| Subject: |
FOIA
to DNFSB
|
Date: | 11/9/2015 9:36:02 A.M. Mountain Standard Time | From: | KatherineH@dnfsb.gov |
Mr. Leyse,
This is to notify you that a proper FOIA request has not been
received by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) per
§1703.105(b)(4) of the Board’s regulation which states:
No request shall be deemed to have been received until the
Board has:
(i) Received a statement of
willingness to pay, as indicated in §1703.105(b)(3)(i), or
(ii) Received and approved a request
for waiver or reduction of fees. However, the FOIA request shall be deemed to
have been received if the request for waiver or reduction of fees includes a
statement of willingness to pay the fee anticipated to be incurred in processing
the request under this section, or to pay that fee not to exceed a specific
amount, should the request for fee waiver or reduction be denied.
A copy of your email has been attached as a courtesy.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me
at (202) 694-7000, (800) 788-4016 (Toll Free), or e-mail me at KatherineH@dnfsb.gov providing
your assigned tracking number “FOIA 15-18” for reference.
Sincerely,
Katherine Herrera
Information/FOIA Officer
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
625 Indiana Ave., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004
Catherine Findlay
From: Bobleyse@aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 12:26 PM
To: FOIA
Subject: My FOIA to DNFSB
This FOIA is from:
Robert H. Leyse P.O. Box 2850 Sun Valley, ID 83353
Telephone: (208-622-7740)
The DOE has already told me that I will receive no response to the following FOIA unless I
agree to pay a lot of money. I WILL PAY NOTHING. Of course, it is the business of the
DNFSB to be cognizant of this FOIA, and I want a prompt response.
Under this FOIA I am requesting all records that led to the decision to use the steam reforming
technology, the decision that is recorded in Reference 1.
Reference 1 DOE/EIS-0287 http://www.id.energy.gov/insideNEID/hlw_rod.pdf
Reference 2 INEEL/EXT-04-01493
http://www5vip.inl.gov/technicalpublications/documents/2553196.pdf
Reference 3 ICP/EXT-04-00172
http://www5vip.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/2542723.pdf
Reference 1 is the RECORD OF DECISION For The Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities
Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement, December 2005. Following are four
sentences that are copied from Reference 1.
DOE has decided to treat SBW using the steam reforming technology. (page1)
DOE then issued a Federal Register Notice (70 FR 44598, August 3,2005) that announced steam
reforming as DOE's preferred treatment technology for SBW. (page 5)
DOE identified steam reforming as its preferred treatment technology for SBW after
consideration of public comment and the following factors: technical maturity, environment,
safety and health (ES&H), schedule, and programmatic risk, as presented in the Final EIS. DOE
also considered the cost of the various alternatives. ( page 14)
DOE believes steam reforming provides the best value to the Government and meets its need
for treatment flexibility, acceptable cost, and probability of success. (page 17)
From the above four sentences it is clear that DOE decided to treat SBW using the steam
reforming technology and it made that decision during 2005.
Moving to Reference 2, INEEL/EXT-04-01493, Phase 2 THOR Steam Reforming Tests for
Sodium-Bearing Waste Treatment , January 2004, the following is copied from page vii:
Recommendations
Several areas were identified where additional testing and technology
development/demonstration.
These areas are:
• Control of the carbonate bed particle size growth by incorporation of a particle size
management system to produce/introduce seed particles into the bed
• Improving the mineralized product density
• Improved reducing potential and NOx destruction while making a mineralized product
• Increasing retention of product in the bed particles and better solid carbon utilization by
recycling more fines than were captured and recycled by the cyclone used during the test series
• Improved performance of key system components, including the gas distributor, the bed drain,
and the feed nozzle
• Operation for longer periods of time to demonstrate long-term performance
Under this FOIA I am requesting all records that led to the decision to use the steam reforming
technology, the decision that is recorded in Reference 1.These records must include documents
that record the performance of additional testing and technology/demonstration as recommended
in Reference 2, especially the need for improved performance of key system components and the
need to demonstrate long-term performance.
Moving to Reference 3, ICP/EXT-04-00172, Converting Simulated Sodium-Bearing Waste into
a Single Solid Waste Form By Evaporation: Laboratory- and Pilot-Scale Test Results on
Recycling Evaporator Overheads, January 2004, the following is copied from page 48:
5. CONCLUSIONS
At full‐scale evaporator operations, handling of the bottoms product will be an issue as
demonstrated by the bottoms plugging incident during pilot‐scale tests.
