United StatesGovernment Department ofEnergy

Ohio Field OfficeineinorandUJfl West Valley Deinonstratian.1~r~ect

DATE: April 24, 2001Recd.-Rec.Mgmt.

SUBJECT: Vitrification CompletionTeamResultsandCommitments PW0L9313Apnl 25,2001

TO: Alice C. Williams, DirectorOH/WVDP

Peryour direction,theVitrification CompletionTeam,consistingofrepresentativesfrom theU.S.DepartmentofEnergy(DOE),NewYork StateEnergyResearchandDevelopmentAuthority (NYSERDA), WestValley NuclearServicesCompany(W\TNS), aswell astheU.S. NuclearRegulatoryCommission(NRC), completedits reviewof issuessurroundingtheability to completevitrification operations.Duringworkshopsconductedin December2000,January2001, andFebruary2001,theTeamdevelopedacommonunderstandingfor thetechnicalandregulatoryissuesanddiscussedvarioustrade-offsto beconsideredindeterminingtheoptimumtimefor completinghigh-levelwasteprocessingandceasing melteroperations.TheTeamrecommendations,whichwereprovidedto you in Februaryofthisyear,proposedseveralparallelpathsto (1) continuemechanicalremovalefforts, (2) developimprovedmechanicalcleaningcapability,(3) continuetankcharacterizationefforts,and(4)evaluateanddevelopaplanfor safechemicaldecontaminationin theeventthatmechanicalmethodsareinsufficient.

Theattached,signedcommitmentsdemonstratethesite’scommitmentto proceedinparallelwith theseefforts. Also attachedis afinal flow sheetthatprovidesaschematicrepresentationofthepathforwardto completingvitrification. Although theflow sheetis“time phased”to providearelativeunderstandingofthesequenceoftheefforts, it is notintendedto representaschedule.As thesite movesforwardandtechnicalandregulatoryinformationis gathered,it maybenecessaryto altertheactivities (or theirsequence).Allinformationfrom thethreeworkshopsheld in supportofthiseffort, includingpresentationmaterialanddiscussion,havebeencapturedin theattached,boundbooklets.Also, attachedis a brief,one-pagesummaryoftheinformationcoveredin theworkshops.

OnbehalfoftheTeam,I would like to extendourappreciationto you for charteringthisveryworthwhileeffort,which hasresultedin notonly amodified pathfowardfor thesite,but alsoin a commonunderstandingofthat pathforward.

ElizabethA. Lowes,DeputyDirector

WestValley DemonstrationProject

cc: SeePage2

Attachments: SeePage2

EAL:0126-77315- 434.1.2EAL/brb

Alice C. Williams -2- April 24, 2001

cc: W. F. Hamel,OHJWVDP, WV-DOE,w/att. 1-3J. J.May, OHJWVDP,WV-DOE, w/att. 1-3D. W. Sullivan, OHIWVDP, WV-DOE,w/att. 1-3C. L. Gerwitz,NYSERDA,WV-17, w/att. 1-3P. L. Piciulo, NYSERDA,WV-17, w/att. 1-3T. L. Sonntag,NYSERDA,WV-17, w/att. 1-3R. R. Campbell, WVNS, WV-07, w/att. 1-3F. W. Damerow, WVNS, WV-53, w/att. 1-3D. C. Meess,WVNS, WV-54,w/att. 1-3L. E. Rowell, WVNS, WV-53, w/att. 1-3D. R. Westcott,W\TNS,AOC-09, w/att. 1-3

Attachments: 1. Signed Commitments2. Flow Sheeton PathForward3. One-PageSummaryofWorkshops4. ThreeBound Documents containing Workshop Material

EAL:0126 -77315 -434.1.2

EALIbrb

Vitrification Completion Commitments

Representativesfrom DOE, NYSERDA,andWVNSformeda teamin FY2001 to developastrategyfor vitr~flcationcompletionat the WestValley DemonstrationProject. After severalstrategicmeetings,theteamdevelopedcommitmentsfor FY2001andbeyond. WVDPmanagementendorsesthesecommitments:

Commit Resources for Additional Tank Cleaning:

1. DevelopAdditional MechanicalCleaningAbility - to IncludeSecondSluicer (by June2001)andImprovedThird Sluicer(installedby December2001 andoperationalbyJanuary2002).

