3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This section describes the alternatives available to DOE and Ecology to
satisfy the following purpose and need statement described in detail in
Section 2.
. Remove SWL from older SSTs to reduce the likelihood of liquid waste
escaping from the corroded tanks into the environment. Many of these
tanks have leaked and new leaks are developing in these tanks at a rate
of more than one per year.
. Provide ability to transfer the tank wastes via a compliant system to
mitigate any future safety concerns and use current or future tank space
allocations.
. Provide adequate tank waste storage capacity for future waste volumes
associated with tank farm operations and other Hanford facility
operations.
. Mitigate hydrogen generation in Tank 101-SY.
This section also discusses alternatives considered but dismissed and compares
alternatives.
Section 3.1 describes the alternatives that have been considered to meet the
purpose and need which include:
. Preferred Alternative
. Truck Transfer Alternative
. Rail Transfer Alternative
. New Storage Alternative
. No Action Alternative.
Section 3.2 discusses alternatives considered but dismissed from detailed
evaluation in this EIS. Even though these alternatives are not fully
evaluated in this EIS, DOE and Ecology are continuing to evaluate these and
other alternatives for their ability to meet future waste management needs and
to satisfy the purpose and need statement as described in Section 2.
Section 3.3 compares the alternatives described in Section 3.1. This
comparison identifies the specific technical actions within each alternative
to meet the objectives established in Section 2.
3.1 ALTERNATIVES
This section describes the following alternatives: . Preferred Alternative . Truck Transfer Alternative . Rail Transfer Alternative . New Storage Alternative . No Action Alternative. The facilities described for each of the alternatives are currently in conceptual design except for the RCSTS which has a completed definitive design. The following descriptions have been provided for analytical purposes.
3.1.1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative proposes the construction and operation of an RCSTS, a retrieval and transfer system in Tank 102-SY, and continued long-term operation of the existing mixer pump in Tank 101-SY. This alternative proposes Tank 102-SY solids and residual supernatant, SWL from SSTs, and WAFWs would be transferred to safe storage in existing DSTs in the 200 East Area. The initial waste retrieval and transfers would use the existing transfer pump in the Tank 102-SY and the ECSTS. At the time the RCSTS becomes operational, waste would be transferred exclusively via the RCSTS. The existing Tank 102- SY solids would be retrieved by either slurry pumping utilizing the ITRS, or hydraulic sluicing based on the past practice sluicing. Refer to Section 1.2.4 for additional information on Tank 102-SY retrieval. The preferred alternative would support the objectives of removing and transferring SWLs to reduce the likelihood of liquid waste escaping into the environment. In addition, the preferred alternative would satisfy the objective to maintain the ability to transfer tank wastes via a compliant system to take advantage of current or future tank space allocations. Implementing the preferred alternative would support transfer of facility waste and provide capability to mitigate any future safety concerns or waste volumes associated with tank farm operations as well as Hanford facility operations. The use of the mixer pump in Tank 101-SY would continue to mitigate the flammable gas safety concerns in this tank, precluding the need for dilution and retrieval of Tank 101-SY. Sections 3.1.1.1 through 3.1.1.5 describe the construction and operation of the specific actions proposed for the preferred alternative. A general process diagram of the preferred alternative is shown in Figure 3-1.
3.1.1.1 Existing Cross-Site Transfer System
- The ECSTS began operating in 1952 and was used originally to transfer high- and low-level radioactive waste solutions from the 200 East Area to the 200 West Area for recovering uranium metal at U Plant. During its 40 years of service, the system also transferred liquid waste from 200 West to 200 East Areas for evaporative concentration and subsequent storage in the 200 East Area tank farms. The waste streams originated from process points in both areas including B Plant, PFP, PUREX, T Plant, S Plant, and the various tank farms. Earlier in its operating history, four of the six lines are believed to have plugged. The ECSTS was removed from service in the late 1980s. One of the remaining lines was recently tested and was used successfully to transfer supernatant waste from Tank 102- SY to the East Area tank farms. The results of the testing program are discussed in detail in the following operation section. Description - The ECSTS consists of six 8-centimeter (cm) [(3-inch (in)] diameter stainless steel pipelines within a concrete encasement and a vent station. The encasement consists of a reinforced concrete box [1.5 m (5 ft) wide by 0.6 m (2 ft) high] which provides a 15-cm (6-in) high void space to accommodate the transfer lines. The encasement is buried from 1.5 to 5 m (5 to 15 ft) below grade, depending on location. The pipelines are supported Figure (Page 3-4) Figure 3-1. Preferred Alternative Process Diagram at roughly 5 m (15 ft) intervals and at each of the bends, and anchored approximately every 90 m (300 ft). The lines terminate at two diversion boxes, 241-ER-151 and 241-UX-154 in the 200 East and West Areas, respectively, where they interface with 200 East and West Area transfer piping (Figure 3-2). The diversion boxes are constructed of reinforced concrete and measure approximately 14-m (45-ft) long, 3-m (10-ft) wide, and 5-m (17-ft) deep. Their function is to re-route waste solutions to other diversion boxes within the tank farms. The vent station, 241-EW-151, is located roughly midway between the 200 East and West Areas and serves as an air exhaust intake point to vent the lines during waste transfer and flushing. The vent station is also made of reinforced concrete, measuring approximately 5 m (17 ft) long, 3 m (10 ft) wide, and 5 m (17 ft) deep. From the vent station, the encasement slopes downwards in both directions and drains liquids back to the diversion boxes. The diversion boxes and the vent station are equipped with leak detection equipment, and the vent station is equipped with a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter to reduce the chance for airborne releases during pipeline pressure checks. The area surrounding the vent station is monitored for above-normal radiation levels should a leak occur. Operation - In 1988, DOE-RL performed an audit on the ECSTS to assess its ability to meet projected waste transfer requirements (DOE 1988). Based on this audit, WHC subsequently performed an engineering study on the ECSTS (WHC 1993a). The functional design criteria analysis found the following deficiencies with portions of the ECSTS (WHC 1995a). . Segments lack secondary containment and leak detection capability as specified by Washington State and Federal regulations. . Segments constructed of relatively thin-walled pipes have exceeded or are nearing the end of their design life. . A segment in the 200 West Area provides a transfer function that has no backup, which could lead to long-term system outages should this section fail. Figure (Page 3-6) Figure 3-2. ECSTS Flow Schematic In May of 1995, DOE tested the integrity of one of the transfer lines using pressurized water. The test results showed that the line is intact. In late July and early August of 1995, approximately 1,644,000 L (435,000 gal) of supernatant from Tank 102-SY was transferred through this line to the 200 East Area. Future waste transfers would include SWL from SSTs in the 200 West Area, and other dilute process wastes from the 200 West Area facilities. These wastes would be accumulated in Tank 102-SY, the 200 West Area receiving and staging tank for facility wastes and retrieved SWL from SST. From Tank 102-SY waste would be pumped into the ECSTS for transfer into available DSTs in the 200 East Area. While the recent pressure test and waste transfer were successful, the lines lack the pressure rating and pumping capabilities for transferring 200 West Area tank wastes containing solids or slurried wastes without the risk of plugging the line. The ECSTS may suffice for transporting SWL and other dilute solutions in the near-term, however, the ECSTS could not transfer slurried wastes such as those present in Tanks 102-SY or 101-SY.
