4 Sampling resultsPlan for reporting characterization results to. l.i NRC and Ecology-Presenter: J. A, Voogd,! Westinghouse Hanford Company 1:30 pm - 2:30 pm Grout Characteristics. Relative to NRC Requirements Presenter:-D. E.-Wood,-Westinghouse Hanford. Company. 2:30 pm - 2:45 pm Sunenary Presenter: L. Erickson, U.S. Department of Energy, - Richland Field Office' J 2:45 pm - 3:30 pm Open Discussion

w.m a x +, 1 < j '. 3 t NRC/ DOE MEETING' m- . JULY-16,1992 TOWER I'NN - RICHLAND, WASHINGTON - p 1 SIGN-IN SHEETL o t

NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER Sow, &&v P.O.' fu

% C>o 3 76> 't/L)c., ~ l' - ) y ',.tq*y la fl tf f .Y* Y J (. Y / n 4 Wy .l Y Til l'- fl lJ k//1,s b'n h $4 6 W $l~ S0 l YS$ h k //^/ Y'oif r a 3[ . $bt ' Yb '$$$.. j [ g&.Q { U Nm W e d fr t } F( ~ lv El. L G~f UDNAC WAS//. O;c. ,t o J'J' r 7 W J'6 Y A.7 V i MATEM l hNloV.S, \\fS' M c w AtM-A C 2oS55 3"I *No T M 8 y c )s}.a O.% c s (

0. [. //f?(

\\//M4,0( JrfG. .3&i - 56tjy f {ct -: } S i h' SAC b' +t :'S C 2$$' *[ $6'S ~lES"$ C6

Aru, i

Yccio ]hls,d J 10ifC g[{J gg S m - g 73.:39, g 2 x,- 3 l. N -. bf (0 45 " <2 $ l-N Y/?h /.: R t e-f/' Y.YlgCYP(nnibN/AU($ Th'X NQ C(11-N.InMI.'llITNY.hl-NI'$30$

YYY

~ I 4 d t'V** {$. } l Y s9 ' f r ';'. < < lo 2, 'c (1 f. /(W ?Vp' 2' ' $d }'fnV$ Y ? h A L 0/.A 'edp" s& V lt g /"i NYoe'Y uni /LW SA(C -Q%s s?w inu.J is t l') ^ $0ifbnl-'- Sfo~ T j ' ~ ~ i g' ~ g g fa AoG#rrced rf % v, m n ysn zhswns sn y % &Q p a fq.% g,j.,n ujg99 % - y n

m N

c,*: y.

^ ~' - NRC/ DOE' MEETING - JULY.16,.1992 TOWER-INN - RICHLAND, WASHINGTON. SIGN-IN S'HEET NAME MAILING. ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER' }-l<: d,,jwl AS >Y @ LO '//f' fc ). cj'&yL 713 7 n s w.o'* 9 09-W 0 ToH ~n ra - ()Dndh (cn;3 n t m t, war.c n u> s; <. I. ~ O O t? /// ~[O -lLl-d S A U 'V h LN Y @)}t. (t 4, / </ j [ QAt / $cwos L"c vf.oc tr ,,,,3 4 y. 7ot </ : So9'r77-o+ # Dr.n,w M 2, d.J uiu c ) { f/?ACWft/ ht"F y & $69-$76-76W h ,$ci{ll-- lc/k. .//(*-4j % -- 774 -tw 3 i 'O 1 ? G e (. (,o c.~ L t 1h n i't . C,6't 1.-](. ' (;. ie t o -[!i <. ') . 4 {,[,'} k ')j{u 3\\ ). [g h) i <fM. [.(% i,..f IU a >> A 1dli,e W'i)11l-21H i _\\ v1 "Isla d<u,a k. LtJ B c_ $ vs.p.yn.y//e i v Qua Ash, k rit k>.noc.xna N o n a S 7/ % K fu f.s 8 Y FFfy wg.g;a swnp.6 w%a, 4 i r

7 1, 7,.4 :, NRC/ DOE MEETING D . JULY 16,1992 TOWER INN - RICHLAND, WASHINGTON-SIGN-IN SHEET- 'v. ~ NAME MAILING ADDRESS ~ PHONE;. NUMBER-s / [g gl. 1 J-I C-614.b 1I) \\)O SO[bh ( * ~/ h. l) l' t'st $ e::, 74 - - ,.) -[b 9 te'i \\M d v .k-N i Y.$ Err,esh. c/n) ll?l knot.& h Scll<l 990t AF ? /3 / i / ' /_$n), (,,o k ' Y n. %n, ' L ~< > < h h.. L a w+ tbi-o t lc e E. W be b u's OC ' du N')C' da e \\kti E 'h3 - 3Wi' ,% a tO (4 > v' (4 /ft'M nE0 ' O $%% $ 5 )- W_ ( *~ * . $c J -[ ///d; bo,a. wr ,<c / I & ; M /s.,... w.:m..nL s ut.... n' u..,, <///lnJh tf HD P di&., F,)6 L! [ O:..(e '37h-569J u 1/;,v//e! ~h. R e 3.r i. i &d% sre h!/ /L wac v j D ~ .Y

sp;;spe.

NRC/ DOE MEETING: .

m ~ JULY 16' 1992 TOWER INN - RICHLAND, WASHINGTON ~! SIGN-IN SHEET-l NAME MAILING ADDRESS . PHONE NUMBER: 4/H C Y<[i87 IErMAov 97 WEIR 2-T2 5 0'i 4 7 N 9 7 N y -r' b n -l Si n 4 bO /E /-/ A 1 J( ) .Te (< IP x / % ;' [ 7N /. I) ? -/ 4 se 6 N 7' t 7 1 s j .~ i 4 - r - 1 1 -l J d

e6 - w 4 ~ ' i .j -. L 2Hanford l Grout Disposal Program [. ,. j - Tank Waste. Characterization .i q presented to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i I F,( 4 k - J.JA. (JeffRVoogd: I r -WestinghousesHanford?Companyc LJuly116,1992L + 7 m. 6'i-w rv)l< Q Q} w n .r-m w.s. m 2 t v .-44. m s- .m.. i m.m. mm.. u-m.

m..m

.m m.

Evaluation of Available Waste Candidate grout feed gPJ Double-shell slurry feed f[# c Concentrated miscellaneous waste from labs, laundry, decontamination, salt well pumping, etc. Pretreated waste (post 1996) Low-level portion of: NCRW NCAW PFP CC Blending Waste f e Dilute waste Miscellaneous waste from labs, laundry, decontamination, salt well pumping prior to concentration (pre-DSSF) .L a T)si F 4 T)E y\\W

1 Grout Waste Feec Sampling CANDIDATE FEED TANKS BLEND TANKS- -h'[.- '/ 106-AN

g,j/[-

y' / 'l 101-AW 105-AP d 104-AN t 105-AN PRELIMINARY SAMPLES GROUT FEED TANKS AP-102 c RECORD SAMPLES AP-104 ECOLOGY REVIEW 4 NRC INFORM ATION v-TO GROUT PROCESS

. a:. Sampling 1 Process n 'h i Le 1 Statistically based-y Minimum 3:: access ports. I Minimum 3? depths. L Feeditankt cduplicate from each riser e: Sampling;methode bottle.on string 5 1-ASTMsE3OOL [

Approximately 12! x L100 :mL g

i a ~ +. z. c m.-~ -n .m.-.. =.

v ~ 4 Tank 1241-AW-101 Sample Locations 1 Sample Access : Radius : Angle # - Depth 8 ' f t-Number Port ~ (inches) - 1- - 16'C 28'0" 120a 94 le 2' 16C 28'0" 120 138- .3-16C 28'0" 120' 291 t 4 16C 28'0" -120 387 5-10A 28'0" 216*30' 55 6 10A . 28'0" 216'30'. 150-7

10A 28'0"-

-216*30' 241-L '8 .10A 28'0" 216'30' ~ 338 9 22A-10'0" Oa ~.52 - 11 0 22A 10'0" O' 170 11 J22A 11 0'0 " O' 260.- gs 12' 22A-10'0" O' 367-

Radius'is the distance in feet and inches from the center of the tank'

~

# Angle is the number of degrees from north.

' $1 Depth is the number of inches from the bottom of the tank ~> + ^

a TANK 241-AW-101 CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS: Constituent Result by Location Cesium-137 i g' ~ l dm on a mov- ,/ 53 % e522

522 200

~ ~ H518 A97^ n518 n518 552^ x518 A e - DEPTH N

-*- Riser 16C -*- Riser 1'OA -*- Riser 22A Values in Cl/m3 Cs-137tBulkL Loading;is approximately 5201Ci/m Swith-a

standardideviationzofiapproximately 171Ci/m.

s ..______..m_i____..__; . m.

~ ~ 3

9 4

'.t'- Characterization Process. m_

pa 1

.rwM "' ",f 6 A ll Evaluation for solids # ( Jr:~ [ e'at m .Cgos.te preparat. l

e i

ion - f.

o LSample. analysis 1 j e: -Analysis of: variance:

Comparison!to feed specification .e N 4. L _ _ _ _ _ - 1_ _

a PAW Tank 241-AW-101 Characterization Results a b Constituent Mean Reguit Standard Dgviation N (Ci/m ) (Ci/m ) Carbon-14 0.00037 0.0000113 2 Cobalt-60 < 0.0296 12 Selenium-79 0.00048 0.0000226 2 Sr-89/90 1.09 0.0778 2 Niobium-94 < 0.0682 12 Tc-99 0.152 0.0339 2 Rhh-106 < 3.70 12 lodine-129 0.000303 0.000075 2 Cesium-134 1.53 0.049 12 J'g / Cesium-137 ~520. 17.4 12 + po Np-237 0.00306@ 2 Pu-239/240 - 0.00115 0.000149 2 Am-241 0.0012 0.000376 2 Cm-243/244 0.000053 0.0000044 2 3 3 a Units are Ci/m of waste except-Np-237 in units of kg/m of waste.

b Number of observations used in calculating the mean result. Two observations - the results are from the' composite analyses. Twelve observations - the results are from the individual analyses.

~

TANKL241-AW-101 CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS Constituent Result by Location Cesium-137 ~ 1e g o oegees Agg - s-I' 539dk - 7 sis 22 501A-200 497^ sis 18 '100 l-sis 18 552^ x518 DEPTH!N -*- Riser 16C -*- Riser 10A -*+- Riser 22A Values in Cl/m3 -Cs-137 Bulkiloadinglis approximately 520fCi/m with a standard deviation;of approximatelyl171Ci/m. =

Grout Candidate Waste Sampling Schedule Vault Candidate Tank initial Sampling Feed Tank Data : Package to Ecology 101-PSW Complete 102-106-AN Complete 102-AP or 104-AP -103 101-AW Complete 30 days (minimum) .104 .101-AW & 105-AP "**"""E

105 104-AN Commensurate with

.106 104-AN & 105-AN disposal schedule 107 '105-AN 108 105-AN & 107-AP 109 107-AP & 108-AP - 110 108-AP -111 108-AP & NTank1 112 -NTank1-& NTank2 113 - NTank2 & NTank3 114- ,NTank3 hs5 9) eh v

I ^ {

Summary I

'e. Statistically based two-step feed characterization-e . Samples. analyzed: for 106-AN.and 101-AW

CapproximatelyL3 campaigns) 1

! Awaiting feed tank staging for record sample and e analysis e Waste must: meet feed specification

e.: Intend?tottransmit record data to both NRC and Ecology e-l Running total inventory.to be: maintained gk[

p .E m u z....

