rpp-rpt-48549 rev. 1 library/new...rpp-rpt-48549 rev. 1 es-1 executive summary ... 2 in addition, an...

RPP-RPT-48549 Rev. 1

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report analyzes the availability and suitability of specific sites within the Hanford Site

boundary for locating the Supplemental Treatment System and Immobilization System. This is a

macro-level qualitative analysis that considers the Treatment System and the Immobilization

System as two separate entities that must work jointly with one another and with the Waste

Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) to accomplish the tank waste treatment mission.

This macro-level qualitative analysis is necessitated by the fact that the site evaluation has been

performed prior to the selection of the preferred alternative for the Immobilization System.

Nevertheless, a preliminary site selection is made independent of a preferred Immobilization

System alternative selection via a screening process that rules out site locations requiring major

upgrades to the Tank Farm System while supporting additional Supplemental Treatment

Program mission objectives (e.g., 2020 Vision for WTP Project Transition to Operations).

The non-quantitative evaluation showed a slight bias to locating both the Treatment and

Immobilization Systems in the 200 East Area. This was due to the fact the 200 East Area

locations exhibited the following advantages:

1. Proximity to feed sources – from both Double-shell Tanks (DSTs) and WTP

Pretreatment (PT)

2. Supportive of other initiatives – e.g., 2020 Vision and backup feed to the WTP LAW

Facility;

3. Previous Interim Pretreatment System (IPS) project work eliminates uncertainties

regarding site-specific requirements such as seismic response design criteria;

4. In-tank treatment option implementation is not restricted to one DST; and

5. If the Immobilization System technology is 2nd

LAW, the WTP site will host the 2nd

LAW facility and a 200 East Area Treatment System will be “co-located”.

Design for the Treatment System is therefore performed assuming that both the Treatment

System and the Immobilization System would be located in the 200 East Area.

It is recognized that this site evaluation will require periodic updates and a formal, quantitative

site evaluation will be performed subsequent to the selection of the preferred Immobilization

System alternative.


i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 SUPPLEMENTAL TREATMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW .......................... 1-1

1.2 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 1-2

2.0 METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING SITES ........................................................... 2-1

2.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 2-2

2.1.1 Treatment System .................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.2 Immobilization System ............................................................................ 2-2

3.0 REQUIREMENTS AND SYSTEM CHARACTERISICS ............................................. 3-1

3.1 FACILITY SIZE AND CAPACITY ................................................................... 3-2

3.2 WTP PRETREATMENT FACILITY ................................................................. 3-4

3.3 SITE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ................................................................... 3-4

3.3.1 Electrical Power Distribution ................................................................... 3-4

3.3.2 Site Water Distribution ............................................................................ 3-5

3.3.3 Telecommunication (Phone, HLAN) ....................................................... 3-5

3.3.4 Roadways ................................................................................................. 3-5

3.3.5 Other Site Services ................................................................................... 3-5

3.4 NUCLEAR SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................... 3-6

3.5 INDUSTRIAL AND RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS ......... 3-6

3.6 SIESMIC CRITERIA .......................................................................................... 3-7

3.6.1 Treatment System .................................................................................... 3-8

3.6.2 Immobilization System ............................................................................ 3-8

3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITS ............................................................... 3-9

4.0 PRELIMINARY SCREENING ....................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 SPLIT CAPACITY IMMOBILIZATION SYSTEM IN WEST AND

EAST AREAS ................................................................................................... 4-10

4.2 TREATMENT SYSTEM AND IMMOBILIZATION SYSTEM

LOCATED IN EAST AREA ............................................................................. 4-11

5.0 AVAILIBILITY OF SITES ............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 CANDIDATE SITES IN 200 EAST AREA ....................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 East Area In-tank Treatment System Location ........................................ 5-3

5.2 CANDIDATE SITES IN 200 WEST AREA....................................................... 5-4

5.2.1 West Area In-tank Treatment System Location....................................... 5-7

6.0 FORMAL EVALUATION OF SITES ............................................................................ 6-1

6.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING............................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Description of Criteria Considered .......................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Criteria Weighting ................................................................................... 6-4

6.2 EVALUATION RESULTS ................................................................................. 6-4


ii

7.0 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................. 7-1

8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 8-1

APPENDIX A –IMMOBILIZATION FACILITY LAYOUT AND ELEVATION

VIEWS ................................................................................................................................. I

APPENDIX B – PHOTO LOG OF 200 EAST AREA CANDIDATE SITES

WALKDOWN ..................................................................................................................... I

APPENDIX C – PHOTO LOG OF 200 WEST AREA CANDIDATE SITES

WALKDOWN ..................................................................................................................... I

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1. Treatment and Immobilization System Input – Output Diagram ........................... 3-1

Figure 4-1. Supplemental Treatment Configuration: Immobilization System in West

Area with Treatment System in West Area ............................................................ 4-3

Figure 4-2. Supplemental Treatment Configuration: ½-capacity Immobilization System

in West Area fed by Treatment System in West Area + ½-capacity

Immobilization System in East Area fed by WTP Pretreatment Facility ............... 4-4

Figure 4-3. Supplemental Treatment Configuration: Immobilization System in East

Area with Treatment System in West Area ............................................................ 4-5

Figure 4-4. Supplemental Treatment Configuration: Immobilization System in West

Area with Treatment System in East Area .............................................................. 4-6

Figure 4-5. Supplemental Treatment Configuration: ½-capacity Immobilization System

in West Area fed by Treatment System in East Area + ½-capacity

Immobilization System in East Area fed by WTP Pretreatment Facility. .............. 4-7

Figure 4-6. Supplemental Treatment Configuration: Immobilization System in East

Area with Treatment System in East Area. ............................................................. 4-8

Figure 4-7. LAW Feed Lag Storage Tanks Facility Footprint. ............................................... 4-10

Figure 5-1. Treatment and Immobilization System Candidate Sites in East Area.* ................. 5-2

Figure 5-2. Aerial Photograph of AP Tank Farm. ..................................................................... 5-4

Figure 5-3. Treatment and Immobilization System Candidate Sites in 200 West Area* .......... 5-5

Figure 5-4. Aerial Photograph of SY Tank Farm. ..................................................................... 5-7


iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1. Treatment and Immobilization System Characteristics. ............................................ 3-3

Table 3-2. Guidance for SDC Based on Unmitigated Consequences of SSC Failures in a

Seismic Event.......................................................................................................... 3-3

Table 4-1. Treatment and Immobilization System Locations Considered. ................................ 4-2

Table 5-1. 200 West Area Candidate Site Features. ................................................................... 5-6

Table 6-1. Example Criteria for Treatment and Immobilization System Site Evaluation. ......... 6-2


iv

LIST OF TERMS

ANSI American National Standards Institute

BPA Bonneville Power Administration

CFF cross-flow filtration

CST Crystalline Silicotitanate

DOE US Department of Energy

DOE-ORP US Department of Energy, Office of River Protection

DOH/WSDOH Washington State Department of Health

DST double-shell tank

ERDF Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

ERP External Review Panel

ETF Effluent Treatment Facility

FBSR fluidized bed steam reformer

FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic

HFFACO Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order

HLAN Hanford Local Area Network

HLW High-level waste

HTWOS Hanford Tank Waste Operations Simulator

IBC International Building Code

IDF Integrated Disposal Facility

IPS Interim Pretreatment System

IX ion exchange

LAW low-activity waste

MSA Mission Support Alliance

MT metric tons

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

PC Performance Category

PT pretreatment

PVC polyvinyl chloride

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

RMF rotary micro filtration

RPP River Protection Project

SCIX Small Column Ion Exchange

SMP submersible mixer pumps

sRF spherical resorcinol-formaldehyde

SSC Structure, System and Component

SVF spreadsheet verification form

TPA Tri-Party Agreement

TSB Technology Selection Board

TSR Technical Safety Requirement

URMA underground radioactive material area

WFD waste feed delivery

WIDS Waste Information Database System

WRPS Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation

WTP Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant


1-1

1.0 SCOPE

This site evaluation report analyzes the availability and suitability of different sites within the

Hanford Site boundary for locating the Supplemental Treatment Program systems. This

evaluation is based on criteria for safe, reliable, and cost-effective accomplishment of the tank

waste treatment mission.

Supplemental Treatment Program systems are:

1. The Treatment System – Receives Double-shell Tank (DST) supernatant and removes

solids and 137

Cs to produce a liquid waste feed stream suitable for treatment in the

Immobilization System1; and

2. The Immobilization System – Receives treated LAW feed from the Treatment System

and the WTP Pretreatment (PT) facility, and produces a stable, immobilized waste form

suitable for on-site disposal.

Note that this site evaluation report is being produced prior to completion of the Immobilization

System conceptual design; and, as such, this site evaluation does not have the benefit of

technology selection for the Immobilization System. Four unique Immobilization technologies

are viable candidates for implementation as the Immobilization System2. Although the

recommended Treatment System conceptual design alternative is an in-tank deployment of

Treatment System equipment (see RPP-RPT-50024, Rev. 0, Treatment Project T4S01

Conceptual Design Report), this site evaluation will continue to carry the near-tank Treatment

System deployment option, consistent with Revision 0 of this document. Formal DOE ORP

acceptance of the In-tank Treatment System configuration recommendation will allow removal

of the near-tank configuration in a future revision of this site evaluation.

