Tank Wastes Planned for On-Site Disposal at Three Department of Energy Sites: The Savannah River Site: Interim Report (2005)

Below is a list of presentations received by the committee during its information-gathering meetings, which were open to the public and included opportunities for public comment. Following the list of presentations, the committee lists the most important documents it received during the information-gathering phase for the interim report (March to June 2005) and the documents that were not available during this phase.

Meeting 1: March 7-8, 2005, Washington, D.C.

Background on Congressional Request to Do the Study, Congressman John Spratt, D., South Carolina, member House Armed Services Committee and ranking member House Budget Committee, and Mike Lieberman, Legislative Assistant to Congressman John Spratt

Environmental Management, Keeping Our Commitments: Proven to Deliver, Paul Golan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE-EM)

Department of Energy Tank Wastes, Ken Picha, Engineer, DOE-EM

NRC’s (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s) Role in Waste Determinations, Larry Camper, Director, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards

NRC’s Previous WIR (Waste Incidental to Reprocessing) Reviews, Scott Flanders, Deputy Director, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection

States’ Perspectives, Mike Wilson, Nuclear Waste Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Kathleen Trever, Manager, Idaho National Laboratory Oversight Program

Environmental Public Interest Group, Tom Cochran and Geoff Fettus, Natural Resources Defense Council

Meeting 2: April 13-15, 2005, Savannah River Site (SRS), Augusta, Ga

Tour of F Tank Farm, H Tank Farm, Saltstone Facility, and Pump Test Tank at TNX

Characteristics and Understanding of SRS Tank Farm Waste, Scott Reboul and Pete Hill, Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC)

Tank Waste Removal Processes, Doug Hintze, Director, Waste Disposition Programs Division, U.S. Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office (DOE-SR)

Savannah River Site Removed Waste Treatment Overview, Terrel J. Spears, Director, Salt Processing Division, DOE-SR

Savannah River Site Meeting Performance Objectives for On-site Disposition of Tank Waste, Sherri Ross, Engineer, Programs Division, DOE-SR

Savannah River Site Concentration Averaging, Challenges, and Factors of Safety for Onsite Disposition of Tank Waste, Sherri Ross, Engineer, Programs Division, DOE-SR

Monitoring Activities, James Heffner, WSRC

NRC’s Previous SRS WIR Review, Anna Bradford, Senior Project Manager, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, USNRC

NRC’s Technical Review of Tank Closure at SRS, David Esh, Senior Systems Performance Analyst, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, USNRC

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), David Wilson and Shelly Sherrit, SCDHEC

Waste Removal and Treatment Technology, Tom Caldwell, Program Integration and Technology, Closure Business Unit, WSRC

Strontium-Actinide Separations, David T. Hobbs, Advisory Scientist, Waste Treatment Technology, Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL)

Waste Treatment Technology for On-site Dispositioned Streams: Caustic-Side Solvent Extraction, Harry D. Harmon, Development Manager, Tank Focus Area Salt Processing Project Research and Development Program, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Tank Closure Grouts, Christine A. Langton, Advisory Scientist, SRNL

Waste Disposition Heel Removal, Noel F. Chapman, Engineering Manager, Tank Closure Projects, WSRC

Meeting 3: May 5-6, 2005, SRS, Augusta, Ga

High-level Waste System Analysis, Mark Mahoney, Program Integration and Technology, Closure Business Unit, WSRC

Tank Space Overview, Mark Mahoney, Program Integration and Technology, Closure Business Unit, WSRC

Safety Case, Doug Hintze, Director, Waste Disposition Programs Division, DOE-SR

Removal of Heels—Bases for Decisions and Methods of Testing, Tom Caldwell, DOE-SR

Monitoring Activities, James Heffner and Daniel Wells, WSRC

Performance Assessment Results in Waste Determination, Elmer Wilhite, James Cook, SRNL

Grout Waste Form—Mixing, Encapsulation, Durability, and Performance, Christine A. Langton, SRNL, and Tom Caldwell, DOE-SR

SRS Waste Tank Sampling Programs, Peter J. Hill, Scott H. Reboul, and Bruce A. Martin, WSRC

Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) Project Line Item 05-D-405, Project Status Review, Terrel J. Spears, Federal Project Director, Salt Processing Division, DOE-SR