,= _e c; 4 r ~j. -A-HanfordLGrout Disposal Program I i Grout:LCharacteristicsLRelative to'NRC Requirements 4 presented to' .p .UtS.jNuclear Regulatory Commission ~ ~:1 ~ w $+ ) %s.a is ...Iw L', j. ghw 3 gr W D. E. (DonhW.ood Sh (WestinghousetHanford Company; LJulyA6:,.1992: m L =-

== A

= t 3. 1 m m ^ - Basic Structure ofcPA For D'OE, the. PA and"SAR are-. separate-documents (combined' for - e g commercial licensef a'pplication). SAR' covers: safety through! facility closure + -PA. ' covers post-closure -safety' c . e. PA Requirement! DOE ~OrderL 5820.2A 10 LCFR.61: ~ '{ PA l ormat a' d Content-n DOE /LLW.-81 1NUREGs1l199Lfor' commercial 2 Content similar in.many; areas,lbut arranged: differently. 6 !Line-bV-line comparison 1 difficult-7 L' - -'Mrw'++r^11-N-gv w ws w'9'em*-" e- -w '"W 4y N w -d---e-I 4-Wew'a-w ats+e-Awm -6 r me W e-e-h-C w--+-e f

== 9--T1 = r-w--mm 4'+ V e ws-w.w-*'e-- 5-a e=-C.- -.*ar eA luk-t er s w= ,4 w -W r r

= - 4 .7 s+

~

+ 3. BasienStructure ofLPA;-; continued L i e: Guidance ;Docum'ents-11; --DOE /LLW-75T w" - Reg guides for commercial 14

r.
e!

GuidancejPrepara. tion 4 + - Performance Assessment Task Team-for DOE c . Performance AssessmentLWorking Group for NRC-Coordination Same: Performance ObjectivesdDose Limit): ' l.. b Intent; is : equivalentidegree lof :safet'y : - Design' and analysis techniques 1somewhatTdifferent-NRC. prescriptive,: based on ~ earlier; analysis: n DOE systems approachJbased onLPAL i 4. ,I v .m.. u. m . mm 2. mm m.mu. 2. mm .mm m m mm...s. a aum.m' .m.6e ,n.., h, g.m., hg, %,,um,%% ,,..p y., w

sy t "4 .i w T Performance Objectives for [ LLW Disposal, mrem /yr

7 NRC 10CFR6}/-

EPA. 40FR193 - DOE-RL Order DOE-Order 5820.2A / (4/89 Draft)- 5820.2A e All Pathways,. 25- -25/75/25 25 25 .-WB/ Thyroid /Orgak including 'GW EDE EDE' EDE Intruder - 100/500. - *WCS, based on] None .100/500 (inadvertent). 500 Groundwater - State / Federal Non'e 4~ 4 Rules Class 11 4 $.u stu >$-

Waste Classification System.

u 6

~ x r c _7 n 3 1WasteJCharacteristics. 'WasteLClassification Systern-i i JNRCiprovidesifor--all; sites :and generators i q

DOEfre'quiresifacility-specific; criteria,. based on PA Facility-specific' waste classification ~ optional All: Classes: 'NRC and DOE p

NoLcardboardib~ oxes? Solidify liquids-1% limit-(0.5% if! processed)-noncorrosive -Nolexplosivesiorjpyrophorics Treat 7 hazardous"andlinfectious materials- ~ = tReducetvoidLspace E g e s m y. r ? E. ? - 4 -. '....... $ ~.

1.. i...l

..[._~, .[,.. .d.$ .. -~.

- g n. ?! i ,s j ONaSteJC' haracteristics continued- . e. .NR'C.-

7 LStability:- waste form-or container for Class B-and C' l5 meter.c_over; or.: equivalent,.lfor Class C-5001 year; life Inventory'- quantityfof transportable-radionuclides may bel limited.

1 DOE' Facility / design:. criteria 7 Based;onLPAJ l k V ([ .2 -. ...'?. ..L'.. .'..'. O- - 4... -. m ;.. .A .Cd ~ 1J J...

c: 3:: Engineered? Barriers [! N R C:- t- 't l Stability of waste, backfill, and cover Surface drainage, standing water, infiltration Erosion,: mass. wasting, slope failure, settlement, biotic activity. DOE-FacilityL designLcriteria

Closure l plan I

I.. l.. p. i.~ .._,,_1, .m ~

( rg, c ~ s TRENCH' BC-30 COVER FOR CLASS g~. . WARD VALLEY CALIFORNIA-LLWD B&C WASTE ~ COVER SURFACE -- THIN GRAVEL LAYER, s .S _______.______.____e _ _0RIGW AL_GBQuHQ SBEACE_ = n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ COMPACTED SOlt. p ~ l as - COMPACTED AAAFNDED CLAY-K Q) EDTr amr3 /,_gg k atra anuratr3 /- y - COARSE-GAaHED MATERIALS woT m scur (CnRRf FR & STONE) BACKFLL MdD WASTE b .ag u n m.wur w awist-GMNtn Larra ~MOuXEE p snue f so smnt x . y tr enam oc - ctouxnz .tAucs GGRANT k / MATES

- E I '

soeAnc caoss-steam J %,m. e. - w amenaam ac-m weo cown [ annen. - - - very u, i L-m .. =

i SI E 2 4 if I SE' ; ) .f;)mm({It i f u l -ll .** 4 N'": w4 i g. -5 i l ll I il 11 i I l f, 4 1 Y1 I i l 3l . - ~. ,,a I l l l 8 j b[ l l l ) dh }i al 1 v B l l i s n 4 i j I l 1 c 5 i i ) i 2

3. g g

y 5 < $P 8 Ng '(I !? ? I P s1 O' hi,s ji

N f I, y 1 if M b"
I Q. f 3 -a k ,e U$25DIl?dd[h $ EEN $m$e$$ I "2 x: N E aje_{,s g.
==Q 31 a1 1 -gj ,g,p .,2 _. = ya O u O
Siting NRC Capable of being characterized, modeled, analyzed, and monitored Avoid population growth areas and natural resources, if could affect meeting performance objectives Upstream and onsite drainage, flood plain, water table No ' groundwater discharge within disposal site Avoid areas' where tectonic or surface geological processes might significantly affect meeting performance objectives Buffer zone - up to 100 meters e DOE- . Site - specific selection criteria e' Guidance document a
y 'Q e Review of 1989 Agreement Between DOE andLNRC on ' Classification.,pf Grout FeedLas Low-Level Waste $^ 'p-s' and Current Status y[;. 6(ipN' To op U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission t $g%- e i,- By-g p/p L Don Wodrich July 16,1992 L s ew \\;2)
e'-_' -p I Topics
Historical Background Review of 1989 Agreement a
Comp ~arison:of;; Current Estimates to 1989 Agreement L i-
4
Background
HDW-EIS X19871 and Record of DecisionL(19883 to dispose of DST low-activity waste by grouting near-surface. Mayf1988: NRC raised concern that:some waste-planned 1for grouting may be HLW and, therefore, L requireL:NRC license B l .Several meetings. held with NRC: explaining wastes j and plans 3 . March 1989: RLisubmitted information1to NRC. LdemonstratingLthatithe DST wastesi: planned. for: disposal by grouting near-surface vaults:are not HLW Land? requested NRC concurrence .w4 m e aa _ _, _ _ m e m m- - s. -.
~ Background 1-continued Apgust 1989: RL and the NRC met with State and. Yakima Indian Nation September 1989: NRC issued letter concurring with RL: position that wastes to b.e grouted are not HLW 3 and,xtherefore,. not under NRC jurisdiction JanuaryL 2,.1990:. Washington, Oregon and Yakima { indian Nation issued petition to NRC for formal L rulemaking i July 27J,-1990:. Washington and Oregon issued l
revised petition to NRC
~ i i
n' L Background - continued December 1.7,1990, NRC Federal Register Notice -RequestLfor comm'ents on petition; due March 18,. L 1991. NRC to issue' petition response in Federal L Register" Notice-JulyJ1991; Yakima indian Nation and Robert Cook a petitioned L N RCNconcerningilicensing : of ccertain < wastes - in cribs, ponds, etc., and spent fueliin. burial grounds c June: 11,1992: NRC1 issued lettersto1RL requesting-l meetingdo1 hear DOE's: plans.fortsampling and ~ analyzingcgrout: feed andLfortdisseminating; information;1meetingischedulediforfJuly 16,1992L - i d .y-v -7 e T*
A<pproach to Classifying Double-Shell Tsnk Waste Perform overall material balance for HLW at the Hanford Site. g Demonstrate that largest practical amount of total 1 d Site 1 activity attributable to HLW has been isolated 3*/p s / for geologic repository disposal Largest practical amount as judged-by considering alternativeLseparation processes Residual waste.viewedias incidental or non-HLW. C219 A012892J.21 - - -_---_ _ _ _-_ _ _ ____- ___ -- - _ 2 - - _ ______-._,__. - -
-ANTORJ W AS~~E 3A R~~
~~ 05 N G LOW LEVEL (INCIDENTAL) WASTES N TO GROUND TO GROUT DISPOSAL A A f .-~ ~ EVAFORATCR~ ~~ hf ) DECONTAMINATED OVERHEAD NCAW SUPERNATE CONDENSATE MISCELLANE005 L - PROCESS PLANT ~ OSSF TRUE WAs.X ' ~ CCNDENSATE 055 i e. t 1 TREATMENT PPsOCESSES HANFORD , ;r NEUTRALIZAT10N '#^
#)A FACILITIES o
o SETTLE / DECANT o FILTRATION Ni Fe(CN)s PRECIPITATION (Cs REMOVAL)- o REPROCESStNo o 2 ) PTA PRECIPITATION (Cs RECOVERY) PLANTS o u,-/-/'F 4*c,-r+7oe 10N EXCHANGE (Cs RECOVERY)- o Q[.. SOLVENT EXTRACTION (Sr RECOVERY) 6'/' o PLUTONIUM o SLUDGE ACIDIFICATION (Sr RECOVERY) j FINISHING o TRUEX (TRU REMOVAL) PLANT o ggg o CONCENTRATION cy<d~ , QX l G 1 " 'Y' S ^ '- (p# f [- TR EX 7 CON ENTRATE 5 g,.J h .Y,e g RECOVERED Cs FROM - PREC' fTATED gA NCAW SUPERNATE AND WASHED ICN EXCHANGE SLUDGE-. (St AND TRU[ v A Sr VITRF! CATION ENCAPSULATED) l V TO. GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY-(From March 6, 1989 Letter, RL to'NRC)- FIGURE 1 uenaU
Lable 1 ESTIMATED RADIONUCLIDES DISPOSED TO GROUT Nuclide mci-C-14 0.0027-Tc-99 0.016 - 0.028 I-129 33 x 10 Sr-90 1-8 Cs-137* 12 - 13 Gj.f.'20 A Q ~~ s u TRV 0.002 -:0.01. ' ~ Total Activity ** 13-21l J
0
/ tv f ,, N
The Sr-90 and Cs-137 curies are decayed to the end of CY 1995
Total activity takes as sum of Sr-90 plus Cs-137_since these two I
nuclides (and their daugher products) dominate the total inventory. r (From March 6, 1989 Letter, DOE to NRC) a a
i' i . i-i Radionuclide Material Balance " Ideally, actual analytical 1 data for all Hanford tanked waste would be available. All grout and vitrification ^ feeds will have such analyses before-they are pro. cessed. However, only limite'd analytical results are currently available. These analyses indicate that the total Cs-137 8 that mayLexist in grout feed could be as.much as 20 million curies (Ci) vice.the 12-13 million Ci which is the basistfor the'5-6% range.shown in Figure; 2.. (Both.of j theserin' ventories are: corrected 1for decay;to the end of: CY 19950"*
From March 6,L1989 Letter, DOE to NRC-i
119891 Estimate 1of Total. Radionuclides from Double-Shell Tanks! to Grout' Additionally,JHanford committed ~to remove 95% of 137Cs from-complexant-concentrete (~6 -mci). Therefore: Nuclide-LMCi- (without decay daughters) I '4C .0.0027-88Tc l0.016-0.028 129; 33x10-8 8 Sr-1-8 r 137gg- .g_7
TRU 0.002-0.01 7 k 5 ) p f, k 13.7-29.6 Totai j-(with decay daughters) t'
_ Limited. sample anaJ l: . mdicate-additional: gsys. 77_. g Cs l1 I. Totai 14-23
27 3-45.2
-(with de' cay daughters)- [ ?Radionuclide's decayed Lto!1995 w-Mw W v e e 1 re--e ahuA-u + + m Fw - m u-.
a.m-m
.m--- - .m -x-2....
i,s ' ,1 RAJOs C_ JE vi ER A_ 3ALANCE ~ c- ,,1 - As ~O R J ~~A s (.WAS~E 0 IF ' ADDITIONAL "#Cs REMOVED FROM COMPLEXANT CONCENTRATE M 6: j' DECAYED DURiflG STORAGE REMAINING IN SST - Gh0UT.IN NEAR SURFACE-(DECISION ON DISPOSAL. MODE IIAS VAULTS BEEN DEFERRED) g ' Sr = 57%- ' Sr = 19-23%
Sr = 0.2--4 %
1 07 Cs = 4-5% Cs = 3%' * ' 5% = T RU = 11-17% TRU = 1-4% - TOTAL ACTIVI Y = 56% ' TOTAL ACTIVITY = 11-13% TOTAL: ACTIVITY = 2-3% A 4 A fl A f 6 d VIA r' WASTE GENERATED' iA I f.- GROUT p { e R-E 1944 .1996 g,. g. FACILITY' (* 1 p. .i ROUTED To: 1-E g. 149 SST T l 28 DST ~ u T -l Cs/S-REMOVAL 100% ALL' NUCLIDES,D y' AND ENCAPSULATION -q -qsse AG P/7 ). - TO GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY v A. 7 IIWVP ( c. Sr = ~ 20%- PERCENTAGES BASED ON!' Sr Cs ' CURIES DECAYED TO' DECI 1995. Cs = 38% PERCENT AGES.-BASED Ot TRU =.82-85% GM7 MCI " CsTIN. GROUT.. . TOTAL ACTIVITY== 29% .(From March'.6, 1989 Letter, RL.to MRC)' p t on:ce2
Largest:: Practical Amount of Radionuclides Removed L(1989) t Judg'ernent based on difficulty-benefit of additional -removal: t 14Ceand 129;;. No viable technology. to remove from L large volumetof; grout feed-88Tc:- Removal by; ion exchange process.has been doneLin laboratory,.no piant scale experience,fjudged to be:neither practical. norscost1 effective TRU: Waste' with significant TRU is-treated to makeLit non-TRU-(less than 100 nano Ci/gramD t .j. ~ i. a. -w,- -w,-- w ,n-,. -aw- - +
~ g l Largest LPractical Amount of Radionuclides. . Removed (1989) - (continued) 4
SR: Additional removal requires acid side treatment system.
.which'is currently under development in laboratory, or foregoing proposed process at greatly increased cost. s Judged not-practical or cost effective at this time '7 Cs: Additional removal technology viable but judged not: practical?orL cost effective as ion exchange facilities d at would?have to be built and operated delaying Grout. 1 @'[yf>$ shortfall would occur and Disposal: Program. several years. A waste l storage tank c new tanks could not be built p 1 h(/ $ppinitime tossupport; production plants, p 3 f p(liquids:from:SSTs, etc. Safety of Grout Disposal y vy Program not significantly enhanced-as cesium is.not -radionuclideLof7 primary concern for long-term J performance assessment. =
i l-1 Comparison of Current Estimate -To 1989 Agreement I . u.- c,__
Some4 Things to Remember Nhen Looking at R RadioactiveHNaste Inventories The Integrated Data Base flDB1is the. official inventory 1 Waste inventory. may be different -- is it actual fuel -reprocessed or projected reprocessing? j 1 - Are all radionuclides included or just those with longer half-lives? Do the. estimates ~ include the radionuclide decay Ldaughtersyor not?- To;what year are the radionuclides decayed? L g t - -.. ~.
Summary Comparison-Estimated. Radionuclides to Grout from Double-Shell Tank. Wastes 1987 -1992 J t 1989 1987 NRC. 1992 HDW-EIS Transmittal Best Estimate Total Radionuclides (mci)* es,,b. t .g 9 Without Decay Daughters 17.2 7-15 * * (j 14.6 * * *,/ g,1% With. Decay Daughters -33.6 13.7-29.6** 28.7 * + +
Decayed to end of 1995

