May 21, 2014 

Ms. Jean Ridley, Director 

Waste Disposition Programs Division 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Savannah River Operations Office 

P.O. Box A 

Aiken, SC 29802 

SUBJECT: THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MARCH 26-27, 2014, 

ONSITE OBSERVATION VISIT REPORT FOR THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE 

F-TANK FARM FACILITY (DOCKET NO. PROJ0734) 

Dear Ms. Ridley: 

The enclosed report describes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) onsite 

observation visit on March 26-27, 2014, at the Savannah River Site (SRS) F-Tank Farm (FTF) 

Facility. That onsite observation visit was conducted in accordance with Section 3116(b) of the 

Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA), which 

requires NRC to monitor certain disposal actions taken by the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) for the purpose of assessing compliance with the performance objectives set out in 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, Subpart C. 

The main activities conducted during the March 2014 onsite observation visit were technical 

discussions on: (1) closing of FTF Tanks 5/6 and grouting, (2) implementation of radiation 

protection program and environmental monitoring program, (3) site stability, (4) NRC Technical 

Review Reports, and (5) status of high-level waste tank residual solids sample leaching 

experiments. Those activities were consistent with those described in NRC Observation 

Guidance Memorandum for the SRS FTF (dated February 27, 2014,) [available via the NRC’s 

Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. 

ML14045A215]. That Guidance Memorandum was developed using the following NRC 

documents: (1) FTF Monitoring Plan, Rev. 0 (dated January 2013) [ADAMS Accession 

No. ML12212A192]; and (2) five Technical Review Reports (TRRs) [ADAMS Accession 

Nos. ML13080A401, ML13100A230, ML12272A082, ML13273A299, and ML13269A365]. The 

FTF Monitoring Plan contains the monitoring areas and monitoring factors, which describe how 

NRC will monitor DOE FTF disposal actions to assess compliance with the performance 

objectives. The five TRRs contain follow-up action items that will be used in future monitoring 

activities and will be incorporated into future revisions to the FTF Monitoring Plan. 

This is the fifth FTF onsite observation visit since NRC began monitoring DOE FTF disposal 

actions under NDAA Section 3116(b) in March 2012. NRC does not expect to close any of the 

26 FTF monitoring factors or change the NRC staff Technical Evaluation Report overall 

conclusions as a result of this onsite observation visit. There were no FTF Open Issues before 

the March 2014 onsite observation visit and there were none opened during the onsite 

observation visit. Thus, there are currently no FTF Open Issues. 
J. Ridley - 2 - 

NRC does expect to open and close follow-up action items during onsite observation visits and 

clarification teleconference calls. Most of those follow-up action items are specific short-term 

actions to be performed by the NRC or DOE. Usually, most of those follow-up action items are 

closed before the next onsite observation visit or clarification teleconference call. Therefore, in 

accordance with the requirements of NDAA Section 3116(b), the NRC will continue to monitor 

DOE disposal actions at SRS. 

If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this report, please contact 

Harry Felsher of my staff at Harry.Felsher@nrc.gov, or at (301) 415-6559. 

Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

Aby Mohseni, Deputy Director 

Environmental Protection and Performance 

 Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

 and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

 and Environmental Management Programs 

Docket No.: PROJ0734 

Enclosure: 

NRC Onsite Observation Visit Report 

cc w /enclosure: 

WIR Service List 

WIR e-mail Contacts List 
J. Ridley - 2 - 

NRC does expect to open and close follow-up action items during onsite observation visits and 

clarification teleconference calls. Most of those follow-up action items are specific short-term 

actions to be performed by the NRC or DOE. Usually, most of those follow-up action items are 

closed before the next onsite observation visit or clarification teleconference call. Therefore, in 

accordance with the requirements of NDAA Section 3116(b), the NRC will continue to monitor 

DOE disposal actions at SRS. 

If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this report, please contact 

Harry Felsher of my staff at Harry.Felsher@nrc.gov, or at (301) 415-6559. 

Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

Aby Mohseni, Deputy Director 

Environmental Protection and Performance 

 Assessment Directorate 

Division of Waste Management 

 and Environmental Protection 

Office of Federal and State Materials 

 and Environmental Management Programs 

Docket No.: PROJ0734 

Enclosure: 

NRC Onsite Observation Visit Report 

cc w /enclosure: 

WIR Service List 

WIR e-mail Contacts List 

DISTRIBUTION: GAlexander CBarr LParks JShaffner 

MHeath TBrimfield MRoberts/Region I 

MFerdas/Region I 

ML14106A573 

OFC DWMEP:PM DWMEP DWMEP:LA DWMEP:BC DWMEP:BC DWMEP:DD 

NAME HFelsher CBarr TMoon CMcKenney GSuber AMohseni 

DATE 04/17/14 04/21/14 

(by e-mail) 04/29/14 05/01/14 05/21/14 05/21/14 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 
WIR Service List

Glenn Carroll, Coordinator 

Nuclear Watch South 

P.O. Box 8574 

Atlanta, GA 31106 

Tom Clements, Member 

Friends of the Earth 

1112 Florence Street 

Columbia, SC 29201 

Jim Hardeman, Manager 

Environmental Radiation Program 

Environmental Protection Division 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

4220 International Parkway, Suite 100 

Atlanta, GA 30354 

Karen Patterson, Environmental 

Appointment 

Governors' Nuclear Advisory Council 

 and Tetra Tech NUS 

900 Trail Road 

Aiken, SC 29803-5297 

Bobbie Paul, Executive Director 

Georgia Womens Action for New Directions 

250 Georgia Ave., SE, 

Suite 202 

Atlanta, GA 30312 

Robert H. Pope 

Senior Remedial Project Manager 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 4, Superfund Division 

Federal Facilities Branch, Waste Division 

61 Forsyth Street 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Jon Richards, Remedial Project Manager 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 4, Superfund Division 

Federal Facilities Branch, Waste Division 

61 Forsyth Street 

Atlanta, GA 30303 

Thomas Saporito, Executive Director 

P.O. Box 8413 

Jupiter, FL 33468 

John J. Schnabel 

Saltstone Project Inspector, 

 Professional Engineer 

Division of Mining and Solid Waste 

 Management 

Bureau of Land and Waste Management 

South Carolina Department of Health 

 and Environmental Control 

2600 Bull Street 

Columbia, SC 29201-1208 

Ruth Thomas 

354 Woodland Drive 

Columbus, SC 28722 

Shelly Wilson 

Federal Facilities Liaison 

Environmental Quality Control 

 Administration 

South Carolina Department of Health 

 and Environmental Control 

2600 Bull Street 

Columbia, SC 29201-1708 
ENCLOSURE 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

MARCH 26-27, 2014, ONSITE OBSERVATION VISIT REPORT FOR 

THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE F-TANK FARM FACILITY 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff conducted its fifth onsite observation 

visit, Observation 2014-01, to the F-Tank Farm (FTF) Facility at the Savannah River Site (SRS) 

on March 26-27, 2014. This is the first FTF onsite observation visit in Calendar Year 2014. On 

every onsite observation visit to SRS, NRC is focused on assessing compliance with four 

performance objectives in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, 

Subpart C: (1) protection of the general population from releases of radioactivity (§61.41), 

(2) protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion (§61.42), (3) protection of individuals 

during operations (§61.43), and (4) stability of the disposal site after closure (§61.44). 