1.1 SUPPLEMENTAL TREATMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of River Protection’s (ORP) primary mission is

to retrieve and treat Hanford’s tank waste and close the tank farms to protect the Columbia

River. Mixed radioactive waste is stored in 177 underground tanks at the Hanford Site as

reported in DOE/ORP-2003-02, Environmental Impact Statement for Retrieval, Treatment, and

Disposal of Tank Waste and Closure of the Single-Shell Tanks at the Hanford Site, Richland WA,

Inventory and Source Term Data Package. As of July 2010, those 177 underground tanks were

estimated to contain about 56 million gallons of waste. The volume varies depending on how

much water is added during waste retrieval and how much of that water has been removed by the

242-A evaporator facility. Retrieval and treatment of Hanford’s tank wastes create secondary

1 The Treatment System also has the potential to provide feed for the WTP LAW Vitrification facility in support of

the 2020 Vision of WTP Project Transition to Operations and to support WTP LAW Vitrification in case of WTP

Pretreatment facility delays or outages. 2 In addition, an option for removal of the pertechnetate form of Technetium-99 (

99Tc) from the feed to the

Immobilization Facility is also being considered. This option would be beneficial to all four of the immobilization

technologies being considered.


1-2

liquid waste streams that also require treatment and disposal as documented in ORP-11242,

River Protection Project System Plan.

The DOE ORP is responsible for management and completion of the River Protection Project

(RPP) mission, which comprises both the Hanford Site tank farms and the WTP. Hanford

Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (HFFACO or Tri-Party Agreement [TPA])

requires DOE to complete the RPP tank waste treatment mission by September 30, 2047. A key

aspect of implementing that mission is to construct and operate the WTP (see ORP-11242). The

WTP is a multi-facility plant that will separate and immobilize the tank high-level waste (HLW)

and low-activity waste (LAW) fractions for final disposition. The WTP LAW Vitrification

Facility is sized to treat less than 50% of the approximately 51,000 metric tons (MT) of sodium

present in the tank waste requiring treatment by 2047.

The current RPP baseline plan assumes deployment of a supplemental treatment capability, with

net capacity calculated so that LAW treatment does not drive the mission duration. Without

additional LAW treatment capacity, the mission would extend an additional 40 years beyond the

September 30, 2047 deadline. The lifecycle cost of tank waste cleanup is strongly influenced by

the WTP operating duration. Each year the WTP operates beyond the 2047 deadline, taxpayer

cost is approximately $1 billion, in today’s dollars. Therefore, a significant life-cycle cost

incentive exists to complete tank waste processing at the earliest practical date.

The Supplemental Treatment Program is required to support completion of the TPA milestone

M-062-00, completion of LAW processing by FY 2047.

1.2 SUMMARY

This site evaluation concludes with a preliminary site selection to enable design of the Treatment

System, based on criteria that are independent of technology selection. It is understood that

Immobilization System technology selection could significantly alter this selection. It is

therefore imperative that Treatment System design solutions do not preclude deployment on

other candidate sites. Further, it is understood that this report will be updated, at a minimum,

subsequent to the Immobilization System technology selection.

The report is organized as follows:

Section 2.0 describes the two-step methodology used to enable evaluation of the sites

prior to Immobilization technology selection.

Section 3.0 describes the requirements and system characteristics important to the site

evaluation.

Section 4.0 describes the preliminary screening of sites that narrow the possible options

for locating Treatment and Immobilization Systems in the 200 East and/or 200 West

Areas.

Section 5.0 describes candidate sites that satisfy space and proximity criteria for siting the

facilities.

Section 6.0 describes the formal evaluation of the candidate sites. Note that the contents

of this section serve as a placeholder and provide examples for information to be placed

in this section subsequent to Immobilization System technology down select.

Section 7.0 concludes the report with a preliminary site selection for the Treatment

System design basis, based on information gathered herein.


2-1

2.0 METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING SITES

Consideration is given to both the Treatment System and Immobilization System in this site

evaluation so that a practical, cost effective solution for locating these systems is achieved for the

Supplemental Treatment Program.

A two-step process that narrows possible combinations of Supplemental Treatment Program

system locations was followed:

Step 1. Preliminary Screening – Narrow the selection of possible locations of the systems

in various combinations of 200 East and 200 West Area locations independent of

Treatment and Immobilization System technology selections. Screening criteria for

determining whether a site will be carried forward for consideration in Step 2

include whether candidate locations require major tank farm upgrades to support the

location. Major upgrades include new DSTs and/or a new cross-site transfer

system. Hanford Tank Waste Operations Simulator (HTWOS) model runs were

used to validate system configurations that pass the preliminary screening.

Step 2. Formal Evaluation – Take forward viable system location configurations for further

evaluation, considering Treatment and Immobilization Systems design basis

information and candidate site characteristics. A major task in this step is to

establish suitable candidate sites and characterize them in terms of land availability,

accessibility of anticipated infrastructure needs, and environmental impact.

Candidate sites’ characteristics important to this site evaluation include:

Candidate site size and geometry;

General site condition. For example,

Site topography;

Disturbed vs. undisturbed land; and

Site proximity to waste sites such as underground radioactive materials areas

(URMAs) and active/inactive underground waste transfer lines or chemical sewer

lines.

Candidate site relationship to existing infrastructure, including:

Proximity to waste feed source – DST farm and waste transfer system tie-in locations;

Major utility locations and available capacity (e.g., 13.8 kV electrical power, raw and

potable water, sanitary sewer).

Candidate site characteristics’ are gathered via interactions with the Mission Support Alliance

(MSA) Land and Facilities Management organization; Query Map (QMap) web-based Hanford

site map application, including its link to the Waste Information Database System (WIDS); and

site walk downs.


2-2

2.1 BACKGROUND

The following sections discuss background information relevant to evaluating suitable sites for

the Treatment and Immobilization Systems.

2.1.1 Treatment System

A six-member Technology Selection Board (TSB) comprised of Washington River Protection

Solutions, LLC (WRPS) staff was convened to review, evaluate, and select the preferred set of

treatment technologies that will be formally recommended to the U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of River Protection, in support of the Supplemental Treatment Project Critical Decision-1

(CD-1) submittal. This review and evaluation was performed in accordance with a multi-

attribute decision-making process, as documented in RPP-PLAN-47748, Treatment Technology

Selection Plan in Support of the Supplemental Treatment Program.

Based on the TSBs evaluation, the following Treatment System technologies will be used:

Filtration as the method to remove solids from the tank waste stream, and

Ion Exchange (IX) as the method to remove 137

Cs from the filtrate.

Similarly, a separate alternatives analyses followed and was performed during Treatment System

conceptual design to determine:

1. Waste stream filtration technology – Cross-flow Filtration (CFF) or Rotary Micro

Filtration (RMF);

2. Treatment System location – In-tank or near-tank (e.g., underground, vault based); and

3. Ion exchange media – Elutable (e.g., Spherical Resorcinol-formaldehyde [sRF]) vs. non-

elutable media (e.g., Crystalline Silicotitanate [CST])

The alternatives analysis was based on engineering data compiled by the Treatment System

conceptual design A/E (EnergySolutions). An independent alternative selection team (AST)

comprised of WRPS representatives from tank farm facility management (operations), system

engineering, environmental compliance, nuclear safety and licensing, base operations process

engineering, project engineering, project management as well as Savannah River Site (SRS)

Small Column Ion Exchange (SCIX) program engineering was convened to develop selection

criteria and to evaluate the engineering data developed for Treatment System alternatives. RPP-

RPT-49721, Rev. 0, Treatment Project (T4S01): Alternative Analysis Evaluation and Selection

Report documents the decision and rationale for developing two basic Treatment System

configurations for conceptual design:

1. A near-tank deployment of CFF and IX with elutable sRF resin; and

2. An in-tank deployment of RMF and IX with non-elutable CST IX media

Although RPP-RPT-50024, Rev. 0, recommends the in-tank configuration using RMF and IX

with sRF resin for preliminary design development, this report will continue to refer to the

potential sites for near-tank Treatment System deployment developed for Revision 0 of this

document until formal DOE ORP acceptance of this recommendation.

2.1.2 Immobilization System

The DOE-ORP appointed External Review Panel (ERP) has the responsibility to select a

preferred Immobilization System option from the following four candidate technologies:


2-3

2nd

LAW Vitrification, based on the WTP LAW Vitrification Facility;

Fluidized Bed Steam Reforming (FBSR);

Bulk Vitrification; and

Cast Stone

This site evaluation assumes that one of these four technologies will be selected and also gathers

facility footprint and infrastructure needs for each.


3-1

3.0 REQUIREMENTS AND SYSTEM CHARACTERISICS

The schematic in Figure 3-1 illustrates the inputs and outputs for the Treatment System and the

Immobilization System and identifies the needs for both systems.

Figure 3-1. Treatment and Immobilization System Input – Output Diagram

Due to the nature of the liquid tank wastes (i.e., hazardous, radioactive mixed waste), it is a top-

priority to be able to transfer these wastes, both to and from the Treatment and Immobilization

Systems, with proven methods and minimal risk. Locating these facilities in relatively close

proximity to the 200 Area DSTs, with little to no encumbrances to safely constructing waste

transfer routes and performing waste transfers, is a primary consideration. Transferring treated

liquid waste from the WTP Pretreatment facility and the Treatment System is similarly

important3.