3.1.1.2 Replacement Cross-Site Transfer System
- The proposed RCSTS would consist of two new parallel encased pipelines to connect the 241-SY-A and -B valve boxes in the 200 West Area with the 244-A Lift Station in the 200 East Area. The proposed RCSTS is shown in Figure 3-3. The line would be capable of pumping slurried waste (liquid waste containing some solids) from the SY Tank Farm in the 200 West Area to 200 East Area and liquid waste in either direction. Non-slurry, low activity liquid waste could be transferred from 200 East Area to 200 West Area using the existing 200 East Area Tank Farm transfer pumps. The RCSTS would be approximately 10 km (6.2 mi) long and consist of one diversion box, one booster pump, a vent station, and all associated instrumentation and electrical connections. Figure (Page 3-8) Figure 3-3. RCSTS Flow Schematic A site selection process was developed for the RCSTS, which considered engineering constraints, potential environmental effects, and agency and stakeholder involvement. Appendix B provides a detailed description of the siting process. As a result of the siting process, an optional route has been evaluated which is a slight modification to the primary RCSTS route. The optional route would follow along an existing roadway adjacent to the 200 West Area, as depicted in Figure 3-4. Description - The RCSTS lines would consist of two 8-cm (3-in) diameter stainless steel pipes, each encased in a 15-cm (6-in) carbon steel outer pipe to provide secondary containment as required by Federal and state regulations, and DOE design criteria. A cross-section of the RCSTS is shown in Figure 3-5. The lines would be sloped at least 0.25 percent to allow gravity draining and would be buried, bermed, or appropriately shielded for radiation and freeze protection. The pipeline would be designed to prevent corrosion (rust) from the metal pipes contacting the soil. Both pipelines would be insulated with polyurethane foam and covered with a fiberglass jacket. The proposed RCSTS would be designed to perform to the following design parameters (DOE 1993, WHC 1995a): Specific Gravity 1.0 to 1.5 Viscosity 10.0 to 30.0 centipoise Solid Content 0.0 to 30.0 vol% Design Velocity 1.4 to 1.8 m/second (s) (4.5 to 6 ft/s) Temperature 2y to 93y C (35y to 200y F) Pressure 400 to 1,200 lbs/square inch (psi) pH 11.0 Design Life 40 years Particle Size 0.5 to 4,000 microns (-) Existing valve pits would connect the RCSTS to existing pipelines to facilitate liquid waste transfer between the 200 West and East Areas. A booster pump would be located in the diversion box and would provide the power to transfer waste slurries at the minimum required velocity to prevent the lines from plugging. A vent station would be located at the high point of the transfer system. Its function would be to introduce air into the lines after a transfer to facilitate draining the primary containment pipes. Figure (Page 3-10) Figure 3-4. ECSTS and RCSTS Locations Figure (Page 3-11) Figure 3-5. Cross-Section of the RCSTS Both the diversion box and the vent station would be equipped with stainless steel liners and have provisions for washing down radioactive contamination, collecting accumulated liquids, and routing the liquids back to the tank farms via the RCSTS. The diversion box and the vent station would have connections for attaching portable ventilation systems during maintenance. A concrete cover with access blocks would provide radiation shielding and weather protection from rainwater and snow melt. If required, perimeter fences may be installed to prevent intrusion by unauthorized personnel. Instrumentation and electrical equipment would be enclosed in a weather shelter located adjacent to the diversion box and vent station. These weather shelters would require heating and cooling capability to protect the equipment from temperature extremes. Shielding requirements for liquid waste from the SY Tank Farm to the 244-A Lift Station would be based on a "worst case" source term, and assume that the pipelines and valves are full of liquid waste. All process piping would have sufficient earth cover to reduce personnel exposure to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), and would not exceed 0.05 mrem/hour (hr) at grade. The diversion box and cover would attenuate radiation levels to 0.05 mrem/hr at the surface. Construction - The RCSTS would be constructed over a period of approximately 21 months and would require a peak workforce of approximately 80 workers. These workers could be additions to the current Hanford Site workforce. Construction of the RCSTS would consist of site preparation, system construction, and other construction activities. The RCSTS would include work in the 600, 200 East, and 200 West Areas. Except for the inter-tie points with existing pipe work, the RCSTS would be routed around contaminated soil. The 10-km (6.2-mi) pipe route and the areas for the vent station and the diversion box would be cleared and grubbed. New gravel roads would be constructed to access the diversion boxes and vent station. No demolition or relocation of existing structures would be required. Due to boring methods proposed during construction, no road closures would be expected. Approximately 30 ha (74 acres) of land would be cleared. During the construction period, conditions for blowing dust would be monitored. If winds exceed approximately 24 kilometers per hour (kmph) [(15 mi per hour (mph)], dust control measures would be implemented, such as applying water or a soil fixative. Any construction activities in contaminated areas would be performed by workers with radiation training using established radiation work procedures. Construction procedures in contaminated areas would also include the use of greenhouse covers and continuous air monitoring. The material excavated for pipeline construction would be stored along the opened excavation and reused to backfill the completed piping and finish grading the disturbed land. The material excavated for constructing the diversion boxes and vent station would be reused to backfill around the completed structure and finish grading the surrounding disturbed areas. Excavation and backfill and grading activities would be performed with self- loading scrapers, bulldozers, backhoes, and road graders. The exact numbers and types of equipment utilized would depend on the construction approach. New gravel roads would be constructed to access the diversion boxes and the vent station. The area that would be cleared for access roads is included in the total area to be cleared. All areas disturbed during construction would be graded and stabilized with gravel or revegetated. For pipeline construction and installation, the buried portions of the process lines would be encased in all-welded steel secondary encasement pipes installed on an engineered backfill in the excavation. The completed pipeline would be encased in polyurethane foam and a fiberglass reinforced-plastic jacket to minimize the temperature drop during a process transfer. The RCSTS piping would be connected to existing radioactively contaminated systems and structures in the 200 East and West Areas by workers with radiation training using established radiation work procedures. These procedures require that exposure to radiation be kept within the operating contractor's guidelines and ALARA. Several small cranes, flat bed trucks, and engine-driven welding machines would be utilized for pipeline construction. Operation - When waste is to be transferred, a specific procedure would be prepared using the existing general tank farm transfer procedure. The procedure would address the route involved, a material balance, estimated arrival time at the receiver tank, pressure and temperature monitoring, flushing requirements, and chemical and physical composition information. Depending on the type of waste, the line may be preheated prior to transfer. Waste transfers would be remotely controlled and monitored from control rooms in the West Area, with additional monitoring capabilities at the diversion box and vent station. An automated shutdown system would be capable of automatically turning off the transfer pumps. Backup electrical power is also available to a backup pump in the event of mechanical or electrical interruption. Signals that would activate the shutdown process include leak detection, existing area radiation detection, high pressure detection between slurry line and isolation valves, high line pressure detection, and shutdown of DST retrieval systems. When a shutdown is activated, the transfer system valves would fail in the "as is" position to allow for drainage and flushing of the system. Actual waste transfer may be preceded by filling the waste transfer line with heated water. Preheating, if necessary, would be accomplished by introducing progressively higher temperature batches of water into the transfer line in the 200 West Area, followed immediately by the waste stream. Filling/preheating would generate an estimated 45,000 L (12,000 gal) of water per transfer, which would add to the tank farm inventory. The waste would push the preheated water through the line to the 200 East Area. Following waste transfer, flushing water would be injected into the line to reduce the radioactivity and help minimize corrosion. When all the slurry reaches the 200 East Area, water flow would be halted and the vent line opened. The remaining flush water would be allowed to gravity drain to the tank farms in both areas. A single flush would add an estimated 45,000 L (12,000 gal) of water to the tank farm inventory.
3.1.1.3 Retrieval Systems
- The Tank 102-SY currently contains an estimated
1.3 million to 1.4 million L (325,000 gal) of waste. This waste is comprised
of approximately 499,000 L (71,000 gal) of solids and 930,000 L (254,000 gal)
of free liquid (WHC 1995b). With implementation of the preferred alternative,
as much of the tank waste as practicable would be recovered to allow use of
the tank for subsequent receipt of SST waste. This would allow complex SWL to
be transferred to Tank 102-SY without the potential for becoming mixed with
the noncomplex waste currently in Tank 102-SY. The retrieval of solid waste
from Tank 102-SY would be accomplished by construction and installation of
either an ITRS or hydraulic sluicing. Both retrieval options are described in
this section. As mentioned in Section 1.2.4, this activity is an ongoing tank
farm management action previously evaluated under prior EISs and a supplement
(DOE 1975, DOE 1980, DOE 1987).
. ITRS - The ITRS proposed for use in Tank 102-SY would use slurry pumping
to retrieve solids from the Tank 102-SY. Slurry pumping involves
installing and operating two 300-horse power (hp) mixer pumps to break
up and suspend solids into a slurry. To help suspend and transfer
solids, approximately 530,000 L (140,000 gal) of liquid would be needed.
The liquid diluent could include non-complexed SWL to the maximum extent
practicable, which would help minimize new waste generation. If the SWL
is not sufficient or found to be incompatible, then conditioned caustic
solution or dilute waste from other sources would be used.
The transfer of slurry from Tank 102-SY would be accomplished by
installing and operating a small transfer pump in a spare tank riser.
The transfer pump would also be utilized to introduce diluent in the
tank either at the pump suction intake or through pipes attached to the
pump column. A conceptual diagram of Tank 102-SY with the ITRS is shown
in Figure 3-6. The liquid addition system for Tank 102-SY would include
hot water and caustic solution supply, a flush tank and a flush pump for
mixing water and caustic solution, a diluent pump, and a booster pump.
Instrumentation would be provided in a valve pit downstream of the
transfer pump to determine the waste properties such as density,
viscosity, flow, temperature, and pressure. Configuration of the pumps,
tanks, and instrumentation would be similar to the dilution and
retrieval of Tank 101-SY described in Section 3.1.4.2.
Following the retrieval action, the waste would be transferred via the
RCSTS for storage in existing DSTs in the 200 East Area.
Construction - The ITRS option would include utilizing two mixer pumps
and a transfer pump for slurry pumping of the Tank 102-SY solids. The
Tank 102-SY would be provided with in-tank dilution capabilities, which
include flushing and caustic addition capabilities. In addition, Tank
102-SY would also be connected to the proposed RCSTS via the SY-A/B
valve pits.
Figure (Page 3-16)
Figure 3-6. Conceptual Arrangement of Tank 102-SY Retrieval System
The construction, installation, and modifications of Tank 102-SY would
include the following elements:
- Construction and installation of two 300-hp mixer pumps for
breaking up and suspending solids
- Construction and installation of a small transfer pump for
transferring waste from the tank
- Instrument Control and Electrical (ICE) Building to house
electrical and instrumentation equipment and the operator stations
- Operator station would include monitor, alarm, and control
retrieval systems for the tank
- Instrumentation to measure the physical characteristics of the
waste prior to transfer
- Equipment and containers for removal, cleaning, decontamination,
transport, and storage of contaminated components including an
existing thermo couple tree and transfer pump
- Utilities for retrieval operations (electrical, water, and
telecommunications)
- Site preparation and modifications for the installation of
equipment
- Modifications to the central pump pit for the load distribution
frame
- Modifications to the cover blocks as required to support the new
equipment
- Modifications to the existing valve pits to house a transfer
booster pump and flush pump
- Installation of new jumpers as required to support the operation
of the transfer pump, dilution system, and flush system
- Installation of a flush tank, an isolation tank, and chemical
unloading pad
- Installation of a video monitoring system
- Upgrades to the existing ventilation system, if required
- Piping interface with the cross-site transfer system.
In addition, the retrieval and dilution system would interface with the
existing instrumentation to monitor tank waste, shell, and air space
temperatures, and waste levels within the Tank 102-SY.
Operation - The Tank 102-SY solids retrieval operation would be a
three-step process. First, the tank contents would be mobilized via
operation of the two mixer pumps to achieve a measure of waste
homogeneity. If the existing supernate is determined inadequate as a
dilution media, the tank liquid would be removed prior to mixing.
Second, the diluent would be added to the tank, if required, for an in-
tank dilution process to achieve approximately 2:1 dilution of the
solids in the tank. During diluent additions, the mixer pumps would be
operated to disperse the diluent and achieve waste homogeneity. This
would prevent formation of a stratified layer on the surface preventing
retrieval of sludge from the bottom. Finally, the slurry would be
pumped from the tank utilizing the transfer pump for subsequent transfer
via RCSTS, and storage into existing DSTs in the 200 East Area.