For FTF Observation 2014-01 NRC focused on the monitoring areas and monitoring factors in 

the FTF Monitoring Plan, Rev. 0 (NRC, 2013b), as supplemented by NRC issued Technical 

Review Reports (TRRs) [(NRC, 2013e), (NRC, 2013f), (NRC, 2013h), (NRC, 2013m), and 

(NRC, 2013n)] since DOE issued the FTF final Waste Determination. Beginning with FTF 

Observation 2013-01, the NRC has included U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Region 4 in the monitoring activities at FTF because, for closed FTF tanks, South Carolina 

Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) will have lead regulatory authority 

and EPA will also have regulatory authority. After the entire FTF Facility is closed, EPA and 

SCDHEC will share regulatory authority through the SRS Federal Facility Agreement (FFA). 

NRC performs monitoring activities in coordination with the State, so SCDHEC staff also 

participated in FTF Observation 2014-01. EPA Region 4 staff also participated in FTF 

Observation 2014-01. 

As described in the Observation Guidance Memorandum for FTF Observation 2014-01 

(NRC, 2014), the NRC staff and DOE (i.e., includes DOE contractors throughout this report) 

discussed the following technical topics: (1) Closing FTF Tanks 5/6; (2) Implementation of 

radiation protection program, including as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), air 

monitoring, and final radiological data for Tanks 5/6 grouting; (3) Status of the high-level waste 

tank residual solids sample leaching experiments, including NRC’s comments on the DOE 

experimental plan; (4) Tanks 5/6 Special Analysis Technical Review Report, Features, Events, 

and Processes Analysis Technical Review Report, and review of environmental monitoring data; 

and (5) Earthquakes and other impacts on site stability. Also, there were other items discussed, 

such as the review of follow-up action items. This report provides a description of NRC 

activities during FTF Observation 2014-01, including observations made by NRC. 

NRC does not expect to close any of the 26 FTF monitoring factors or change the NRC staff 

Technical Evaluation Report overall conclusions as a result of this onsite observation visit. 

There were no FTF Open Issues before the March 2014 onsite observation visit and there were 

none opened during the onsite observation visit. Thus, there are currently no FTF Open Issues. 

The NRC staff received documentation and a DOE presentation (SRR-CWDA-2014-00029, 

Rev. 1) that pertained to the activities observed during FTF Observation 2014-02. The 

presentation that DOE provided to the NRC staff is accessible via the NRC’s document 

repository, the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), via 
- 2 - 

Accession No. ML14101A108. A technical presentation on “Radionuclide Release from Tank 

Waste Residual Solids” was provided, which is available in ADAMS via Accession 

No. ML14101A111. 

1.0 BACKGROUND: 

Section 3116(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (NDAA) 

authorizes DOE, in consultation with the NRC, to determine that certain radioactive waste 

related to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is not high-level waste, provided certain criteria 

are met. NDAA Section 3116(b) requires NRC to monitor DOE disposal actions to assess 

compliance with the performance objectives in 10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C. 

On September 30, 2010, DOE issued the draft FTF Waste Determination (DOE/SRS-WD-2010-

001, Rev. 0), which was provided to NRC for consultation under NDAA Section 3116(a). The 

purpose of the draft Waste Determination was to demonstrate DOE compliance with the criteria 

in NDAA Section 3116(a), including compliance with the performance objectives in 

10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C. In its consultation role, the NRC reviewed the draft Waste 

Determination and highlighted a number of technical concerns during a series of public 

meetings and requests for additional information. In October 2011, NRC documented the 

results of its review in the FTF TER (NRC, 2011). In the TER, NRC made a number of 

recommendations that NRC believes, if implemented by DOE, will enhance the DOE 

demonstration that FTF disposal actions would meet the performance objectives in 

10 CFR Part 61, Subpart C during the FTF closure process. Taking into consideration the 

information and recommendations in the NRC TER, DOE completed a number of studies that 

were referenced in the final FTF Waste Determination that DOE issued in March 2012 

(DOE/SRS-WD-2012-001, Rev.0). DOE indicated that it predicated the final Waste 

Determination on extensive analyses and scientific rationale, including the final FTF 

Performance Assessment (SRS-REG-2007-00002, Rev. 1), as supplemented by the FTF Tanks 

18/19 Special Analysis (SRR-CWDA-2010-00124, Rev. 0). Taking into consideration the 

information in the NRC TER and the final FTF Waste Determination, NRC finalized and issued 

the FTF Monitoring Plan, Rev. 0 (NRC, 2013c), which was transmitted to DOE by letter dated 

January 23, 2013 (NRC, 2013b) and issued in a Federal Register Notice on February 21, 2013, 

(NRC, 2013c). 

To carry out its monitoring responsibility under NDAA Section 3116(b), NRC, in coordination 

with the State site regulator – SCDHEC, performs three types of activities: (1) technical 

reviews, (2) onsite observation visits, and (3) data reviews. Those activities focus on both: 

(1) key modeling assumptions identified in the NRC FTF Monitoring Plan, Rev. 0 (NRC, 2013b), 

as supplemented by the NRC TRRs [(NRC, 2013e), (NRC, 2013f), (NRC, 2013h), (NRC, 

2013m), and (NRC, 2013n)]; and (2) the DOE disposal actions. Technical reviews generally 

focus on review of information generated to provide support for key assumptions that DOE 

made in the FTF Performance Assessment. Onsite observation visits generally are performed 

to either: (1) observe the collection of data and review the data to assess consistency with 

assumptions made in the FTF final Waste Determination; or (2) observe key disposal or closure 

activities related to technical review areas. Data reviews supplement technical reviews by 

focusing on monitoring data that may indicate future system performance or reviewing records 

or reports that can be used to directly assess compliance with the performance objectives. 

 
- 3 - 

2.0 NRC ONSITE OBSERVATION VISIT ACTIVITIES: 

On February 27, 2014, NRC issued the Observation Guidance for the March 26-27, 2014, 

onsite observation visit, FTF Observation 2014-01 (NRC, 2014). An Observation Guidance is a 

plan for what NRC expects to cover during an onsite observation visit, which may not be 

followed based on what happens during the onsite observation visit. 