Site evaluation variables related to proximity to the DSTs and feasible liquid waste transfer

routes include:

Distance and complexity of waste transfer route,

Location of existing waste transfer lines,

3 Note that the Treatment System does nothing to remove or reduce the hazardous components of the liquid waste,

only solids and 137

Cs removal.


3-2

Characteristics of new waste transfer lines (additional lines or taps into existing lines),

Disturbance of significant structures or site features (e.g., existing waste sites, site

topography, roads, power lines, water lines, sewer lines, active or inactive structures), and

Disturbance of environmentally-sensitive areas.

Secondary liquid waste streams to the Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF), secondary solid waste

streams to a permitted disposal facility, and samples to the 222-S Lab are next in importance; but

because these wastes can be transported over road, if necessary, the treatment and

immobilization systems’ location relative to the ETF and a disposal facility are of secondary

importance to the site selection.

Site services, such as electrical power; water; telecommunications (e.g., telephone, HLAN); road

access for chemical deliveries and immobilized waste transport; and emergency services (e.g.,

fire, ambulance) are of lesser concern in that these services can be made available site-wide.

However, these services must not be removed from consideration when performing the site

evaluation. All other considerations being equal, site services can provide discriminating factors

that may lead to favoring one location over another. Site services are addressed in more detail

later in this section.

Other major considerations related to the requirements and system characteristics for the site

evaluation include facility size and capacity; constraints related to the WTP Pretreatment facility;

nuclear and industrial safety considerations; seismic criteria, environmental considerations and

permits; and unique site related requirements. These considerations are addressed in more detail

in the following sections.

3.1 FACILITY SIZE AND CAPACITY

The facility sizes and estimated treatment capacities for the Treatment System and

Immobilization System are listed in Table 3-1. The facility footprint estimates for the Treatment

System are based on conceptual layouts given in released reports, as noted in Table 3-1; footprint

estimates for the Immobilization System alternatives are a result of the preliminary facility

layouts included in Appendix A.

The surface area requirements for the Treatment System options are substantially less than those

required for the Immobilization System options. Treatment System footprint estimates are also

more mature than those for the Immobilization System due to recent past studies on Treatment

System technologies. The Immobilization System requiring the most surface area is the 2nd

LAW

Vitrification Facility. Surface area estimates for the 2nd

LAW facility were based on the

Appendix A, Figure A-7 layout, as described in Table 3-1. Note also from this figure that the

WTP site has allocated space for a 2nd

LAW facility. The surface area requirements for the bulk

vitrification technology are the next largest, but much less than what would be required for a 2nd

LAW vitrification plant.


3-3

Table 3-1. Treatment and Immobilization System Characteristics.

Facility Capacity‡

Facility

Footprint

Area

Support

Facilities

Area

Comments

Treatment System

In Tank

Filtration and

Ion Exchange

500

(MT

Na/yr)

N/A* 6,400† ft2

Nominally, system will be located

within the tank farm boundaries.

Support facilities include control

room & chemical storage area

located just outside the tank farm

fence

Near-Tank

Filtration and

Ion Exchange

500

(MT

Na/yr)

52,500 ft2†

(1.2 acre) Included Requires ~ 25 ft. depth.

Immobilization System

Fluidized Bed

Steam

Reforming

(FBSR)

3,700

(MT

Na/yr)

130,000 ft2

(3.0 acres)

20,000 ft2

(0.46

acres)

Facility footprint surface area is

based on footprint provided in

Appendix A, Figure A-1.

Cast Stone

3,700

(MT

Na/yr)

120,000 ft2

(2.8 acres)

20,000 ft2

(0.46

acres)




Bulk

Vitrification

3,700

(MT

Na/yr)

145,000 ft2

(3.3 acres)

20,000 ft2

(0.46

acres)




2nd

LAW

Vitrification,

based on WTP

LAW

Vitrification

Facility

3,700

(MT

Na/yr)

230,000 ft2

(5.3 acres)

640,000

ft2

(15 acres)



Appendix A, Figure A-8).

Support facilities surface area is

based on the area occupied by the

existing WTP support facilities

and assumes existing support

facilities have no spare capacity to

support 2nd

LAW**.

LAW Lag Storage

LAW Feed

Lag Storage

Facility

6 tanks at

82,000

gal. each

~8,000 ft2 2,000 ft

2

Requires ~ 40 ft. depth.

‡ Instantaneous facility capacity calculated from RPP-CALC-50214, Rev. 0, “Supplemental Treatment

Program Capacity Calculations” (Treatment System); and RPP-CALC-48104, Rev. 0, “200 Area

Supplemental Treatment and Immobilization System Capacity” (Immobilization System)

* RPP-39278, Rev. 2, Evaluation of Savannah River In-tank Technologies for Hanford Interim Pretreatment,

see Figure 2.

† RPP-RPT-50024, Rev. 0, Treatment Project (T4S01) Conceptual Design Report.

** The 2nd

LAW support facilities surface area allowance (640,000 ft2) is a conservative estimate. Figure A-8

provides a pre-conceptual site layout for a stand-alone 2nd

LAW facility; however, the support facility area

requirements for the pre-conceptual design have not been estimated. Figure A-9 provides the corresponding

elevation view for the 2nd

LAW facility pre-conceptual design.


3-4

3.2 WTP PRETREATMENT FACILITY

The Immobilization System is dependent on both the Treatment System and the WTP PT Facility

for treated LAW feed. Note that constructing and operating a waste transfer pipeline dedicated

to treated waste is required to implement Supplemental Treatment. Minimizing the construction,

operation, and maintenance of this transfer route is a significant factor in determining site

locations for Treatment and Immobilization Systems. See Section 4 on how the dependence on

WTP PT Facility feed impacts preliminary screening of possible Treatment and Immobilization

System locations at a macro level.4

3.3 SITE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

The Treatment System and Immobilization System must interface with existing Hanford Site

utilities and infrastructure to support construction and operation of the facilities. Assessment of

existing utilities and infrastructure will occur following preliminary facility definition, post

technology down-select, and flowsheet development to determine if existing infrastructure can

accommodate Treatment System and Immobilization System needs. Existing site infrastructure

owned by others (e.g., MSA, LMSI) found to be inadequate to support either the Treatment

System or Immobilization System will be considered in this site evaluation report as an

additional cost. Treatment System and/or Immobilization System infrastructure needs that are

not addressed by current site services (e.g., natural gas) will be treated similarly. The

responsibility of performing the necessary infrastructure upgrade(s) and subsequent operation of

upgraded infrastructure systems will be the responsibility of others outside the Supplemental

Treatment Program.

Note that the Immobilization System has the potential to drive the site infrastructure needs to the

extent that these needs become a discriminating factor in site selection. The following sections

will be detailed further as the Immobilization System technology is further defined and the

requirements for site services/infrastructure mature through conceptual design and preliminary

flowsheet development.

3.3.1 Electrical Power Distribution

The Treatment System and Immobilization System will interface with the existing Hanford Site

electrical distribution system. The Treatment System and Immobilization System may need to

provide extension of the existing 13.8 kV electrical power grid to the facility boundaries for use.

Depending on final facility location and power requirements, the existing site electrical

distribution system may require upgrades.

Electrical power delivered to the system and electrical installation and any modifications to the

site electrical utilities distribution system, including the 13.8 kVAC – 480 VAC transformers,

must conform to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70, National Electrical Code and

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) C2, National Electrical Safety Code.

4 Note that treated LAW feed lag storage is to be provided by others (see Figure 3-1). Having the LAW feed lag

storage as a separate entity/system ensures that the Immobilization System is not classified as a Hazard Category 2

facility. The treated LAW feed received from WTP PT is not conditioned prior to feed to the Immobilization

System. The 99

Tc Removal System, if implemented, could be located upstream of the Immobilization System or be

part of the Immobilization System.


3-5

3.3.2 Site Water Distribution

The Treatment System and Immobilization System will interface with the onsite water

distribution system for potable and raw water. Extension of the existing potable and raw water

systems will be required to bring these services to the facility boundaries for use. Site water

system capacity must be considered during the site evaluation process. Note that Treatment and

Immobilization System requirements for potable and raw water are currently undefined pending

technology selection and engineering and safety analyses (e.g., fire hazards analysis, process

flow sheet).

Raw and potable water systems shall meet the requirements specified in the Washington State

Department of Health (DOH) 331-123, Water System Design Manual. Cross-connection control

features shall prevent cross connection of raw and potable water systems. The Hanford Site

Water Purveyor controls the water system.

3.3.3 Telecommunication (Phone, HLAN)

Routing telecommunications services to any of the candidate sites is not expected to drive or

provide any discriminators in site selection. This section is provided as a placeholder for

completeness and may be removed in future document revisions.

3.3.4 Roadways

The Treatment System and Immobilization System will extend existing roadways to their

respective facility boundaries, as necessary. Major site roadway construction is not envisioned

for the implementation of the Supplemental Treatment Program. The construction workforce,

facility operations workers, and equipment/materials will arrive at the facilities via existing and

extended roadways.

Extension of existing roadways and construction of new roadways must be compatible with

existing roadways. Appropriate design analysis shall be performed to determine whether

existing roadways can accommodate the required deliveries and exports to support facility

operation.

3.3.5 Other Site Services

The Treatment System and Immobilization System will interface with the Hanford Fire

Department for fire protection, incident management, emergency medical response and

treatment, and other services as defined in TFC-ESHQ-FP-STD-12, Hanford Fire Department

Services.