The following modes of operation would be provided with the retrieval
and transfer system.
- Recirculation - Transfer pump circulates waste back into the tank
until correct waste properties identified earlier for the transfer
of waste via RCSTS are achieved. On-line instrumentation will be
monitored during this phase of operation.
- Transfer - Diluted waste would be routed into the cross-site
transfer system and transferred to another DST.
- Bypass - If on-line instrumentation detects that waste being
transferred is out of specification, the flow would be diverted
from the transfer line to the recirculation loop and back into the
tank. Bypass operations would continue until the waste achieves
the required specification, via addition of diluent or continued
conditioning and mixing.
- Flush - The transfer lines would be preconditioned with diluent
prior to starting a transfer and to continue a transfer during
Bypass mode. The transfer lines would also be flushed after
completing a transfer operation or before shutdown.
. Past Practice - As an option to installing the ITRS, the hydraulic
sluicing would use pressurized water and recycled tank liquids sprayed
from a nozzle to dissolve, dislodge, and suspend the Tank 102-SY solids
into a slurry as depicted in Figure 3-7. Hydraulic sluicing has been
performed in the past to recover tank wastes and is assumed to be
capable of recovering 99 percent of the Tank 102-SY solids. Currently,
an activity is underway to retrieve the contents of Tank 106-C using
sluicing techniques. An EA was prepared to analyze potential
environmental impacts of the past practice sluicing waste retrieval of
Tank 106-C and a FONSI was issued in 1995 (DOE 1995a). Although the
Tank 106-C past practice sluicing demonstration project involves an SST,
the Tank 102-SY solids retrieval by hydraulic sluicing would be similar
in construction and operation.
Figure (Page 3-20)
Figure 3-7. Conceptual sluicing Arrangement for Tank 102-SY
The hydraulic sluicing proposed to be installed in Tank 102-SY would
involve construction and installation of two remotely aimed sluicers to
ensure full sluicing coverage of the waste. The transfer of slurry from
the tank would be accomplished by installation and operation of a small
transfer pump in a spare tank riser. The nozzles used for sluicing
would be rotated and angled to direct the slurry to the transfer pump
for removal from the tank. The liquid addition and transfer system
would be similar to the ITRS liquid addition and transfer system
described earlier. Following the retrieval action, the waste would be
transferred via the RCSTS for storage in existing DSTs in 200 East Area.
With the exception of potential human health effects described in
Section 5, detailed evaluation of the hydraulic sluicing alternative has
not been presented in this EIS since this option is considered bounded
by the construction, installation, and operation of the ITRS. The
detailed evaluation of the hydraulic sluicing was presented in the past
practice sluicing EA for the Tank 106-C, and is incorporated into this
EIS (DOE 1995a). The primary difference between the hydraulic sluicing
and ITRS is the construction and installation of the two remotely aimed
sluicers in lieu of the two mixer pumps. In addition, the hydraulic
sluicing would require large amount of additional liquid for retrieval.
The sluicing fluid would have to be recycled via the RCSTS from the 200
East Area, and the ventilation system would have to be upgraded to
handle increased aerosols.
3.1.1.4 Mixer Pump
- The mixer pump actively mitigates the flammable gas retention and episodic GRE in Tank 101-SY by periodically mixing the tank waste using a centrally-mounted submersible mixer pump. Mixing maintains the average flammable gas concentration in the tank dome space and risers below 25 percent of the LFL of hydrogen gas in hydrogen/nitrous oxide atmosphere. The alternatives would use the 150-hp mixer pump and other infrastructure currently in place in Tank 101-SY. However, the new storage alternative would use this mixer pump in conjunction with the ITRS for dilution and retrieval of Tank 101-SY as described in Section 3.1.4.2. Two backup mixer pumps are available should the existing mixer pump fail or need replacement. Environmental effects associated with the installation and operation of mixer pumps have been evaluated in previous EAs and are incorporated into this EIS (DOE 1992a, DOE 1992b, DOE 1994). Description - The submersible 150-hp mixer pump now operating in Tank 101-SY was originally purchased as a spare mixer pump for the Hanford Grout Program. The original design was modified to place the pump suction at about the 660-cm (260-in) elevation to ensure it remained in liquid and the nozzles were at 71 cm (28 in) above the tank bottom to enhance vertical mixing. Operating at 1,000 revolutions per minute (rpm), the pump injects 8,300 liters per minute (L/min) (2,200 gpm) of waste slurry at 20 m/s (66 ft/s) through two opposed 6.6 cm (2.6 in) diameter nozzles. Though its operating time is limited by motor oil temperature, the pump has performed flawlessly since installation and has proved capable of mixing the waste and keeping it in suspension by operating only a few hours per week. The orientation of the pump and nozzle axis in the tank is shown by the plan and profile views on Figure 3-8. The pump is mounted just off the tank centerline in riser 12A. The nozzle orientation is referenced to true west as O percent. Since the pump has two opposing nozzles, a O-percent orientation also directs a jet at l80 percent. Construction - Installation of a new submersible mixer pump, if required, would consist of several steps including installation of the load distribution frame, submerged mixer pump, and modified cover blocks on the pump pit. The existing mixer pump in Tank 101-SY would be replaced with another mixer pump of similar construction, should a need arise. Specific measures would be taken during removal of the existing mixer pump and installation of a new mixer pump to mitigate the potential for excessive personnel exposures or releases to the environment of radioactive or other hazardous material. These measures incorporate factors related to weather conditions, monitoring requirements, lifting, rigging, and handling. The mixer pump would be removed from the tank using a boom crane. A spray ring in the tank riser would rinse the external surfaces of the pump prior to removal. The mixer pump would be drawn into a large plastic bag as it is removed from the riser. The pump would then be lowered into a shipping container before being transported out of the tank farm for storage before disposal. Figure (Page 3-23) Figure 3-8. Plan and Profile View of Tank 101-SY Mixer Pump Operation - Long-term mixer pump operation in the Tank 101-SY would utilize the successful jet mixing techniques developed during the testing phases to continue to mitigate the tank. The mixer pump is currently operated to prevent the periodic GREs resulting in flammable gas concentrations in excess of 25 percent of the LFL of hydrogen gas in hydrogen/nitrous oxide atmosphere at the tank exhaust and tank dome space. Another operational objective is to keep the tank waste level as low as possible to increase the head space. The operational mode of the mixer pump is discussed and defined in the Mixer Pump Long-Term Operation Plan for Tank 101-SY Mitigation (WHC 1994a). The data associated with Tank 101-SY are reviewed periodically to determine if there are any undesirable conditions developing that would require changes in the pump operation. Pump operations are programmed to be aborted by immediately turning the pump off if any of the abort criteria listed in the Safety Assessment (SA) are ever exceeded (WHC 1994a).
3.1.1.5 Interim Stabilization
- Previous NEPA documents (DOE 1987, DOE 1994) determined that the only viable alternative for preventing leaks from SSTs which are at the end of or have exceeded their design life is to pump out the interstitial liquid from the solid waste, a process called interim stabilization. (Refer to Section 1.2.3 for a background discussion of the interim stabilization of SSTs). Sixty-seven of the SSTs (approximately 44 percent) are either suspected or known to have leaked liquid radioactive waste to the ground, and the remaining tanks can be expected to leak at any time in the future. During the last 40 years, the management and handling of the liquid radioactive waste have focused on reducing the volume of liquid in underground tanks. Part of this liquid waste reduction strategy is based upon the pumping of as much drainable liquid as possible from the SSTs to minimize the volume of liquid available to leak into the ground. This process is known as interim stabilization. The Tri-Party Agreement established a requirement for the completion of interim stabilization. Interim stabilization of SSTs was initiated approximately 20 years ago. A total of 105 of the 149 SSTs (approximately 70 percent) have been interim stabilized to date with work presently in progress to stabilize the remaining SSTs. Description - Interim stabilization is accomplished by salt well pumping via jet pumps (WHC 1992a). The resultant liquid waste SWL is transferred to double-contained receiver tanks (DCRTs) and accumulated for a period of time (pumping rates are low). From the DCRTs, the waste is transferred to DST for storage or into an evaporator for volume reduction. Tank 102-SY, a DST, has been designated as the 200 West Area receiver tank once the SWL is pumped from the receiver DCRTs in the 200 West Area. Figure 3-9 provides a simplified representation of a typical salt well-DCRT system. Salt well waste from SST tank farms are accumulated in DCRTs before being pumped to final destinations. DCRT vaults are underground reinforced concrete structures which contain 76,000 L (20,000 gal) receiver tanks. Future SWL retrievals from SSTs in the 200 West Area would stage SWL waste from DCRT in Tank 102-SY, prior to cross-site transfer to DSTs for storage until final disposal decisions are made. In the near term, cross-site waste transfers would utilize the ECSTS. Future transfers would occur through either the RCSTS, truck or rail options described in this EIS.
3.1.2 TRUCK TRANSFER ALTERNATIVE
The truck transfer alternative proposes constructing and operating a waste load facility in the 200 West Area and a waste unload facility in the 200 East Area, constructing additional roadway segments, operation of a transfer truck and the continued long-term operation of the existing mixer pump in Tank 101- SY. This alternative proposes that SWL from SSTs in the 200 West Area and West area facility wastes would be transferred to safe storage facilities in existing DSTs in the 200 East Area via truck. This alternative would primarily use the existing roadways. Waste would be transferred with either a modified tanker trailer truck or the LR-56(H) truck. Initial waste transfers would use the ECSTS until the time the waste load and unload facilities become operational. At the time the facilities become operational, waste would be transferred exclusively via the truck transfer facilities and transfer vehicle. Implementation of the truck transfer facilities would provide the ability to transfer waste from the 200 West Area via a regulatory compliant transfer system to safe storage facilities in the 200 East Area thereby reducing the likelihood of waste escaping from SSTs. The continued use of the mixer pump in SY-101 would mitigate the flammable gas safety concerns in this tank. Existing DSTs would provide adequate waste storage under this alternative. Figure (Page 3-26) Figure 3-9. Typical Salt Well-DCRT System Sections 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.2.2 describe the specific actions proposed for the truck transfer alternative. Refer to Section 3.1.1.1 for detailed descriptions of the ECSTS, Section 3.1.1.4 for mixer pump operations, and Section 3.1.1.5 for description of SWL interim stabilization. A general process diagram of the truck transfer alternative is shown on Figure 3-10.