2. Initiate Preparationsfor SafeChemicalDecontamination.

• Re-evaluatesafetyanalysisimplications(gapanalysisby June2001).• Developstrategyfor meetinganynecessarywasteacceptancerequirements(by

October2001).• Evaluatealternativesanddevelopplanfor implementingchemical

decontamination(by August2001).

Maximize Melter Use During HLW Tank Wall Washing Campaigns (e.g., treatsodium-laden tank residues) to Support:

1. Extendingmelterlife by limiting “idle” periods.

2. Minimizing impactof melter failure by processinglower-activitywaste.

A~fic~C. Williams l~obertR. c~ampbeIlDirek~tor PresidentDOE-WVDP WYNS

Summary ofthe Vitrification Completion TeamWorkshops

Vitrification Completion TeamInitial Kick-Off Meeting,December13,2000

On December 13, 2000, the Vitrification Teamassembledfor backgroundpresentationsanddiscussionsconcerningthecurrentvitrification status. After reviewofthecharter,presentationsin variouskeyareaswereprovided.Thesekeyareasincluded:WasteIncidentalto Reprocessing(WIR) criteria,theWestValleyPerfonnanceAssessmentandtheneedsof thevariousinterestedparties,etc.

Following thepresentations,discussionsensuedand threesub-teamswereformed. Eachsub-teamassembledandidentifieda list ofprioritiesbasedon thepresentationsgivenduring theDecember13,2000. Theselists werehandedout to Vitrification CompletionTeamtheweekof January2, 2001.

Vitrification Completion TeamWorking Sessions,January 8 and 9, 2001

On January8 and 9, 2001,the Vitrification CompletionTeamworking sessionswereheld. The sub-teamswhichwereformedduring theinitial December13 meeting,presentedtheir listsof priorities. Theselistswere reviewed, discussed, and prioritized by the entireVitrification CompletionTeam.

Basedonthepriorities developed, brainstorming sessions were held. The resultsof thesebrainstormingsessionsculminatedin adraftVitrification CompletionProcessFlow Sheet. Thepriorities anddraftVitrification CompletionProcessFlow Sheetwerepresentedto DOE, NYSERDA,andWVNS seniormanagementata closeoutsessionon January9, 2001.

Theneedfor a wrap-upsessionwasidentifiedandscheduledforFebruary14, 2001. Priorto finalized theVitrification PathForward,it wasdeterminedthatan analysisof“V-itrifying theSodiumBearingWaste”wasneededto beperformedandthe resultspresentedto theTeamatthewrap-upsession.Also, a sub-teamwasformedto work on theVitrification CompletionProcessFlow Sheetfor thewrap-upsession.

Vitrification Completion TeamWrap-Up Session,February 14, 2001

On February14, 2001,thefinal Vitrification CompletionTeammeetingwasheld. The sessionsbeganbyreviewtheTeam’sprogressto date,actionsneededto finalizedtheTeam’smission,anda discussionoftheFebruary7, 2001 DOEVitrification Expectationsletter.

A presentationon “Vitrifying theSodiumBearingWaste”wasgiven. Severalworkingsessionswereheldto finalizedthe PathForwardfor Vitrification Completion. Key actionswereidentifiedin supportof thePathForwardfor Vitrification Completion andassignedto cognizantWVDP staff. The session endedwith a presentationof theTeam’srecommendedPathForwardfor Vitrification Completionto DOE,NYSERDA, andW’VNS seniormanagementat acloseoutmeeting.