3-6

3.4 NUCLEAR SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS

Nuclear safety accidents are calculated in two places relative to the facility location:

1. Onsite consequences are calculated 100 m from the accident release; and,

2. Offsite consequences are calculated at the Hanford Site boundary.

The meteorology data for these calculations is based on data from the Pacific Northwest National

Laboratory (PNNL) meteorological station located between the 200 East and 200 West Areas.

200 West Area Considerations

Consideration must be given to the distance from the facility site(s) to the Hanford Site

boundary. For example, if the Treatment System and/or Immobilization System are located

in the 200 West Area, and the Hanford Site boundary is redefined to be at Route 2405, then

the facilities would be relatively near to this new boundary and accident consequences at the

Hanford Site Boundary would increase by greater than or equal to ten times. This could

result in some accident consequences exceeding offsite guidelines that did not exceed offsite

guidelines before the Hanford Site Boundary change, and thus the need for additional safety-

significant structures, system and components (SSCs) and/or technical safety requirements

(TSRs). However, accident consequence generally would exceed onsite (100 m) guidelines

before they would exceed offsite guidelines, so this may be a minor impact. In addition, if

radiological consequences exceed guidelines at the Hanford Site Boundary (because of a

change in site boundary to Route 240), safety-significant SSCs would need to be reclassified

to safety class and upgraded. This potential situation could be more significant for the

Treatment System than for the Immobilization System, given the limited radiological source

terms for the latter. Note however, that the risk of Hanford Site boundary change is low and

its status will continue to be monitored.

200-East Area Considerations

If the facilities were located in the 200 East Area, a change to the Hanford Site boundary to

Route 240 would likely have no impact.

No other Nuclear Safety site selection criteria relative to the Supplemental Treatment Program

facilities are anticipated at this time.

3.5 INDUSTRIAL AND RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY

CONSIDERATIONS

The Treatment System and Immobilization System are required to include features that are

protective of personnel safety, incorporating engineering controls, and minimizing the reliance

on the use of personnel protective equipment during routine functions. Both systems will be

required to be designed for safe installation, operation, and maintenance in accordance with 10

CFR 851, Worker Health and Safety Program; 29 CFR 1910, Occupational Safety and Health

Standards; 29 CFR 1926, Safety and Health Regulations For Construction; RCW 49.17,

5 Currently, for the purposes of Tank Operations Contract (TOC) safety analysis, the public receptor is

approximately 5 km further west of Route 240 and 10 km further south of Route 240.


3-7

Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act; NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code6; TFC-PLN-47,

Worker Safety and Health Program, 10CFR835, Occupational Radiation Protection; and HNF-

5183, Tank Farms Radiological Control Manual.

Site evaluation will ensure that no site-specific impediments to meeting these global safety

requirements exist.

At this time, no impediments to implementing industrial safety at any site are apparent. Specific

industrial safety features will be dependent on technology selection. Immobilization System

industrial safety controls will differ if selected immobilization technology is vitrification – e.g.,

high temperatures, NOx production, glass forming mineral dust control – versus Cast Stone –

e.g., dust control. The preliminary site selection presented herein will be revisited as a result of

technology selection.

3.6 SIESMIC CRITERIA

DOE-STD-1189-2008 specifies application of two national standards for seismic design of DOE

non-reactor nuclear facilities, as follows:

ANSI/ANS 2.26-2004, Categorization of Nuclear Facility Structures,Systems and

Components for Seismic Design; and

ASCE/SEI 43-05, Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems, and Components in

Nuclear Facilities.

It is intended that the requirements of Section 5 of ANSI/ANS Standard 2.26 and the guidance in

Appendix A of DOE-STD-1189-2008 be used for selection of the appropriate Limit States (LS)

for SSCs performing the safety functions specified. The resulting combination of Seismic Design

Category (SDC) and LS selection provides the seismic design basis for SSCs to be implemented

in design through ASCE/SEI 43-05.

DOE-STD-1189-2008, Section A.1 states the following regarding methodologies for selecting a

Seismic Design Category (SDC):

In conceptual design, if there are no bases for defining seismic related Design Basis

Accidents (DBAs), Hazard Category 2 facility structural designs must default to

ANSI/ANS 2.26 SDC-3, Limit State D. If the hazards analysis conducted during

subsequent stages of design shows that unmitigated consequences are less than the

threshold criteria for SDC-3 shown in Table 3-2 below, then this may be reflected in the

evolving design stages.

6 NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code is a registered trademark of the National Fire Protection Association, Quincy,

Massachusetts, USA.


3-8

Table 3-2. Guidance for SDC Based on Unmitigated Consequences of

SSC Failures in a Seismic Event (Source: Table A-1 from DOE-STD-

1189-2008)

Unmitigated Consequence of SSC Failure from a Seismic Event

Category Collocated Worker Public

SDC-1 Dose < 5 rem Not applicable (1)

SDC-2 5 rem < dose < 100 rem 5 rem < dose < 25 rem

SDC-3 100 rem < dose 25 rem < dose

(1) A Hazard Category 1, 2 or 3 nuclear facility with consequences to a collocated

worker from failure of an SSC in a seismic event will require that SSC be

classified as SDC-1 at a minimum. Therefore, a public criterion for SDC-1 is

not needed.

(2) As noted in ANSI/ANS 2.26, the SDCs used in the Standard and in this table are

not the same as the SDCs referred to in the International Building Code (IBC)

Additionally, for proposed dangerous waste management facilities or for existing facilities

meeting the definition of “expansion”, siting criteria requirements in Washington Administrative

Code (WAC), Chapter 173-303-282 must be complied with, including requirements for seismic

risk, subsidence, and slope or soil instability.

3.6.1 Treatment System

The Treatment System will be a Hazard Category 2 facility, so the above cited DOE-STD-1189

requirement applies. Further, Treatment System hazard analyses in support of conceptual design

show dose consequences to the collocated worker greater than 100 rem. Although TFC-ENG-

STD-06, Design Loads for Tank Farm Facilities, currently does not specify greater than PC-2

criteria7, Attachment C of RPP-38172, Rev. 0, Project W-551 Interim Pretreatment System Siting

Study, recommends that the treatment system conceptual design be based on the 2005 WTP PC-

38 design response spectra. Both the DST PC-2 design response spectra specified in TFC-ENG-

STD-06 (i.e., from RPP-RPT-27570) and the WTP PC-3 design response spectra are based on

the site response model developed for WTP in 2005. Treatment System preliminary design will

further investigate and verify applicability of the design response spectra used with respect to the

DOE-STD-1189 requirements.

3.6.2 Immobilization System

The Immobilization System will be a Hazard Category 3 facility and unmitigated consequence of

SSC failure safety analyses have not yet been performed for Immobilization System

technologies. Applicable seismic design response spectra requirements are therefore less clear at

this time and will be matured as Immobilization System safety analyses are performed, and will

be in conformance with applicable DOE-STD-1189 requirements per the facility’s hazard

categorization.

7 PC-2 can be correlated to Seismic Design Category-2 (SDC-2), Limit State –C (LS-C) in the DOE-STD-1189,

Appendix A vernacular 8 PC-3 can be correlated to SDC-3, LS-C in the DOE-STD-1189, Appendix A vernacular.


3-9

3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITS

The basic siting criteria elements for the Treatment System and Immobilization System include

compliance with WAC 173-303-282 and consideration of the surrounding land, air, water, plants

and animals, and precipitation.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements will also influence a site selection.

The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on

understanding environmental consequences of proposed actions, and take actions that protect,

restore, and enhance the environment. Key factors influencing the NEPA evaluations are

construction impacts to critical habitats, wildlife, cultural resources, and previously contaminated

sites.

Note that many sites or plots of land large enough to support the Treatment System and

Immobilization System are currently undisturbed and have mature sage that require mitigation at

a 3:1 ratio and 8 to 15 years of resource commitments.


4-1

4.0 PRELIMINARY SCREENING

Preliminary screening of possible Treatment and Immobilization facilities sites was done at a

macro scale (i.e., the 200 Areas – East and West) and considered the possible combinations of

200-East Area and 200-West Area Treatment and Immobilization Facilities. The preliminary

screening was:

1. Independent of technology selection;

2. Based on system modeling results documented in SVF-2038, Rev. 0, “ST Location

Model Runs.xlsx”; and

3. The following preliminary screening criteria:

a. Treatment and Immobilization Systems locations must not require new DST-farm

waste storage capacity9;

b. Treatment and Immobilization Systems locations must not require new cross-site

transfer system transfer lines10

;

c. Treatment system locations should be supportive of the 2020 Vision of the WTP

Project Transition to Operations and be able to support WTP LAW Vitrification in

case of WTP Pretreatment Facility delays or outages11

.

Table 4-1 summarizes the matrix of combinations considered, the combinations that were

screened out (no highlights) and the combinations that are to be taken forward for further

consideration (highlighted boxes) as a result of applying the above criteria. Combinations of

system locations that required either additional DST storage capacity or additional cross-site

transfer system lines to carry-out the primary Supplemental Treatment mission12

were eliminated

from consideration. Combinations that required additional infrastructure to support the 2020

Vision and/or provide backup feed for WTP LAW Vitrification were not eliminated from

consideration because these specific missions are not yet a formal part of the Supplemental

Treatment Program’s scope. Further, the 2020 Vision initiative may be best served by a

dedicated, more temporary installation in East Area due to its short duration and relatively low

capacity mission (e.g., SCIX installation in AP-farm).