3.1.2.1 Truck Transfer Vehicles
Under the truck transport alternative, two vehicle options exist: a specially
outfitted tanker trailer, or a French built LR-56(H) Truck certified in Europe
for HLW liquid wastes. A description of these vehicles are described in the
following paragraphs.
. Tanker Trailer Truck - The tanker trailer truck would consist of a
19,000 L (5,000-gal) DST, approximately 2.4 m (8 ft) in diameter and 5 m
(16 ft) long. It would have 5 cm (2 in) of lead shielding, process
instrumentation, gauges, rinsing equipment, and a HEPA filtration
system. Due to its weight, the tank would require mounting to a
specially-built, heavy-duty low-boy, wide-bed trailer (Figure 3-11) (WHC
1994b).
. LR-56(H) Truck - The LR-56(H) truck is a specifically designed vehicle
for on-site transfers. Modified for use at the Hanford Site, this
vehicle is referred to as the LR-56(H). The LR-56(H) has already been
ordered by DOE for other site activities. To meet regulatory
requirements, specific to the Hanford Site, the manufacturer is
completing the following modifications:
- A Department of Transportation (DOT) standard compliant trailer
(i.e., longer and more axles)
- Addition of a spray wash/sluicing system
- Additional tube cavity at the bottom of the cask for
neutrondetector element
- Redundant level monitor
- Redundant temperature monitor.
Figure (Page 3-28)
Figure 3-10. Truck and Rail Transfer Alternative
Figure (Page 3-29)
Figure 3-11. Illustration of the 19,000-L (5,000-Gal) Tank Mounted on a
Heavy-Duty Tanker
The LR-56(H) has the capacity to transport approximately 3,800 L (1,000 gal)
of liquid waste. The LR-56(H) is designed with a 5-cm (2-in) thick lead-
shielded container, and would be equipped with its own pumps for waste
transfer, sampling devices, self-closing valves, monitors, alarms, and 12-
millimeter (mm) (0.5 in) protective lead shield at the front of the tank (WHC
1995c). In the unlikely event the truck is overturned, service equipment in
the upper section would be protected by retaining containers and safety
cradles (Figure 3-12) (WHC 1991a).
Both the tanker trailer and the LR-56(H) truck would use existing Route 3,
connecting the 200 West Area to the 200 East Area (Figure 3-13). The distance
from the load facility to the unload facility would be approximately 11 km
(7 mi) (WHC 1995c). The addition of approximately 1.5 km (0.9 mi) of new road
in the 200 East Area would be required to avoid sharp road curves and
proximity to existing office trailers (WHC 1995b).
3.1.2.2 Load and Unload Facilities
The proposed truck transfer alternative would consist of a waste load facility located in the 200 West Area and a waste unload facility in the 200 East Area. The load facility would be located in the vicinity of the SY-Tank Farm, and the unload facility would be located in the vicinity of the A Tank Farm. Figure 3-13 identifies potential locations of the load and unload facilities in relation to the existing transportation network (WHC 1994b). Figure (Page 3-31) Figure 3-12. LR-56(H) Truck Figure (Page 3-32) Figure 3-13. Facility Locations and Routes for Truck and Rail Transport Figure (Page 3-33) Figure 3-14. Existing 204-AR Unloading Station The facilities would be designed to minimize radiation exposure as required by DOE Order 6430.1A, General Design Criteria (DOE 1989). Design of the proposed load and unload facilities is in the conceptual stage. However, based on similar existing on-site facilities shown in Figure 3-14 (i.e., the 240 AR Waste Unloading Facility and 340 Waste Handling Facility), the proposed load and unload facilities would include the following features. . Concrete walls would provide radiation shielding varying in thickness from approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) at the base to 25 cm (10 in) at the top of the first level. This shielding would reduce the normal dose rate on the outside of the building and to areas of full time occupancy to applicable standards. Both the entrance and exit of the load and unload areas would have hinged steel shielding doors, a vestibule and a secondary set of outer (roll-up) doors to provide a double air barrier to the outside in the event of a spill. . Separate heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems to maintain a negative pressure, radiation detection systems, continuous air monitoring (CAM) units for airborne particulate radionuclides, gamma-monitoring instruments, and heated air supply to protect the liquid lines during winter months (WHC 1991b). . A vehicle unloading canyon would be designed for remote operation. The floor of the entire unload area would drain into an underground catch tank encased in a lined concrete pit, equipped with level indication, alarm sluicing, and sampling capabilities (WHC 1992b). . The majority of operations would be remotely performed and monitored from a control room. . Sludge would be removed from unloaded tanks by sluicing. In addition to these features the following special features would be required for transporting and handling HLW (WHC 1995c): . Drive-through loading and unloading shielded cells to avoid backing up into the facility. . Remote operation and maintenance of transfer pumps and valves by using master/slave manipulators. Remote equipment (bridge mounted electro- mechanical manipulator, crane) in load and unload cells for recovery from upset conditions. . Access to the tank vault would be by removable shielding blocks to facilitate remote maintenance with the bridge-mounted, electro- mechanical manipulator in the cell and to enable periodic tank integrity inspections. . Temporary storage capability of two 94,600-L (25,000-gal) stainless steel tanks. . Zoning ventilation for truck cell, pump/valve cell, solid waste handling cell. Figure 3-15 depicts a conceptual load and unload facility. Construction - The truck transport facilities would be constructed over a period of approximately 1 to 1.5 years and would require a peak construction workforce of approximately 35 workers. These workers could be additions to the current Hanford Site workforce. Construction of the truck transport facilities would consist of site preparation, system construction, and other construction activities. The truck transport facilities would include work in the 200 East and 200 West Areas. The 0.8-ha (2-acre) area needed for the load and unload facilities would be cleared and grubbed, if required. Based on the location of the proposed load and unload facilities, approximately 1.5 km (0.9 mi) of roadway extensions would be constructed for access. No demolition or relocation of existing structures would be required. During the construction period, conditions for blowing dust would be monitored. If winds exceed approximately 24 kmph (15 mph), dust control measures would be implemented, such as applying water or a soil fixative. Any construction activities in contaminated areas would be performed by workers with radiation training using established radiation work procedures. Standard construction procedures in contaminated areas would also include the use of green house covers and continuous air monitoring. Figure (Page 3-36) Figure 3-15. Conceptual Transportation System Transporter Load/Unload Facility The material excavated for constructing the load and unload facilities, and roadway extensions could be reused to backfill around the completed structure and finish grading the surrounding disturbed areas. Excavation and backfill and grading activities would be performed with self-loading scrapers, bulldozers, backhoes, and road graders. The exact numbers and types of equipment utilized would depend on the construction approach, but would not likely exceed 10 pieces of equipment. All areas disturbed during construction would be graded and stabilized with gravel, suitable road surface, or revegetated. The load and unload facilities piping would be connected to existing systems and structures in the 200 East and West Areas by workers with radiation training using established radiation work procedures. These procedures require that exposure to radiation be kept within the operating contractor's guidelines ALARA. Small cranes, flat bed trucks, and engine-driven welding machines would be utilized for construction. Operation - The load facility would receive waste from 200 West Area tanks, and store it in two 94,600-L (25,000-gal) double-contained holding tanks (WHC 1994b). Once the transfer vehicle is in place, transfer from the holding tanks would occur after necessary sampling, and chemical adjustment is completed. The rate of transfer from storage to the truck would be dependent upon waste characteristics. Due to the radioactivity of the waste, the transfer lines would be connected to the truck remotely, using an overhead crane (WHC 1994b). The fundamental basis to ensure maximum safety in filling operations is transfer under vacuum (WHC 1991a). Displaced air from the truck's container would be vented through the attached HEPA filters before being released to the atmosphere (WHC 1991a). Once waste transfer from the load facility is complete, the truck would transport the waste container to the unload facility. Inside the unload facility, waste would be transferred into holding tanks. From there, waste would be transferred via new double-contained pipe (WHC 1994b). After unloading is complete, the transfer lines would be flushed and then disconnected from the truck. The truck would be decontaminated as necessary in the load bay by a spray system (WHC 1994b). A complete truck transfer cycle would take approximately 16 hours (two shifts). A 6-day workweek is anticipated (WHC 1994b, WHC 1995c). An estimated 1.9 million L (5-million gal) of waste would require cross-site transfer by trucks. Based on LR-56(H) 3,800-L (1,000-gal) trucks, approximately 4,691 trips would be required, which includes 4,222 trips for the SWL and 469 trips for the West Area facility waste. However, if the 19,000 L (5,000 gal) trucks are used, then approximately 938 trips would be required, which includes 844 trips for the SWL and 94 trips for the WAFW. Radioactive waste transfer regulations are discussed in Section 4.6.3. Approximately 12 workers would be needed to support truck transfer operations. Of these, it is anticipated that a health physics technician would be required to perform radiation surveys of the truck at each facility (WHC 1995c).