11r~..PHA~D\/ITRIFICA11ON ccM~lE11~F! ONSHFFT Math 1, 2001

FEBI MARJAPR~MAY ~ AUG NOV DEC T~I~PR~[MAY flUN JIM AI~K~ SE~j

M~TE1~~ a ~ ~~1p ~~ ft ~ be

Cat #~ W Cm c~ #~ C~i~~73

5*mpftn~

y

0094TU( vsd

R, R. Campbell* W\T~07F. W. Damerow* W1v7.53J. L. Mahoney* WV-48D. C. Meess* WV-54L. E. Rowell* WV53P. J. Valenti* WV-53D. R. Westcott* AOC-09

* Attachments 1-3 only

DW:2001:0313

Vit Completion Team

HLW Path to CompletionStrategy & RecommendedPath Forward

Workshop

February 14, 2001

Vit Completion Team

Sponsors: Alice Williams, Paul Piciulo, Robert Campbell

Charter: Provide a strategy and recommended path forward for determining the optimum date fordcscontinuing HLW vitrification operations. At a minimum, the strategy shall address all issuesconsidered key to assisting decision makers in a manner that allows for a clear understanding ofthe relative risk(s) involved in the decision. In addition; the strategy/path forward shall beaccompanied by clear action plans that include responsible persons as well as target completiondates.

Background: Recent characterization work has identified the presence of significant activity fixed to the 80-2tankwalls. This fixed activity was not included in t~eearlier analysis of tank curie content thatprovided an initial basis for the path forward toward completion of vitrification operations.

A review of options, analyses, and requirements should be conducted to form a basis forconsensus on arriving at a decision to terminate vitrification operations.

TeamCommitment: Work together as a unified team to produce a strategy/path forward as specified above. This

initiative will be based upon collective and collaborative efforts incorporating the experience andexpertise of all team members.

Schedule: 1211312000 - One day off-site meeting to share information and develop a commonunderstanding regarding the technical and regulatory basis from which the Vit Completion Teamis starting.

1/8 & 9/2001 - Two day off-site workshop to brainstorm issues and alternatives and develop aninitial strategy for discontinuing HLW vitrification operations.• 1/9/01 - Afternoon presentation of strategy, path forward and actions to the Sponsors

2/9/2001 - Target completion date to deliver a final recommended path forward as describedabove.

Note - Status on interim progress, issues, and direction shall be reported to the seniorDOEJNYSERDAIWVNS management weekly at the Project Status Meeting.

Team Membership:

DOE NYSERDA WVNS

Elizabeth Lowes, LeadBill HamelJoe MayDan Sullivan

Ted SonntagColleen Gerwitz

Steve BarnesFred DamerowLaurene KriegerDan WestcottDan Meess

NRC TEAM MEMBER - Jennifer Davis

FACILITATOR - Ed Urbanawiz

EXTERNAL EXPERT - Robert Perdue

COORDINATION & LOGISTICS - Eric Frazer, Joe Pillittere, Luba Szyszkowski

HLW/cjw/2664TMG.WPD [CJWI

M ~ $~ERL*&

Vitrification Completion Commitments

Representativesfrom DOE, NYSERDA,and WVNSJbrineda teamin FY2001to developastrategyfor vitrjflcation completionat the WestValleyDemonstrationProject. Afterseveralstrategicmeetings,theteamdevelopedcommitmentsfor FY200Jand beyond. WVDPmanagementendorsesthesecommitments:

Commit Resources for Additional Tank Cleaning:

1. DevelopAdditional MechanicalCleaningAbility - to IncludeSecondSluicer(byJune2001)and Improved Third Sluicer (installed by December2001 and operational byJanuary 2002).

2. Initiate Preparations for SafeChemical Decontamination.

• Re-evaluatesafetyanalysisimplications(gapanalysisby June2001).• Developstrategyfor meetinganynecessarywasteacceptancerequirements(by

October2001).• Evaluatealternativesanddevelopplanfor implementingchemical

decontamination(by August2001).

