Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety Strategy, 62224-62225 [2012-25064]
Download as PDF
62224
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2012 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army; Corps of
Engineers
Notice of Intent To Revise Scope of
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Updating the Water Control Manual
for the Apalachicola-ChattahoocheeFlint River Basin To Account for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit Ruling and a June 2012 Legal
Opinion of the Corps’ Chief Counsel
Regarding Authority To Accommodate
Municipal and Industrial Water Supply
From the Buford Dam/Lake Lanier
Project
Department of the Army, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), Mobile District, intends to
revise the scope of the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the Water
Control Manual (WCM) updates for the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
(ACF) River Basin in Alabama, Florida,
and Georgia, in light of a June 2011
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit and a June 2012
legal opinion of the Corps’ Chief
Counsel regarding authority to
accommodate municipal and industrial
water supply from the Buford Dam/Lake
Lanier project. The Corps is updating
the water control plans and manuals for
the ACF Basin in order to improve
operations for authorized purposes to
reflect changed conditions since the
manuals were last developed. The
revised EIS will also consider, along
with operations for all authorized
purposes, an expanded range of water
supply alternatives associated with the
Buford Dam/Lake Lanier project,
including current levels of water supply
withdrawals and additional amounts
that Georgia has requested from Lake
Lanier and downstream at Atlanta. In all
other respects, the scope of the EIS for
the WCM updates will remain as
described in the Updated Scoping
Report, Environmental Impact
Statement, Update of the Water Control
Manual for the ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin,
in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia
(March 2010), available at https://
www.sam.usace.army.mil/pa/acf-wcm/
docs.htm, the Corps solicits comments
from interested persons regarding the
scope of the EIS for the WCM updates.
DATES: The public comment period will
commence with publication of this
notice, and will end 60 days after its
publication. This notice will also be
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:59 Oct 11, 2012
Jkt 229001
distributed to those who commented
during the original scoping comment
periods of October–December 2008 (see
72 FR 63561 [November 9, 2007], 73 FR
9780 [February 22, 2008], 73 FR 54391
[September 19, 2008]), and November–
December 2009 (see 74 FR 59965
[November 19, 2009]). This distribution
will occur by mail and/or email on or
about the date of this notice. No
additional public scoping meetings are
planned. Comments on the scope of the
EIS, including concerns, issues, or
proposed alternatives that should be
considered in the EIS, should be
submitted in writing to (see ADDRESSES)
and will be accepted throughout the
public comment period. Comments may
also be submitted by using the
electronic comment form at: https://
www.sam.usace.army.mil/pa/acf-wcm/
form.htm.
ADDRESSES: To facilitate the Master
Water Control Manual update, a support
contract has been awarded to Tetra
Tech, Inc. for preparation of the EIS and
additional scoping. Please mail written
comments to Tetra Tech, Inc., 61 St.
Joseph Street, Suite 550, Mobile, AL
36602–3521.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions about the manual update or
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process should be directed to:
Mr. Brian Zettle, Biologist, Environment
and Resources Branch, Planning and
Environmental Division, U.S. Army
Engineer District-Mobile, Post Office
Box 2288, Mobile, AL 36628–0001;
Telephone (251) 690–2115; or delivered
by electronic facsimile at (251) 694–
3815; or email:
brian.a.zettle@usace.army.mil. You may
also request to be included on the
mailing list for public distribution of
notices, meeting announcements and
documents.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Corps
is updating the water control plans and
manuals for the ACF Basin in order to
improve operations to reflect changed
conditions since the manuals were last
developed. As explained in a November
2009 Federal Register Notice of Intent,
74 FR 59965 (November 19, 2009), and
in the March 2010 Updated Scoping
Report, the Corps previously narrowed
the scope of the EIS for the WCM update
to exclude from consideration certain
water supply operations at the Buford
Dam/Lake Lanier project that would
have violated a July 2009 district court
order. In June 2011, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated
that 2009 district court order and
directed the Corps to determine its legal
authority to operate the Buford Dam/
Lake Lanier Project to accommodate
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
water supply withdrawals. See In re TriState Water Rights Litigation, 644 F.3d
1160 (11th Cir. 2011). In compliance
with the Eleventh Circuit’s order, the
Chief Counsel issued a legal opinion on
June 25, 2012 (available at https://
www.sam.usace.army.mil/
2012ACF_legalopinion.pdf), concluding
that the Corps has the legal authority to
accommodate both current and
increased levels of water supply
withdrawals from Lake Lanier and
downstream at Atlanta. The Chief
Counsel’s legal opinion does not dictate
what operational decisions will be
made, with regard to water supply or
otherwise, but it does establish certain
analytical principles that will be taken
into account as the Corps makes its final
operational decisions at the conclusion
of the WCM update process. Such
decisions will be made in light of all
applicable authorities, and will be
guided by the legal principles
articulated in the Chief Counsel’s June
25, 2012 opinion.