FTF Observation 2014-01 began with a short briefing on the agenda presented by DOE 

contractor, Savannah River Remediation (SRR) that was attended by representatives from 

DOE, NRC, SCDHEC, and EPA Region 4. Afterwards, there were welcoming remarks and 

introductions. The following topics were technical discussions between NRC and DOE during 

FTF Observation 2014-01: (1) Closing FTF Tanks 5/6; (2) Implementation of radiation 

protection program; including ALARA, air monitoring, and final radiological data for Tanks 5/6 

grouting; (3) Status of the high-level waste tank residual solids sample leaching experiments, 

including NRC’s comments on the DOE experimental plan; (4) Tanks 5/6 Special Analysis 

Technical Review Report, Features, Events, and Processes Analysis Technical Review Report, 

and review of environmental monitoring data; and (5) Earthquakes and other impacts on site 

stability. Also, there were other items discussed, such as the review of follow-up action items. 

2.1 Technical Discussion – Closing of FTF Tanks 5/6: 

2.1.1 Observation Scope: 

Using the NRC FTF Monitoring Plan, Rev. 0 (NRC, 2013b), NRC monitors DOE disposal 

actions to assess compliance with 10 CFR 61.41 and 10 CFR 61.42 performance objectives for 

tank closure activities through Monitoring Area 3 (Cementitous Material Performance) under: 

Monitoring Factor 3.2 (Groundwater Conditioning), Monitoring Factor 3.3 (Shrinkage and 

Cracking), Monitoring Factor 3.4 (Grout Performance), and Monitoring Factor 3.6 (Use of 

Stabilizing Grout (As It Pertains to ALARA)). 

2.1.2 Observation Results: 

NRC discussed with DOE information about “tank closure” terms, closure of FTF Tanks 5/6, and 

other related items. Highlights of that Technical Discussion are the following: 

Regarding “tank closure terms”: 

• DOE provided context regarding the various “closure” terms, including: 

o in the Federal Facilities Agreement, a tank that is “removed from service” is the 

same as “operational closure,” which means that the tank is no longer used as a 

high-level waste tank; 

o after SCDHEC and EPA final approval of closure documentation and SCDHEC 

inspection, DOE sends a letter to SCDHEC requesting “removal of a tank from 

the South Carolina Industrial Wastewater (SCIW) Permit,” which is a partial 

closure of the SCIW permit and means that the tank cannot be used again in the 

future. Prior to removal from the permit, an Interim Record of Decision is 

completed by DOE, SCDHEC and EPA which SCDHEC incorporates into the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit; and 

 
- 4 - 

o using the term “closed” in plain language documents and presentations to 

members of the general public, which indicates that DOE does not plan to use 

the tank again. 

• EPA indicated that “closure” is used to describe a tank that has been grouted. 

Regarding closure of FTF Tanks 5/6: 

• Prior to the onsite observation visit, NRC requested that DOE provide Tanks 5/6 grouting 

video, five accepted and five rejected Tanks 5/6 batch tickets (if available), Tanks 5/6 

grouting schedule, and Tanks 5/6 Final Configuration Report, or inputs, if Report was not 

available yet. 

• DOE provided inputs to the FTF Tanks 5/6 Final Configuration Report because the 

Report was not yet complete, the Report will be a follow-up action item, and the other 

items were provided by DOE prior to the onsite observation visit. 

• NRC staff questions and DOE responses related to (1) grout formulation and testing, 

(2) calculation of void volumes; (3) strategy for tank and annulus grouting, (4) strategy 

for cooling coil grouting and (5) grouting video are discussed below: 

Grout Formulation and Testing

• NRC staff inquired about correlation between water-to-cement ratios and slump because 

review of data for Tanks 18/19 revealed no strong correlation. 

• DOE indicated viscosity modifying admixtures were used to control slump that would 

decrease the correlation between water-to-cement ratio and slump. 

o Same maximum water-to-cement ratio of 0.57 was used for grouting of 

Tanks 18/19 and grouting of Tanks 5/6. 

o Higher slump was needed for Tanks 5/6 to increase flowability of grout in tanks 

with cooling coils. 

o Acceptable slump was obtained at the batch plant and 20.3 litres (8.0 gallons) of 

water was withheld to allow DOE to adjust slump with water additions after grout 

was delivered to the site, if needed. 

 Only water could be used to adjust slump at the site. 

• NRC staff inquired about records of any non-conformances identified during testing of 

the grout and an assessment of the extent to which any non-conformances may have 

impacted the integrity of the production grout. 

• DOE identified the following grout testing anomalies: (1) test cylinder curing room 

temperature and humidity instrumentation was not functioning for a period of time; 

(2) timing of test cylinder compressive strength testing for 17 cylinders was not within 

specification due to the partial stop-work during lapse in appropriations; and (3) grout 

placed in Tank 6 on September 19, 2013, had excess water content (i.e., <3% excess). 

o Excess water was a result of grout supplier setting the mix with a positive hold on 

water, which resulted in a one gallon per cubic yard increase over what was 

requested by the procurement specification. 
- 5 - 

o Even though that grout was outside the procurement specification, it was still 

within the American Society for Testing and Materials specification. 

• NRC staff inquired about the maximum water-to-cement ratio observed for the 

September 19, 2013, placements. 

Calculation of Void Volumes

• DOE indicated that estimates of volume of grout delivered to the tanks and ancillary 

equipment were based on 8 cubic yards of grout per truck. 

• DOE indicated that one grout truck could grout three to four risers. 

o Riser volume estimates were based on grouting time by knowing the total time it 

took to completely discharge the contents of one grout truck and the time it took 

to fill a riser. 

o Therefore, riser volume estimates should not be considered very accurate. 

Strategy for Tank and Annulus Grouting

• NRC staff inquired about: (1) which risers corresponded to which cameras in the video; 

and (2) whether grout was poured through multiple risers throughout grouting process. 

• In the onsite observation visit presentation, DOE provided a diagram identifying the 

video channels to each riser for both Tanks 5/6. 

o Preferred riser locations were used for each lift to facilitate even grout placement. 

o Additional risers (other than the preferred risers) could have been used if 

needed, but those risers were not needed during Tanks 5/6 grouting. 

• NRC staff inquired about water added to the tremmie at the beginning or end of the day. 

• DOE clarified that no water was used. 

o Slickwillie tremmie lubricant was used at the beginning of the day and, at the end 

of the day, a “pig” was used to clean the line by air injection. 

• NRC staff inquired about DOE concerns or lessons learned from grouting Tanks 5/6. 

Strategy for Cooling Coil Grouting

• NRC staff inquired about: (1) strategy for grouting both intact and failed cooling coils and 

how the strategy followed the recommendations in WSRC-STI-2008-00298; and 

(2) strategy for reducing air entrainment during grout pumping operations for Tank 5/6 

cooling coils. 