And the following is copied from page 50:
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
• Full‐scale testing is recommended primarily to verify that the bottoms discharge system is
reliable when designing the production facility. It should not be assumed that components such
as valves, piping, or pumps would function reliably with a hot, viscous bottoms product material
whose properties change readily with temperature, concentration, and time.
Under this FOIA I am requesting all records that led to the decision to use the steam reforming
technology, the decision that is recorded in Reference 1.These records must include documents
that record the performance of additional testing and technology/demonstration as recommended
in Reference 3, especially the recommendation for full-scale testing to verify that the bottoms
discharge system is reliable.
Catherine Findlay
From: Bobleyse@aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 12:26 PM
To: FOIA
Subject: My FOIA to DNFSB
This FOIA is from:
Robert H. Leyse P.O. Box 2850 Sun Valley, ID 83353
Telephone: (208-622-7740)
The DOE has already told me that I will receive no response to the following FOIA unless I
agree to pay a lot of money. I WILL PAY NOTHING. Of course, it is the business of the
DNFSB to be cognizant of this FOIA, and I want a prompt response.
Under this FOIA I am requesting all records that led to the decision to use the steam reforming
technology, the decision that is recorded in Reference 1.
Reference 1 DOE/EIS-0287 http://www.id.energy.gov/insideNEID/hlw_rod.pdf
Reference 2 INEEL/EXT-04-01493
http://www5vip.inl.gov/technicalpublications/documents/2553196.pdf
Reference 3 ICP/EXT-04-00172
http://www5vip.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/2542723.pdf
Reference 1 is the RECORD OF DECISION For The Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities
Disposition Final Environmental Impact Statement, December 2005. Following are four
sentences that are copied from Reference 1.
DOE has decided to treat SBW using the steam reforming technology. (page1)
DOE then issued a Federal Register Notice (70 FR 44598, August 3,2005) that announced steam
reforming as DOE's preferred treatment technology for SBW. (page 5)
DOE identified steam reforming as its preferred treatment technology for SBW after
consideration of public comment and the following factors: technical maturity, environment,
safety and health (ES&H), schedule, and programmatic risk, as presented in the Final EIS. DOE
also considered the cost of the various alternatives. ( page 14)
DOE believes steam reforming provides the best value to the Government and meets its need
for treatment flexibility, acceptable cost, and probability of success. (page 17)
From the above four sentences it is clear that DOE decided to treat SBW using the steam
reforming technology and it made that decision during 2005.
Moving to Reference 2, INEEL/EXT-04-01493, Phase 2 THOR Steam Reforming Tests for
Sodium-Bearing Waste Treatment , January 2004, the following is copied from page vii:
Recommendations
Several areas were identified where additional testing and technology
development/demonstration.
These areas are:
• Control of the carbonate bed particle size growth by incorporation of a particle size
management system to produce/introduce seed particles into the bed
• Improving the mineralized product density
• Improved reducing potential and NOx destruction while making a mineralized product
• Increasing retention of product in the bed particles and better solid carbon utilization by
recycling more fines than were captured and recycled by the cyclone used during the test series
• Improved performance of key system components, including the gas distributor, the bed drain,
and the feed nozzle
• Operation for longer periods of time to demonstrate long-term performance
Under this FOIA I am requesting all records that led to the decision to use the steam reforming
technology, the decision that is recorded in Reference 1.These records must include documents
that record the performance of additional testing and technology/demonstration as recommended
in Reference 2, especially the need for improved performance of key system components and the
need to demonstrate long-term performance.
Moving to Reference 3, ICP/EXT-04-00172, Converting Simulated Sodium-Bearing Waste into
a Single Solid Waste Form By Evaporation: Laboratory- and Pilot-Scale Test Results on
Recycling Evaporator Overheads, January 2004, the following is copied from page 48:
5. CONCLUSIONS
At full‐scale evaporator operations, handling of the bottoms product will be an issue as
demonstrated by the bottoms plugging incident during pilot‐scale tests.
And the following is copied from page 50:
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
• Full‐scale testing is recommended primarily to verify that the bottoms discharge system is
reliable when designing the production facility. It should not be assumed that components such
as valves, piping, or pumps would function reliably with a hot, viscous bottoms product material
whose properties change readily with temperature, concentration, and time.
Under this FOIA I am requesting all records that led to the decision to use the steam reforming
technology, the decision that is recorded in Reference 1.These records must include documents
that record the performance of additional testing and technology/demonstration as recommended
in Reference 3, especially the recommendation for full-scale testing to verify that the bottoms
discharge system is reliable.
No comments:
Post a Comment