Maximize Melter Use During HLW Tank Wall Washing Campaigns (e.g., treat

sodium-laden tank residues) to Support:

1. Extendingmelterlife by limiting “idle” periods.

2. Minimizing impact of melter failure by processinglower-activity waste.

ATIc? C. Williams ~obert R. &mpbellDireLtor PresidentDOE-WVDP WVNS

VIT COMPLETION TEAMPATH FORWARD

STATUS OF ISSUES AND ACTIONS

ISSUES~ mass C portionot-tIie-WIRP---—

~• WVNS to Provide Proposed Assumptions

— assigNed to Damerow due February 28,2001

~• DOE Provide SAIC with Assumptions

— assigned to Sullivan, due liy March 5, 2001

• SAIC Provide Results By March 19, 2001

• WVNS Revise Basis Document1J~ - assignedto Damerow - due liv A~riI2,2001

OO99ILKppt

ISSUES

• SubmitWiRto NRC— assigned to May - due May 15, 2001

• Evaluate Anproval/Concurrence Question on WIR— assigned to NIlO - expected by March 15, 2001

• NRC ReviewotWiR— expected by February, 2002

2/14/01

00991LK.ppt

ISSUESIssue-a—Determine lithe TechnoIogvis-Adeiiuate-to-Weaui-theTank-——--—-~

• Perlorm a Summary Presentation On Approach/Options forIncreased Waste Removal

— assigned to Meess - due January 31, 2001 (completel• Obtain Information on SRS Tank Ring

— assigned to Krieger - due January 31, 2001 (completel• Provide a Presentation on the SAP (Defensibility of Datal

— assigned to Krieger - due March 1, 2001• Improve M-4 Sluicer Capability

— assigned to Meess - due June 1, 2001• Evaluate/Develop Plan For Deploying Third Sluicer

— assigned to Meess - due August 1, 20012/14/01

OO99TLK.ppt

ISSUES~

~: iconfdl1r~t~ • Evaluate/Develop Plan For Chemical Decontamination

- assigned to Meess- due August 1, 2001• Re-Evaluate Safety Analysis ImplicatiOns of Chemical

Decontamination— assigned to Chulson/Bower - due June 1, 2001

• WASRD/WAPS Changes to Support Potential Chemicalb ~. Decontamination

— assigned to Hamel - due August 1, 2001<1 ~ • WVNS Uudate Flushing Run Plan

— assigNed to Meess - due March 20, 20012114/01

00991LK.ppt

ISSUES~~J1ssIle4TIsIt Beneficial to Vitrify Soiliinu-WasteP~

~ • Develop a Cost/Benefit Analysis to Support the Decision onSodium Processing

1. — assigned to Palmer - due March 9, 2001 (complete)• WIR For Sodium Waste Form To Demonstrate Non-HLW

— assigned to HLW Projects - due TBDf~J.

<~ 2/14/01

L

ISSUES

Issue 5 -Strategy for Application of WIR Groupings

• Determine Whether to Proceed with Separate WIR for WasteBeing Removed From Tank Following InitialSluicing/Characterization

— assigned to May/Hamel - due liv Septemlier 30,2001

2/14/0 1

00991LKppt

ADDITIONAL ACTIONS

Doe (Bill Harnefl to Request WVNS to Provide a Melter Life“Rick Assessment Plan” by February 28,2001

Develop and Document Strategy for Addressing RORA inLight of Cur!ent Path Forward• assigned to Gerber/Maloney, due by August 1, 2001

2/14/01

OO99TLKppt

Vitrification Completion Team WorkshopFebruary14, 2001

Attendees: Elizabeth Lowes,ColleenGerwitz, DanWestcott, DanMeess,Bill Hamel,Ron Palmer,DanSullivan, FredDamerow,JoeMay, Eric Frazer

StatusAll Action ItemsFrom Off-Site Meeting; Re-VisitSideIssues

AgendaOverview - Elizabeth-DOE Vit ExpectationsLetter

-DOE hasa betterunderstandingof risks,technologies,etc. from theVit. CompletionTeamprocessand theletteris meantto providebetterdirection.