• DOE indicated the ability to use a manually operated pump to control the pressure and 

flow in order to reduce air entrainment, if needed. 

• DOE indicated that the grout was introduced in a vertical orientation whenever possible 

and that the liquid-to-liquid interface with the grout and the water used to flush the coils 

prior to grouting was maintained in order to follow the recommendations in WSRC-STI2008-00298 as closely as possible. 
- 6 - 

• DOE discussed the results of cooling coil grouting and indicated: 

o Tank 5 had seven failed cooling coils and Tank 6 had nine failed coils. 

o All failed cooling coils for Tanks 5/6 from inlet and outlet were successfully 

grouted. 

o Out of 56 intact coils for Tanks 5/6: 

 51 were successfully grouted. 

 2 were only partially filled and DOE suspected that it was due to not 

adequately cleaning the grout line prior to the fill, which allowed grout 

residue to plug the line. 

 2 had known holes and DOE believed that they were plugged during bulk 

fill grouting activities. 

 1 had a stoppage of grouting due to high radiation rates and when 

grouting resumed, the already poured grout had set, which prevented 

further grouting. 

• NRC staff inquired about: (1) controlling temperature of the grout in the cooling coils; 

and (2) whether temperature caused any abnormalities in coiling coil grouting. 

• DOE indicated that temperature was not a contributing factor related to grouting any of 

the five partially filled intact coiling coils. 

o Grout was delivered more slowly in the experiments described in WSRC-STI2008-00298 versus the speed of actual grouting, such that temperature rise was 

less of a concern in actual grouting. 

• NRC staff inquired about the measured flow and pressure during cooling coils grouting.

• DOE indicated that flow was measured, but pressure was not measured because the 

pump would automatically shut down when it reached a maximum pressure.

Grout Video

• DOE discussed: (1) improvements of video quality from Tank 18/19 grouting to Tanks 

5/6 grouting; and (2) how helpful it was to have multiple cameras. 

• NRC staff inquired about potential mislabeling of a portion of video from the morning of 

August 22, 2013, for the DVD labeled “Tank 5 Lift 3,” which contained some video 

labeled “Tank 6” on the actual video. 

• DOE clarified that all video labeling is correct for the morning of August 22, 2013, (i.e., a 

portion of the video from the morning of August 22, 2013, is Tank 6 video). 

• NRC staff inquired about the volume of Slickwillie (i.e., lubricant that is a pumping aid for 

grout) that was added to Tanks 5/6. 

• DOE provided an estimate of the amount of Slickwillie that was added for each day of 

grouting of Tanks 5/6. 

• NRC staff and DOE reviewed portions of the video where NRC staff identified a concern 

about shrinkage of dried grout away from the tank walls or cooling coils. 
- 7 - 

• DOE indicated that it believed that it was too soon after grout pouring for shrinkage to 

occur and that the dark line at the edge of the tank was Slickwillie. 

• NRC staff and DOE reviewed portions of the video where NRC staff identified a concern 

about non-self-leveling of grout and segregation of grout components as the grout 

flowed toward the periphery of the tanks (i.e., areas where Slickwillie appeared to form 

puddles on top of grout). 

• DOE indicated that the work order was modified to allow pumping off the Slickwillie 

lubricant when the grouting reached the top of the tanks, but that was not needed 

because it was believed that the lubricant had been absorbed or evaporated by the time 

the top of the tanks were grouted. 

• NRC staff and DOE reviewed portions of the annulus video during Lift 3, where grout 

was poured into the interior of the duct. 

• NRC staff observed that video showed grout backing up and spilling out of the register 

openings in certain locations and then overtopping the duct and pouring in through the 

registers at ‘downstream’ locations. 

• DOE indicated that the backup may have been due to the smaller diameter of the duct in 

certain locations. 

o DOE reiterated confidence that all areas of the duct had been filled with grout 

and referred to the video showing grout flowing both inside and outside the duct. 

• NRC staff and DOE reviewed portions of the annulus video during Lift 5, where the 

Slickwillie enters through the duct vent registers. 

• NRC staff inquired about the potential impact on the quality of the grout that filled the top 

portion of the interior of the duct. 

• DOE indicated the strategy was to fill the smaller diameter portion of the ventilation duct, 

so that Slickwillie would be pushed back toward the larger diameter portion of the duct, 

and then the Slickwillie would eventually be pushed out by grout filling the larger 

diameter portion of the ventilation that took longer to fill. 

Regarding FTF and HTF tank leak site information: 

• Prior to the onsite observation visit, DOE provided information on tank leak sites (SRS 

High Level Waste Tank Crack and Leak Information, C-ESR-G-00003, Rev. 10). 

• DOE indicated that Tank 4 had a total of four leak sites, which are located near the top 

of the tank. 

• DOE clarified that the logic used to determine that tanks were initially failed in the HTF 

Performance Assessment was not used for the FTF Performance Assessment. 

 
- 8 - 

Regarding status of lysimeter testing: 

• Prior to the onsite observation visit, DOE provided information on lysimeter testing 

(Determination of Constituent Concentration in Field Lysimeter Effluents, FY13 Final 

Report, Task 2: Lysimeter Leachate Chemistry, SRR-CWDA-2013-00121, Rev. 0). 

• DOE indicated that the lysimeter testing report will be updated annually. 

• NRC staff inquired about characterization of the lysimeters following the experiments to 

complement the information obtained from analysis of the lysimeter effluent. 

• DOE indicated planned staggered dissections of some of the lysimeters at 2-, 5-, and 

10- years after start of the experiments. 

• NRC staff indicated that predictive modeling of the lysimeters could provide important 

insights into the release and modeling of contaminants from the cementitious materials 

and soils. 

NRC staff discussed with DOE other related items, including the following: 

• A previous follow-up action item was: DOE to provide NRC with Idaho grout drop report, 

“Grout/CLSM Testing and Selection for the INTEC Tank Farm Closure, EDF-6715.”

• DOE provided that Idaho drop report to NRC and it is in ADAMS as ML060810244. 

• A previous follow-up action Item was: DOE to provide NRC with basis for the 10-foot 

grout drop height used in FTF Tanks 18/19 grouting.

• DOE indicated that the 10-foot drop height was based on an industry standard, not the 

American Concrete Institute standard. 

o During grouting of Tanks 18/19, DOE performed visual observation to ensure that 

the 10-foot drop height did not lead to segregation. 

o DOE indicated that the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) grout expert 

(i.e., C. Langton) recommended visual observation of drop heights greater than 

5-foot to evaluate the potential for segregation, given the higher slump grout 

used for grouting of Tanks 5/6. 

o DOE stated that, “Tanks 5/6 grouting was all performed at <5-foot drop and so 

the 10-foot drop height was not utilized.” 

o DOE indicated future plans for testing higher drop heights, up to 40 feet high, 

because higher drop heights would lead to a reduction in both worker radiation 

exposure and worker risk associated with cutting and replacing tremmies. 