3.1.3 RAIL TRANSFER ALTERNATIVE
The rail transfer alternative proposes constructing and operating a waste load facility in the 200 West Area and a waste unload facility in the 200 East Area, constructing additional railway segments, operation of a rail car and the continued long-term operation of the existing mixer pump in Tank 101-SY. This alternative proposes that SWL from SSTs in the 200 West Area and West Area facility wastes would be transferred to safe storage facilities in existing DSTs in the 200 East Area via rail car. This alternative primarily uses the existing railways. Waste would be transferred with a modified rail tanker car. Initial waste transfers would use the ECSTS until the time the waste load and unload facilities become operational. At the time the facilities become operational, waste would be transferred exclusively via the rail transfer facilities and tanker car. Implementation of the rail transfer facilities would provide the ability to transfer waste from the 200 West Area via a regulatory compliant transfer system to existing safe storage facilities in the 200 East Area thereby reducing the likelihood of waste escaping from SSTs. The continued use of the mixer pump in SY-101 would mitigate the flammable gas safety concerns in this tank. Adequate safe storage would be provided by existing DSTs under this alterative. Sections 3.1.3.1 and 3.1.3.2 describe the specific actions proposed for the rail transfer alternative. Sections 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.4, and 3.1.1.5 provided a detailed description of the ECSTS, mixer pump operations and interim stabilization. A general process diagram of the rail transfer alternative is shown in Figure 3-10.
3.1.3.1 Rail Transfer Vehicle
The rail tanker car would be a 38,000-L (10,000-gal) capacity, shielded [5 cm (2 in) of lead equivalent] for HLW, DST mounted on a special flat-bed rail car (WHC 1995c). See Figure 3-16 for an illustration of a typical rail tanker car. The maximum load limit for the rail tanker would be 92,500 kilogram (kg) [(204,000 pounds (lbs)]. Depending on the characteristics of the waste, a more limiting volume may be required (WHC 1993b). The rail tanker car would use the existing railway between 200 West and 200 East. Approximately 490 m (1,600 ft) of additional new rail line would be added to provide access to the proposed load and unload facilities (WHC 1995c). Small roadway extensions may be included to provide access to the facilities. The rail distance from the load facility to the unload facility would be approximately 21 km (13 mi) (WHC 1995c).
3.1.3.2 Load and Unload Facilities
With the exception of the track for the rail car to enter and exit the facility, the proposed rail load and unload facility would have similar features as the truck load and unload facilities described in Section 3.1.2.2. Construction - The proposed rail transport facilities would be similar in design to the truck transport facilities described in Section 3.1.2.2. The load and unload facilities would be built in the same locations and construction activities would be the same as described in Section 3.1.2.2. The rail transport facilities would be constructed over a period of approximately 1.5 years and would require a peak construction workforce of approximately 35 workers. These workers could be additions to the current Hanford Site workforce. Construction of the rail transport facilities would consist of site preparation, system construction, and other construction activities. Figure (Page 3-40) Figure 3-16. Low-Level Rail Tanker Car (Requires Shielding for High-Level) The load and unload facilities piping would be connected to existing systems and structures in the 200 East and West Areas by workers with radiation training using established radiation work procedures. These procedures require that exposure to radiation be kept within the operating contractor's guidelines ALARA. Operation - The complete rail transfer cycle (load, transport, unload and return) would take approximately 33 hours (4 shifts and 1 hour overtime) (WHC 1994b). For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed rail transport would occur 16 hours per day (two shifts) in a 6-day work week (WHC 1994b). The proposed rail transport facilities would operate similar to the truck transport facilities described in Section 3.1.2.2. Based on an estimated 1.9 million L (5-million gal) of waste requiring cross-site transfer by 38,000 L (10,000 gal) rail cars, approximately 470 trips would be required, which includes 423 trips for the SWL and 47 trips for the West Area facility waste. Approximately 12 workers would be needed to support rail transfer operations. Tank car loading and unloading would be scheduled to minimize outdoor storage of loaded tank cars (WHC 1993b). During transport, spacer cars would be used between the engine and the tank car to provide shielding for the engine crew based on applicable regulations. The train would consist of the locomotive, a minimum of two spacer cars and the liquid waste tank car. Only one HLW tank car would be carried on the train in any given trip. The shipment would move at a speed not to exceed 40 kmph (25 mph) at any time. Speed would not exceed 16 kmph (10 mph) at any paved road crossing or 8 kmph (5 mph) while on a spur line (WHC 1993b). Once a train arrives at the unload facility, the spacer cars would be stored on a separate spur line, while the tank car would be surveyed and decontaminated, if necessary. Once inside the unload facility, the tank car would be positioned for waste transfer as described in Section 3.1.2.2 (WHC 1986).
3.1.4 NEW STORAGE ALTERNATIVE
The new storage alternative proposes to construct and operate two new DSTs and their associated facilities, the RCSTS to replace the ECSTS, and ITRS for Tank 102-SY and Tank 101-SY. This alternative proposes that the waste in Tank 101- SY would be retrieved and diluted at a ratio of approximately 1:1 (PNL 1995) via an ITRS and transferred to one or both of two new DSTs utilizing the RCSTS. Three location options for the NTF have been identified for this alternative, one in the 200 West Area and two in the 200 East Area. This alternative also proposes that solid and residual supernatant waste from Tank 102-SY, SWL from SSTs in the 200 West Area and 200 West Area facility wastes would be transferred to existing DSTs in the 200 East Area using the same methods described for the preferred alternative as described in Section 3.1.1. Implementation of the RCSTS proposed as part of the new storage alternative would provide the ability to transfer SWL and facility waste from the West area via a regulatory compliant transfer system to existing DSTs in the 200 East Area thereby reducing the likelihood of waste escaping from SSTs. Implementation of the ITRS in Tank 101-SY, RCSTS, and NTF and associated facilities proposed as part of this alternative would provide adequate tank waste storage capacity while mitigating the flammable gas safety concerns in this tank. In addition, this alternative would provide additional storage capacity that could be used for other future waste management needs. Sections 3.1.4.1 through 3.1.4.2 describe the specific actions proposed for the new storage alternative. Sections 3.1.1.1, 3.1.1.2, and 3.1.1.5 provided detailed descriptions of the ECSTS, RCSTS, and interim stabilization respectively. A general process diagram of the new storage alternative is shown in Figure 3-17.
3.1.4.1 New Tanks Facilities
- As described in Appendix A, existing DST storage capacity is committed in the near term to other waste management activities. If a decision is made to retrieve Tank 101-SY, additional storage capacity would be needed. Figure (Page 3-43) Figure 3-17. New Storage Alternative Description - The NTF would consist of two DSTs and associated facilities. The two DSTs would be located either in the 200 West Area or in one of two locations in the 200 East Area. A site selection process considered engineering constraints, potential environmental effects, and agency/ stakeholder involvement. Appendix B, Site Selection Process, provides a detailed description. The NTF would have its own Support Facility that would house the ventilation systems, tank sampling systems, and a control room. A diesel generator building would house a diesel generator to supply emergency backup electrical power at each area. The tanks would be designed for a 0.35 g ground acceleration initiated by an earthquake. Figures 3-18 and 3-19 show the location options of the proposed NTF in relation to the 200 West and East Areas, respectively. Appendix B describes the site selection criteria used in determining potential NTF sites. Figure 3-20 provides a plan view of the NTF. Figure 3-21 provides an illustration of the NTF structures. Figure 3-22 illustrates a DST for the NTF. Each DST would consist of two concentric structures. A steel primary tank would be used to contain the radioactive waste materials. Each primary tank would have a diameter of approximately 23 m (75 ft), be capable of storing approximately 4 million L (1 million gal) of waste, and contain mixer pumps and a transfer pump. An outer reinforced concrete confinement structure, designed to sustain all loads and lined with a steel liner, would be used to provide secondary confinement. An annular space would separate the secondary confinement from the primary tank, and this space would contain leak detection instruments to detect leakage from the primary tank. The supporting pad, placed between the bottom of the primary tank and secondary confinement structure, would support the primary tank and be slotted to provide passages for annulus ventilation airflow and facilitate inspection of the tank bottom. Numerous penetrations in the primary tank and the annulus would be provided to support the transferring and mixing of waste and monitoring. The design life of each DST would be 50 years. Monitoring and sampling of tank operations would include the following: . In-tank, tank wall, bottom, and concrete temperatures . Corrosion rates Figure (Page 3-45) Figure 3-18. Proposed NTF Location in 200 West Area Figure (Page 3-46) Figure 3-19. Proposed NTF Locations in 200 East Area Figure (Page 3-47) Figure 3-20. Plan View of the NTF Figure (Page 3-48) Figure 3-21. Illustration of NTF Figure (Page 3-49) Figure 3-22. Drawing of a NTF DST . Tank pressure (vacuum) . Continuous tank monitoring of hydrogen, ammonia, and total hydrocarbons for flammability . Grab samples of carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide, acetone, 1-butanol, carbon tetrachloride, benzene, methyl butyl ketone, methyl iso-butyl ketone, tri-butyl phosphate, and normal paraffin hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides (NOx) . Stack gas monitoring for total hydrocarbons and alpha, beta, and gamma radiation . Stack gas sampling for tritium, iodine (129I), and alpha, beta, and gamma radiation . Annulus and pit leak detection. The tank ventilation systems would remove heat generated in the tanks. Each tank would have two heat-removal systems: a primary tank ventilation system and an annulus ventilation system, as described in the following paragraphs. . Primary Tank Ventilation System - The primary tank ventilation system would maintain negative pressure in the tank and exhaust gases from the tank vapor space to the atmosphere after passing them through moisture- removing and filtering equipment. In sequence, the exhaust would pass through a condenser, high-efficiency mist eliminator (HEME) filter, electrical heater, high-efficiency metal filter (HEMF), HEPA filter, high-efficiency gas adsorption (HEGA) filter, and another HEPA filter. The condenser, HEME, and HEMF backflush water would drain back to a primary tank. . Annulus Ventilation System - The annulus ventilation system would remove heat from the primary tank walls and floor by convection. A CAM would be installed to measure radioactivity in each annulus ventilation exhaust system upstream of the HEPA filters to measure radioactivity. After filtration and monitoring, both primary and annulus ventilation systems would exhaust through stacks. The primary tank ventilation system would be capable of moving air from a nominal 0.14 cubic meters per second (m3/s) [300 cubic feet per minute (cfm)] up to 0.45 m3/s (960 cfm) of air. The Support Facility would contain operating galleries from which local control and monitoring of the primary tank ventilation system would be performed. The Support Facilities would also contain one or more rooms for each of the following functions or equipment: liquid and exhaust sampling, control, communications, process cell supply air filter, air compressor, contaminated solid waste, building exhaust, building HVAC supply, normal and backup electrical distribution panels, backup electrical motor control centers, condenser cooling equipment, and process cell exhaust. The HVAC systems for the Support Facilities would maintain differential air pressures within the facilities to minimize the potential for the spread of contamination. Four ventilation zones would be established such that airflow would be directed from areas with the least potential for contamination to areas with the most potential for contamination. The process pits and their associated ventilation systems would provide secondary confinement of radioactive material and would be ventilated to maintain a slight negative pressure relative to the atmosphere so that airborne contamination remains in the pits. Separate, dedicated