-DOE wantsto focuson removalof wasteandlesson creatingWIR analysiswork.Theletter is intendedto providedirectionfor removalefforts.

Statusof Actions

~J ISSUEII SAIC providedNp valueto allow 500 mfRem introduceddose.- Question: Is 500 miRemtheright number?

~Wedo haveroughfiguresof 1/10 Ci ofNp yields lOOm/Remto intruder~Fredstill needstheinformationofthereferencesbasedformatin orderto usetheinformationfor thesite-specificapplicationof61:55~Thoughts- onethatwe needto pick targetsfor aipha-TRUcomponents.‘~Needto sendSAIC amemorandumdirectingSAIC on thetankinventoryandspatialdistributioninformationfor AppendixF determination, furtherchangescanbe handledon aUSQDtypeapproach.

ACTIONS: 1) WVNS to sendletterto DOE, due2/28/01by FredDamerow2) DOE sendletterto SAIC, due3/5/01by DanS.3) SAIC runnew“confirmatoryanalysis”,due3/19/01by SAIC4) Flow diagram,done5) Finalizediagram,done6) Evaluatefeasibility of sendingLLW glasscanistersto NRS,dueTBD by

Hamel/Palmer7) EvaluatefeasibilityofplacingVEMP materialinto LLW glass,dueTBD by

HameliPalmer

I Revisebasisdocumentto recognizesite-specificapplicationof 61:55 basesupondiscussingandnew action,datemovedto April 1, 2001. (FredDamerow)

~1SSUE2

I SubmitWIR to theNRC by April 2001,movedateto May 15, 2001I Evaluateapproval/concurrencequestion,or theWIR, due2/02

Baseduponnewinformation,thisactionshouldbedone3/15/01.I NRC review,responseon theWIR is due2/02 (dateis asis).

~ISSUE3

IProceedwith FY01 - ongoingIPerformsummarypresentation- doneI Obtainrelevantdatafrom SRStankring evaluation- donebut doesnot provideany significantorcompletelyrelevantinformation.I Providepresentationon SAP - (DefensibilityofData) - due3/07/01I ImprovetheM-4 SluicerCapability - due6/01/01 MeessIEvaluateiDevelopa Planfor Deployinga Third Sluicer - due8/1/01 MeesslEvaluate/DevelopaPlanfor ChemicalDecon- 8/01/01 MeessIRe-evaluatetheSafetyAnalysisImplications ofChemicalDecon - 6/01/01Chilson/BowerIWASRD/WAPSChangesto SupportthePotentialChemicalDecon- due8/01/01 HamelIWVNS UpdatetheFlushingRunPlan - due2/20/01 Meess

JISSUE4

SodiumWaste:Draft CostBenefit Analysis - Done(Presentedby RonPalmer)

IWIR for SodiumWasteForm to DemonstrateNon-HLW - dueTBD HLW Projects

~ISSUE5

Strategyfor ApplicationofWTR Groupings- Actionsdeferreduntil 9/01

SIDEISSUES:

1) SystemFlushing- currentflushingplansarebeingreviewedandchangesarebeinggenerated.This issueis currentlybeing worked.(Hamelto issueletterto incorporateexpectationsinto theFlushingRunPlan,due 2/28/01)

2) BackUp PlanFor MelterLife - Hamel letter,haveWVNS providemonitoringmethodsandpotential investigationstrategiesfor melter futuremodes.

3) SafeLay-Up Configuration- August2001 draftstrategyper CPAF milestone,furtherevaluationaftertheAugust draft.