• NRC staff followed up on questions and findings in the NRC Technical Review of Tanks 

18/19 Grouting (ML13269A365), including DOE documentation of: (1) trial batching, 

(2) adiabatic temperature rise calculations, (3) moisture retention measurements over 

the range of 15 to 45 bars (see recommendation in SRNL-STI-2011-00551), and 

(4) grout density (see differences in values in Table 3-4 and Table 3-5 in SRNL-STI2011-00551). 
- 9 - 

• DOE indicated that the Fiscal Year 2014 Performance Assessment Maintenance Plan 

(Savannah River Site Liquid Waste Facilities Performance Assessment Maintenance 

Program – FY2014 Implementation Plan, SRR-CWDA-2013-00133) was recently 

transmitted to NRC with the reference DVD provided with the submittal of the Crosswalk 

of Select Documents Related to the Monitoring Programs for the Saltstone Disposal 

Facility, SRR-CWDA-2014-00002. 

• NRC staff reiterated that the primary concerns with grouting are the potential for 

shrinkage and development of preferential pathways through the tank grout. 

• NRC confirmed that DOE added shrinkage and shrinkage compensating formulation 

testing to the most recent Performance Assessment Maintenance Plan. 

2.1.3 Conclusions and Follow-up Actions: 

NRC will continue to monitor DOE FTF activities. The following follow-up actions resulted from 

that technical discussion: 

• DOE to provide NRC with Tanks 5/6 Final Configuration Report. 

• DOE to provide NRC with documentation relative to nonconformance reports for 

Tanks 5/6 grouting (i.e., excess water and grout curing conditions). 

• DOE to provide NRC with available information regarding adiabatic temperature rise in 

tank fill grout. 

• DOE to provide NRC with documentation relative to completion of full-scale batching 

(i.e., qualification testing), as recommended on page 24 in SRNL-STI-2011-00551. 

• DOE to provide NRC with information relative to differences in grout density values listed 

in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 of SRNL-STI-2011-00551. 

• DOE to provide NRC with information regarding DOE decision to not utilize shrinkage 

compensating admixtures in tank grout formulation. 

• DOE to provide NRC with documentation of Work Order modification, which added the 

steps for potentially removing excess liquid during riser fill activities. 

• DOE to provide NRC with the total volume of tremmie lubricant (i.e., Slickwillie) added to 

Tanks 5/6 during grouting activities. 

• DOE to provide NRC with the water-to-cement ratios for all batch tickets from grouting 

activities on September 19 and 23, 2013. 

• DOE to provide NRC with documentation on Tanks 5/6 grouting lessons-learned. 

 
- 10 - 

2.2 Technical Discussion – Implementation of Radiation Protection Program: 

2.2.1 Observation Scope: 

Using the NRC FTF Monitoring Plan, Rev. 0 (NRC, 2013b), NRC monitors DOE disposal 

actions to assess compliance with 10 CFR 61.43 performance objective for tank closure 

activities through Monitoring Area 7 (Protection of Individuals During Operations) under 

Monitoring Factor 7.1 (Protection of Workers During Operations), Monitoring Factor 7.2 (Air 

Monitoring), and Monitoring Factor 7.3 (As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable). 

2.2.2 Observation Results: 

NRC discussed with DOE about implementation of the radiation protection program and other 

related items. Highlights of that Technical Discussion are the following: 

• NRC staff requested the post-ALARA job report for Tanks 5/6 grouting. 

• NRC staff requested the criteria for DOE to determine whether a post-ALARA review is 

needed. 

• NRC staff requested the location of alpha and beta/gamma surveys reported on postALARA job reports. 

• NRC staff requested to walk-down the FTF radiation detection and sampling 

instrumentation with DOE during a future onsite observation visit. 

• DOE indicated that instrument locations do not change significantly over time and that 

activity could be performed during a future onsite observation visit. 

• NRC staff indicated that a comprehensive review of the DOE radiation protection 

program is planned for a future onsite observation visit. 

o After that comprehensive review, NRC would use a graded approach in 

subsequent reviews (e.g., review a limited number of documents related to 

higher radiologically-risk activities). 

2.2.3 Conclusions and Follow-up Actions:

NRC staff will continue to monitor DOE FTF activities. The following follow-up actions resulted 

from that technical discussion: 

• DOE to provide NRC with Tanks 5/6 Grouting Post Job ALARA Reviews. 

• DOE to provide NRC with an example survey log sheet (e.g., survey log associated with 

Tank 5 crawler sampling reported in Post-Job ALARA Review [11-FTF-147]). 

• DOE to provide NRC the SRS site procedure governing Post-Job ALARA Reviews. 
- 11 - 

• DOE to provide NRC with 2013 Facility Annual Review of Monitoring Systems (FARMS) 

F-Tank Farm Facility, SRR-FSH-2013-00024. 

2.3 Technical Discussion – Status of Tank Residual Solids Sample Leaching Experiments: 

2.3.1 Observation Scope: 

Using the NRC FTF Monitoring Plan, Rev. 0 (NRC, 2013b), NRC monitors DOE disposal 

actions to assess compliance with 10 CFR 61.41 and 10 CFR 61.42 performance objectives for 

tank closure activities through Monitoring Area 2 (Waste Release) under Monitoring Factor 2.1 

(Solubility Limiting Phases/Limits and Validation) and Monitoring Factor 2.2 (Chemical 

Transition Times and Validation). 

2.3.2 Observation Results: 

DOE provided an overview presentation of the status of tank residual solids sample leaching 

experiments (“Radionuclide Release from Tank Waste Residual Solids,” SRNL-STI-2014-

00117, Rev. 0). NRC and DOE discussed the information in the presentation and the NRC 

November 18, 2013, comments on the DOE experimental plan (“Task Technical and Quality 

Assurance Plan for Determining the Radionuclide Releases from Tank Waste Residual Solids,” 

SRNL-RP-2013-00203, Rev. 0). Highlights of that Technical Discussion are the following: 

• DOE identified two possible testing methodologies: (1) controlled atmosphere vessel 

and (2) zero head space. 

o Zero-head space method was used with sealed glass vials. 

o Although there was no vapor space, the liquid was equilibrated prior to sealing 

the vials with an atmosphere consistent with the specific conditions that were 

being investigated. 

• DOE indicated that Tank 18 surrogate samples included the following radionuclides: 

Uranium (U), Neptunium (Np), Plutonium (Pu), and Technetium (Tc). 

o Solids were prepared mimicking chemical conditions of the PUREX processing 

and precipitated from an acidified solution. 

o Tc in the samples did not co-precipitate. 

o DOE did not characterize the Pu in the samples for co-precipitation because of 

its low concentration. 

o Minimum ratio of iron to constituent is needed to co-precipitate Tc and Pu. 