In light of this legal opinion and the
Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, it is
appropriate for the Corps to consider a
broader range of water supply
alternatives, including both current
levels of water supply withdrawals and
increased withdrawals, from Lake
Lanier and downstream at Atlanta, that
have been determined to be within the
Corps’ legal authority to implement. All
other scoping aspects described in the
March 2010 Updated Scoping Report
remain the same. Information on the
ACF River Basin and the Master Water
Control Manual Update process will be
posted on the Mobile District Web page
as it becomes available: https://
www.sam.usace.army.mil.
Steven J. Roemhildt,
Colonel, Corps of Engineers, District
Commander.
[FR Doc. 2012–25202 Filed 10–11–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES
SAFETY BOARD
[Recommendation 2012–2]
Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas
Safety Strategy
Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board.
ACTION: Notice, recommendation.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
2286a(a)(5), the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board has made a
recommendation to the Secretary of
Energy concerning the Hanford Tank
Farms flammable gas safety strategy.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM
12OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 198 / Friday, October 12, 2012 / Notices
Comments, data, views, or
arguments concerning the
recommendation are due on or before
November 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Send comments concerning
this notice to: Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW.,
Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004–2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah H. Richardson or Andrew L.
Thibadeau at the address above or
telephone number (202) 694–7000.
DATES:
Dated: October 5, 2012.
Jessie H. Roberson,
Vice Chairman.
RECOMMENDATION 2012–2 TO THE
SECRETARY OF ENERGY
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety
Strategy
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2286a(a)(5) Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, As Amended
Dated: September 28, 2012
Background
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board (Board) believes that current
operations at the Hanford Tank Farms require
safety-significant active ventilation of
double-shell tanks (DSTs) to ensure the
removal of flammable gas from the tanks’
headspace. A significant flammable gas
accident would have considerable
radiological consequences, endanger
personnel, contaminate portions of the Tank
Farms, and seriously disrupt the waste
cleanup mission. Further, the Board believes
that actions are necessary to install real time
monitoring to measure tank ventilation
flowrates as well as upgrade other indication
systems used to perform safety-related
functions.
On August 5, 2010, the Board sent a letter
to the Department of Energy (DOE) outlining
issues related to the safety strategy for
flammable gas scenarios at the Hanford Tank
Farms. In its letter, the Board identified that
the safety analyses for accident scenarios
used non-bounding values for (1) the
radiological inventory of the tanks and (2) the
amount of waste that could be released in a
major accident. Notwithstanding these nonconservatisms, DOE’s safety analyses show
that all of the DSTs generate flammable gas
in sufficient quantities to reach the lower
flammability limit (LFL) for hydrogen.
Further, many of the tanks contain sufficient
quantities of gas trapped in the waste such
that the LFL could be exceeded if the gas
were spontaneously released, which is
possible under both normal operating and
accident conditions. The current control
strategy does not include any measures to
periodically release the trapped gases in a
controlled manner to preclude the
accumulation of flammable concentrations.
DOE’s safety analyses show that the
potential flammable gas scenarios warrant a
credited safety control due to the dose
consequences to workers and the public.