4) RCRA - Developan Documentthe Strategyfor AddressingRCRA in light of thecurrentpathforward - due8~0l/01Gerber/Maloney

Bill Hamel - needsto tie into thesystemlay-upstrategy

Results of(Draft) NaProcessingCost/BenefitAnalysis

A presentationwasgivenby Ron Palmeron thedraft costBenefit Analysis.Somenotes/discussionareas follows:• Thereis aneedto processapproximately2 Vit cansper monthwhile working on cleaning

methods.• We shouldconsiderprocessingNawastesinto glassduring this effort. Theideabeingthat we

aremakingcansregardlessandprocessingtheNa wastewill helpreducetheamountofactivity within theVit systemthusreducingtherisksshouldthemelterdie.

• An additionalrecommendationhassurfacedto consider“other” optionsthansolidification fortheremainingNa Waste.(E.g. Ship via vendorasliquid LLW Tanker,orProcessthe liquidthrough a skid mountedtreatmentsystem)

Review/Finalizethe ProcessFlow Diagram

• A discussion/presentationwasgivenby DanMeesson thecurrentrevision• Somevery minorchangesweregeneratedandincorporatedinto theflow diagram.

Presentationto the Sponsors- Comments/Responses

• Issue#2 - NRC ReviewoftheWLR sparkedthe following discussionpoints:- Therewasaconcernexpressedoverthesubmissionof theWIR forclassC LLW endpoints.Theconcernbeing,what if we cannot meettheclassC requirements?

Canwe considergiving theNRC examplesofthePerformanceAssessmentsfor theirreviewto helpexpeditea future (Actually Achievable)WIR submittal. This wouldprovidefor moreflexibility without a promiseto theNRC ofbeingableto meetclassC requirements.

• Recommendation# 1 - Commit resourcesfor additionaltankcleaningbroughtaboutthefollowing comment:

Convincingdecisionmakerto useachemicalsuchasoxalic acidwould not be easyandthepotentialfor significantadditional testingfor tanksafety issueswould benecessary.

• SponsorclosingComments:

Bob Campbell- More testingthanwe currentlythink would be necessaryprior to being

approvedto useacidin thetank.

PaulPiciulo - Also believesthat usingacidwouldbeahardsell.

Alice Williams - Goodchangecontrolcouldbean issueandmaybe key for recommendation# 1. Safetyanalysisis not “easy”.Theup-frontthinking andwork areamovein theproperdirection,proceedingearly is asmartapproach.Alice would alsolike to learnmoreabouttheSRSlow heat& high heattanks- canwe learnmorethanwe currently think?? The WIRissueshouldbe looked at separately,wemayagainbe ableto learnmorefrom SRSin thisarea.

Cost/BenefitAnalysis forSodium Processing:Glassvs. Cement

Summary

• A rough order of magnitude (R.O.M.) costestimateand a brief benefit/risk assessmentwere donecomparing the solidification ofsodium-rich liquid waste in glassandcement.

Cost Estimate AssumptionsCommon to Glassand Cement

• Costs are in FY2002 dollars• Most of the work will be done in FY2002

— (after completionofHLW processing)• Initial storageof canisters/drumswill be on site

• Final disposal costsare not included

• Glass waste form will meet disposalsite wasteacceptancecriteria

• Warehousemm/max costsare not included

• WasteTank Farm support will be 24 hours per day, 7 daysper week,for 1 year

• LWTS/STS operations is the samefor both options (thesecostsare notincluded in the costcomparison)

Cost Estimate AssumptionsforGlass

• Systemscontinue to operate for oneyear• Routine maintenancefor continued melter

operations• Canisters are already available• HLW glasscomposition is ok for LLW• Production of 60 canistersover oneyear• Final cost estimate: $12.2million

Cost Estimate AssumptionsforCement

Project planning under way

• Low level radiological conditions in place• A qualified vendor is available• Existing CSS subsystemcan be used• No decontamination/decommissioningcosts• Estimate assumessystemoperation costsfor WVNS

personnel• Two campaignsfor six weekseach,24 hours per day, 5

daysper week• Final costestimate: $5.6 million

Major Benefits

• Solidification in glasshas the major benefitthat there is a vitrification systemup andrunning which can be readily transformed toimmobilizing the low levelwaste.