Limited analytical ~ data indicated-there may be an additional 7-8 mci of Cs-137 (14-16 mci with '
daughters)
+ Uncertainty remains
?bd } {. ? ?/ \\ p.Ay.. q,- ger ^ 7
y t
u.- .A.A. --m. i1.w. -a n.- --awu a.A-m. enh *us 9m a mu-m a-u __g e-m+M"a 1
bhe
.c e o _ m gei ey wtJe, e,- ,1w'u, .e en64- -Ws e -sW 1e -y(. %++--
~ = ! Summary Comparison of. Double-Shell Tank Waste Estimate Bases. 1987-1992 3 L 1989 1992 1987 NRC Best HDW-EIS Transmittal Estimate W .r -6,000 MTU:N-Fuel-4,000 MTU irradiated fuel to be 12,000 MTU:N-Fuel: -e processed after. plus PWR Core.ll and ;plus PWR Core ll: N-Fuely 1 < I-t i 10/83-FFTF 4swy*h and FFTF % N '- e' Radionuclide-JCalculations. Calculations - ,.;,. - Sample data- ~ inventory based on-(IDB)- f d p-calculations-l I. i l Radionuclidefremoval Processing of all Same except -Same as - grout:: feeds.'except; LTRUEX. process 1989-exceptL L process
DSS /DSSF used for some slightly lI Ewaste and'37Cs-high'er'37Cs 1
l j:' removed from CC' -removal. E efficiency- -.. =
I Historical Evolution of Tank Waste Estimates 1985-87 HDW-EIS Radionuclide inventory based on irradiated fuel l computer code calculations:and: TRAC modeling of-1 reprocessing and waste management processes 6 7 Radionuclides with > 20 yr half-livescselected, decayedito:end of 1995 (expected start of disposal) L lpi[r; k DST waste:assumedL12,000 MTU N-fuel plus FFTF-e1.I L Tlf> and-PWR Core ll fuel would be reprocessed after October 11983 .. ~..&
i 1988-1989 NRC Transmittal Utilized HDW-EIS and IDB for inventories because NRC raised issue while reviewing HOW-EIS 3 The amount of N fuel to be processed in the future (after 1983) was reducedLfrom 12,000 to 6,000 MTU because N Reactor had been shut down Radionuclides to Grout from waste categories was based on N
95% of Cs removed from liquid DSj7 SSF

fP:
N &P TRUEX orocessing of sludge TRUEX processing, Sr to Grout, 95 /y t@ - No additional processing-Y.ht C: o Cs removal v' "* t Because the Grout-Program had some sample. data which indicated higher activity in some wastes, the inventory data presented to NRC noted that, based on limited sample data, the Cs' Tinventory in grout. feed could bel 7-8.million curies higher than.shown by material-balance =.
~~ t 4 . Bases for Radionuclides to Grout - 1992 Best Estiniate The amount of fuel. repro' cessed assumes PUREX will not operate C12,000 N-fuelip.ost '83 reduced tg4,000 o'd$m g MTU, no FFTF or PWR: Core ll fuell p
Sample data.used to estimate inventories where available-
~ Additional Pretreatment flowsheet calculations available ( l H
Bases for Radionuclides to1 Grout - 1992 Best Estimate (Continuedy gNV NCAW*' O.43LMCiNOct '89-estimate 1.3.MCiD iTotal tank inventory

based on PUREX flowsheet

8
[ analysis y\\/g' 11.5 mci ' 7 Cs 9.7 mci 8 Sr "VL##o *b)# 0.06 mci TRU )' [l f NCAW Pretreatment: Sludge washing, cesium l removal.(increased 1 removal efficiency fromL95% to f"y - 97W j Perce.ntage to. Grout: 1 l-t
3% ' 7Cs
= 0.33 mci 1 %
Sr..
>=.0t 10 mci l 1% TRU =J6E-4:: mci Radionuclides decayed toJendJ1995;Ldecay daughters o not1 included
y
Basesifor Radionuclides to Grout - 1992LBest

Estimate TContinued) l\\lC.RW*LO.38 mci.(Oct '89 estimate 0.02 mci? l Total tank. inventory based..on sample analyses-i 0.35 mci ' 7Cs O.06 mci 8 Sr: l 0.003-mci TRU 4 pv'1 .g NCRW Pretreatment: acid. dissolution, TRU removal u. >9:ef,M Jo
y 1
Percentagesto' Grout:. t / 19 5 % ' 7Cs; 0.33 mci = 80 % 8 Sr 0.05 mci = L6E-5:!. mci 2% TRU
==:
Radionuclides decayed. tojend' 1995;Tdecay daughters-notiinclude~d-
...j Bases for radionuclides to Grout - 1992:Best Estimate. cContinued) sX)- vf' Pj PFP* 0.22 mci (Oct '89 estimate 0.0004 mci? ~ Assume 980m PFP waste (actual volume may be-less? Total inventory based on sample analysis '7 0.17 mci Cs 8 0.08 mci Sr 0.038 mci TRU PFP Pretreatment: acid dissolution, TRU removal Percentage 1to Grout: 95 % '7Cs = 0.16 mci 80 % 8 Sr = 0.06 mci 1% TRU = 0.00038 mci
Radionuclides 1 decayed.to end 1995; decay. daughters-
notLincluded
,e ~ I l Bases for1 Radionuclides to Grout - 1992 Best EstimatelContinued: L -CC d.8jV' ~ (Oct '89 estimate 1-8 mci;u- .. Total ta..x. inventory based o / ple analyses ) u m _x y/ Tank Cs Sr TRU_ '7 5 @ M101-SY- -2.2-0.13 3 1,s " 103-SY 1.5 0.011 0 102-AN 1.0 0.37 107-AN 1.5 0.50 101-AY -0.3 0.65 Total 6.5 1.7 .0.017 *
1
= CC Pretreatment: acidification, TRU removal, organic : destruction,. cesium removal. Percentage toLGrout: 3% ' 7Cs = 0.2 M Ci-97 % Sr; = l1.6 mci l ^ 8 L1 % :TRU- = 0.0001.7 mci '* Radionuclides decayed tolend 1995;fdecayfdaughtersLnotLincluded 1 "*1--Individual tank ~TRU inventories n6t. estimated =
e# Bases for Radionuclides to Grout - 1992 Best ^ Estimate (Continued) DSS /DSSF* 11.8 mci (Oct'89 estimate 4.6 to 5.6 M Ci? t Total tank inventories based on samples /run f balances 0V 4,M '7 / Cs Cateaorv r k y$f75' ~ ~ 8.8 Concentrated Feed' C
'#D[f%"
1.1
Dilute Waste 1
" N$. - 1.9 O #4 Future"Saltwell Pumping "N p r [# 11.81 mci ('IE@* 8 Sr 0.03 mci ~ Q[** TRU - 0.002- . mci ~ No radionuclide removal prior to.. grouting Saltwellipumping volume /concentratiori largest
uncertainty Radionuclides decaye.d to endL1995; decay daughters not included m.
ur. .m __________.________.__m__.___.._.m______._________1--.i___.____,- A m - 1 m
4 e. tgh. y.L y ;/. WASTE INVENTORY DATA 4# f c# (as of 5/92) / t \\L f fj 5 Sheet 1 of 2 v g Inventory Sample Data Waste Tank mci (12/31/95) Estimate $g Volume a Type Basis / Kgal Concentration,(Ci/ gal) ~s Cs-137 Sr-90 Date Cs-137 Sr-90 Tc-99 NCAW AZ-101 11.5 9.7 Flowsheet 5/89 3 (1) (1) (1) 950 -102 Calc. 8/89 / 950 NCRW AW-103 0.35 0.06' Samples 6/89f 0.46 0.08 865 -105 \\ (Solids) PFP SY-102 0.17 0.08 Samples ll/8k 0.77 0.37 1.lE-3 259 1 (Solids) CC SY-101 2.2 0.-13 Samples 6/91 2.19 0.13 7.6E-4 (2) 1114 -103 1.5 0.011 Samples 10/85 2.57 0.019 748 AN-102 1.0 0.37 Samples 12/90) 1.00 0.38 1.lE-4 (2) 1091- -107 1.5 -0.50 Samples 2/85 1.70 0.57 1073 AY-101 0.3 0.65 Samples -2/85) 0.41-(3) 0.87 938' CC . Subtotal 6.5 1.7 (1) Not-used in, inventory. estimate because of high-solids content in tank and erratic data (2)- Analysis.from earlier sample because Tc-99 not analyzed in latest sample (3) Used 7/88 analysis and Volume of 926' Kgal ' as' data appeared better / Wp vy/ p
WASTE INVENTORY DATA (DSS /DSSF as of 5/92) Sheet 2 of Inventory Estimate Sample Data Waste Tank mci (12/31/95) Basis _.X X Volume Type .N] Kgal Concentration, Ci/ gal Cs937 _S d Cs-137 Sr-90 Tc-99 Cs 7-( Cont. LN-103 ! 2.0 0.003 Samples 12/84 2.84 4.9E-3 6.4E-4 904 Feed ( 4 -104 ld 0.002 Evap. Run 1/85 2.24 2.9E-3 766 ~2,.. v te Doc. (1) '7 -105 2.0 0.007 11/84 1.36 8.5E-3 1,099 t$ (1) -106 0.7 0.007 Samples 5/89 0.78 8.E-3 2.6E-4 968 AP-105 0.7 0.001 Evap. Run 448 Doc. AW-101 1.8 0.004 Samples 7/90 1.97 4.lE-3 5.8E-4 1,007 Subtotal Conc. Feed 8.8 0.024 Dilute AN-101 0.4 0.004 Samples 7/88 0.83 7.3E-3 601 Waste AW-103/105 0.2 Samples 12/88 0.10 760
Misc. DST 0.5 Related Samples Subtotal Dilute Waste 1.1 0.004 Future Saltwell 1.9 Estimated Residual 1iquid analyses for 30 + tanks
=4000 Pumping Vol./ Conc. averaged 0.125 Ci/ gal Cs-137 Subtotal 1.9 DSS /DSSF' Total 11.8 0.03 (1). Not used in estimate as evaporator run data considered better
Includes Tanks AP-101-to 104, 106 to 108; AW-102, -104, -106; AY-102
Summary Comparison: Estimate of Radionuclides to Grout From Double-Shell Tank Waste (mci)* 1987 1989_ 1992 HDW-EIS NRC Submittal Best Estimate Radionbclides N C o.0023 0.0027 0.0024
8Se 00003 Sr 2.2 1.8 3_g UMTc o.019
'O.016-0.028 0.015-0.027
129, g,gggg3 g,gggg3 9.9gg9g I## Cs 15 6-7 * +
12.8 IDI Sm 0.029
30U 0.00004 2d O' A pu,241 Am (TRU)
.o.018 0.002-0.01 0.0032 Total without daughters 17.2 7-15** 14.6 * *
with daughters 33.6 13.7-29.6 28.7 + * *