incoming and outgoing 8-cm (3-in) diameter steel waste transfer lines, with associated spare lines, would connect the NTF with existing facilities by the RCSTS. All process lines and drains would be encased in secondary piping to collect and detect leakage from the primary piping. All process lines would be sloped for free draining to prevent fluid accumulation in traps. Encasement piping would drain into the process pit in which it terminates, and process pits would drain into the tank on which they are constructed. All encased process lines would be equipped with a leak detection system. Capability for periodic pressure testing of the primary process piping and encasement would be provided. Construction - Figure 3-23 shows a typical construction area for the proposed NTF. The NTF would be constructed over a 3-year period and require a peak construction workforce of approximately 150 workers as incremental additions to the Hanford Site workforce. Site preparation would include approximately 10 ha (25 acres) of land, cleared and graded for construction of the two tanks and support facilities either for the 200 East or West Area sites, and an additional 10 ha (25 acres) of land cleared and graded for construction access, laydown, parking, and spoil piles. Excavation for the waste tanks would be approximately 43 by 79 m (140 by 260 ft) and 18 m (60 ft) deep for either of the tank locations. Spoil material from the excavation would be placed in a spoil pile located at either NTF location. The spoil pile would contain material suitable for structural backfill, which would be reused for backfill around the completed tanks. Site clearing, grading, and excavation activities would occur at the chosen NTF site for approximately 6 months of which 4 months would involve a two- shift operation. Heavy construction equipment would consist of approximately four to six large self-loading scrapers, four large bulldozers, a road grader, a water truck for dust control, and a fuel truck. Existing natural drainage traverses north for the 200 East Area and west for the 200 West Area. Surface drainage from storm water and snowmelt would evaporate or percolate naturally. To prevent possible surface run-off flooding, finished grading of both sites would provide both run-on and run-off control for the new facilities. Construction access roads would be 9 m (30 ft) wide and surfaced with crushed gravel. At either tank location, the finished grade and the area disturbed during construction would be stabilized upon project completion. Spoil pile locations and borrow areas would be stabilized by planting suitable vegetation determined through consultations with appropriate Federal and state agencies and tribes. Figure (Page 3-53) Typical Construction Area for NTF Construction activities would encompass tank erection and erection of the Support Facility Building. Two DSTs would be erected at either the 200 East Area or 200 West Area. The DSTs would be constructed with a crawler crane located at the bottom of the excavation. DST components would be off-loaded and stored in the construction laydown area and loaded onto trucks with a small crane or cherry picker for transport to the immediate erection area. Tank erection activities would last approximately 3 years. After erection of the secondary confinement structures, backfill material would be placed around the tanks at the bottom of the dome. Backfill material would be placed with self-loading scrapers, leveled, and compacted, typically in 0.3-m (1-ft) lifts. Approximately two self-loading scrapers, two bulldozers, and two vibratory compactors would be utilized for placing the backfill. Backfilling activities would last approximately 5 weeks. The Support Facility Building would be two-stories tall, and be built with reinforced concrete. Construction of the Support Facility Building would last approximately 18 months and would overlap tank erection and backfill by approximately 12 months. Construction activities would require at least one crawler or truck crane, a concrete pump, a cherry picker, and several flat bed trucks. Several additional structures would be located at the NTF. These structures would include exhaust stacks, stack monitoring facilities, diesel generator buildings, and diesel fuel oil tank vaults. These structures would not require significant heavy equipment for construction. In addition to the buildings and structures, waste transfer piping, process piping, and utilities would be installed and connected to existing sources. Most of the required underground excavation activities would be performed within the cleared portion of each facility, and other excavation would be performed in areas that have been previously developed. Septic systems would be installed at the NTF, if necessary, to provide service during construction and operation. The septic systems would be sized to accommodate a volume of 12,500 L/day (3,300 gal/day) and accommodate all project construction personnel. Portable facilities would be utilized as required to supplement the septic systems. The NTF system would include a 18,000 L (5,000 gal) septic tank and three 50 percent capacity disposal fields of approximately 116 square meters (m2) [1,250 square feet (ft2)] each. The disposal fields would be located within the cleared and graded areas of the NTF site. A sewage treatment facility has been proposed for the 200 Areas and, if available, may also serve the proposed NTF (DOE 1995b). After completing construction activities, permanent roadways and parking areas would be paved, and the remainder of the disturbed areas would be stabilized. Approximately 11,300 m2 (122,000 ft2) and 11,400 m2 (123,000 ft2) of land would be covered by new pavement and structures, respectively, at the NTF. The NTF would be finish-graded for drainage away from the pavement and structures. Operation - Waste transfer operations would be initiated by remotely or manually aligning the valves on the transfer route for transfer to a new tank. A typical transfer to a new 200 East Area tank would involve the valves in the main valve pit, the multi-tank transfer pit, a diversion box, and the transfer pump pit on the tank. Transfers to a new 200 West Area tank would involve valves in its main valve pit, Diversion Box 1, and the transfer pump pit of the tank. The transferring tank and the booster pumps in the RCSTS would provide the necessary force to effect the transfer. If the new tank storage alternative is selected with new DSTs in the 200 East Area, the RCSTS would be the same but would consist of two diversion boxes and two booster pumps. The second diversion box would be located in 200 East Area and would transfer waste to and from the new DSTs (Figure 3-3). The second booster pump would be located in the second diversion box to facilitate waste transfer from the new DSTs. Approximately 50 workers would be needed to support NTF operations. These workers would come from the existing Hanford Site workforce.
3.1.4.2 Dilution and Retrieval
- The new storage alternative would mitigate flammable gas release in Tank 101-SY by decreasing the volume of gas-retaining material and reducing or eliminating its ability to retain, and ultimately release, flammable gas. The retention and release behavior of gas is tied closely to the properties of the sludge that forms as the solids settle. Dilution would dissolve a significant fraction of the solids and change the waste properties so that gas can migrate to the surface continuously instead of being held in the sludge. For dilution to be an effective mitigation, it must eliminate or greatly reduce the ability of settled solids to retain gas and maintain flammable gas concentration below 25 percent of the LFL. Therefore, for dilution to be effective for Tank 101-SY it must be combined with retrieval and transfer of the gas generating waste so that the flammable gas level in the tank is reduced. Description - The retrieval and dilution of waste from Tank 101-SY would be accomplished by operating the existing 150-hp mixer pump and construction and installation of a retrieval and dilution system provided by the ITRS. The ITRS would support dilution of waste for retrieval and transfer operations and mitigation of flammable gas safety issue in Tank 101-SY. The retrieval of wastes from Tank 101-SY would be accomplished by installation and operating a small transfer pump in a spare tank riser. The transfer pump would also be utilized to introduce diluent in the tank either at the pump suction intake or through pipes attached to the pump column. The current mixer pump in Tank 101-SY would be used to mix the tank prior to transfer. A conceptual diagram of Tank 101-SY with the ITRS is shown on Figure 3-24. The dilution system for Tank 101-SY would include hot water and caustic solution supply, a flush tank and a flush pump for mixing water and caustic solution, a diluent pump, and a booster pump (Figure 3-25). Instrumentation would be provided in a valve pit downstream of the transfer pump to determine the waste properties such as density, viscosity, flow, temperature, and pressure. Following retrieval and dilution, the waste would be transferred via the RCSTS to the NTF for storage in either the 200 West Area or 200 East Area. The dilution ratios required for Tank 101-SY mitigation and retrieval and transfer have been evaluated to be approximately 1:1 (i.e., one part of waste combined with an equal part of diluent). The proposed diluent is a two-molar solution of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) (PNL 1994). Figure (Page 3-57) Figure 3-24. Probable Tank COnditions at the Beginning of Retrieval Operations Figure (Page 3-58) Figure 3-25. Simplified Process Flow Diagram Construction - The dilution and retrieval activities would include the construction and installation of a transfer pump in Tank 101-SY and in-line dilution capabilities provided by the ITRS. Tank 101-SY would be provided with flushing, caustic addition capabilities, and pipe routings to the tank farms. In addition, this system would be connected to the proposed RCSTS, described in Section 3.1.1.2. The construction, installation, and modifications to the Tank 101-SY would include the following elements. . Construction and installation of: - a small transfer pump for transferring waste from the tank - operator station including monitor, alarm, and control retrieval systems for the tank - Instrumentation to measure the physical characteristics of the waste prior to transfer - new jumpers, as required, to support the operation of the transfer pump, dilution system, and flush system - a flush tank, an isolation tank, and chemical unloading pad . Utilities for retrieval operations (electrical, water, and telecommunications) . Modifications to the central pump pit for the load distribution frame, cover blocks as required to support the new equipment, and existing valve pits to house a transfer booster pump, and flush pump . Upgrades to the existing ventilation system, if required . Piping interface with the RCSTS. In addition, the retrieval and dilution system would interface with the existing instrumentation critical to monitor tank waste, shell, and air space temperatures, and waste levels within Tank 101-SY. Operation - The Tank 101-SY retrieval and dilution operation would be a four- step process. First, the tank contents would be mobilized via operation of the mixer pump to achieve a measure of waste homogeneity. Second, as the tank is nearly full, the first batch of waste retrieved would be diluted in-line with a two-molar NaOH solution to meet a specified waste concentration that complies with the RCSTS requirements. Third, when adequate space is available in the tank, the diluent would be added to the tank for an in-tank dilution process. The diluent would be added to the tank to reach the prescribed waste dilution ratio of 1:1. During diluent additions, the mixer pumps would be operated to disperse the diluent and achieve waste homogeneity. This would prevent formation of a stratified layer on the surface preventing retrieval of sludge from the bottom. Finally, the diluted waste would be retrieved from the tank utilizing the transfer pump for subsequent transfer via the RCSTS, and storage into two new DSTs at the NTF. The following modes of operation would be utilized during the retrieval and transfer process. . Recirculation - The transfer pump would circulate waste back into the tank while diluent is added at the pump suction until correct waste properties are achieved for transfer and/or tank space would allow no further addition of diluent. Further dilution of waste could be achieved as part of the transfer process if proper dilution is not achievable within the tank. On-line instrumentation would be monitored during this phase of operation. . Transfer - Diluted waste would be routed into the RCSTS and transferred to new DSTs, either in 200 East or West Areas. . Bypass - If on-line instrumentation detects that waste being transferred is out of specification (refer to Section 3.1.1.2), the flow would be diverted from the transfer line to the recirculation loop and back into the tank. Bypass operations would continue until the waste achieves the required specification, via addition of diluent or continued conditioning and mixing. . Flush - The transfer lines would be preconditioned with diluent prior to starting a transfer and to continue a transfer during Bypass mode. The transfer lines would also be flushed after completing a transfer operation or before shutdown.