Accordingly, the ventilation systems for the
DSTs were previously classified as safetysignificant and credited in the documented
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:59 Oct 11, 2012
Jkt 229001
safety analysis for the Tank Farms to address
flammable gas scenarios. The revision of the
safety analysis approved by DOE on January
21, 2010, and implemented on March 30,
2010, reduced the DST ventilation systems
from safety-significant to defense-in-depth
and replaced them with a specific
administrative control (SAC) for flammable
gas monitoring.
In its August letter, the Board noted that
DOE’s SAC for flammable gas monitoring
exhibited a number of weaknesses that
collectively rendered it inadequate as a safety
control. The reliance on an administrative
control in lieu of an engineered feature is
also contrary to DOE’s established hierarchy
of controls as well as sound engineering
practice. Further, the Board noted that a
number of other installed systems that are (1)
necessary to provide accurate and reliable
indications of abnormal conditions
associated with flammable gas events, and (2)
serve as a direct input to determining
whether an operator action is required were
not appropriately classified in accordance
with their safety function.
In response to these issues, DOE, in a letter
dated February 25, 2011, informed the Board
that it had revised its decision to downgrade
the DST ventilation systems and would take
action to restore the systems to their former
safety-significant status. Additionally, DOE
indicated that the level indication systems
for the DST annuli and the double contained
receiver tank would be upgraded to safetysignificant.
During the last year, the Board reviewed
DOE’s progress in meeting these
commitments and addressing the Board’s
safety concerns. The Board noted that while
some improvements had been made to the
SAC used for flammable gas monitoring, it
remained inadequate as a credited safety
control. The SAC is less reliable than an
engineered feature, remains susceptible to
undetectable false low readings, and lacks
independent verification.
Although DOE maintains a commitment to
upgrading the DST ventilation systems and
other installed non-safety-related
instrumentation used to perform safety
functions, the Board has concluded that no
progress has been made in these areas, and
the schedule for upgrades continues to slip.
The latest schedule, outlined in a letter to the
Board dated April 2, 2012, reflects a
commitment to completing the upgrades to
three of the five DST ventilation systems by
fiscal year 2014. During the Board’s June
2012 review, DOE indicated that even this
was no longer a realistic schedule. DOE’s
current path forward is to upgrade only one
of the DST ventilation systems (AY/AZ Tank
Farm) by fiscal year 2015 to support mixer
pump testing that is currently anticipated in
2016. No near-term procurement or
installation plans are in place for the four
other DST ventilation systems. Similarly, no
plans or activities are proposed to upgrade
the installed non-safety instrumentation
systems being used in safety-related
applications (e.g., the level indication
systems for the DST annuli and the double
container receiver tank).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
62225
Conclusions
The Board believes that DOE needs to
upgrade the DST ventilation systems and
other instrumentation systems used for
safety-related functions at the Hanford Tank
Farms. Further, the continued reliance on an
inadequate SAC for flammable gas control
presents an unnecessary risk to safety. At this
time, DOE does not have a means to provide
alternate ventilation if the existing
ventilation system becomes inoperable. The
hazards posed by flammable gas releases in
DSTs and the challenges they pose to any
ventilation system are directly proportional
to the volume of flammable gas retained
within the DST wastes. Reducing the current
inventories of flammable gases retained in
the DST waste and keeping them small
would reduce the future hazards posed by
gas release events.
Recommendation
Accordingly, the Board recommends that
DOE:
1. Take near-term action to restore the
classification of the DST ventilation systems
to safety-significant. In the process,
determine the necessary attributes of an
adequate active ventilation system that can
deliver the required flow rates within the
time frame necessary to prevent and mitigate
the site-specific flammable gas hazards at the
Hanford Tank Farms.
2. Take near-term action to install safetysignificant instrumentation for real-time
monitoring of the ventilation exhaust flow
from each DST.
3. Take near-term action to upgrade the
existing installed non-safety-related
equipment that is being used to fulfill safety
functions at the Hanford Tank Farms to an
appropriate safety classification. This
includes instrumentation and control
equipment whose indications are necessary
for operators to take action to accomplish
necessary safety functions.