Radionuclides decayed to end of 1995

Limited analytical data indicated there may be an additional 7-8 mci of Cs-137

*

Uncertainty remains
- Indicates radionuclides exist in waste but curies not estimated
y ,,9 LComparison of Double-Shell Tank Grout to 10 CFR.Part 61
Limits i
10 CFR 61 Limits: 3 (Ci/m ) Class Class Class 1992:Best Estimate A B C' ' Average Radionuclide Total Concentration in Grout (21 Radionuclide 3 (mci) -(Ci/m ) ~, 14'C1 0.0024 0.01 0.8 0.8 -8 9 Sr -1.8 8-0.04 . 150 7,000'
To
. 0;015-0.027 006-011 03 -03 3= .129l L0.00003-0.0001 0.008 0.008 - 0.08 - -137gg. .g7,g. 54 [370] 1 1441 4,600 TRU
0.0032 801 [< 100) 11001 10"1 10001
}
Total
- 14.6: "IUnits;are Nanocuries1per gra'm: 12345 grout;vanits containing;238,000.m :of grout at S.G. of.1.6L 3 [ ]JD'enotes: maximum allow'able per-groutL:specifcation ,+ c,ee,- -,,,,, m.- e,,-,- ~ e ..nr ,.v. ~ a. +
vmn, s
v. u =- N :. s en . www ,-us
~ e i COMPARISON OF 1992 BEST ESTIMATE TO PREVIOUS NRC SUBMITTAL RADIONUCLIDE' MATERIAL BALANCE pm hah FORD TAh K WASTE d';.W pjbr. ( / DECAYED DURING STORAGE REMAINING IN SST GROUT IN NEAR SURFACE 'wj M-])*f VAULTS
Sr = 57%
(59)
Sr-=-19-23%-t20T'4)

S r =. 0.2-4 %
.(1 1 2 Cs = 55 % (57) Cs = 4-5 % (4-5) Cs = 3% (6 ) '*7 '*7 ~ (58) (12-14) (3.5) . TOTAL ACTIVITY = 56% TOTAL ~ ACTIVITY- = 11-13% ~ TOTAL ACTIVITY = 2-3% i h n Ah (p aavd l T VIA WASTE GENERATED 1944 - 1996 h GROUT o FACILITY' ROUTED TO: O.9 149 SST y 28 DST m. Cs/Sr REMOVAL h 100% ALL NUCLlDES* U AND ENCAPSULATION. r TO GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY VIA STORE IRRADIATED 9 Sr = -20% (16-20) ( p '*7 - N REACTOR - f4 Ci "psT.. Cs = 38% (32-33) c TRU = 82 - 85% - PWR CORE 11 (24-26) - FFTF TOTAL ACTIVITY = 29% - MISCELLANEOUS l -"lF THIS FUEL IS INCLUDED IN THE MATERIAL
PERCENTAGES BASED ON "Sr,*Cs CURIES DECAYED TO DEC.1995.
BALANCE AND IS SENT DIRECTLY TO THE REPOSITORY ( 1% BASED ON 1992 BEST ESTIMATE:"Sr 1.8 &*Cs 12.8 mci IN GROUT ~ OR REPROCESSED ALL THE % CHANGE AND TOTAL-l ACTivlTY TO GROUT IS APPRO MATELY-3'Yo oows j00 l A vj i
y mz , =;, E LLargest: Practical: Amount of Radionuclides Removed;(1992): LCurrent Judgement as Compared to 1989: 14C?and 12s1: No: change o 88Tc: No change, but considering for future o TRU:- :No change j - o. a 8 Sr: No_ change, but pursuing technology that!may be-o S available when wa'ste1with bulk of SrLis processed;
y o -
'7 Cs: No:. change .m. =l- >m.- u .m y 1,-., ,w
e. -
, ;+ LConclusions I The quantity of radionuclides to grout is an estimate, uncertainties will remain for years. The 1992:Best Estimate.is within the bounds.of the o HDW-EIS and comparable to.what was submitted to the
NRCLin 1989 --LSSTs were excluded from HDW-EIS ROD,sfg -
V*v }r, and NRC agreement. go Estimated DST Waste to Grout 1987 1989 -1992-4,, ') Total Radionuclides (mci)* HDW-EIS - NRC-Submittal Best Estimate i j Without' Decay Daughters
17.2 -
7-15 *
14.6 * *

With-Decay Daughters-33.6 13.7-29.6**
- 287 * * * - t
Decayed to end.of 1995
Limited: analytical data indicated-there-may-be an additional 7-8 mci of-Cs-137:-

*

Uncertaintyf remains
~
( [ I p(W i KEY POINTS FROM DOE AND NRC JULY 16, 1992 PUBLIC MEETING ON THE CLASSIFICATION AND DISPOSAL 0F HANFORD'S DOUBLE-SHELL TANK WASTE 1. Basis for 1989 decision on incidental waste classification of radionuclide inventory going to grout has not changed. - DOE's estimate of radionuclides going to grout is now - 3.5% of total radionuclides originally entering the Hanford tanks. - the inventory is now based on slightly more sample analysis than it was in 1989. - the inventory of cesium and strontium has changed, overall total roughly the same. 2. DOE described a program review to "rebaseline" the waste management' program at Hanford. This is expected to be completed March 1993, and could eventually alter DOE's plans for Double-Shell Tank (DST) remediation. Rebaseline to be based on safety considerations, not on what is easiest to complete. 3. NRC requested that DOE furnish sample plans, procedures and results of sample nalysis to NRC when available for tank characterization and grout itad. 4. Meetin'g was well-attended: DOE-HQ, DOE-RL-(and contractors), EPA, State of Washington, State of Oregon, Yakima Indian Nation, several DOE contractors / lab representatives (SR0, PNL, LANL), and NRC. S. NRC representatives: NMSS LLWM C. Glenn H. Weber B. Brach HLWM P. Altomare R. Weller RES N. Tanious OGC J. Wolf 6. Plan a meeting with Bangart and Youngblood to debrief on Richland-meeting. Suggest 9ernero debrief also. Need to be sure management is aware of: (1) trar. iers from SST to DST ongoing now; (2) impact of radionuclide inventories of daughter product consideration (doubles curies); and (3) staff concern on'< eft. ground potentially for DOE's determination of most technically practical separation / removal before' transfer to grout facility. 7. DOE now planning to retrieve Single-Shell Tank waste rather than dispose of this waste in-place. /$$<. 7/z.o &d% shk$ 3 ~;&d', h' %WL.t
'[ f.
. 4t#, k 7; . Conclusions The quantity of radionuclides to. grout is an estimate, uncertainties. will-remain for years. The 1992 Best Estimate is within the bounds of:the HDW-EIS andicomparable to what was. submitted.toLth~e 1 NRC in 1989 -- SSTs were excluded from HDW-EIS: ROD: and?NRC agreement Estimated DST Waste to: Grout I 1987-1989 1992 Total Radionuclides -(mci)*- HDW-EIS NRC Submittal' Best Estimate Without DecayLDaughters. 17.2 7-15 *
14.6 * * * -
y I With^ Decay Daughters-33.6 113.7-29.6** 28.7 * * *-
Decayed to end of 1995;
Limited analytical data indicated there'may be an additional 7-8 mci'of Cs-137

*

Uncertainty remains -
' ~ ~ .m m I .' [ m -'2 .i%- ,,., ~, .r4 --.i
g-- l '., .: f -f / _Y, . DON'T S AY IT --- Vrite It! DATE: July 27, 1992 .O TO: Chad Glenn FRONf.,'~0nn Wodrich [,k Telephone: W 636 ~' cc: DDW File /LB
SUBJECT:
HANFORD TANK WA51L As requested, attached is the estimated radionuclides in curies, are represented by the percentages on the Material 3alance Sheet prm. wd to you in briefing to tne NRC on July 16, 1992 I have put alphabetical notations on the Mata :al Balance Sheet, entages and then have provided a table which lists the 2stimated curies f each of these, with and without daughters. Please not> that this is a.dr~ and that the U.S. Department of Energy will provine the :ormal response ta ur questions. peb Attachment a S 1p1, \\b ![ SMom-101 (v/59) cuou .... e . m..m ..m... m z.
+ .g iE.. q
7,;
3.g. :... y 6 '. g 4 .j - iS - COMPARISON OF 1992 BEST ESTIM' ATE TO PREVIOUS NRC' SUBMITTAL; RADIOA UCLI JLE Vl A:~1ERI AL 3ALANC E ^ r AL OM J TAI \\ ( WASTE ^ 4 DECAYED DURING STORAGE ' REMAINING IN SST GROUT IN NEAR SURFACE VAULTS "Sr = 67% '(69)a
Sr = 19-23%
(20-24)E ' Sr = 0.2-4 %. L(li )'lii Cs = 55 % 157) c. Cs = -- 4 5 % (4-6) N # Cs = 3%~ -16:11 ' TRU = 11 - 17% - TRU = 1.- 4 % - ( 5 8) t> (12-14)6
(3.5)L
] TOTAL' ACTIVITY '= 56% TOTAL ACTIVITY = 11-13% [ TOTAL ACTIVITY = 2 3%- .a
g-
. u. - A h - ^ ' .a. . WASTE GENERATED VI A. v h - GROUT 1944 - 1996-A o ' FACILITY: J HOUTED TO. W 7, ji 14 9: SST-3;
28 DST:
~ a L l AND ENCAPSULATIOte6'l Cs/Sr HEMOVAL - .1100% ALL NUCLIDES' - Y TO GEOLOGIC REPOSITORY VIA= E STORED IRRADI ATED HWVP ] ' ' *e a Sr. = = 20% f(16 20)i< j 9 ~ FUEL?' j. ~~
Cs =: 38%
. (32-3 3) f - N REACTOR TRU' =. 8 2 s 85 % PWR CORE 11 i2;?m 4 .FFlh . i ;. ;a y., ;. L -4 . j. + tAISCELL ANEOUS'. ' - - ~ "-
*FERCENTAGES "ASED ON ISr,'"Cs' CORIES DECAYED TO DEC.LIS96 U
4 *tF' Titl5 FUEL IS INCLUDED IN 111E MATElllA1.- BALANCE AND IS SENT DlHECILY TO htE HEPOS) TORY ; - ()K UASED ON 1992 DEST ES11MATEi Y r 1.8 &"!Cs 12 8 MCilN'GROUTc 1 S c'-
OR BEPHOCESSED ALL-THE % CliANGE AND TOTAL