• Solidification in cementhas the majorbenefit of being a compartmentalized,separateoperation which can be done in lowlevel radiological conditions.

Discussionof Risk

• The main risk factor in considering glassimmobilization is the possibility of melterfailure during the courseof the campaign.

• The main risk factor in consideringimmobilization in cementis the~lack of anapprovedwaste form.

SS

rTl

C

Conclusion

• Cost for cementis about 46% of glass.• Risk of melter failure for glassis very high

and much more likely than than the risk fornot being able to produce an acceptablecement.

• The recommendation from this comparisonis to make a cementwasteform.

Department of EnergyOhio Field Office

West VaHey Demonstration Project10282 Rock Springs Road

West Valley. NY 14171-9799

February 7, 2001

Mr. RobertR. Campbell,PresidentWestValley Nuclear Services Company10282RockSpringsRoadWestValley, NY 14171-9799

ATTENTION: P. J. Valenti, High-Level WasteProjectsManager,WV-53

SUBJECT: Expectationsfor High-Level Waste(HLW) Removalfrom theWasteTank Farm

Dear Sir:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Ohio Field Office WestValley Demonstration Project(OHJWVDP) hasdeterminedthat WestValley NuclearServicesCompany(WVNS) requiresclarificationon OH/WVDP’s expectationsregardingtheHLW removalfrom TanksSD-i and8D-2 during fiscal years(FY) 2001 and2002. The following expectationsshouldbe factoredinto yourcurrentoperationsandout-yearplanning:

1. WVNS should continueto removeresidualHLW from Tanks8D-l and 8D-2 until the limitsspecifiedin CodeofFederalRegulations,10 CFR61, “LicensingRequirementsfor LandDisposalofRadioactiveWaste,”§61.55,“WasteClassification”arenotexceededwithinreasonableuncertainty.Sincethe limiting scenariofor supportingtankreclassificationis thein-placeclosurescenario,DOE requeststhatguidanceprovidedin theU.S. NuclearRegulatoryCommission(NRC)BranchTechnicalPositionPaperon ConcentrationAveragingandEncapsulation(Revisionin Partto WasteClassificationTechnicalPosition)beusedto supporta WIR for tanks. Consistentwith this guidance,WVNS cantakecredit forup to 40 inchesofa bindingor solidificationagent(e.g.,grout) in thebottomof Tanks8D-land8D-2;

2. WVNS shouldcontinueto removeresidualHLW from Tanks8D-l and8D-2 until asuccessfulWasteManagementArea 3 PerformanceAssessmentcanbe satisfiedsuchthatenoughmarginswill existfor receptorsreceivingdosesfrom othersourceterms;

3. WVNS shouldbe proactivein developinganddeploying appropriatemethodologiestoaddressremovalofthe fixed contaminationfrom Tank8D-2 to achieveitems I and2 above;

4. WVNS shouldrevisethe,“Technical Basis for Wasteincidentalto ReprocessingDeterminationfor Tanks 8D-1 and8D-2,” to reflectmeetingClassC limits statedin item Iabove;

Mr. Robert R. Campbell - 2 - February 7, 2001

5. TherevisedbasisdocumentshouldaddresstheentireWasteTankFarm,notjust Tanks8D-1and8D-2; and

6. All datacollectedto supportdemonstrationofcompletionofitems I and2 aboveshall bedefendableandcollectedper an approvedplan.

If you haveany questionsregardingthis matter,pleasecontactmeon Extension4312.

Sincerely,

A1i4’e C. Williams, DirectorWe~tValley DemonstrationProject

cc: T. J. Jackson, OH/WVDP,WV-DOEE. A. Lowes, OH/WVDP,WV-DOEJ. J. May, OHJWVDP,WV-DOED. W. Sullivan, OH/WVDP, WV-DOEP. L. Piciulo, NYSERDA,WV-17F. W. Damerow,WVNS, WV-53D. C. Meess, WVNS, WV-54

WFFI:0215 - 76099-434.1

WFHIsdm