4. Identify compensatory measures in case
any existing DST ventilation systems become
unavailable at the Hanford Tank Farms.
5. Evaluate means to reduce the existing
inventory of retained flammable gases in a
controlled manner. Since these gases will
continue to be generated until the tank
contents are processed, evaluate methods to
reduce the future retention of flammable
gases in these tanks or to periodically mix
them to prevent the future accumulation of
flammable gas inventories that could cause
the tank headspace to exceed the LFL if
rapidly released.
The Board urges the Secretary to avail
himself of the authority under the Atomic
Energy Act (42 U.S.C. § 2286d(e)) to
‘‘implement any such recommendation (or
part of any such recommendation) before, on,
or after the date on which the Secretary
transmits the implementation plan to the
Board under this subsection.’’
Peter S. Winokur, Ph.D.,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2012–25064 Filed 10–11–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670–01–P
E:\FR\FM\12OCN1.SGM
12OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62224-62225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25064]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
[Recommendation 2012-2]
Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety Strategy
AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
ACTION: Notice, recommendation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2286a(a)(5), the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board has made a recommendation to the Secretary of
Energy concerning the Hanford Tank Farms flammable gas safety strategy.
[[Page 62225]]
DATES: Comments, data, views, or arguments concerning the
recommendation are due on or before November 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Send comments concerning this notice to: Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington,
DC 20004-2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah H. Richardson or Andrew L.
Thibadeau at the address above or telephone number (202) 694-7000.
Dated: October 5, 2012.
Jessie H. Roberson,
Vice Chairman.
RECOMMENDATION 2012-2 TO THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
Hanford Tank Farms Flammable Gas Safety Strategy
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2286a(a)(5) Atomic Energy Act of 1954, As
Amended
Dated: September 28, 2012
Background
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) believes
that current operations at the Hanford Tank Farms require safety-
significant active ventilation of double-shell tanks (DSTs) to
ensure the removal of flammable gas from the tanks' headspace. A
significant flammable gas accident would have considerable
radiological consequences, endanger personnel, contaminate portions
of the Tank Farms, and seriously disrupt the waste cleanup mission.
Further, the Board believes that actions are necessary to install
real time monitoring to measure tank ventilation flowrates as well
as upgrade other indication systems used to perform safety-related
functions.
On August 5, 2010, the Board sent a letter to the Department of
Energy (DOE) outlining issues related to the safety strategy for
flammable gas scenarios at the Hanford Tank Farms. In its letter,
the Board identified that the safety analyses for accident scenarios
used non-bounding values for (1) the radiological inventory of the
tanks and (2) the amount of waste that could be released in a major
accident. Notwithstanding these non-conservatisms, DOE's safety
analyses show that all of the DSTs generate flammable gas in
sufficient quantities to reach the lower flammability limit (LFL)
for hydrogen. Further, many of the tanks contain sufficient
quantities of gas trapped in the waste such that the LFL could be
exceeded if the gas were spontaneously released, which is possible
under both normal operating and accident conditions. The current
control strategy does not include any measures to periodically
release the trapped gases in a controlled manner to preclude the
accumulation of flammable concentrations.
DOE's safety analyses show that the potential flammable gas
scenarios warrant a credited safety control due to the dose
consequences to workers and the public. Accordingly, the ventilation
systems for the DSTs were previously classified as safety-
significant and credited in the documented safety analysis for the
Tank Farms to address flammable gas scenarios. The revision of the
safety analysis approved by DOE on January 21, 2010, and implemented
on March 30, 2010, reduced the DST ventilation systems from safety-
significant to defense-in-depth and replaced them with a specific
administrative control (SAC) for flammable gas monitoring.
In its August letter, the Board noted that DOE's SAC for
flammable gas monitoring exhibited a number of weaknesses that
collectively rendered it inadequate as a safety control. The
reliance on an administrative control in lieu of an engineered
feature is also contrary to DOE's established hierarchy of controls
as well as sound engineering practice. Further, the Board noted that
a number of other installed systems that are (1) necessary to
provide accurate and reliable indications of abnormal conditions
associated with flammable gas events, and (2) serve as a direct
input to determining whether an operator action is required were not
appropriately classified in accordance with their safety function.