-
'd._ AC11Vl1Y TO GROUT..tS APPHOXIMATELY 3%; ~ J ..-'l, ~~,.,: l
=.
~.. h L- ...a..
n: DRAFT 1121/93 o,es 'Lstimated Radionuclide Mat.arlai Balance 4 Radip.noclidas it-Wit.hnut Decay Jith Decay. Irom Chart. Da ug h',c ry. 33pchters-A 42!.6 831.5 B
19.9 739.3 C
24.0 241.3 D .43.9 481.1-E
? 49.
84-98 F -9.0 20.8 17.5 G F 7-58 'J1.8-115.5 H 1.8 3.6 I 12.8 24.9 J 14.6 -28.5 K 40.: 33.8
31. 6-57.~ 5 L
'67 ~-59.5 11.9 135.8 M-108. -!03.3 1.5-203 1- .) Note: There is a slight error in numbers as the Darts do.not ada. to total. It is off by less than 0.5%, out will be corrected. ~ 1 I l 'n-26 s: " . t nu t,$ II \\$1n~1 '4 us;; unir. tii. Gn'C .i
t + \\ .. -i TRANSACTION REPORT >' 07-28-1992(TUE).09:50-t . ( FeC C E 1 '3 3 CA1E ' I r1E Cf 5T1r# TIO IT:.11Ctd PG. D'JiATION t100E RESULT-2' 7-2. *. %: 49 503 372 29.-- 4' 0'01'49' NORr1.E OK 4' O*0149' l W ? t b .'tg e-I I' 4 6. Y
4 -T Chad l J. Glenn 09/10 18:44 HANFORD tanks "' Items an Current Envelope DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD (Tab next it em) D? J ' MESSAGE 3 DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDD.DDDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Y am: Chad J. Glenn (CJG1) RLB2. EWB, RLB1, JHA, t1FW, JRW, RMW2. F MA ate: Monday, Auc;unt 10, 1992 6:44 pm . Joject: HANFORD TANKS talked to Rick M ar tine:- (DOE) today regarding a request 1 oceived f or information on the July 16th meeting with - DCE. In mis conversation, Rick indicated that the2r Germantown of11ce
ceived some input on the Chairman's visit to DOE's Hanf orc a cilit y.
Rick stated that from DOE's perspective, it was clear hat the Chairman hed been briefed berfore the visit and nderstood the is su es, Rick also stated tnat before the Enalrman aft. the Chairman acknowledged that NRC owes DOE a response on he is su e. Nent (Read): 2 Delet e; 3 Save: 4 Info; 5 'Pr evious; 6 Forward: 7 Reply; A
I 1 r . m a. s a. a . i 4;; '
q 09/10"15:58.
? MEETING
SUMMARY
FOR DOE-N. RC-. ON. HANFO,RD' c,Ch.ad M. ? Glenn' - : r Eh. J , Wltam, a in. ' Currenti' Gnvelape 'DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD (Tab nex.h : item) 'D?' s
,. tMESSAGE~
J. ~ 3 AbbODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDPDDDDDDDDDDDY hms Chad J.'. Glenn- (CJG3)-
c:J PMA catesi T nursday, September 10, 1992 3:58 pm SObjec't:
MEETING ~
SUMMARY
. FOR DOE-NRC ON HANFORD a <hil: jh regardc-to Rosetta's E-mail note, I informed Ronetta that I ' ?in' not awara of an NRC Trap Report for the ' July ' 16, 1992 (meeting ' ~ Ptween DDE and NRC cn the classification and disposal-of..Hanford snk. Wast. es. I don't know if HLW has. developed a Tripi Report, m. . pt jl 'do Anow. that LLWM has.nct developed such 'a r e po r t.- - Even.11 q / ' RC had. a -Trip Report,. it is not clear why NRC would provide it sc @ob7 Cook or any other outade parties. However, this begs the wuestjan " what is the -status of the meeting summary (formal Jotumentation) for this meeting. Prior to thir. meeting, l DOE 3dementown' Of fice) committed to - draf tmq the meeting summary,anc roviding the dret summary to NRC for review -bef ors a final ~ i,, Newti (Reed): 2 Deletet il Save; 4 Info; 5 Previous. 6" F orward: 7 Replyn I / , '* h JU . / s 4 . ) k. e I k. b. .k i l" Y 'd a d. ~.. - be ik e 4 l a 4 EMESEAGE _. i
r i
r&witm gypyp;qmpp;%g.yygt, wpm:ppppgg c :;pppppy; ;; p f g l p j w m y;p & yl 2 + nh.w n t e.' ] dnn - inon It ML S a de"e gge a. Tr im Dem m i N 'l, *O e T 10 w YnAL ' 2.!h '! %a FC deV91ODW3 M 4,.h -ic..f F p ar L. -5w .f ( i ~ d 4,.:.1 T T ".![$ hdD7" '5. ( h n!" t 1 A Usi' idb / b ' llou12) _ QNN ?b(2 ID[ t a e n- .:: TM-
?,
c-a~ clper. :n s une ur r:,1v ~ H.:x o v ta r., g ny: % 'ts?-m t'~ A CP ';1rc :
Uaun mc '
U.-':n _ y Ap# 1r 4F r a i w 02 e my P "f a r -t r: W r.m ettng-. - emi t;nmatM w ; -f or m r r 41N,4 n%.4 Offde : m rn m. ~. ! O. 10~ ij l t iGO the ri m e t in a W-*. s l' f 7 ~-L g,,.r*. jT IqFI hj, P p s < is;i O rf yd rQE ' '* i ' O y id r, -FA tF en r e C m Q.1F'- 'T 2 7 5 '.J C ~ NM V M.Uld MG'.~d i<' P ETT-Mt W 4 r'" ? Q h't h9 ) v ni6 timc. M A rt. HL t ! ^ 2 c'.m d tiie a: hf t. meetir a surnir' N Q,JN eOuPEtmi the draft-EurNT,rv -i r tM , CEC NCE hN ! ? M npt - IN >& s .re tumm& y 3E 11!ie n.nd tDE Li% uld dslco s =:na it. to ali -erk1Lh/ 7.".dividdal's e t b?n'.jl.np tM GeGt inG? . f Ci~ .RD% MFtt-1 ...g r . Ment' indad): 2 Delete: 7 - 5 cave: 4'Infa; 5 ' Previous 6 Forwerm. ? - Aeply1 - .,.). 4 4 9 e'v.-.--p g
..r 4 sq - w+ ~, h, e, :;-
f. 'h.
( e e,[ChadfJdGlenn :1902 17:28: PETITION.6N HANDFORD :DEFENSEiWASTE( hht'emn ::1nl Currant Envelope DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD '(Tab nent; item);D? :. T E: w --MESSAGE; ' i, $bbbDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD l s% L ?,cm.,f-C. had J. " Gle. nn:. (CJ G1) EWB DJ M: - PMA. RLB1, N5T, MFW, JPW, JHA, M te: Nondayg November 2,1992, 5:28 pm 0 Mject: PETIT 10N' GN HANDFORD DEFENSE WASTE 7 ' received a call today -from Jim Bauer (DOE Hanford Office) ?qarding the grouting of Haniord double-shell. tank - waste. -Mr. Vuerfstated that DOE and the State of Wash 2ngton, have had 'recent circussions on the Tri-Party Agreement milestones..In the course si xTf these discussient, Mr. Bauer caid the State (f cqer. Stanlev of' L he. Department of Ecology) is saying that NRC would grandf atner' l , M new vaultm 31 DOE proceeded with grouting - the next' series of f l inks ' scheduled for arcuting. State is apparently._ pressuring DDE . almove. iorward in meeting there milestones. Dased en the 1 MikPertyL Agreement, Mr. Bauer indicated that 5-10 double-shell e + anks. are scheduled to be grcuted within.the next 2-3 yer r% 4 6 wever, Mr. Bauer added that the State is apparently ' not " Nextilf Read); 2 Delete: 3 Save: 4 Info; 5 Prev.tous; e Fcrwara; 7 Reply;1 Chec J. Fionc '07 17: PETI T~1:0N d't%rOf 5 " h f0 0E LAiTE -i m Lua n - = n. rrm c.nvci - CDDDDDDDDDPD Wat:nCM n 9PDDME:D iT LW net it.nc f SL ] ' l:ESEASE i WDDivE GDDDh :. vi hWWyDrpr@DEWOD$;Mj?DDD DO::
JD:
LDiyDEDDL DDDDDW X s.da G s
c e farwee z rea ;
n mo mlestarr p aed'of re ni ri-narty _,, e r s m. 9 Pam nitca ts th - ~ S-w m b b s. m d ~ M 9P.i M P e 5 ^;h e d u; & Tc bF-MPc ated Wthin Er.M - G EC. M' f#2 (;
p jor3. Hr. Fi d u s-a rjcac ' t p 5 *- tr> G M a +' O -' S ' A pp a rk't; 09 d 6 t;-
",t D N @ f N " :..j r ; v.j hnr ',c.:. J gv D@;t , 4 [j t gy .gg -gr ,o 5 N9ernonse v tt-f.._ l o # p: h. @OF --r)r ta ncm a. m c c m i m T he no:m seegg -- e am .c ; 7 bnO:schedulet no ba arcuter, amor to an - m
n t:1, + or &
7 tit icn would ' NRL gm ndtsther the rh ault mo - it t 1 W:.crec ri Eeucr-that I wouin raine tnm questwn wan-c 3 menManer;c m t; y prWard (bl4 quGEtion M the D; '19 don '01' Higih LE Vej 6 e E T.O .2nagt jenL ; which hs the' leso on;the Hanford wh atrim i $CM MLBI ^ -{ y ..g . h$xtMRoad); ' 21 Deiote;.3Mave; el Jh'fo;.5 Previcus: 2[Forware: ~' Psp 1;/ :
p.. '
i s ? E t J k N .W 1
t ~. ~ e,,., s s s n'v ~
< ; ;w,
< Chad EJ., Gl eni tid 10115:44 ' b atems. l1.n : Current Envolaan -DDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDDDDDDbDDDDDDDDD (Tab nest item)' D.? vc TESSAGE 3 .s.. OD DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDV 7:;nu . Chad: J. Glenn - qCJG1)-. JHA,FMA,EWB RLB2,RMW2,RLBj;NST,RCW,JRW . 2 3 ist m Tuesdayc November 10. 1 W 2 3:44 pm- _.4 @ ject s @cbert. Ece ds - (Wa r ninct on State, Departmcr: c1 Eccicav) - called W his af ternoon reaarding the 'Hanferd ten + ncteL Mr. Corce ~ .deking 2ncidht 2nto what NRC's regtdat or y re sDonrilu2 nies were tthLeenpect to-the Hanf ord ' ter.k wntee. 1 informed nam that' , J <C'c; regulater y ' resnonc2bility' was hmited to tne capesal c1, i% 'since. f ecilitarin for th;r dispM ai of HLW require an NR.C-unw.- Mr. Cords d dnowleogged t ras. an<J t h t.n said it ;was. hn. Ners tandina tna': sny HLW from ' tnn. Hanford tank WaET.O NOuld' be ent'offcitt to a mLW repository (e.g.,. N u cca.M td. I iadded-nat 3 p it snt.orestec m ensuring that any tant waste ' tnn is.ornuted iEltU % ndt' HLk I stated,tli at NhCE responce 1c: tne State et MdnQten " pet it ion shoults belo oddr ress tnm c oncerr. Mr. -" fk f ) ~ e,..f 6 5 h k. - I te, i t t, i N.' DOL :. !. J.'i ' 'i GC ' nC- .J"~'- I' b s - T ,kt N.., ' 4 .., y y., .., qlr..,.', _. j- .7' I 's ^.c*1. % JL % w L. L l.,*L:s., ilj, ' i:i ,z. + a r rc ' ;;. s Gn-r; r' u 7? n ,tr?
Is3' M.;
~ 'jpg > ' Q F* 5".t,Ft d E 5*- .n ' - ( i. "r O in Far- - * % ant y&M W Cf( . 1, mn
4. <
n'tnovieit= o -e - :- 1 : rcg & r 'r - r , UiR 4 #G h ?'. ; ' Mn r ^* j !1' <l23LG C; .L' GY W<"?'
\\R i 1
e t' i E t ~ ' ID* T i D ',. d G ?.A t E f 1~ h A L $ i -- -*" '4-** >nc.n m :n sno w noin s >o en u con-r e " < t* 6 3 0 - E '. S
cM t r a -,c
". Or '" v 70!' s <:te ^ O(r a r'- <e_t 9 L_F ~ T r C (i f r' -
dOrd ~ tsDIM cn ir hO h t P'1 th & t L r,
tF'6
'^m W "I* a c' '~ d t 7 - 1./ & U f ikkhC ' Sf C4 d '. II'i d' O D t lG% !!it d P N il i' T T ? O O T -70 ' f C. I,tJr R i ", f. i FIT Mr is s J a f t s rC+; tc fi!t them, v a ;d t;, I intorMa.W, f orcn t n e ti. s ' b, b .i .h 3 eg h$ hCVidGG h3.m ' ith.Prn Balldrd n FWW Ednd-'nUCDGP fOr fRth0F { 34 cematicna. O: - MF w..' s .i s L Next (Read);;3 Delete; 3 Bave 4 ' in f o; 5 - Previous 'sf Earware: 7 Reply; m y'. -r 'T i FW
e .&. R ww._: ,, u...u. ii. a.&, _._ u..c_.._.__...______...an._._.. 1 z_... _ W ,, f 3: g-Department of Energy p' a Richland Field Office gt O/L [8 ' ~ , P.O. Box 550 Richland. Washington 99352 (/ ' ' l 92-LLB-005 0CT 3 0 1992' l t Mr. Philip Altomare U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Altomare:
~ MINUTES OF U. S. DEPARTMENT-0F ENERGY RICHLAND FIELD'0FFICE (D0E-RL) AND U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) MEETING ON HANFORD TANK' WASTE DISPOSAL Attached are the minutes and tape recordings of the meeting between the NRC and DOE-RL,' held in Richland, Washington on July 16, 1992. If you have any_ questions you may contact me or your staff may contact Lori Huffman of my staff on (509) 376-0104. Sincerely, [, pA J H. Anttonen, Acting Program Manager -DSD:RC Of ice'of Tank Waste Remediation'SysteT. cc: w/o attachments . J. L. Epstein, WHC J. C.,Tseng, EM-36 K. Chacey, EM-36 D. W. Mark, EM-36 l ; )*gi, I ^ (Vpi ' 0100 ti6. cd Nt2090049, 921030 ' \\[b ]f 'yl+ g, 1 - lfI I'- ' i PDR : WASTE
N\\:
' Wii-1 - PDR' ' ' ' t v
u. m e + l.. Minutes of: NRC/ DOE MEETING Meeting held: Tower Inn 1515 George Washington Way Richland, Washington July 16, 1992 6 - Purposes and Agenda - Attendance - Summary of Presentations / Discussion / Action items - Action Item List i Handout 1 - Tank Waste Remediation System Overview (including Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System Flow Diagram - Reference Case) Handout 2 - Review of.1989 Agreement Between DOE and'NRC on Classification of Grout Feed as Low-Level Waste and Current Status Handout 3 - Hanford Grout Disposal Program - Tank Waste Characterization Handout 4 - Hanford Grout Disposal _ Program - Grout-Characteristics Relative to NRC Requirements y
(page 1 of 1) NRC/D0E MEETING July 16, 1992 PURPOSES AND AGENDA ' Purposes: DOE will discuss its plans for processing DST waste, discuss whether. _ they are still consistent with NRC criteria, and plans for sampling and analyzing the grout-feed. NRC and interested parties will get answers to their questions. NRC and interested parties will express their comments, suggestions, issues, and concerns. Agenda: 9:00 am - 9:15 am
Introductions