• DOE indicated that the following Eh-pH pore-water conditions were targeted: 

Condition Eh (mV) pH 

Reduced Region II (RR2) -470 11.1 

Oxidized Region II (OR2) +560 11.1 

Oxidized Region III (OR3) +680 9.2 

• NRC staff discussed that the targeted Eh-pH pore-water conditions are a good starting 

point to provide more bounding Eh-pH conditions. 
- 12 - 

o If the solubility is relatively high under the bounding conditions, then the 

conditions could be constrained to find the critical Eh-pH envelope. 

• DOE indicated that the pore-water Eh values were not as reducing or as oxidizing as the 

targeted reducing and oxidizing conditions. 

o Tank 18 surrogate solids may have contributed to the lower-than-targeted Eh for 

the oxidizing conditions, potentially due to the presence of a reduced manganese 

phase. 

o Closed experimental system may have depleted the oxygen to concentrations 

lower than expected for field conditions. 

• DOE indicated that the addition of Tank 18 surrogate solids generally resulted in an 

increase in the pH, due to the basicity of the surrogate solids. 

• DOE indicated that samples did not appear to have reached equilibrium with the 

cement/fly ash/blast furnace slag (CFS). 

o Experiments were carried out both with and without the CFS solids present after 

the initial equilibration period. 

o Samples that included the CFS solids after equilibration were generally more 

conditioned as the experiments progressed (i.e., lower Eh and higher pH). 

• DOE indicated that leach tests provided the following information on Pu and U release 

from the surrogate solids: 

o Pu concentrations were at or slightly above the lower limit of detection; 

o Pu and U release were similar for RR2 and OR2; 

 RR2 and OR2 in those experiments had similar Eh and pH values 

o Pu and U release increased under OR3, which had both a higher Eh and a lower 

pH; and 

o presence of CFS solids generally reduced Pu and U release. 

• DOE indicated that testing activities planned for Fiscal Year 2014 include: 

o reducing lower limit of detection for Pu in leachates; 

o extending equilibration period to reach equilibrium or steady-state conditions with 

the CFS solids; 

o studying effect of filter pore size on Pu and U release to evaluate potential 

presence of colloids; and 

o producing pore water conditions that are closer to the targeted values for RR2, 

OR2, and OR3, which may require additional reagents such as ferrous iron and 

peroxide. 

 includes performing OR2 and OR3 leaching tests in open containers to 

maintain dissolved oxygen concentrations for the duration of the test. 

 
- 13 - 

2.3.3 Conclusions and Follow-up Actions:

NRC will continue to monitor DOE FTF activities. The following follow-up actions resulted from 

that technical discussion: 

• NRC to arrange a follow-on telecon with DOE regarding on-going residual waste testing. 

• DOE to provide NRC with Task Technical and Quality Assurance Plan for Determining 

the Radionuclide Release from Tank Waste Residual Solids (SRNL-RP-2013-00203, 

Rev. 1). 

2.4 Technical Discussion – Tanks 5/6 Special Analysis Technical Review Report, Features, 

Events, and Processes Analysis Technical Review Report, and Review of Environmental 

Monitoring Data: 

2.4.1 Observation Scope: 

Using the NRC FTF Monitoring Plan, Rev. 0 (NRC, 2013b), NRC monitors DOE disposal 

actions to assess compliance with 10 CFR 61.41 and 10 CFR 61.42 performance objectives for 

tank closure activities through Monitoring Area 1 (Inventory) under Monitoring Factor 1.1 (Final 

Inventory and Risk Assessments), Monitoring Area 4 (Natural System Performance) under 

Monitoring Factor 4.2 (Calcareous Zone Characterization) and Monitoring Factor 4.3 

(Environmental Monitoring), and Monitoring Area 6 (Performance Assessment Maintenance) 

under Monitoring Factor 6.1 (Scenario Analysis). 

2.4.2 Observation Results: 

NRC discussed with DOE about the NRC Tanks 5/6 Special Analysis Technical Review Report 

(TRR). Highlights of that Technical Discussion are the following: 

• DOE Tanks 5/6 Special Analysis was well documented, which enabled NRC staff to 

understand the influence of successive parameter changes on the results of the 

Analysis. 

• Given the importance of the Niobium (Nb)-93 distribution coefficient (Kd) to the results of 

the DOE Tanks 5/6 Special Analysis, Nb site-specific Kds are needed for NRC staff to 

have reasonable assurance that 10 CFR Part 61 Performance Objectives could be met. 

• Technical concerns identified in NRC Tanks 18/19 Special Analysis TRR 

(ML13100A230) are also applicable to NRC Tanks 5/6 Special Analysis TRR, so are not 

repeated. 

o As detailed in NRC Tanks 18/19 Special Analysis TRR, the NRC FTF Monitoring 

Plan (ML12212A192) provides a path forward for DOE to address all of the 

technical concerns discussed in that TRR. 

• Prior to the onsite observation visit, DOE provided the report “Impact of Cementitious 

Leachate on Se, Nb, and Ra Partitioning” (SREL Document No. R-13-0005), which was 

performed primarily for the saltstone disposal facility (SDF). 
- 14 - 

• NRC staff provided general and more specific preliminary comments about the Report. 

o Additional data from the experiments (e.g., results from the control samples) 

would be helpful to verify that precipitation did not occur in the experiments. 

o Additional information to verify that the use of 2% H2 (g) did not contribute to 

reduction of redox-sensitive radionuclides reducing conditions would be helpful. 

o Limited information is available in the literature on Nb solubility, but what is there 

shows the solubility of Nb may be slightly higher than the experiments. 

o Nonetheless, given the potential risk-significance of Nb, DOE should provide 

additional information to demonstrate that Nb was not saturated in the 

experiments, which would potentially invalidate the site specific Kds. 

o Soils used in the experiments may not be representative of subsurface soils at 

the FTF (i.e., SDF soils used may have had a higher clay content than the clay 

content of the FTF sandy soils that comprise the Upper Three Runs Aquifer). 

NRC discussed with DOE about the NRC Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs) Analysis 

Technical Review Report, which will soon be issued. Highlights of that Technical Discussion 

are the following: 

• DOE identification of FEPs was generally adequate. 

• FEPs Screening Team Membership was heavily weighted towards the performance 

assessment area and did not contain subject matter experts in other key areas. 

• Due to issues with transparency and documentation traceability, NRC staff does not 

have confidence that all relevant FEPs were adequately considered in the FTF 

Performance Assessment. 

• NRC staff expects that the DOE FEPs Analysis issues will be addressed under the DOE 

performance assessment maintenance program, as a longer-term activity. 

NRC discussed with DOE about implementation of the environmental monitoring program and 

other related items. Highlights of that Technical Discussion are the following: 

• NRC requested various environmental monitoring documents on a yearly basis. 

