Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Review #2 (2022) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix C: Presentations at the Committee's Information-Gathering Meetings and List and Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period
Appendix C: Presentations at the Committee's Information-Gathering Meetings and List and Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period
Pages 45-55
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 45... ...
Office of River Protection Site Cleanup Overview, Brian Vance, Hanford Site Manager Site History and Cleanup Progress, Elaine Porcaro, Chief Engineer, DOE Hanford, and Karthik Subramanian, Chief Engineer, Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) The Tanks and the Groundwater, Elaine Porcaro and Naomi Jaschke, Soil and Groundwater Division Supervisor, DOE Hanford Tank Integrity, Karthik Subramanian and Erik Nelson, Tank Integrity Lead, DOE Hanford Treatment and System Planning, Todd Wagnon, Flowsheet Integration Manager, WRPS, and Richard Valle, Tank Farms Program Manager, DOE Hanford Other Impacts of Treatment Options, Laura Cree, Flowsheet Definition and Analysis Manager, WRPS Summary, Ricky Band, Tank Farms Program Division Director, DOE Hanford Presentations from the Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC)
|
From page 46... ...
From a Safety Program Management perspective, it is important to focus on establishing and maintaining strong labor–management interaction, communication, transparency, worker inclusion in safety and health decisions, and implementation of recommendations from previous reports, such as the 2014 Hanford Tank Vapor Assessment Report and the 2016 NIOSH report "Review of Hanford Tank Farm Worker Safety and Health Programs" and other reports provided to the NIOSH team with similar recommendations. Nikolas Peterson and Marco Kaltofen, Hanford Challenge, submitted a written statement that reit erates Hanford Challenge's opposition to the use of grout at Hanford in the treatment and disposal 46
|
From page 47... ...
Steven Gilbert, Kathy Barker, Susan Crampton, Leah Boehm-Brady, Kelly Norton, Shannon Cram, Patricia Morton, Diane Burke, Cary Lambert, Coral Shaffer, Richard Honour, Robert Richard, Robert Masterson, and Laura Feldman shared the same comment with the National Academies. o ANALYZE EFFICIENCY OF VITRIFICATION: Before endorsing a grout plan that may lock us into grouting 56 million gallons of low-activity waste, examine assumptions about how well the Waste Treatment Plant (WTP)
|
From page 48... ...
We are writing to endorse recent comments sent to you by the Oregon Department of Energy on the Phase 2 Study of Supplemental Low Activity Waste Options for Hanford. During our May 2 Board meeting, we received a briefing on the study and the latest work by the Federally Funded Research and Development Center from staff at the Oregon Department of Energy.
|
From page 49... ...
In addi tion, we have grown increasingly focused on the potential hazards associated with nonradiological constituents in the LAW -- nitrate and nitrite in particular -- which have presented technical chal lenges to an on-site grout alternative since the early days of the tank waste treatment mission and which ultimately caused DOE to turn away from grouted waste forms in the early 1990s [8]
|
From page 50... ...
Despite this preference, Oregon is not beyond convincing that a hybrid grout alternative presents an overall lower risk when considering the lesser off-site transportation miles and the in creased operational certitude provided by a third disposal option in addition to the two off-site facilities. The FFRDC has the opportunity to refine their comparison of risk and other intangible factors between these two alternatives in their final report.
|
From page 51... ...
for a near-term demonstration system for grouting treated waste on-site at Hanford, and then transporting the grouted waste to an off-site disposal facility. Like TSCR, the near-term demonstration system could be specified and bounded in a manner that facilitates fast deployment at reduced capital costs.
|
From page 52... ...
RECOMMENDATION: Have these integration and waste feed teams add waste class (10 CFR Part 61) parameters to their model so that all the grouted waste is Class A
|
From page 53... ...
In doing so, it should reduce the amount of grouted waste that exceeds Class A disposal limits, thus reducing the disposal cost estimates for off-site disposal. o RAIL TRANSPORTATION COST ESTIMATES: Volume II, Appendix H, Section H.8: The rail transportation cost estimates to EnergySolutions in Utah and WCS in Texas should be updated with better estimates.
|
From page 54... ...
Due to Ecology's belief that all tank waste is HLW requiring HLVIT, Ecology would still effectively block off-site shipments of TSCR-treated waste by requiring HLVIT treatment by the receiving treatment and disposal facility. While a treatability variance is theoretically possible, it is highly unlikely that either Utah or Texas would want to grant an HLVIT treatment variance from a political perspective.
|
From page 55... ...
The TSCR project serves as an excellent example of this concept and was completed on schedule and well under its initial baselined budget.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.