9:15 am - 9:45 am Overview of Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Presenter: J. Tseng, U.S. Department of Energy, Headquarters 9: 45 am 11:15 am Review of 1989 Agreement'between DOE and NRC on-Classification of Grout Feed as Low-level Waste and Current Status - Historical background - Review of 1989 agreement - Current estimates compared to 1989' agreement-Presenter: D. D. Wodrich, Westinghouse Hanford-Company -11:15 am - 11:45 am Open Discussion 11:45 am - 12:45 pm Break 12:45 pm - 1:30 pm Grout Tank Waste Characterization - Characterization process - Sampling plan - Sampling results - Plan for reporting characterization results to NRC and Ecology Presenter: J. A. Voogd, Westinghouse Hanford Company 1:30 pm - 2:30 pm Grout characteristics Relative to NRC Requirements Presenter: D. E. Wood, Westinghouse Hanford Company 2:30 pm - 2:45 pm Summary Presenter: L. Erickson, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Field Office 2:45-pm - 3:30 pm Open Discussion
. -,, wa -n -.. n: Attachm'ent'2 (page 1 of 2) NRC/ DOE MEETING July.16,~1992 ATTENDANCE Name- . Address ' Phone Number Ralph Arcaro. Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board-202-208-6580~ Philip Altomare USNRC, Washington, DC-301-492-3878 B1aine Barton WHC, Richland, WA 509-376-5118 ~ ' Al:Boldt WHC, H5-49, Richland, WA 509-376-1003 Kayle Boomer 2707 SE 14th.Pl., Richland, WA ' .509-627-4161 Bill-Brach USNRC, Washington, DC-301-504-3344 Ken Bracken DOE-RL, Richland, WA 509-376-7591 Joe Bunting SAIC, Germantown, MD 301-601-5621 Rodolfo Carreon DOE-RL, Box 550, A5-10, Richland, WA' 509-376-9461 Bob Cook YIN,1933 Jadwin St.110, Richland, WA 509-946-0101-Micheline Devaurs DOE-HQ, EM-36/LANL, Washington, DC 301-601-1439 Bill'Dixon WHC, Richland, WA 509-376-0428 Kerwin Donato SWEC, Box 928, Richland, WA-509-376-5011 Dan Duncan EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA 206-553-6693 Howard Eckert DOE-HQ, Washington, DC 301-903-7173 Joe Epstein WHC, Box 1970, R4-01, Richland, WA 509-373-3885 Leif Erickson DOE-RL, Box 550, Richland, WA. 509-376-1758 503-378-3187 Janet Franco Oregon Dept. of Energy 625 Marion St. NE, Salem, OR Jack Frander Yakima Indian Nation 509-865-5121-Ron Gerton DOE-RL, Box 550, Richland, WA. '509-376-9106 ~ Chad Glenn USNRC, Washington, DC, 301-504-2546-Jon Handy WHC, Richland,'WA.. 509-376-2169 Phil Hamric DOE-RL, Box 550, Richland, WA' 509-376-4216 Harry Harmon WHC, 2750-E,- R2-52, Richland,' WA 509-373-4724. Lori Huffman-DOE-RL,-Box 550,-A5-10,-Richland, WA 509-376-01041 Russell Jim 'Yakima Indian Nation. Richard'Karnesky 1491-Amon Dr., Richland, WA 509-627-1312 -Dale Lindsey WHC,- Richland, WA 509-376-9668 Rick Martinez DOE-HQ, Washington, DC-Denny Newland ..WHC, Richland, WA- .509-372-0425. Bruce Nicoll DOE-RL, Richland, WA 509-376-6006-Don Oakley DOE-HQ, EM-50, Washington, DC 202-488-0889-206-438-7024: Don Provost WD0E, Olympia, WA 509-783-8016 Alan Ramble 1200 Penn St., Kennewick, WA George Sanders 00E-RL, Box 550, Richland, WA '509-376-6088: Roger Stanley WDOE, PV-II,-Olympia, WA 206-438-7020 John Straub. Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board 509-376-9979-Mike Talbot DOE-RL, Richland,-WA ~509-376-7501-Naiem Tanious USNRC, Washington, DC 301-492-3878' John Tseng DOE-HQ, Washington, DC Randel Tulee Yakima Indian Nation Jeff Voogd. WHC,-Box 1970, R4-03, Richland, WA .509-373-5642 Michael Weber USNRC, MS.SE4, Washington, DC. 301-504-1298 1
~. 4; - - ~ -, - ~...... x -. I . (cont'd.) (page 2 of'2). c I ATTENDANCE Name Addres:- Phone Number Rick Weller USNRC, Washington, D.C. 301-504-3458 Terri Welsh 11 W. 23rd Pl, Kennewick, WA 509-582-4972 Joe Westsik PNL, P7-19, Richland, WA 509-376-5985 Elmer S. Wilhite WSRC, Aiken, SC 803-725-5800' George Williamson WHC, Richland, WA 509-373-3973 Joe Witczak_ Ecology, Box 7600, Olympia, WA. 206-438-7557-Don Wodiich WHC, Richland, WA 509-373-2038 Tom Woebkenberg SWEC, Box 928, Richland, WA 509-376-0782' Tim Wolf. USNRC-0GC, Washington,.DC 301-504-1641-Don Wood WHC, Box 1970, B2-19, Richland, WA 509-376-7832 Attendees Assembled at the Conference Table Organization Name Phone Numbe'r-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Philip Altomare 301-492-3878. Bill Brach-301-504-3344 Chad Glenn 301-504-2546 Naiem Tanious 301-492-3878 Michael Weber 301-504-1298 Rick Weller 301-504-3458 Tim Wolf 301-504-1641 U.S. Dept. of Energy Rick Martinez Headquarters John Tseng U.S. Dept. of Energy Ken Bracken 509-376-7591' Richlani Field Office Leif Erickson 509-376-1758 U.S, Environmental Protection Agency Dan Duncan -206-553-6693 Region 10 I ' Washington State Dept. of. Ecology Don Provost 206-438-7024 Roger Stanley 206-438-7020 ~ Oregon Dept.-of Energy Janet Franco '503-378-3187' 'Yakima' Indian Nation Bob Cook' 509-946-0101-Jack Frander' 509-865-5121-Russell. Jim ' i Westinghouse Hanford Company. Joe Epstein 509-373-3885 Jeff.Voogd. 509-373-5642 Don Wodrich 509-373-2038 Don Wood 509-376-7832
_._.._..__.,_.m_ Attachment.3 (page 1 of 11)- NRC/ DOE MEETING July 16, 1992
SUMMARY
OF PRESENTATIONS / DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS-The meeting proceeded in accordance with the agenda. 3 1. John Tseng of the U.S. Department of Energy - Headquarters (DOE-HQ) gave an overview of the Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS), and the status of the Grout Disposal Program for low-level waste. (Refer to Handout 1). 11. Don Wodrich of Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) reviewed the 1989 Agreement between DOE and United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) on the classification of grout feed as low-level waste (LLW). He then compared the current estimates of radionuclide waste to the estimates provided in the 1989 Agreement. (Refer to Handout 2). During Don Wodrich's presentation, the following major questions and - comments were made and the following action items were-taken. Comment: Rick Weller of USNRC commented that the table entitled " Waste Inventory Data (as of 5/92)" is confusing!since the sample concentration is expressed in Ci/ unit volume,- although solid samples were also taken. He added that concentration for solid samples is usually expressed in Ci/ unit mass.
Response
Don Wodrich of ~ WHC stated he did not know how the laboratory converted Ci/ unit mass to Ci/ unit volume for the solid samples. Question: Chad Glenn of the USNRC asked the following question regarding the 1992 best estimate of the radionuclide material balance: How many megacuries are associated with the total radioactive waste generated from 1944 to 1996, with and without inclusion of the decay daughters? ACTION ITEM 1: Determine the answer to this question. Action: Don Wodrich of WHC. i Question: Michael Weber of USNRC asked _the following question regarding the 1989.best estimate of the.radionuclide 2 material balance: How many megacuries, with and without inclusion of decay daughters, were assumed to be added i between the time this material balance was completed and 1996? l ACTION ITEM 2: Determine the answer to this question. Action: Don Wodrich of WHC. ~i
p -.m. =... u, 9, .x /. L, m (cont'd) (page 2 of 11) +
SUMMARY
OF PRESENTATIONS / DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS Guestion: Michael Weber of USNRC asked the following question-zK regarding the 1992 best estimate of the radionuclide material balance: What are the estimated megacuries associated with the various percentages? The megacuries should be provided, as applicable, for total activity, Strontium-90, Cesium-137, and TRU, and with and without inclusion of the decay daughters. ACTION ITEM 3: Determine the answer to-this question. Action: Don Wodrich of-WHC. Question: Rick Weller~of.USNRC asked the following question regarding. the 1992 best estimates of the waste inventory: For all waste categories', how does the waste inventory data compare: to the DOE Red Team Review Report on HWVP, which was issued in August 1991?.There appears to be' inconsistencies.between the'two documents. ACTION ITEM 4: -Determine the answer to this question. Action: Don Wodrich of WHC. Follow-up: Rick Weller of USNRC added the following comments:- The Red Team Report indicated that NCAW waste is the best characterized of the four waste categories, yet-RL/WHC's NCAW estimate is based on flowchart calculations. The inventory..for some of the waste categories is not; consistent with that.in the. Red Team Report. The Red Team Report states that'10 of the 28 double-shell tanks (DSTs).are conside' red to contain high-level' waste (HLW). Question: Bob Cook of the Yakima. Indian Nati'on (YIN) asked:the-following' question regarding the.1992 best estimates. of the t waste inventory: For NCRW waste, the total tank inventory of TRU ' waste is 0.003 megacuries (mci) _ based.on sample analysis. How does this compare to,the value determined by_
flowsheet analysis?
ACTION. ITEM.5: Determine the answer to this question. Action: Don Wodrich of WHC. J.
.a m . (cont'd) (page 3 of 11)
SUMMARY
OF PRESENTATIONS / DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS Ouestion: Don Provost of Ecology asked the following question: For DSS /DSSF waste, what information is available on.the efficiency of using in-tank zeolite. process of ion-exchange for cesium-recovery, including the number of additional glass canisters that would be generated. ACTION ITEM 6: Determine the answer to this question. Action: Don Wodrich. Question: Bob Cook of YIN asked whether theLresearch advances made in. TRU removal could be applicable to Iodine-129 removal.
Response
Don Wodrich of WHC provided the following response. Research on TRU removal is at a much more advanced stage than research on Iodine-129 removal. No viable technology has yet been developed to remove Iodine-129 from the ' prodigious volume of grout feed.' There is an estimated 33 Ci of-Iodine-129 spread across an estimated 20-30 million i gallons of grout feed. Comment: - Michael Weber of USNRC commented that.using the 1992' best estimate of 28.7 mci (including daughters) of_ DST radionuclides.to grout and assuming an estimated.110 mci (including daughters) for the entire DST inventory, approximately 26% of total DST activity is to be grout disposed.
Response
Don Wodrich of WHC concurred that 26% is a reasonable estimate. After Don Wodrich's presentation, the following major questions / comments were made and the:following action items were taken. Question: P,ick Weller of USNRC asked how the. code-of-origin system used to develop the 1992 best estimates for the radioactive waste inventory differs from the computer-code systems used: -for inventory' estimates in the 1987 HDW-EIS and the 1989 NRC. Transmittal.
Response
Don Wodrich of WHC stated he's not knowledgeable about the details of these coding systems. He added that.he is aware-that-these coding systems are in' general agreement regarding the major radionuclides, but inconsistencies-would' exist for those radionuclides with low activities. Follow-up: Rick Weller of.USNRC ' wanted a follow-up on this issue since he believed this is related to the degree of uncertainty in estimating the radioactive waste' inventory.
g_._a. a n. e.au. p-7 .. (cont'd) (page 4 of 11)'
SUMMARY
OF PRESENTATIONS / DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS Question: Michael Weber of USNRC asked how much dii'erence would there-be -if the radionuclide-inventory estimates considered .i' radionuclides with half-lives less than 20 years.
Response