3.1.5 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The no action alternative would continue to retrieve both complex and non- complex SWL from SSTs and the WAFW by existing stabilization programs and transfer the waste utilizing the ECSTS via Tank 102-SY as described in Section 3.1.1.1. The no action alternative mitigates the safety issues in Tank 101-SY by the long-term operation of the existing mixer pump or a replacement pump, as described in Section 3.1.1.4 and the ability to provide safe storage conditions in existing DSTs. Additionally, it is assumed for purposes of this analysis that no retrieval, dilution or transfer of Tank 101-SY wastes or Tank 102-SY solids would occur under the no action alternative and, therefore, construction of a retrieval system for Tank 102-SY or Tank 101-SY, RCSTS, waste load and unload facilities and operation of transfer vehicles, and NTF would not occur. A general process diagram of the no action alternative is shown in Figure 3-26.
3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED
Under DOE and CEQ requirements, all alternatives that could satisfy the need
for action identified in Section 2, Purpose and Need for Action, must be
assessed for reasonableness within the requirements of NEPA. The criteria of
reasonableness for this EIS are affected by the following:
. The need to resolve safety issues expeditiously
. The restriction under CEQ regulations which requires that during the
NEPA process for an EIS (in this case the TWRS EIS) an agency shall not
take any action that would have an adverse effect, or limit the choice
of reasonable alternatives. [40 CFR 1506.1(a)]
Figure (Page 3-62)
Figure 3-26. No Action Alternative
. The need to adhere to other regulations and DOE orders. Reasonableness
is affected by a noncompliance with regulations or unacceptability based
on policy determinations regarding acceptable risk to workers and the
public.
Section 3.2.1 identifies those alternatives dismissed based on their inability
to resolve safety issues expeditiously within the confines of an interim
action. Section 3.2.2 identifies those alternatives that would prejudice TWRS
decision-making, and Section 3.2.3 identifies those alternatives that are non-
compliant with existing regulations or DOE orders.
3.2.1 RESOLVE FLAMMABLE GAS SAFETY ISSUES EXPEDITIOUSLY
The urgent safety issue which was created by large hydrogen releases in Tank 101-SY, necessitated that DOE and Ecology evaluate only those alternatives which have a proven ability to resolve this safety issue expeditiously, without affecting TWRS disposal decisions. Flammable GREs in Tank 101-SY have resulted in concentrations which exceeded the LFL for hydrogen. Several potential technical options for resolving GREs in Tank 101-SY have been dismissed from detailed evaluation in this EIS because their technical ability to resolve or mitigate the generation of unacceptable levels of flammable gas has not been proven (WHC 1992c). The 1992 report, Mitigation/Remediation Concepts for Hanford Site Flammable Gas Generating Waste Tanks, (WHC 1992c), developed and evaluated 22 concepts for mitigating and/or remediating the generation, storage, and periodic release of hydrogen gas in Tank 101-SY and 22 other Hanford waste tanks. Mitigation by dilution, heating, mixing, and ultrasonic agitation were reported to be the most promising concepts for additional study (PNL 1994). In addition, other mitigation options such as chemical processing were found to be more complex, costly, and longer to implement than options discussed in this report. Furthermore, other options would only be needed if the four mitigation options discussed in this report could not produce and maintain acceptable results during the interim period prior to disposal decisions (WHC 1992c). DOE has continued to fund the evaluation of the most promising mitigation concepts of mixing and diluting which are the principal alternatives evaluated in this EIS. Remediation concepts such as chemical processing, have been deferred to the TWRS EIS. A Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) report, Assessment of Alternative Mitigation Concepts for Hanford Flammable Gas Tanks, (PNL 1994) released after the issuance of the SIS Draft EIS, reinforced the technical opinion that mixing and dilution are the most promising technical options for mitigation of the hydrogen gas safety issue. A subsequent evaluation of dilution (PNL 1995) indicated that a likely dilution ratio to successfully mitigate gas release events in Tank 101-SY would be approximately one part diluent to one part waste. Consequently, the DOE and Ecology have considered either use of mixer pumps or dilution as reasonable approaches that could work for mitigation of the Tank 101-SY safety issue DOE will continue to evaluate promising options and look for other waste management strategies which may provide better, more cost effective solutions to hydrogen gas release events. However, for the interim needs of DOE and Ecology to resolve the specific issues regarding hydrogen generation in Tank 101-SY, these other solutions have been determined to be unreasonable at this time.
3.2.2 TANK WASTE REMEDIATION SYSTEM DECISION-MAKING
Because the TWRS EIS and ROD process will be the decision-making process for final disposal of tank wastes, alternatives which would prejudice TWRS EIS alternatives and options have been dismissed as alternatives for this interim action decision. These technical options include grouting wastes, in-tank chemical processing, and sugar denitrification. These options have the potential to physically or chemically alter the waste to an extent which could affect the viability of technical options being evaluated under the TWRS EIS for final waste disposal. The TWRS EIS will evaluate these options and others for their viability as alternatives for final waste disposal. Under CEQ regulations these options are not reasonable as interim actions to satisfy the purpose and need statement in Section 2 without affecting future decision- making. Considering the interim time frame for decision-making in this EIS, the following option was dismissed from further evaluation: Destroy the Complexant in West Area Single-Shell Tanks - The Organic complexant could be destroyed by heat and aggressive oxidation. However, this option was dismissed from consideration as the decision on treatment and disposal of tank wastes is being evaluated in the TWRS EIS. Any action to treat waste would prejudice the actions and decision being based on the TWRS EIS.
3.2.3 NONCOMPLIANT
Alternatives which have the potential to technically provide alternative
storage but do not comply with regulations or policies have been evaluated.
These include rail car or tanker truck storage, above ground tank storage, and
surface impoundments. While no regulations explicitly prohibit storage of the
waste in rail cars, tanker trucks, or above ground storage, the following
regulations apply:
. DOE Order 6430.1A, General Design Criteria, which includes requirements
for confinement of HLW
. WAC-173-303, Section 640, "Dangerous Waste Regulations, Tanks Systems"
Considering the interim time frame for decision-making in this EIS, these
options were dismissed from further evaluation because these regulations would
make it difficult or impossible to obtain the necessary permits and approvals
for such storage.
3.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives described in Section 3.1 present DOE and Ecology with full
range of actions to be implemented by the ROD which follow this EIS. These
alternatives characterize the various actions available to DOE and Ecology to
meet the purpose and need statements identified in Section 2 which include:
. Remove SWL from older SSTs to reduce the likelihood of liquid waste
escaping from the corroded tanks into the environment, also referred to
as interim stabilization.
. Provide ability to transfer the tank wastes via a compliant system to
mitigate any future safety concerns and take advantage of current or
future tank space allocations.
. Provide adequate tank waste storage capacity for current and future
waste volumes associated with tank farm operations as well as other
Hanford facility operations.
. Mitigate hydrogen generation in Tank 101-SY.
Table 3-1 presents for each alternative, the actions that would satisfy the
objectives of the purpose and need statement. All alternatives would reduce
the potential for leaks from SSTs by continuation of the interim stabilization
program by which SWL would be retrieved from all remaining SSTs. All
alternatives except the no action alternative would provide a modern, safe,
and reliable RCSTS that complies with regulations. Only the preferred and new
storage alternatives would meet Tri-Party Agreement Milestone M-43-07 which
requires the construction and operation of the RCSTS. All alternatives,
except the new storage alternative, would manage future waste volumes
associated with tank farm operations and other Hanford facility operations
within the existing DST tank inventory; however, the ability of the no action
alternative to accomplish this objective is uncertain. Safe storage of wastes
in Tank 101-SY and mitigation of unacceptable generation of hydrogen would be
accomplished by continued operations of the mixer pump currently in Tank 101-
SY, except under the new storage alternative, which would retrieve and dilute
Tank 101-SY and store the diluted waste in new DSTs.
