Cold vacuum drying system conceptual design report

Abstract

Spent Nuclear Fuel P r o j e c t CVD Subprojectsupport D e f i n i t i v e Design. This CDR i s submitted f o r f i n a l approval and r e l e a s e t o (F)( 2. 6. .8. 9.10. 11. DOE Comments t o Cold Vacuum Drying System Conceptual Design Report, WHC-SD-SNF-CDR-003This f a c i l i t y should be as simple, temporary, and inexpensive as possible. Any function that could be provided outside o f the f a c i l i t y and could be used somewhere else a f t e r the two year design l i f e o f t h i s building i s desirable. I f the o f f i c e space, conference room, bathrooms, change rooms, etc. were i n t r a i l e r s o r other transportable modules, they could be used again elsewhere. This creates some salvage value, while minimizing decommissioning costs. This would save money as well as work t o address stakeholder concerns?The construction labor costs seem low. Workers a t Hanford can not be obtained t h i s inexpensively. Are these construction industry standard numbers?The weld location issue must be solved and i t s impacts factored i n as soon as possible. Although i t i s proper t o use 500mRlyr as an exposure l i m i t f o r the CDR, W H C should consider extending t h i s f o r actual operation.Deactivation and Decommissioning should be addressed i n a CDR. feature i s not addressed adequately here. A t least, cost estimates should be provided.Intro, page 3 -This discusses that Cat 3 i s assumed based on the fuel being contained i n the cask and MCO. It w i l l not be contained i n the cask while i n the CVD f a c i l i t y and may not even be contained within the MCO 13.14. 15.16. 17.18. 19.Sect 2, page 26 -This discusses a table o f interfaces with other subprojects.Sect 3, page 1 -It seems l i k e i t would make more sense l o g i s t i c a l l y t o modify the fence so construction occurs outside the fence and then the fence would be moved around the f a c i l i t y f o r operation. This minimizes security impacts on construction crews.Sect 3, page 5 -As discussed previously, the need f o r an administrative area f o r a two year f a c i l i t y appears t o be unwarranted.Sect 3 , page 8 -Are any other natural phenomena hazards (flood, wind, etc.) considered i n the CDR?Sect 3, page 19 -Section 3.4.1.2.17 i s the f i r s t place QA i s mentioned.Under 10 CFR 830.120, CVD must have a QA plan approved by DOE. Has t h i s been prepared? What i s the schedule i f not?Attach 2, pages 2 through 7 -The cask w i l l not be DOT certified. This i s an incorrect assumption.Attach 2, page 20, item 16 -QAP per lOCFR 830.120 i s s t i l l required, even i f we take our pedigree from 5700.6C.Attach 7, section 6.0 -Hopefully the ORR w i l l be subsumed i n t o a SNF ORR being p l anned.This Total Pages: # 3+43 TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER. trade name, tradenerk, manufacturer, or otheruise, does not necessarily c o n s t i t u t e or imply i t s e n d o r s e n t , r e c m n d a t i o n , or favoring by the united States G o v e r m n t or any agency thereof or i t s contractors or subcontractors.P r i n t e d i n the Unit...