Don Wodrich of VHC provided the following response. For the DSTs, these radionuclides would currently amount to lessi ? than 20 mci compared to the total estimate of 110 mci. For-the single-shell tanks (SSTs) and the cesium and strontium capsules, these. radionuclides would currently constitute an-estimated 1-3% of the total estimate. Comment: Don Provost of Ecology commented that the meeting agenda did not include discussion on the sampling exper.iences' with the first grout vault. He was particularly interested in knowing how well the predictions on concentrations and grout temperatures correlated with the sampling data. He added that he heard reports that it was difficult to'obtain accurate samples from bottom to top of the vault.
Response
. Joe Epstein of WHC responded.that these issues will-be' discussed extemporaneous 1y in Jeff Voogd's presentation'. Follow-up: After J.Voogd's presentation, George Williamson (WHC) reported on the sampling experiences with the first grout v'a ul t. The waste feed consisted of-~a million gallons ofE . phosphate / sulfate waste from the 100 N Area. The waste feed' was first placed in the Grout Feed Tank-AP-104,_ which.does' not have an in-tank mixer. The sampling proce_ss followed the' one covered in J.Voogd's presentation. The feed was found to be relatively homogeneous ~with a total activity of approximately 40 Ci. The most prevalent radionuclides found-were Cobalt-60 and Cesium-137, with trace amounts.of other- ~ radionuclides'. To confirm the sampling results, the whole' operation was' repeated using a different tank. The waste' feed was, transferred to the Grout Feed ' Tank AP-102,' which: has. an in-tank' mixer. The feed was mixed for approximately a week prior to sampling.. Sampling results were consistent:with: the' first data set.
Q 7 d 8 L (cont'd) (page 5 of 11)
SUMMARY
OF PRESENTATIONS / DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS Comment: Bob Cook of YIN expressed concern that many long-lived isotopes, such as Neptunium-237 and Seleniumi79, are present in the incidental waste, and that the impacts of these isotopes should be fully investigated-to ensure the.long-term safety of the grout vaults.
Response
John Tseng of DOE-HQ responded that long-lived radionuclides are fully addressed in the Performance Assessment, which will evaluate the long-term impact of the Grout Disposal ~ Program. Joe Epstein of WHC added'that the focus of.D. Wodrich's presentation was on the major' radionuclides and that J. Voogd's presentation will cover all isotopes of concern, including the long-lived radionuclides. Question: Roger Stanley of Ecology asked about the level of uncertainty of the 1992 best estimates of radionuclides from. DST to be grouted.
Response
Don Wodrich of WHC stated that to his knowledge no level of' uncertainty has been estimated, and for him to offer a ballpark estimate here would be purely conjecture. Question: Roger Stanley of Ecology asked for the rationale for not removing additional radionuclides from the DSS /DSSF wastestreams prior to grout disposal.
Response
John-Tseng of DOE-HQ responded that.this was. decided upon in the Record of Decision for the Hanford Defense Waste Environmental Impact Statement after-careful consideration of the health risks and cost / time factors. Ken Bracken of RL added that this was also ag' reed upon in the Tri-Party Agreement. Strontium-90 removal. from DSS /DSSF was determined to be neither practical nor cost-effective. Cesium-137 removal in the DSS /DSSF'was determined to be not-practical.or cost-effective because this would require building and operating ion-exchange facilities. This would also take-up scarce waste storage tank space. Such actions would delay the. Grout Disposal Program for. several years. Comment: Rick Weller of USNRC expressed concern about the uncertainties of the 1992 best estimates of the DST. radionuclides to grout, and that it is imperative to get a. better grasp of these inventories to determine whether the Grout-Disposal Program will be. successful >in meeting the fraction-to; grout goals. He added that until all-the DSTs. are well-characterized, significant uncertainties will remain with respect to those fractions going to grout.
Response
No response was provided. i
_.-~ 'I -(cont'd) '(page 6 of 11) e
SUMMARY
OF PRESENTATIONS / DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS I 111. Jeff Voogd of WHC gave a presentation of the grout tank waste t' characterization program. He discussed plans for sampling and analyzing the grout feed, comparing it to the feed specification,~.and transmitting the record data to the Washington State Depa~rtment of Ecology -(Ecology), the Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, (EPA), and USNRC. (Refer to Handout 3). During Jeff Voogd's presentation, the following action item was-taken. Question: Bob Cook of' YIN asked the following question: For the characterization results for Tank 241-AW-101, how was lodine-129 analysis performed? ACTION ITEM 7: Determine the answer to this question: Action: Jeff Voogd i of WHC. After Jeff Voogd's presentation, the following action item was taken. Reouest: Bill Brach of USNRC made the following request: Request that the grout record data package be accompa'nied by a copy of the grout sampling plan. ACTION ITEM 8: Respond to this request. Action: Jeff Voogd.of WHC. IV. Don Wood of WHC gave.a presentation on the grout characteristics relative-to USNRC requirements. He discussed the differences between DOE-and USNRC requirements regarding. performance assessments, waste cnaracteristics, engineered barriers for disposal facilities, and siting of such facilities. (Referto' Handout 4). After Don Wood's presentation, the following action item'was taken. l D_ue stion: Bob Cook of YIN asked the following question: Does the dose assessment'provided in Hanford Defense Waste Environmental Impact Statement (HDW-EIS) include the projected contribution from the existing waste-disposal facilities?' (Of-particular interest is the thyroid dose assessment.). j ACTION ITEM 9: Determine ~the answer to'this question:' Action: Don Wood of -WHC. V. Don Wodrich of WHC gave a. follow-up presentation on the radionuclide material balance'of the Hanford Tank Waste. In response to' Action Item 1.regarding.the number'of megacuries associated with the total: 1 radioactive waste' generated from 1944 to 1996, his preliminary calculations indicate.421 6 mci without inclusion of the decay daughters and.approximately 800 mci with inclusion of the decay da'ughters. ' He emphasized that the' percentages in the material balance. remain-the same: with or without the decay daughters _ g
s ~ ~ ~
~ ~ m a u. c . (cont'd) (page 7 of 11)
SUMMARY
OF PRESENTATIONS / DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS After Don Wodrich's follow-up presentation, the following major questions were made: Ouestion: Bob Cook of YIN asked a series of questions regarding Iodine-129. Did the Iodine-129 activity found in the Tank 241-AW-101 samples come primarily from salt-well pumping? How was Iodine-129 sampling done?.Was any flowchart analysis performed for Iodine-129 in Tank 241-AW-101, and.if-so, how well did it compare with the analytical data. For the condensate operation for Iodine-129, does the condensate get discharged to the atmosphere or is it retrained-in the fluid? What is the best estimate of Iodine-129 activity in the radioactive waste inventory; is it 33 Ci as stated previously?
Response
Don Wodrich of WHC stated that determining an accurate estimate for Iodine-129 activity.is very difficult since 1)- little analytical data exists; 2) many different processes have occurred that may impact Iodine-129 activity since the Iodine-129 was generated by reactors decades ago, and 3) Iodine-129 activity is spread across tens of millions of gallons of radioactive waste. Question: An unidentified USNRC representative asked the following. What percentage of the TRU waste to be grouted comes from-a source other than reprocessing streams? Is any TRU waste to be grouted attributable to HLW streams?
Response
Don Wodrich of WHC provided the following response. Basically all of the TRU waste comes from the reprocessing of the spent fuel, much of it in the. Plutonium Finishing P1 ant (PFP). He believes that these reprocessing streams. are not considered HLW. Wastes from the PFP were sent to the tanks beginning in 1973. Since much of the plutonium has precipitated to the bottom, onl: a small fraction' of TRU waste to be' grouted can be attributable to PFP. Question: An unidentified attendee asked if NCRW, NCAW, and PFP wastes have been segregated?
Response
Don-Wodrich of_WHC provided the following response. NCRW and NCAW have been segregated. In the earlier years PFP waste had been stored in several of'the SSTs and T-Plant-tanks..All of the PFP waste sent to'the DSTs are. stored in tank 102-SY. VI. Leif Erickson of.00E-RL gave a brief summary'of the meeting, and mentioned that WHC/RL will work promptly on the action items generated - in the meeting.
~ . (cont'd)' (page 8 of II)
SUMMARY
OF PRESENTATIONS / DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS VII. Tnere was an open discussion at the end of the meeting. The following major questions, comments, and requests were made and the following action items were taken: puestion: Janet Franco of Oregon Dept. of Energy asked a series of questions. What is the turnaround time for DST sampling / analysis? Is it possible to shorten the turnaround time? Will the grout be analyzed onsite? Any problems envisioned with grout ana]ysis?
Response
Jeff Voogd of WHC provided the following response. It takes an estimated 600 days from the start of characterizing a candidate tank to final processing of that tank in a grout campaign. Several campaigns will run in parallel. Grout-analysis will occur in the hot cells onsite, and will include tests to determine physical properties, such as compressive strength and leach resistance. These tests could be very time-consuming. g_uestion: Janet Franco of Oregon Dept. of Energy asked whether the new analytical lab to be built at the site will provide resources to the Grout Disposal Program.
Response
John Tseng of DOE-HQ provided the following response. The new analytical lab would handle only samples with low-level activity. The Grout Disposal Program requires that testing and analysis be conducted in hot-cells, However, efforts are being made to expand hot-cell capabilities in'the 200 Area of Hanford. Also being evaluated is shipping samples from the Grout Disposal -Program to other DOE facilities. Question: Bob Cook of YIN asked the following questions. Could the PUREX cladding waste be designated-as HLW due to~its plutonium content? If so, assuming that the low-level fraction is grouted, could those grout vaults storing any portion of this be designated as HLW?
Response
Don Wood of WHC responded that DOE has been taking the conservative approach of handling the PUREX cladding waste as if it were HLW, although whether it can be legally designated as such is debatable. John Tseng 'of DOE-HQ added that the regulators will be involved in every step of the process to ensure the proper treatrent and disposal of PUREX cladding waste.
, (cont'd) (page 9 of 11)
SUMMARY
OF PRESENTATIONS / DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS Question: Rick Weller of USNRC asked about the status of the waste characterization program for all 177 tanks.
Response