• NRC staff indicated that a review of the DOE environmental monitoring program is 

planned for a future onsite observation visit. 

2.4.3 Conclusions and Follow-up Actions: 

NRC staff will continue to monitor DOE FTF activities. The following follow-up actions resulted 

from that technical discussion: 

• DOE to provide NRC with 2013 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report for the F- and HArea Radioactive Liquid Waste Tank Farms. 

• DOE to provide NRC with the 2013 groundwater reports for GSA Eastern and Western 

Operable Units. 
- 15 - 

2.5 Technical Discussion – Earthquakes and Other Impacts on Site Stability: 

2.5.1 Observation Scope: 

Using the NRC FTF Monitoring Plan, Rev. 0 (NRC, 2013b), NRC monitors DOE disposal 

actions to assess compliance with 10 CFR 61.44 performance objective for tank closure 

activities through Monitoring Area 8 (Site Stability) under Monitoring Factor 8.1 (Settlement). 

2.5.2 Observation Results: 

NRC discussed with DOE about earthquakes and other impacts on site stability. Highlights of 

that Technical Discussion are the following: 

• NRC staff inquired about the recent 4.1 magnitude earthquake that occurred on 

February 14, 2014, in South Carolina. 

• DOE indicated that a walkdown of SRS had been conducted after the earthquake. 

o No observed effects at SRS due to the earthquake. 

o Magnitude of the earthquake at SRS was less than the design basis event. 

• NRC staff discussed on-going NRC contractor waste tank structural analysis calculations 

to evaluate the static and dynamic site stability aspects related to FTF tanks 

(e.g., Type IV tank basemats). 

2.5.3 Conclusions and Follow-up Actions: 

NRC staff will continue to monitor DOE FTF activities. The following follow-up actions resulted 

from that technical discussion: 

• DOE to provide NRC with documentation available regarding DOE response to recent 

4.1 magnitude earthquake that occurred on February 14, 2014, in South Carolina. 

• NRC to arrange a follow-on telecon with DOE regarding on-going NRC waste tank 

structural analysis calculations. 

• DOE to provide NRC with any additional documentation available regarding tank farm 

structural analysis. 

3.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS, STATUS OF MONITORING AREAS, MONITORING 

FACTORS, OPEN ISSUES, AND OPEN FOLLOW-UP ACTION ITEMS; AND 

ISSUANCE OF NRC TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORTS: 

3.1 Overall Conclusions: 

The information gathered during FTF Observation 2014-01 will be used for multiple NRC 

Technical Review Reports via memoranda and future onsite observation visits, based on the 

topics discussed. There is no change to the NRC staff overall conclusions from the FTF TER 

regarding compliance of DOE disposal actions with the 10 CFR Part 61 performance objectives. 
- 16 - 

3.2 Status of Monitoring Factors in FTF Monitoring Plan, Rev. 0: 

FTF Observation 2014-01 is the fourth onsite observation visit under the FTF Monitoring Plan 

(NRC, 2013b). NRC staff did not close any monitoring factors during FTF Observation 2014-01. 

Therefore, all 26 Monitoring Factors (i.e., 1.1 – 1.5, 2.1 – 2.2, 3.1 – 3.6, 4.1 – 4.3, 5.1 – 5.3, 6.1 

– 6.3, 7.1 – 7.3, 8.1), including similar ones for different performance objectives, in the FTF 

Monitoring Plan, Rev. 0 remain open. 

3.3 Status of Open Issues for FTF Monitoring: 

Previously, there were no FTF Open Issues. The NRC staff did not open any new Open Issues 

during FTF Observation 2014-01. Therefore, there are currently no FTF Open Issues. 

3.4 Status of Open Follow-up Action Items from Previous FTF Onsite Observation Visit 

Reports: 

There were four previous NRC FTF onsite observation visits. The status of open follow-up 

action items from the publicly available reports for those onsite observation visits is listed below: 

• Report for FTF Observation 2012-01 (June 12, 2012) (NRC, 2012b) with Guidance 

issued on June 4, 2012, (NRC, 2012a): All Action Items completed.

• Report for FTF Observation 2012-02 (September 26-27, 2012) (NRC, 2012d) with 

Guidance issued on August 23, 2012, (NRC, 2012c): All Action Items completed.

• Report for FTF Observation 2013-01 (March 27-28, 2013) (NRC, 2013h) with Guidance 

issued on February 25, 2013, (NRC, 2013d): All Action Items completed.

• Report for FTF Observation 2013-02 (August 27-28, 2013) (NRC, 2013o) with Guidance 

issued on July 29, 2013, (NRC, 2013l): All Action Items completed.

3.5 Status of Open Follow-up Action Items from Clarifying Teleconference Calls: 

Between FTF Observation 2013-02 and FTF Observation 2014-01, NRC did not hold any 

clarification teleconference calls with DOE. The status of one open follow-up action item from a 

previous publicly available teleconference call summary is listed below: 

• Summary of May 1, 2013, Clarifying Teleconference Call – Tank 18 Grouting Operation 

Videos from FTF, May 24, 2013, (NRC, 2013g). One Action Item not yet completed: 

DOE to provide in writing or in another NRC telecon a response to the NRC main points 

about water segregation and the NRC observations of Tank 18 grouting videos.

3.6 Issuance of NRC Technical Review Reports: 

Between FTF Observation 2013-02 and FTF Observation 2014-01, NRC issued two FTF 

Technical Review Reports via memorandum: 
- 17 - 

• “Technical Review of Tanks 5 And 6 Special Analysis at F-Tank Farm Facility, Savannah 

River Site,” October 4, 2013, ML13273A299. (NRC, 2013m) 

• “Technical Review: U.S. Department of Energy Documentation Related to Tanks 18F 

and 19F Final Configurations with an Emphasis on Grouting from Recommendations 

and Testing to Final Specifications and Procedures,” October 30, 2013, ML13269A365. 

(NRC, 2013n) 

4.0 PARTICIPANTS:

U. S. NRC SCDHEC U.S. EPA 

Region 4

U.S. DOE SRR SRNL

George Alexander Byron Amick Martha Berry Dan Ferguson Greg Arthur David Hobbs 

Cynthia Barr Leigh Beatty Sherri Ross Joel Cantrell 

Harry Felsher Barry Mullinax Mark Layton 

Leah Parks Scott Simons Mark Mahoney 

Greg Suber Bruce Martin 

 John Occhipinti 

 Larry Romanowski 

 Kent Rosenberger 

 James Rush 

 Steve Thomas 

 Cliff Winkler 

5.0 REFERENCES:

10 CFR Part 61, Federal Register, “Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive 

Waste,” Code of Federal Regulations, Office of the Federal Register, January 2001. 