System configurations that were not eliminated in the preliminary screening described above

were checked for validity via system plan modeling described and documented in spreadsheet

SVF-2038. These system model runs verified that Supplemental Treatment systems located as

described in Table 4-1, accomplish mission completion milestones and that nothing inherent

about their location precludes these system configurations for further consideration.

9 New DST storage capacity increases project costs ~ $150M per DST of waste storage capacity. Operational costs,

final clean-out and closure of new DSTs were not quantified, but considered to be substantial and prohibitive. 10

New cross-site transfer line replacement project cost is estimated ~ $82M (Result calculated from Project W-058

Title I project cost estimate [see WHC-SD-W058-DR-001, Rev. 0], escalated to FY ’11 dollars per “Escalation

Rate Assumptions for DOE Projects (November 27, 2009)”) 11

Note that this criterion is a “should” and was not used to screen-out options; 2020 Vision and providing backup

feed are not yet part of the Supplemental Treatment Program’s scope. Options that did not meet this criterion

were considered less desirable than those that do. Note that additional modifications to DST System utilization

would be needed for options that do not satisfy this criterion. 12

See Justification for Mission Need for the Hanford Tank Waste Supplemental Treatment Project, September

2010.

RP

P-R

PT

-48549 R

ev. 1

4-2

Table 4-1. Treatment and Immobilization System Locations Considered. Treatment System in West Area Treatment System in East Area

Immobilization System in

West Area

Requires dedicated cross-site transfer line to carry treated LAW

feed from WTP Pretreatment Facility to West Area


Requires additional infrastructure to support 2020 Vision, WTP

LAW Vitrification Facility backup feed.

o Additional branches from new cross-site transfer line

o Either dedicated DST or new tank(s) to provide buffer for

feed to WTP LAW Vitrification*

See Figure 4-1 for a System Configuration sketch.

Requires dedicated cross-site transfer line to carry treated

LAW feed from East Area Treatment System to a West Area


Other considerations:

o Transferring waste from West Area to East Area for

treatment, then transferring treated waste back to West

for Immobilization is not justifiable.

o Complicating the logistics of linked processes/facilities

by separating geographically is not justifiable.

Supports 2020 Vision and WTP LAW Vitrification backup

feed


½ Capacity Immobilization

System in West Area

+

½ Capacity Immobilization

System in East Area, fed by WTP

PT Facility

Alternative is attractive; however, requires additional

infrastructure to support 2020 Vision, WTP LAW Vitrification

Facility backup feed.

o Requires dedicated treated LAW feed cross-site transfer

line to get LAW feed from West Area Treatment to WTP

LAW Vitrification Facility.

o Alternately, can dedicate purpose-built Treatment System

to support 2020 Vision and backup feed to WTP LAW

Vitrification

West Area Treatment System incongruent with LAW Feed Lag

Storage in East Area.

See Figure 4-2 for a System Configuration sketch and SVF-2038,

Rev. 0, HalfandHalf Case for configuration validation.

Requires dedicated cross-site transfer line to carry treated

LAW feed from East Area Treatment System to ½-capacity

Immobilization System in West Area

Other considerations:

o Transferring waste from West Area to East Area for

treatment, then transferring treated waste back to West

for Immobilization is not justifiable.

o Complicating the logistics of linked processes/facilities

by separating geographically is not justifiable.


feed


Immobilization System in

East Area

Requires dedicated cross-site transfer line to carry treated LAW

feed from West Area Treatment System to East Area LAW Feed

Lag Storage

West Area Treatment System incongruent with LAW Feed Lag

Storage in East Area.


Preferred alternative.


feed.

See Figure 4-6 for System Configuration sketch and SVF-2038,

Rev. 0, AllEast Case for configuration validation.

* Feed cycle to WTP LAW Vitrification Facility to support 2020 Vision is ~ 9,000 gal of treated waste every 32 hrs. (one LAW melter operating)

Legend

= Preferred configuration - carry forward for further consideration

= Configuration attractive- carry forward for further consideration; however, challenges must be overcome to support 2020 Vision/backup LAW feed

= Configuration requires new cross-site transfer line, possesses other inherent problems

RP

P-2

0499, R

ev. A

RP

P-R

PT

-48549 R

ev. 1

4-3

Figure 4-1. Supplemental Treatment Configuration: Immobilization System in West Area with Treatment System in West Area

SY-farm

AN-farm

Other East DSTs

Treatment

System

(In-tank or

Near tank)

Immobilization

System

WTP

Pretreatment

Facility

WTP LAW

Vitrification

Facility

Waste Feed to WTP

Treated LAW Feed (New cross-site transfer line)

DST Supernatant

LAW, HLW Transfers (Existing cross-site lines)

Treated LAW Feed

DST-DST Waste Transfers

200 East Area200 West Area

Treated LAW Feed

to Support 2020 Vision,

Backup Feed

Existing Facilities & Infrastructure

New Facilities & Infrastructure

Additional Infrastructure required to support 2020

Vision, Backup Feed to WTP LAW Vit Facility

Treated LAW Feed

To HLW Vit

Dedicated East DST for Buffer

(To be decided)

Treated LAW Feed


Backup Feed

RP

P-2

0499, R

ev. A

RP

P-R

PT

-48549 R

ev. 1

4-4

Figure 4-2. Supplemental Treatment Configuration: ½-capacity Immobilization System in West Area fed by Treatment System

in West Area + ½-capacity Immobilization System in East Area fed by WTP Pretreatment Facility

SY-farm

AN-farm

Other East DSTs

Treatment

System

(In-tank or

Near tank)

½-Capacity

Immobilization

System

WTP

Pretreatment

Facility

WTP LAW

Vitrification

Facility

Waste Feed to WTP

DST Supernatant


Treated LAW Feed to Support 2020 Vision, Backup Feed

Treated LAW Feed



Treated LAW Feed


Backup Feed





½-Capacity

Immobilization

System

Treated LAWLAW Feed

Lag Storage†

Treated LAW Feed

Treated LAW Feed

To HLW Vit

† Shown separately because dislocated from Treatment System

RP

P-2

0499, R

ev. A

RP

P-R

PT

-48549 R

ev. 1

4-5

Figure 4-3. Supplemental Treatment Configuration: Immobilization System in East Area with Treatment System in West Area

SY-farm

AN-farm

Other East DSTs

Treatment

System

(In-tank or

Near tank)

WTP

Pretreatment

Facility

WTP LAW

Vitrification

Facility

Waste Feed to WTP

DST Supernatant




Treated LAW Feed


Backup Feed





Immobilization

System

Treated LAWLAW Feed

Lag Storage†

Treated LAW Feed

Treated LAW (New cross-site line)

Also supports Feed for 2020 Vision,

Backup Feed

To HLW Vit

Treated LAW Feed

† Shown separately because dislocated from Treatment System

RP

P-2

0499, R

ev. A

RP

P-R

PT

-48549 R

ev. 1

4-6

Figure 4-4. Supplemental Treatment Configuration: Immobilization System in West Area with Treatment System in East Area

SY-farm

AN-farm

Other East DSTs

Treatment

System

(In-tank or

Near tank)

Immobilization

System

WTP

Pretreatment

Facility

WTP LAW

Vitrification

Facility

Waste Feed to WTPDST Supernatant





Treated LAW Feed


Backup Feed





Treated LAW Feed

To HLW Vit

Treated LAW Feed

RP

P-2

0499, R

ev. A

RP

P-R

PT

-48549 R

ev. 1

4-7

Figure 4-5. Supplemental Treatment Configuration: ½-capacity Immobilization System in West Area fed by Treatment System

in East Area + ½-capacity Immobilization System in East Area fed by WTP Pretreatment Facility.

SY-farm

AN-farm

Other East DSTs

Treatment

System

(In-tank or

Near tank)

½-Capacity

Immobilization

System

WTP

Pretreatment

Facility

WTP LAW

Vitrification

Facility

Waste Feed to WTP





Treated LAW Feed


Backup Feed

Treated LAW





½-Capacity

Immobilization

System

Treated LAW

DST Supernatant

Treated LAW Feed

To HLW Vit

Waste Feed to WTP

RP

P-2

0499, R

ev. A

RP

P-R

PT

-48549 R

ev. 1

4-8

Figure 4-6. Supplemental Treatment Configuration: Immobilization System in East Area with Treatment System in East Area.

SY-farm

AN-farm

Other East DSTs

Treatment

System

(In-tank or

Near tank)

WTP

Pretreatment

Facility

WTP LAW

Vitrification

Facility

DST Supernatant




Treated LAW Feed


Backup Feed





Immobilization

System

Treated LAW

Treated LAW Feed

To HLW Vit

Waste Feed to WTP

Treated LAW Feed


4-9

4-9

Note from the Supplemental Treatment Systems configuration diagrams above that LAW

Feed Lag Storage is required to be located away from the Treatment System’s physical

boundary when the Treatment System is located in West Area and the Immobilization

System (or a portion of the Immobilization System’s capacity) is located in East Area (see

Figures 4-2 and 4-3). Although operation can be accomplished with this configuration, it is

not the most desirable for integrated operation of dependent facilities. LAW Feed Lag

Storage, in addition to supporting feed management and throughput demands of the

Immobilization System, also allow for LAW sampling prior to LAW transfer to the

Immobilization Facility. Having the LAW Feed Lag Storage tanks as a separate entity/system

also serves to ensure that the Immobilization Facility remains a Hazard Category 3 facility.