Don Wodrich of WHC responded that a.TPA milestone recuires that at least two complete sampling cores from each SST be analyzed by 1998, so that it will be a long time before the contents in the SSTs are known. John Tseng of DOE-HQ added that the integrated DST /SST sampling / characterization plan. has been developed and is' currently under Ecology review. Unresolved issues include safety. concerns as well as how to. address certain RCRA sampling / analysis requirements. He added that efforts.are being made to expGdite the tank-characterization program. Reouest: Rick Weller of USNRC requested the following: Determine an appropriate time for a follow-up briefing to USNRC.on the development of the integrated DST /SST characterization program. ACTION ITEM 10: Respond to this request. Action: John Tseng of 00E-HQ. Comment: Bill' Brach of USNRC commented that it would be in the'best interest to both USNRC and DOE that NRC be kept abreast of developments regarding radioactive waste inventories, tank-waste characterization, and sampling,results' of the grout - feed. He added that DOE should send copies'of all related documents directly to NRC.
Response
John Tseng of DOE-HQ stated that DOE will honor this request. Question: Michael Weber of USNRC asked whether.there are any immediate plans to mix SST wastes with DST wastes for-partial disposal at the grout facility. His concern was that the 1989 NRC decision was' restricted solely to DST wastes.
Response
Joe Epstein of WHC provided this response. TheRCRAlPartB permit, the' safety analysis, report, performance assessment-concern only the DSTs and the grout vaults. These documents-do not address wastes from SSTs, with the sole exception of sal t-well. pumping.
q r i (cont'd) (page 10 of 11) l
SUMMARY
OF PRESENTATIONS / DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS _ Question: Bob Cook of YIN expressed concern about whether_the 106-C SST.will be included in the grout campaign.
Response
John Tseng of DOE-HQ responded that once 106-C SST is retrieved, the bulk of the radionuclides will be going.to. the Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant, with some of the low-level fraction to be grouted. Don.Wodrich of WHC added that retrieval of SSTs is still in the planning stages' and will be regarded as an entirely separate issue. Question: Michael Weber of USNRC asked whether there was a sense of. urgency in extracting the estimat four millions of gallons of salt-well liquor from SSTs.
Response
Don Wodrich of WHC provided the following response. The rationale for extracting the salt-well liquor from SSTs is to preclude its leaking to the ground. The project is currently on hold due to safety concerns; however,.a TPA milestone requires completion by 1996. Recuest: Michael Weber of USNRC requested an overview of the various Environmental Impact Statements (EISS) that may impact the-Grout Disposal Program.
Response
John Tseng of DOE-HQ provided the response shown below. DOE-HQ Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste- = Management Programmatic EIS will evaluate the potential environmental impacts' nationwide.of DOE's environmental restoration and waste management-program. Scoping period _ for this PEls'was completed in early 1991. DOE-HQ will issue the implementation Plan for public comment in FY92. Hanford Waste Tank Safety Issues Supplemental EIS will be a supplement to the_.1987 HDW-EIS and will ad6ress waste tank management and~ safety; issues'. This supplemental EIS was. announced by DOE: Secretary. Watkins in response to a 1990 General Accounting Office audit of the SST program, which found flaws in, the HDW-EIS regarding calculations on the maximum-- credible-accident scenario. 00E-HQ madeJthe decision to combine the waste tank ~ safety _ % sues' supplemental EIS with the SST supplemental EIS.
E-ir -) H '4., (cont'd)- (page 11 of 11)
SUMMARY
OF PRESENTATIONS / DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS-Single-shell Tanks Supplemental' EIS willlbe a supplement to the 1987 HDW-EIS and will evaluate. options for disposing of SST wastes. The combined EIS would address the rebaselining of the entire tank safety / tank waste treatment and disposal program.. The precise scope of this combined EIS is still undetermined. The Notice of Intent is currently in draft. The Tank Waste Remediation System decision plan indicates that the draft EIS-is-tentatively scheduled for the end of 1996. Hanford Remedial Action EIS will assess the potential impacts of remediation alternatives at the Hanford Site, and will place emphasis on cumulative impacts. He is unaware of the schedule. Question: Michael Weber of USNRC requested that_USNRC be provided a copy of the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) decision plan. ACTION ITEM 11: Respond to this request. Action: John Tseng of DOE-HQ. Question: Bob Cook of YIN expressed concern that TRUEX may not be implemented, which could result in more TRU waste to be grouted, thus posing a greater safety risk for.long-term. storage.
Response
John Tseng of DOE-HQ responded that work is progressing:on' TRUEX development and that other technologies are also being-pursued. Don Wodrich of WHC added that if TRUEX is not implemented, the result would 'be'_more glass logs generated: for disposal at.the geologic. repository. He emphasized that this should have.little impact on the Grout Disposal Program. The meeting concluded at three p.m.~ 'i j.~~ J i_
..s r
+
c, (page 1 of 2) HRC/ DOE MEETING h July 16, 1992 ACTION ITEM LIST Item Number Description of Action NRC Meeting 1: Determine the answer to this question: How many megacuries are associated with the' total radioactive waste generated from 1944 to 1996, with and without inclusion of the decay daughters? Action: Don Wodrich. NRC Meeting 2: Determine the answer to this question: How many megacuries, with and without inclusion of decay daughters, were assumed to be added between the time this material balance was completed (around March 1989) and 19967 Action: Don Wodrich. NRC Meeting 3: Determine the answer to this question: What are the megacuries associated with the various percentages? The-megacuries should be provided, as applicable, for total activity, Strontium-90, Cesium-137, and TRV, and with and without inclusion of the decay daughters. Action: ' Don Wodrich. NRC Meeting 4: Determine the answer to this question: For all waste categories, how does the waste inventory data compare to the DOE Red Team Review Report on HWVP, which was issued in August 1991? There appears to be inconsistencies between the two documents. Action: Don Wodrich. NRC Meeting 5: Determine the answer to this questio.n: For NCRW waste, the total tank inventory of TRU waste is.0.003 mci based on. sample analysis. How does this compare to.the value determined by flowsheet analysis? Action: Don Wodrich. NRC Meeting 6: Determine the answer to this.questioni for DSS /DSSF waste, what information is available on the efficiency-of using in-tank zeolite process of. ion-exchange for cesium-recovery, including the number of additional. glass canisters that .would be generated. Action: Don'Wodrich. NRC Meeting 7: Determine the answer to this question: For the-characterization results'for Tank 241-AW-101,-how was Iodine-129. analysis performed?. Action: Jeff.Voogd. NRC Meeting 8: Respond to the following request: Request.that the grout. record data package be accompanied by a copy of the grout sampling plan. Action: Jeff Voogd. -
o%- e < (cont'd) (page 2lof'2) f ACTION ITEM LIST . Does.the dose Determine the answer to this' question: assessment provided in Hanford Defense Waste Environmental NRC Meeting 9: Impact Statement.(HDW-EIS) include the projected contribution from the existing waste-disposal facilities? (Of particular. interest is the thyroid dose assessment.) Action: Don Wood. Determine'an appropriate time for a follow-up briefing to USNRC on the development of the integrated OST/SST NRC Meeting 10: Action: John Tseng. characterization program. Provide a copy of the Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) NRC Meeting 11: decision plan to USNRC. Action: John Tseng. b .i - j
n OY From: Michael F. Weber (MFW) To: PMA Date: Tuesday, November 17, 1992 7:13 am
Subject:
COMMENTS ON HANFORD MTG
SUMMARY
In response to your note of November 9,1992, that transmitted the summary meeting notes for the NRC-00E meeting on the Hanford Tanks of July 16, 1992, we have reviewed the summary meeting notes and have the following comments: 1. We were surprised that DOE finalized the meeting summary without providing NRC an opportunity to review and comment on the draft of the summary. Unfortunately, the meeting summary is incomplete, so DOE will have to revise the meeting summary to ensure that it is a more complete and accurate record of the meeting. Revision of the summary meeting notes is important to NRC because we are relying on this meeting in support of our review of the petition from the States of Washington and Oregon. 2. Other than an indirect reference to "rebaselining" on page 11 (of 11), the summary meeting notes do not summarize DOE's discussion about its intent to reassess the entire Hanford tank waste treatment and disposal program and to rebaseline the program by March 1993. As I recall. from the meeting, John Tseng discussed this effort. Revise the summary meeting notes to include a discussion about rebaselining and DOE's commitment to complete it by March 1993. 3. The meeting notes also omitted DOE's statement that all of the DST wastes have not all been processed. Chad specifically questioned DOE on this during the meeting because of its importance to NRC's consideration of the petition from Oregon and Washington. Revise the summary to include DOE's statement that not all of the DST wastes have been processed to remove key radionuclides. 4. In addition, we were somewhat surprised by the statement on the top of page 4 that short-lived radionuclides (half lives < 20 yrs) currently accounted for less than 20 mci in the DST waste inventory. I had the impression from the meeting that the short half-lived radionuclide inventory was considerably smaller (e.g., 20 Ci). If this activity is added to the 28 mci going to grout and the total activity in the DST inventory is 110 mci, DOE plans to dispose of more than 43% of the current activity from the DSTs in the grout! Even accounting for decay since generation, it would be difficult to reduce this percentage to below 10% to be consistent with the 9X% criterion used earlier by the NRC staff. 5. Regarding typos, the following corrections should be made:
Pg 1 of Attachment 2, correct Michael Weber's mailstop to read SE4.

Pg 2 of Attachment 2, correct Jim Wolf's name to read Jim Wolf (2 places)

Pg 7 of Attachment ', correct line 8 of Bob Cook's question to read "...or is it retained in the fluid?"
m s:... ..,- d i T Bill Brach, Chad Glenn,,and I contributed to this review. Please contact Chad or myself if you have any ~ questions. Mike Weber 'CC: NST, RMW2',JRW, cjgl, ewb,j ha, rl b2 5 .' E L i F .' [ l a d b}}

ML20045E301

Text

SUBJECT:

Introductions

Background

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear Mr. Altomare:

Introductions

SUMMARY

Response

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Response

Response

Response

SUMMARY

Response

Response

SUMMARY

Response

Response

Response

Response

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Response

Response

Response

SUMMARY

Response

Response

Response

SUMMARY

Response

Response

Response

SUMMARY

Response

Response

Response

SUMMARY

Response

Subject:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search