In response to these issues, DOE, in a letter dated February 25,
2011, informed the Board that it had revised its decision to
downgrade the DST ventilation systems and would take action to
restore the systems to their former safety-significant status.
Additionally, DOE indicated that the level indication systems for
the DST annuli and the double contained receiver tank would be
upgraded to safety-significant.
During the last year, the Board reviewed DOE's progress in
meeting these commitments and addressing the Board's safety
concerns. The Board noted that while some improvements had been made
to the SAC used for flammable gas monitoring, it remained inadequate
as a credited safety control. The SAC is less reliable than an
engineered feature, remains susceptible to undetectable false low
readings, and lacks independent verification.
Although DOE maintains a commitment to upgrading the DST
ventilation systems and other installed non-safety-related
instrumentation used to perform safety functions, the Board has
concluded that no progress has been made in these areas, and the
schedule for upgrades continues to slip. The latest schedule,
outlined in a letter to the Board dated April 2, 2012, reflects a
commitment to completing the upgrades to three of the five DST
ventilation systems by fiscal year 2014. During the Board's June
2012 review, DOE indicated that even this was no longer a realistic
schedule. DOE's current path forward is to upgrade only one of the
DST ventilation systems (AY/AZ Tank Farm) by fiscal year 2015 to
support mixer pump testing that is currently anticipated in 2016. No
near-term procurement or installation plans are in place for the
four other DST ventilation systems. Similarly, no plans or
activities are proposed to upgrade the installed non-safety
instrumentation systems being used in safety-related applications
(e.g., the level indication systems for the DST annuli and the
double container receiver tank).
Conclusions
The Board believes that DOE needs to upgrade the DST ventilation
systems and other instrumentation systems used for safety-related
functions at the Hanford Tank Farms. Further, the continued reliance
on an inadequate SAC for flammable gas control presents an
unnecessary risk to safety. At this time, DOE does not have a means
to provide alternate ventilation if the existing ventilation system
becomes inoperable. The hazards posed by flammable gas releases in
DSTs and the challenges they pose to any ventilation system are
directly proportional to the volume of flammable gas retained within
the DST wastes. Reducing the current inventories of flammable gases
retained in the DST waste and keeping them small would reduce the
future hazards posed by gas release events.
Recommendation
Accordingly, the Board recommends that DOE:
1. Take near-term action to restore the classification of the
DST ventilation systems to safety-significant. In the process,
determine the necessary attributes of an adequate active ventilation
system that can deliver the required flow rates within the time
frame necessary to prevent and mitigate the site-specific flammable
gas hazards at the Hanford Tank Farms.
2. Take near-term action to install safety-significant
instrumentation for real-time monitoring of the ventilation exhaust
flow from each DST.
3. Take near-term action to upgrade the existing installed non-
safety-related equipment that is being used to fulfill safety
functions at the Hanford Tank Farms to an appropriate safety
classification. This includes instrumentation and control equipment
whose indications are necessary for operators to take action to
accomplish necessary safety functions.
4. Identify compensatory measures in case any existing DST
ventilation systems become unavailable at the Hanford Tank Farms.
5. Evaluate means to reduce the existing inventory of retained
flammable gases in a controlled manner. Since these gases will
continue to be generated until the tank contents are processed,
evaluate methods to reduce the future retention of flammable gases
in these tanks or to periodically mix them to prevent the future
accumulation of flammable gas inventories that could cause the tank
headspace to exceed the LFL if rapidly released.
The Board urges the Secretary to avail himself of the authority
under the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2286d(e)) to
``implement any such recommendation (or part of any such
recommendation) before, on, or after the date on which the Secretary
transmits the implementation plan to the Board under this
subsection.''
Peter S. Winokur, Ph.D.,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2012-25064 Filed 10-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P