Comparison of Alternatives
Purpose and Need
Alternatives
Remove SWL to Reduce SST Leaks Provide Compliant
(Interim Stabilization) Cross-site Waste Mitigate
Transfer Provide Hydrogen
Capabilitya Adequate Waste Generation in
Storage Tank 101-SY
Non-complexed SWL Complexed SWL
Preferred Transfer through Retrieve Tank ECSTS/RCSTS Existing DSTs Continue
Tank 102-SY prior to 102-SY solids Mixer Pump
solids retrieval prior to transfer Operations
Truck Bypass Tank 102-SY Bypass Tank ECSTS/Truck Existing DSTs Continue
Transfer with Truck 102-SY with Truck Mixer Pump
Operations
Rail Bypass Tank 102-SY Bypass Tank ECSTS/Rail Existing DSTs Continue
Transfer with Rail 102-SY with Rail Mixer Pump
Operations
New Storage Transfer through Retrieve Tank ECSTS/RCSTS New DSTs Retrieve and
Tank 102-SY prior to 102-SY solids Dilute
solids retrieval prior to transfer
No Action Transfer through Transfer through ECSTS Existing DSTs Continue
Tank 102-SY without Tank 102-SY Mixer Pump
solids retrieval without solids Operations
retrievalb
aOnly the preferred and new storage alternatives would meet Tri-Party Agreement Milestone M-43-07
which requires the construction and operation of the RCSTS.
bTransferring complexed waste through Tank 102-SY without previously removing sludge in this tank has
the potential to create additional TRU waste.
The following actions would be utilized by each alternative to meet the
objectives of the purpose and need:
. Remove SWL to reduce SST leaks
. Provide compliant cross-site waste transfer capability
. Provide adequate storage
. Mitigate hydrogen generation in Tank 101-SY.
3.3.1 REMOVE SWL TO REDUCE SST LEAKS
Based on analyses in NEPA documents (DOE 1987, DOE 1994) and safety analysis documents that evaluated alternatives for resolving safety issues resulting from uncontrolled releases from SST leaks, the only acceptable alternative is continuing the interim stabilization program implemented in the 1970s. As described in Section 3.1.1.5, this program retrieves the remaining interstitial liquids from SSTs and pumps the SWL to interim storage in DSTs. DOE, Ecology, and the EPA agreed to this action in the Tri-Party Agreement. Therefore, under all alternatives evaluated in this EIS, continuing the interim stabilization program is the only action considered for resolution of safety issues associated with SST leaks. Although the environmental impacts of interim stabilization have been evaluated previously, the action is included in this EIS to fully analyze all aspects of Hanford Site waste generation during the interim period, and to analyze the need for cross-site waste transfers. The interim stabilization program for SSTs in the 200 West Area generates SWL waste, which must be transferred to DSTs in the 200 East Area. Limitations on the use of Tank 102- SY for staging complexed wastes, and the ECSTS, as discussed in Sections 1.2.4 and 3.1.1.1, respectively, created the need for DOE and Ecology to evaluate alternatives for cross-site waste transfer. The preferred and the new storage alternative would utilize the ECSTS for facility wastes and non-complexed SWL until the RCSTS becomes operational. At that time TRU solids from Tank 102-SY would be diluted and retrieved and transferred to DSTs in the 200 East Area. After solids removal, complexed SWLs would be transferred from 200 West Area SSTs through Tank 102-SY and the RCSTS to DSTs in the 200 East Area. The truck and rail transfer alternatives would similarly use the ECSTS until truck or rail facilities were operational to transfer facility wastes and non-complexed SWL. Once operational, the truck and rail transfer alternatives would transfer wastes by truck or rail tanker instead of pipeline. Under the truck and rail transfer alternatives TRU solids from Tank 102-SY would not require dilution and retrieval because complexed waste would not be transferred through Tank 102-SY, instead wastes would be transferred directly from DCRTs to the truck or rail load facility prior to cross-site transfers. The no action alternative would transfer all facility and SWL wastes through Tank 102-SY and use the ECSTS to transfer wastes to the 200 East Area. The no action would violate the RCSTS Tri-Party Agreement Milestone and DOE administrative requirements for TRU waste segregation.
3.3.2 PROVIDE COMPLIANT CROSS-SITE WASTE TRANSFER CAPABILITY
The ECSTS would continue to be used under all alternatives until a replacement capability becomes operational. Under the preferred alternative and the new storage alternative, the RCSTS would be built to replace the ECSTS. Under the truck and rail transport alternatives, the RCSTS would not be built and cross- site waste transfers would be accomplished by tanker trucks or rail cars. The no action alternative would utilize the ECSTS for all cross-site waste transfers required prior to implementing waste disposal decisions resulting from the TWRS ROD.
3.3.3 PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE
Waste projections in Appendix A demonstrate that the current inventory of DSTs would meet the storage requirements for all current tank waste volumes and future projected wastes with contingency space. All alternatives except the new storage alternative would provide interim storage within existing DSTs. Tank 101-SY retrieved and diluted wastes are not included in the current OWVP. If DOE would to choose dilution to mitigate hydrogen generation in Tank 101- SY, additional storage capacity would be required. The new storage alternative would provide additional DST storage for wastes which are not currently projected to be generated before FY 2003. Such wastes would include diluted Tank 101-SY wastes, or other yet to be identified wastes which could require retrieval and new storage to resolve safety issues prior to the TWRS ROD.
3.3.4 MITIGATE HYDROGEN GENERATION IN TANK 101-SY
Active tank monitoring programs implemented since the issuance of the SIS Draft EIS have identified that only Watchlist Tank 101-SY currently requires action beyond passive storage to maintain safety. As described in Section 1.3.4, based on the results of the ongoing monitoring program, Tank 103-SY was determined to no longer require action beyond continued monitoring. Safe management of Tank 101-SY requires the prevention of unacceptable GREs. The preferred, truck and rail transfer and no action alternatives would resolve this safety issue through continued operation of a mixer pump which was installed in Tank 101-SY in July 1993. The new storage alternative would retrieve and dilute the waste from Tank 101-SY, transfer the waste through the RCSTS, and store it in new DSTs at a concentration sufficient to prevent GREs.
SECTION 3 REFERENCES
DOE, 1995a, Environmental Assessment, Tank 241-C-106 Past Practice Sluicing Waste Retrieval, U.S. DOE, DOE/EA-0933, February 1995, U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Site, Richland, WA DOE, 1995b, Environmental Assessment for Project L-116, 200 Area Sanitary Sewer System, DOE/EA-0986, U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, WA, July 1995 DOE, 1994, Environmental Assessment, Waste Tank Safety Program, DOE/EA-0915, U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington DOE, 1993, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Functional Design Criteria, "Multi- Function Waste Tank Facility, Project W-236," WHC-SD-W236A-FDC-001, Rev. 1, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. DOE, 1992a, Environmental Assessment, Environmental Assessment for Tank 241- SY-101 Equipment Installation and Operation to Enhance Tank Safety, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/EA-0802, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. DOE, 1992b, Environmental Assessment, Environmental Assessment for Proposed Pump Mixing Operations to Mitigate Episodic Gas Releases in Tank 241-SY-101, Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, DOE/EA-0803, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. DOE, 1989, General Design Criteria, DOE Order 6430.1A DOE, 1988, Audit of the Cross-Country Transfer Facilities, Letter to WHC, Richland, WA, from Ronald E. Gerton, DOE, Richland, WA, December 14, 1988 DOE, 1987, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richland Washington, Volume 1, DOE/EIS-0113, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. DOE, 1980, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Waste Management Operations, Supplement to ERDA-1538, December 1975, DOE/EIS-0063, Double-Shell Tanks for Defense High-Level Radioactive Waste Storage, U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Site, Richland, WA DOE, 1975, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Waste Management Operations, ERDA-1538, December 1975, U.S. Energy Research & Development Administration, Hanford Reservation, Richland, WA PNL, 1995, An Assessment of the Dilution Required to Mitigate Hanford Tank 241-SY-101, PNL-10417/UC-510 Pacific Northwest Laboratory prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830 PNL, 1994, Assessment of Alternative Mitigation Concepts for Hanford Flammable Gas Tanks, C.W. Stewart, et al, PNL-10105/UC-510, Pacific Northwest Laboratory Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute WHC, 1995a, Functional Design Criteria for Project W-058, Replacement of Cross-Site Transfer System, WHC, 1995b, Waste Tank Summary Report for Month Ending January 31, 1995, WHC- EP-0182-82, Prepared for U.S. DOE, Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, WA WHC, 1995c, Replacement of the Cross Site Transfer System Liquid Waste Transport Alternatives Evaluation, Project W-058, WHC-SD-W058-TA-001, Revision O., D.V.Vo, E.M. Epperson, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington WHC, 1994a, Mixer Pump Long-Term Operation Plan for 101-SY Mitigation, WHC-SD- WH-PLN-081 WHC, 1994b, Engineering Study Transfer System Upgrade Project W-314C, WHC-SD- W314c-ES-001, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, WA WHC, 1993a, Engineering Study-Replacement of the Cross-Site Transfer System, WHC-SD-058-ES-001, Rev 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, WA WHC, 1993b, SAR for Packaging Railroad Liquid Waste Tank Car, WHC-SD-RE-SAP- 013, Rev 5, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, WA. WHC, 1992a, Safety Study of Interim Stabilization of Non-Watchlist Single Shell Tanks, WHC-SD-WM-RPT-048, Revision 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, WA WHC, 1992b, Assessment of Aboveground Transportation System for High-Level Liquid Waste, June 1992, Barker, R.W., S.S. Bath, R.J. Smith, and O.S. Wang WHC, 1992c, Mitigation/Remediation Concepts for Hanford Site Flammable Gas Generating Waste Tanks, WHC-EP-0516, U.S. DOE Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, Washington. WHC, 1991a, The LR 56 Shipping Cask Vehicle, Troude, J.M. and B. Vigreaux, Numatec, Bethesda, Maryland WHC, 1991b, 340 Waste Handling Facility Description Manual, FDM-SW-135-0001, Rev. A-O, August 9, 1991, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, WA WHC, 1986, Facility Description Manual, 204-AR Rail Car, FDM-T-290-000001, Rev. A-O, Westinghouse Hanford Company, Richland, WA.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