Further, alternatives analysis supporting the Treatment System’s Conceptual Design

concluded that LAW Feed Lag Storage should be separate from the Treatment System as

well. Therefore, siting considerations must account for the LAW Feed Lag Storage tanks to

be separate from the Treatment and Immobilization Systems’ footprint. Figure 4-7 provides

an estimate of the footprint and depth of the LAW Feed Lag Storage tanks made from

information contained in RPP-RPT-48117, Rev. 0, Supplemental Treatment Technical

Support Pre-Conceptual Candidate Technical Descriptions (see Figures 8-2 through 8-12

and supporting information therein). Note that this estimate represents a worst case footprint

of the LAW Feed Lag Storage Tanks Facility due to Treatment System throughput

requirement refinement since RPP-RPT-48117, Rev. 0 release.


4-10

4-1

0

Figure 4-7. LAW Feed Lag Storage Tanks Facility Footprint.

LAW Product

Tank 82,000 gal

LAW Product

Tank 82,000 gal

LAW Product

Tank 82,000 gal

LAW Product

Tank 82,000 gal

Valve Vault

LAW Product

Tank 82,000 galLAW Product

Tank 82,000 gal

Pump Pump Pump

Pump Pump Pump

27 ft

8 ft

3 ft

80 ft

27 ft

99 ft

6 ft

A

A

LAW Product Tank LAW Product TankValve

Vault

40 ft

Section A - A

The below sections discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the viable system configurations

identified in Table 4-1 (highlighted boxes).

4.1 SPLIT CAPACITY IMMOBILIZATION SYSTEM IN WEST

AND EAST AREAS

Advantages and disadvantages of the “½-Capacity Immobilization System in West Area fed

by West Area Treatment System with a ½-Capacity Immobilization System in East Area, fed

by WTP Pretreatment Facility” system configuration (see Figure 4-2) are outlined below:

Advantages

a. Supplemental Treatment Systems operate autonomously.

Supplemental Treatment Systems receive feed from their respective Areas.

200 West Area Systems are fed from the West Area tank waste.

200 East Area Systems are fed from East Area tank waste.


4-11

4-1

1

Eliminates single-point failure potential; built-in diversity.

Major failure or bottleneck in East Area tank farms or treatment facilities

does not necessarily stop or hinder waste processing in West Area; likewise,

failure in West Area does not necessarily hinder East Area operations.

200 West Area Systems are neither subject to nor do they contribute to 200 East

Area congestion.

Bulk materials deliveries

Facility maintenance

b. Construction activities are not encumbered by 200-East Area congestion.

c. Facility schedules are not necessarily coupled and can be independent of one

another.

d. Construction, training and start-up can be staggered and efficiencies gained.

e. Cross-site transfers of LAW supernatant are not required.

Subsequent transfers of LAW supernatant within East Area are similarly

eliminated.

f. Split facilities can lead to flexibility on selection of an immobilization technology.

Disadvantages

a. Immobilized product and secondary solid waste must be shipped from the West

Area Facilities to the East Area (i.e., Integrated Disposal Facility [IDF]).

b. Secondary liquid waste, if any, must be transferred from the West Area Facilities to

the East Area (i.e., ETF).

c. Remediation of SY-103 (Group A tank) is required prior to operation.

d. Additional infrastructure is required to support 2020 Vision, WTP LAW

Vitrification Facility backup feed13.

Dedicated treated LAW feed cross-site transfer line (or other means) to get

treated LAW from Treatment System to WTP LAW Vitrification Facility.

e. Coupled Treatment System – LAW Feed Lag Storage operations separated by

greater than 6.5 miles.

4.2 TREATMENT SYSTEM AND IMMOBILIZATION SYSTEM

LOCATED IN EAST AREA

Advantages and disadvantages of this system configuration (see Figure 4-6) are outlined

below.

Advantages

a. Impact on DST System functionality is less – using 1 of 25 DSTs in East Area

instead of 1 of 3 DSTs in West Area.

b. Immobilized product and secondary solid waste transport is shorter – East Area

Supplemental Treatment Systems to IDF (East Area).

c. Secondary liquid waste transport is simpler – East Area Supplemental Treatment

Systems to ETF (East Area).

d. Supports 2020 vision and WTP LAW Vitrification backup feed without major

infrastructure additions.

13

Alternatively, a purpose-built Treatment System can be dedicated to support 2020 Vision and backup feed to

WTP LAW Vitrification Facility.


4-12

4-1

2

e. Treating East Area DST supernatant will free-up much needed DST space in East

Area.

f. One facility (or multiple adjacent co-located facilities) and one construction site (or

multiple adjacent co-located construction sites) to manage.

Disadvantages (Inverse of Section 4.1 Advantages)

a. Susceptible to single point failure and resulting major loss of production. Several

possible major failure modes:

Single immobilization facility failure.

Treatment System failure, which leads to only ~ ½ feed availability for

Immobilization System.

Cross-site transfer system failure

Leads to diminished feed blending, which increases immobilized LAW

product volume.

Possibility of diminished feed availability.

b. WTP PT Facility downtime/delays leads to only ~ ½ feed availability for

Immobilization System – necessitates turndown on Immobilization System.

c. East Area congestion with bulk materials delivery, construction activities,

operations and maintenance activities.


5-1

5.0 AVAILIBILITY OF SITES

The preliminary screening of possible locations in the 200 Areas yielded the following viable

options for further consideration:

1. A split capacity Immobilization System: one located in East Area, the other in West Area.

It is envisioned that the West Area Immobilization System would be fed by Treatment

System dedicated to West Area Immobilization, while the East Area Immobilization

System could be fed by the WTP PT Facility (see Figure 4-2).

2. An Immobilization System located in East Area, fed treated LAW by both a Treatment

System and the WTP PT facility (see Figure 4-6).

Due to the location of WTP PT Facility and the fact that this facility provides approximately half

the treated LAW feed to the Immobilization System, a clear need for East Area sites emerged

from the preliminary screening. East Area sites also better support the secondary missions of the

Treatment System.

Note also that the 2nd

LAW Facility option for immobilization requires a facility footprint, driven

by needed support facilities (see Table 3-1), that is approximately five times the next nearest

technology in total foot print demand. The most logical location for a 2nd

LAW Facility is in

East Area on the WTP site where a similar, smaller scale facility using the same processes and

types of support facilities will be in operation. Also, space has been allocated for a 2nd

LAW

facility and its support systems on the WTP site (see Figure A-7). Site locations for a 2nd

LAW

facility outside the WTP boundary will not be sought as part of this site evaluation14.

The search for available sites in 200 East Area and 200 West Area was conducted with full

awareness of MSA Facilities and Property Management, and concentrated on areas that provided

~ 10 acres15 of land in close proximity of the sources of feed for the Treatment System and

Immobilization System. Note that this amount of land is bounding and will allow for co-location

of the Treatment System with the Immobilization Systems.

5.1 CANDIDATE SITES IN 200 EAST AREA

A previous study performed for the IPS project, a predecessor to the Treatment System project,

yielded suitable candidate sites in 200 East Area appropriate for IPS use (see Figure 5-1)16.

These candidate sites also satisfy the criteria for consideration for the Treatment System and

Immobilization System use– close proximity to DST waste feed, pretreated LAW from WTP PT

and has a combined area of ~ 13 acres. These sites have gone through the formal MSA

14

A preliminary evaluation of space allocated to 2nd

LAW by WTP shows that this allocation may be inadequate;

however, expansion into adjacent temporary construction parking and spoils areas is preferred to breaking new

ground for an autonomous 2nd

LAW facility outside the WTP site boundary. The next best option is expanding the

current footprint of the WTP site. 15

From Table 3-1: Worst case Treatment System footprint ( 43,500 ft2) + worst case Immobilization System

footprint (not including 2nd

LAW) (165,000 ft2) = 208,500 ft

2 (< 5 acres)

16 RPP-38172, Rev. 0, Project W-551 Interim Pretreatment System (IPS) Siting Study


5-2

administered Site Evaluation process and are currently set-aside for the Tank Operating

Contractor. Further, the IPS project evaluation of these sites yielded:

1. Seismic response spectrum development that have been evaluated to the requirements

referenced in Section 3.617;

2. A cultural resources review18; and

3. A biological ecological resources review19.

Figure 5-1. Treatment and Immobilization System Candidate Sites in East Area.*

* Figure derived from QMap output. Red lines and red shaded areas indicate waste sites tracked in WIDS

17

RPP-38172, Rev. 0, Attachment C. 18

PNNL-17638, Cultural Resources Review and Inventory for Interim Pretreatment System Facility to Support

Treatment of Hanford Tank Waste and the Waste Treatment Plant, 200 East Area, Hanford Site (HCRC#2008-200-

017) 19

PNNL letter report ECR #2008-200-017, “Biological Review of the Proposed Sites for the Interim Pretreatment

System, 200 East Area”


5-3

Appendix B contains a photo log of Candidate Site #1 and #2 site walk down results obtained in

April of 2008; a brief walk down in September 2010 verified no major changes to the sites had

occurred. Note that all salient features of these sites are documented in RPP-38172, Project W-

551 Interim Pretreatment System (IPS) Siting Study.

5.1.1 East Area In-tank Treatment System Location

Twenty-five DSTs are arranged in five different tank farms in 200 East Area; however, the most

practical option for in-tank treatment in 200 East is in the 241-AP tank farm. East Area tank

farm utilization is explained below:

1. AN tank farm will be used as the HLW sludge staging farm for waste feed delivery

(WFD) to WTP (see RPP-40149, Rev. 1, Integrated Waste Feed Delivery Plan). The 42

inch risers in AN-farm tanks will be occupied by submersible mixer pumps (SMP)

employed for sludge tank waste mixing.