U.S. Congress, “Public Law 108-375, Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2005, Section 3116, Defense Site Acceleration Completion,” October 2004. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), DOE Manual 435.1-1, “Radioactive Waste Management 

Manual, Change 1,” June 2001, ML110800193. 

_____, DOE Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management,” August 2001, ML101590125. 

_____, WSRC-STI-2008-00298, “Closure of HLW Tanks – Phase 2 Full Scale Cooling Coils 

Grout Fill Demonstrations,” June 1, 2008, ML13238A043. 

_____, SRS-REG-2007-00002, Rev. 1, “Performance Assessment for the F-Tank Farm at the 

Savannah River Site,” March 31, 2010, ML102850339. 

_____, DOE/SRS-WD-2010-001, Rev. 0, “Draft Basis for Section 3116 Determination for 

Closure of F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site,” September 30, 2010, ML102790078. 

_____, SRR-CWDA-2010-00124, Rev. 0, “Tank 18/Tank 19 Special Analysis for the 

Performance Assessment for the F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site,” February 2012. 
- 18 - 

_____, DOE/SRS-WD-2012-001, Rev.0, “Basis for Section 3116 Determination Closure of FTank Farm at Savannah River Site,” March 2012, ML121140051. 

_____, SRNL-RP-2013-00203, Rev. 0, “Task Technical and Quality Assurance Plan for 

Determining the Radionuclide Releases from Tank Waste Residual Solids,” June 3, 2013, 

ML13253A221. 

_____, SRR-CWDA-2014-00029, Rev. 1, “DOE Presentation for Savannah River Site F-Tank 

Farm NRC Onsite Observation Visit on March 26-27, 2014,” March 27, 2014, ML14101A108. 

_____, SRNL-STI-2014-00117, “SRNL Presentation: Radionuclide Release from Tank Waste 

Residual Solids,” March 27, 2014, ML14101A111. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1854, “NRC Staff Guidance for Activities 

Related to U.S. Department of Energy Waste Determinations – Draft Final Report for Interim 

Use,” August 2007, ML072360184. (NRC, 2007) 

_____, “Technical Evaluation Report for F-Area Tank Farm Facility, Savannah River Site, South 

Carolina, Final Report,” October 2011, ML112371715. (NRC, 2011) 

_____, “Onsite Observation Guidance for June 11-12, 2012, Waste Monitoring Visit to the 

Savannah River Site, F-Area Tank Farm,” June 4, 2012, ML12135A666. (NRC, 2012a) 

_____, “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 12, 2012, Onsite Observation Report for the 

Savannah River Site F-Tank Farm Closure,” September 5, 2012, ML12191A210. (NRC, 2012b) 

_____, “Observation Guidance for September 26-27, 2012, Waste Monitoring Visit to the 

Savannah River Site, F-Area Tank Farm,” August 23, 2012, ML12228A631. (NRC, 2012c) 

_____, “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission September 26-27, 2012, Onsite Observation 

Report for the Savannah River Site F-Tank Farm Closure,” December 5, 2012, ML12299A190. 

(NRC, 2012d) 

_____, Letter from L. Camper to M. Gilbertson transmitting the NRC’s F-Area Tank Farm 

Monitoring Plan, Rev. 0, to DOE, “The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Planned 

Monitoring Activities for F-Area Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site,” January 23, 2013, 

ML12345A318. (NRC, 2013a) 

_____, “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Plan for Monitoring Disposal Actions Taken by 

the U.S. Department of Energy at the Savannah River Site F-Area Tank Farm Facility in 

Accordance With the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005,” January 2013, 

ML12212A192. (NRC, 2013b) 

_____, Federal Register Notice (FRN) – Notice of Issuance for NRC Plan for Monitoring 

Disposal Actions taken by DOE at the Savannah River Site F-Area Tank Farm,” February 21, 

2013, ML13046A192. (NRC, 2013c) 

_____, “Onsite Observation Guidance for March 27-28, 2013, Monitoring Visit to the Savannah 

River Site, F-Area Tank Farm,” February 25, 2013, ML13046A374. (NRC, 2013d) 
- 19 - 

_____, “Technical Review – Updated Cost-Benefit Analysis for Removal of Additional Highly 

Radioactive Radionuclides from Tank 18,” March 21, 2013, ML13080A401. (NRC, 2013e) 

_____, “Technical Review – ‘Tanks 18 and 19 Special Analysis for the Performance 

Assessment for the F-Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site,’ (SRR-CWDA-2010-00124, 

Rev. 0),” April 10, 2013, ML13100A230. (NRC, 2013f) 

_____, “Summary of May 1, 2013, Clarifying Teleconference Call between the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy Regarding Tank 18 Grouting 

Operation Videos from F-Area Tank Farm at the Savannah River Site,” May 24, 2013, 

ML13127A291. (NRC, 2013g) 

_____, “Technical Review – Waste Release and Solubility Related Documents Prepared by 

United States Department of Energy to Support Final Basis for Section 3116 Determination for 

the F-Area Tank Farm Facility Savannah River Site, May 31, 2013,” ML12272A082. 

(NRC, 2013h) 

_____, “Summary of May 8, 2013, Clarifying Teleconference Call between the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy Regarding F-Area Tank Farm 

Tanks 5/6 Special Analysis for the Savannah River Site,” June 3, 2013, ML13133A125. 

(NRC, 2013i) 

_____, “Summary of the May 15, 2013, Clarifying Teleconference Call between the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy Regarding F-Area Tank 

Farm Volume Mapping and Inventory for the Savannah River Site,” June 18, 2013, 

ML13150A219. (NRC, 2013j) 

_____, “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 27-28, 2013, Onsite Observation Report 

for the Savannah River Site F-Tank Farm Facility,” July 2, 2013, ML13113A322. (NRC, 2013k) 

_____, “Onsite Observation Guidance for August 27-28, 2013, Monitoring Visit to the Savannah 

River Site, F-Area Tank Farm,” July 29, 2013, ML13196A134. (NRC, 2013l) 

_____, Technical Review of Tanks 5 And 6 Special Analysis at F-Tank Farm Facility, Savannah 

River Site,” October 4, 2013, ML13273A299. (NRC, 2013m) 

_____, “Technical Review: U.S. Department of Energy Documentation Related to Tanks 18F 

and 19F Final Configurations with an Emphasis on Grouting from Recommendations and 

Testing to Final Specifications and Procedures,” October 30, 2013, ML13269A365. 

(NRC, 2013n) 

_____, “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission August 27-28, 2013, Onsite Observation Report 

for the Savannah River Site F-Tank Farm Facility,” November 12, 2013, ML13267A452. 

(NRC, 2013o) 

_____, “Onsite Observation Guidance for March 26-27, 2014, Monitoring Visit to the Savannah 

River Site, F-Area Tank Farm,” February 27, 2014, ML14045A215. (NRC, 2014)