The committee received more than 175 documents in the March-June 2005 period. Through the presentations listed above, DOE provided a wealth of information. However, most of this information was qualitative. For example, DOE presented a “discussion” of the performance assessment for the saltstone (Cook and Wilhite, 2005), rather than the actual performance assessment, which is not yet publicly available. The same applies to a qualitative discussion of the tank farm monitoring plans (Heffner and Wells, 2005). The committee did have some quantitative analyses available, such as the following:

• Draft salt waste determination and supporting documentation (DOE, 2005a)

• Performance assessment for Saltstone Vaults (Martin Marietta Energy Systems et al., 1994)

• Performance assessment for the closure of Tanks 17 and 20 (DOE, 1997a, 1997b)

• Environmental impact statement for tank waste closure (DOE, 2000)

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission tank closure determination for Tanks 17 and 20 (USNRC, 2000)

DOE also made available to the committee a large number of technical reports on salt waste processing, bulk waste retrieval, heel removal, residual waste characterization, tank cleaning, and tank filling and closure.

Most of the documents listed above were published before the new salt waste processing approach was proposed at the Savannah River Site in February 2005. Because of the significant differences in the new approach (e.g., significantly higher concentrations of cesium to be sent to saltstone with the deliquification, dissolution, and adjustment process, see Finding and Recommendation 2; and on-site disposal of waste from Tank 48, see Section II), the available information needs to be updated. Below are examples of information that the committee did not have and that it deems necessary to the fulfillment of its task.

The following are examples of pieces of information that the committee needs to determine whether DOE’s tank waste management plans slated for on-site disposal meet the performance objectives in Title 10 Part 61 of the Code of the Federal Regulations. This list is not meant to be exhaustive.

• Supplemental performance assessment calculations for the saltstone facility addressing the changes introduced with the Section 3116 salt waste determination and sensitivity studies.

• Response of disposal systems to extreme events (fires, floods).

• Performance assessments and environmental impact statement for tank farm closure (except tanks 17 and 20).

• Plans for annulus cleaning.

• Plans for deactivation and decommissioning of the piping within the tank farms-Plans for residual waste characterization.

• Revised Waste Acceptance Criteria for the saltstone vaults addressing the changes introduced with the Section 3116 salt waste determination-Support for

assumptions, estimate of levels of conservatisms, and sensitivity analyses for any calculation related to public health.

• Long-term monitoring plans.

• Estimates of worker doses for various steps and options for salt waste processing.

• Relative risks of various options for salt waste processing.

• Effectiveness of separations processes (i.e., efficiency in radionuclide removal) for the new salt waste processing approach.

• Risk assessment determining acceptable radionuclide concentrations (and/or inventories) and distributions that take into account measured and/or projected radionuclide concentrations, spatial variability of the concentrations, and attendant uncertainties (see Finding and Recommendation 3).

Cook, J.R. and E.L. Wilhite. 2005. Discussion with NAS of saltstone performance assessment. May 5. Presentation to the committee during Meeting 3, Savannah River Site, Augusta, Ga, May 5-6, 2005.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 1997a. Industrial Wastewater Closure Module for the High-Level Waste Tank 20 System. January 8. Savannah River Site. Aiken, S.C.

DOE. 1997b. Industrial Wastewater Closure Module for the High-Level Waste Tank 17 System. Revision 2, August 26. Savannah River Site. Aiken, S.C.

DOE. 2000. High Level Waste Tank Closure, Draft Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0303D. November. Aiken, S.C.: Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office.

DOE. 2005a. Draft Section 3116 Determination. Salt Waste Disposal Savannah River Site. DOE-WD-2005-001. February 28. Available at http://apps.em.doe.gov/swd/doe-wd-2005-001.pdf.

DOE. 2005b. SRS End State Vision. Draft. Appendix E (Long Term Stewardship) March. Available at http://sro.srs.gov/pubact1.htm.

Heffner, J., and D. Wells. 2005. May 5. Monitoring Plans. Presentation to the committee during Meeting 3, Savannah River Site, Augusta, Georgia, May 5-6.

Martin Marietta Energy Systems, EG&G Idaho, Inc., and Westinghouse Savannah River Company. 1994. Radiological Performance Assessment for the E-Area Vaults Disposal Facility (U). WSRC-RP-94-218. Aiken, S.C. April.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). 2000. Review of the Department of Energy at Savannah River High-Level Waste Tank Closure Methodology. June 30.