2. AY/AZ tank farms are similarly used as HLW sludge tanks early in the WFD mission

(RPP-40149, Rev. 1). Construction and deployment of an in-tank Treatment System

directly overlaps HLW sludge waste feed deliveries out of these tanks. Similar to AN-

farm, the available large risers in AY/AZ tanks will be occupied by SMPs.

3. AW-tank farm requires a tank-by tank analysis:

a. AW-101 is a Group A waste tank; as such, it requires remediation prior to

deployment of an in-tank Treatment System. This activity requires DST waste

storage space (~ 2 x initial AW-101 tank volume). DST space is at a premium prior

to WTP or other waste treatment start-up. Therefore, AW-101 is not a good

candidate for in-tank Treatment System deployment.

b. AW-102 is the 242-A Evaporator feed tank. Significant evaporation campaigns are

on-going throughout the WFD mission.

c. AW-103, -104 and -105 are HLW sludge tanks. These tanks are not good candidates

for the same reasons AY/AZ tanks and AN-tanks are not good candidates for in-tank

Treatment System deployment.

d. AW-106 is the only possible tank in AW-farm that is a candidate for in-tank

Treatment System deployment. Since AW-106 is the only viable tank in the farm,

significant tank modification would be needed to deploy an in-tank Treatment System

in AW-106 – new risers would need to be installed.

4. AP tank farm currently contains negligible HLW sludge and the plan is to keep AP-farm

sludge free throughout the mission (RPP-40149). Vice AP-105 and AP-108 tanks, large

risers in AP tanks are not planned for SMP deployment. AP-farm is also rich in DST

supernatants that are good candidate feed sources for the Treatment System (see SVF-

1523, Rev. 1, “IPS Nominal Feed.xlsx”). Figure 5-2 is an aerial photograph of AP tank

farm.


5-4

Figure 5-2. Aerial Photograph of AP Tank Farm.

RPP-39278, Rev. 2, Evaluation of Savannah River In-tank Technologies for Hanford Interim

Pretreatment, Figure 2 shows a pre-conceptual layout for in-tank Treatment System deployment

in AP-farm.

5.2 CANDIDATE SITES IN 200 WEST AREA

200 West Area was canvassed for available sites that fit the area and location criteria described

in Section 5.0. Figure 5-3 shows the resulting candidate sites for 200 West Area.


5-5

Figure 5-3. Treatment and Immobilization System Candidate Sites in 200 West Area*

* Figure derived from QMap output. Red lines and red shaded areas indicate waste sites tracked in WIDS

None of the candidate sites in Figure 5-3 have been previously evaluated. Appendix C captures

a photo log of the walk downs of these sites performed December 3, 2010. Some of the salient

features of these candidate sites are listed in Table 5-1 below.

5-6

5-6

RP

P-R

PT

-48549 R

ev. 1

Table 5-1. 200 West Area Candidate Site Features.

Site Approximate Area Proximity to

SY-farm

Proximity to Cross-site

Transfer Line Other Features

Candidate Site #3 451, 000 ft

2

(10 + acres) 980 ft N/A

Mix of disturbed and undisturbed land.

One active well near center of the site; one capped

well west of the active well.

South boarder defined by URMA 216-U-14

Must dig through to get waste transfer line from

SY-farm to site.

Candidate Site #4 715,000 ft

2

(16.4 acres) 425ft South boarder of site

Mostly disturbed land.

One active well just east of 216-S-23 ditch.

Slight depression in land east of 216-S-23.

Inactive underground transfer lines and chemical

sewer lines running north-south through the site.

Active cross-site transfer line borders the south side

of site.

Active above ground 8” double walled HDPE

supporting CHPRC 200W pump & treat activity runs

(will run) along east side of site.

Dirt roads that provide access from 16th St. to SY-

farm run through the site.

Ditch 216-S-23 is managed as a URMA.

Candidate Site #5 1,340,000 ft

2

(31 acres) 0.62 miles

North and West boarders

of site

Mostly undisturbed land.

Post indicating valve on south side of site indicates

source of raw water.

13th St. on south boarder and 16

th to the north can

provide access to ERDF.

No well or waste site issues, as with the other sites.

Candidate Site #6 800,000 ft

2

(19 acres) 0.5 miles 425 ft

Mix of disturbed and undisturbed land.

Dumping ground for 75 – 100 concrete supports

6” x 6” x 54” (approx).

North boarder defined by 216-U-12, a URMA.

Well near southeast corner of 216-U-12.

Raw water tanker fill station near South end of site


5-7

5-7

5.2.1 West Area In-tank Treatment System Location

Since SY tank farm is the only DST farm in West Area, in-tank Treatment System deployment in

West Area must occur in SY-farm. Previous system model runs have shown that SST retrievals

in West Area require two DST receivers. In-tank treatment in West Area must therefore take

place in one of the three SY-farm tanks. New risers will need to be installed in the SY-farm tank

chosen for in-tank treatment so that deployment of an RMF unit (#1 of three 42 inch risers

available [central pump-pit]), two SMPs (#2 and #3 of three 42 inch risers available) and two

small column ion exchange units (two new large [> 42 inch] risers, with pits) can be installed in

a single SY-farm tank. Figure 5-4 is an aerial view of SY tank farm.

Figure 5-4. Aerial Photograph of SY Tank Farm.


6-1

6-1

6.0 FORMAL EVALUATION OF SITES

A formal evaluation of the sites presented in Section 5.0 will not be performed prior to

immobilization technology down-select. Technology selection will drive the needs of the site,

particularly for the Immobilization System. Large variability in factors discriminating suitable

sites exist depending on selection of the immobilization technology. For example, if the

immobilization technology chosen is Bulk Vitrification, upwards of 15 MVA of power will be

required. It is likely that this amount of power will require a direct interface with the Bonneville

Power Administration’s (BPA) 230 kV lines instead of an interface with existing 13.8 kV site

service provided out of the 251-W Substation. Other immobilization technologies will require

less than one tenth this amount of power20.

The following sections serve as placeholders and contain some sample information for the

formal site evaluation to be performed subsequent to immobilization technology selection.

6.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING

Requirements and system characteristics from Section 3.0, as well as other attributes or criteria

important to the Treatment System and Immobilization System construction and operation (e.g.,

integration with WTP and tank farm operations) that affect system siting have been identified

and are described in the following sections.

6.1.1 Description of Criteria Considered

The following example criteria were developed to provide a starting point and example criteria to

be used when evaluating candidate sites. Subsequent to technology selection, these criteria must

be re-defined.

20

Note that “other immobilization technologies” in the context of this sentence does not include 2nd

LAW

Vitrification; the area set-aside within the WTP complex would be chosen to host 2nd

LAW Vitrification. The WTP

site is already connected to the BPA’s 230 kV lines. The WTP 13.8 kV substation and BPA’s allocation of power to

the WTP site will need upgrading if 2nd

LAW Vitrification is the chosen immobilization technology.

6-2

RP

P-R

PT

-48549 R

ev. 1

6-2

Table 6-1. Example Criteria for Treatment and Immobilization System Site Evaluation.

No. Criteria Description Discriminating Factor(s)

1 Proximity of candidate site to LAW feed source.

Length of waste transfer piping and complexity of waste

transfer route. Transfer piping length translates into project

capital and construction costs; complexity translates into a

project construction and operational risk (e.g., line plugging).

2 Proximity of candidate site to the LAW PT facility.

Length of waste transfer piping and complexity of transfer

route. Transfer piping length translates into project capital and

construction costs; complexity translates into a project

construction and operational risk (e.g., line plugging).

3

Proximity of candidate site to Existing Utilities.

Utilities include electrical power, raw water and sanitary

water.

Length of utility run needed to reach estimated facility location

on candidate site, which translates into project capital and

construction costs.

4 Access to candidate site

Ease and proper control of shipment of construction materials

and equipment to site – i.e., access road adequacy, safety and

security. Ease of heavy equipment maneuverability on site.

Ease of shipment of operational materials to site – i.e., access

road adequacy, safety and security.

5 Integration with WTP and Tank Farms Operations Distance of candidate site from Operations Facility.

6 Development of candidate site seismic design criteria.

Candidate sites in East Area have been evaluated to be

sufficiently close to the WTP and historical borehole sites that

show geology under East Area candidate sites is not

significantly different from each other or WTP*.

Evaluation for West Area candidate sites has not been

performed.

7 Proximity of candidate site to waste sites or remediated

waste sites

Excavation near or through a waste site (contaminated) or

remediated waste site (previously contaminated) is potentially

high risk work and will lead to a longer construction schedule

and greater costs.

8

Development of candidate site Cultural/Ecological Review

and ease of needed land improvements (e.g., grubbing and

grading).

Undisturbed vs. already disturbed candidate sites. Required

land improvements (e.g., existing soil pile movement, existing

underground interferences).

6-3

RP

P-R

PT

-48549 R

ev. 1

6-3

No. Criteria Description Discriminating Factor(s)

9

Candidate Site’s available area. Candidate site must

accommodate Treatment and Immobilization System

technology alternatives.†

None. All candidate sites have more than the area required.

Facility expansion can be accommodated at each candidate site.

10 Proximity of candidate site to waste disposal sites – both

primary and secondary.

Length of liquid effluent transfer piping‡ or tanker truck

procurement and/or road upgrades, which translates into project

capital and construction costs and/or different operating costs.

11 Degree of DST System upgrades required (in-tank option).

Tank and/or riser modifications required to accommodate all in-

tank equipment (e.g., RMF, IX columns, submersible mixer

pumps).

Equipment required to support waste transfers needed to ready

DST for use (e.g., Group A tank remediation, existing solids

transfers, transfers to make space for equipment installation). * See RPP-38172, Rev. 0, Attachment C

† Note that if the selected Immobilization Technology is 2nd

LAW, it is assumed that the WTP Site, or some extension of the WTP Site, will host the facility.

‡ Liquid effluent transfer piping is fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP) encased in FRP or polyvinylchloride (PVC)


6-4

6-4

6.1.2 Criteria Weighting

Criteria described in Section 6.1.1 are weighted relative to one another based on:

1. Construction and material costs associated with each;

2. Operational costs; or

3. A qualitative relative importance.

Quantitative costs associated with construction (direct project cost) or operations (overall

program cost) will be the preferred method of weighting. When a weighting value associated

with construction, material or operational cost cannot be assigned, a qualitative judgment of the

overall weighting of these criteria will be made. In instances where a criterion yields no

discriminating factors relative to the candidate sites, a weighting of zero percent will be assigned

(e.g., Criterion 7).

6.2 EVALUATION RESULTS

Formal evaluation of the sites will be performed post immobilization technology down-select.


7-1

7-1

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

Many aspects of the site selection are dependent on Immobilization System technology selection.

A definitive, formal evaluation and site selection will be made subsequent to an Immobilization

System technology selection (scheduled for Fiscal Year 2012).

Preliminary screening and qualitative site evaluation performed independent of technology

selection herein, showed a slight bias to locating the Treatment and Immobilization Systems in

East Area. Gross advantages include:

1. Proximity to feed sources – from both DSTs and WTP PT

Potential use of AP-farm DST for LAW feed lag storage

2. Supports other initiatives – e.g., 2020 Vision and backup feed to the WTP LAW

Facility.

3. Previous IPS project work eliminates uncertainties regarding site-specific requirements

such as seismic response design criteria and cultural resources review21.

4. In-tank treatment option has a higher potential of being able to use two DSTs, rather

than one.

5. If Immobilization System technology is 2nd

LAW, WTP site will host the 2nd

LAW

facility, and an East Area Treatment System will be “co-located”.

Design for the Treatment System will therefore be performed assuming the Treatment System

and Immobilization System are both located in East Area22. Further, Candidate Site #1 will be

reserved for any Near-tank Treatment System facilities required – i.e., a near tank facility or a

facility to include LAW feed lag storage – while Candidate Site #2 will be reserved for the

Immobilization System. If the conceptual design recommendation for the In-tank Treatment

System option is accepted, AP-farm will be utilized as the basis for the conceptual design. The

Treatment System design A-E will deliver only design solutions that do not preclude Treatment

System siting at one of the 200 West Area sites described herein.

21

Note that biological/ecological resource review conducted for Candidate Sites 1 and 2 has expired and would need

to be updated. 22

Note that Treatment System conceptual design activities started January 2011, approximately 12 months in

advance of the scheduled Immobilization System technology down select and start of conceptual design.


8-1

8-1

8.0 REFERENCES

ANSI/IEEE C2-2007, “National Electrical Safety Code”, American National Standards Institute,

New York, New York, 2002.

DOE/ORP-2003-02, Environmental Impact Statement for Retrieval, Treatment, and Disposal of

Tank Waste and Closure of the Single Shell Tanks at the Hanford Site, Richland WA,

Inventory and Source Term Data Package, Office of River Protection, Richland, WA.

DOE-STD-1189-2008, Integration of Safety into the Design Process, March 2008, US

Department of Energy, Washington DC.

Ecology, EPA, and DOE, 1989, Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, State

of Washington Department of Ecology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S.

Department of Energy, Olympia, Washington, as amended

NFPA 70, 2005, “National Electric Code”, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, Mass.,

2005.

ORP-11242, 2010, River Protection Project System Plan, Rev 5, Washington River Protection

Solutions, Richland, Washington.

RPP-38172, 2008, Project W-551 interim Pretreatment System (IPS) Siting Study, Rev. 0,

Washington River Protection Solutions, Richland, Washington.

RPP-39278, 2010, Evaluation of Savannah River In-tank Technologies for Hanford Interim

Pretreatment, Rev. 2, Washington River Protection Solutions, Richland, Washington.

RPP-40149, 2010, Integrated Waste Feed Delivery Plan, Rev. 1, Washington River Protection

Solutions LLC, Richland, Washington.

RPP-46811, 2010, Functions and Requirements: 200 Area Supplemental Treatment System,

Rev. 1, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC, Richland, Washington.

RPP-RPT-48117, 2010, Supplemental Treatment Technical Support Pre-conceptual Candidate

Technical Descriptions, Rev. 0, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC, Richland,

Washington.

RPP-CALC-48104, 2010, “200 Area Supplemental Treatment and Immobilization System

Capacity”, Rev. 0, Washington River Protection Solutions, Richland, Washington.

RPP-CALC-50214, 2011, Supplemental Treatment Program Capacity Calculations, Rev. 0,

Washington River Protection Solutions LLC, Richland, Washington.

RPP-RPT-27570, 2006, Development of PC2 Surface Spectra for Double-shell Tank Facilities,

DOE Hanford Site in Washington State, Rev. 0, Washington River Protection Solutions

LLC, Richland, Washington.

RPP-RPT-38057, 2008, Project W-551 Interim Pretreatment System Technology Selection

Summary Decision Report and Recommendation, Rev. 0, Washington River Protection



8-2

8-2

RPP-RPT-38839, 2008, Project W-551 Interim Pretreatment System Mission Analysis Report,

Rev. 0, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC, Richland, Washington.

RPP-RPT-46668, 2010, Supplemental Treatment Pre-Conceptual Engineering Review, Rev. 0,


RPP-RPT-50024, 2011, Treatment Project T4S01 Conceptual Design Report, Rev. 0,


SVF-1523, 2010, “IPS Nominal Feed.xlsx” Rev. 0, Washington River Protection Solutions LLC,

Richland, Washington.

SVF-2038, 2010, “ST Location Model Runs.xlsx” Rev. 0, Washington River Protection


TFC-ESHQ-FP-STD-12, 2010, “Hanford Fire Department Services”, Rev. A-3, Washington

River Protection Solutions LLC, Richland, Washington.

WHC-SD-W058-DR-001, 1993, Title I Design Report, Replacement of the Cross-site Transfer

System, Project W-058, Rev. 0, Westinghouse Hanford Company.


A-1

APPENDIX A –IMMOBILIZATION FACILITY LAYOUT AND ELEVATION VIEWS

Figure A-1. FBSR Facility Layout

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

A-2

Figure A-2. FBSR Facility Elevation View

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

A-3

Figure A-3. Cast Stone Facility Layout

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

A-4

Figure A-4. Cast Stone Facility Elevation View

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

A-5

Figure A-5. Bulk Vitrification Facility Layout

A-1

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

A-6

Figure A-6. Bulk Vitrification Facility Elevation View

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

A-7

Figure A-7. 2nd

LAW Vitrification Facility Footprint Set Aside Within the WTP Project

RPP-RPT-48549, Rev. 1

A-8

2nd

LAW

Vitrification

Facility Set

Aside

Figure A-8. 2nd

LAW Vitrification Facility Site Layout


A-9

Figure A-9. 2nd

LAW Vitrification Facility Plan Elevation View

A-10



B-1

APPENDIX B – PHOTO LOG OF 200 EAST AREA CANDIDATE SITES WALKDOWN

Figure B-1 – PHOTO OF 200 EAST AREA CANDIDATE SITES

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

B-2

Figure B-2 - PHOTO OF 200 EAST AREA CANDIDATE SITE #1

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

B-3

Figure B-3 - PHOTO OF 200 EAST AREA CANDIDATE SITE #2

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

B-4


C-1

APPENDIX C – PHOTO LOG OF 200 WEST AREA CANDIDATE SITES WALKDOWN

FIGURE C-1 – PHOTO OF 200 WEST AREA CANDIDATE SITES

FIGURE C-2 – PHOTO OF 200 WEST AREA CANDIDATE SITE #3

C-2

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

C-2

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

C-3

FIGURE C-3 – PHOTO OF 200 WEST AERA CANDIDATE SITE #4

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

C-3

FIGURE C-4 – PHOTO OF 200 WEST AERA CANDIDATE SITE #5

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

C-5

C

-4

FIGURE C-5 – PHOTO OF 200 WEST AREA CANDIDATE SITE #6

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

C-6

C-5

RP

P-R

PT

-48549, R

ev. 1

C-6

rpp-rpt-48549 rev. 1 library/new...rpp-rpt-48549 rev. 1 es-1 executive summary ... 2 in addition, an...

Documents