National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Tank Waste Retrieval, Processing, and On-site Disposal at Three Department of Energy Sites: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11618.
×

Executive Summary1

The U.S. Congress asked the National Academies to evaluate the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) plans for retrieval and on-site disposal of certain radioactive wastes2 stored in underground tanks at three DOE sites3 and to make recommendations to improve those plans. The major results of this evaluation are summarized below. Readers are strongly encouraged to read the full report and particularly the findings and recommendations for further details.

  • DOE’s overall approach for management and disposal of tank wastes is workable, but important technical and programmatic challenges remain. In particular, the essential question, How clean is clean enough? applies to all cleanup activities and does not have a unique, numerical solution. The amount of waste to be retrieved from these tanks and how much of that should be disposed on-site is a decision in which DOE must consider a range of technical and nontechnical factors, including technical capabilities for waste retrieval and radionuclide separation from the removed wastes; cost, both in terms of dollars spent and worker doses incurred per increment of risk reduction achieved; and the potential risks from other wastes to be left on-site. DOE should pursue a more risk informed, consistent, participatory, and transparent process for making decisions about how much waste to retrieve from each of its tanks or group of tanks, and how much of that waste to dispose at each of the three sites.

  • Only 2 of the 246 tanks at the three sites have been cleaned out and backfilled with grout, and none has had a permanent cover installed. At this early stage in the process, there is still time to develop tools and processes to address problems described here and in the full report. DOE should initiate a targeted, aggressive, collaborative research program to develop and deploy needed innovative technologies for tank waste retrieval, treatment, closure, and disposal.

  • DOE’s current knowledge of tank waste characteristics is adequate for retrieving waste from tanks at all three sites. DOE needs to know the waste composition in greater detail for processing purposes and to confirm compliance with performance objectives, but this must be done after waste retrieval when mixing makes representative sampling of the retrieved waste possible and when samples of the tank heels can be taken.

  • DOE should decouple its schedule for tank waste retrieval from its schedule for tank closure for those tanks that still contain significant amounts of radioactive material after initial waste retrieval is completed. More broadly, because decisions about planned disposal activities require multiple inputs, DOE should not make decisions based solely on schedule conformance. Decoupling will enhance future opportunities to remove additional radioactive material from these tanks as retrieval technologies are improved. If implemented properly, decoupling for individual tanks need not delay the final closure of the tank farms. There is little technical advantage in the accelerated closure of the tanks.

  • DOE plans to make waste determinations for individual tanks and small groups of tanks. Documents demonstrating compliance with performance objectives will be generated for each draft waste determination. The ongoing review of draft determinations by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and host

1

A detailed summary of the committee’s report is presented in the next chapter.

2

These wastes are the result of reprocessing spent fuel and targets from defense reactors and contain radionuclide concentrations above Class C quantities as defined in Title 10, Part 61 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 61).

3

The Savannah River Site, South Carolina; Hanford Site, Washington; and Idaho National Laboratory.

Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Tank Waste Retrieval, Processing, and On-site Disposal at Three Department of Energy Sites: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11618.
×

states, as required by the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of 2005 (NDAA) and the state-approved closure plans it demands, is improving the technical quality and public transparency of DOE’s planning efforts. DOE should continue to seek transparent, independent peer review of critical data and analyses used to support decisions about tank waste retrieval, processing, and disposal even if review is not required under the NDAA.

  • DOE is just beginning to develop plans for post-closure monitoring of closed tank farms and associated disposal sites. The main objective of this monitoring is to verify compliance with the performance objectives in 10 CFR 61. However, some of the assumptions made in DOE’s waste determinations need to be confirmed. Therefore, DOE should develop plans now for a post-closure monitoring program and begin to build provision for monitoring into its tank closures and disposal facilities.

The report provides several site-specific findings and recommendations; these are summarized below:

  • Savannah River Site: The committee has serious reservations about aspects of DOE’s plans for tank closure, including the point of compliance and assumptions about exposure scenarios and waste inventories remaining after tank cleanup. The committee is also concerned about DOE’s plans to dispose of large inventories of radionuclides in the Saltstone Vaults on-site, and that the tank space crisis may lead DOE to dispose of additional radioactive material on-site. To reduce the quantities of radionuclides to be disposed of on-site, DOE should develop alternates or enhancements to the deliquification, dissolution, and adjustment treatment process to solve its tank space problems.

  • Hanford Site: The committee also has reservations about DOE’s plans to use bulk vitrification as a secondary process for treating low-activity waste for on-site disposal. DOE should arrange for a transparent, independent, technical review of the bulk vitrification process to assess its performance and safety.

  • Idaho National Laboratory: DOE is making good progress in tank cleanup and closure.

A number of other significant issues will have to be resolved by DOE. The committee did not examine these issues in depth because DOE has not developed detailed plans for them, as yet, but DOE should review and resolve these issues with deliberate speed.

  • These include remediation of plugged and leaking underground pipes and interwall spaces in double-walled tanks; the disposition of calcine bin waste at the Idaho site; regulatory approvals for the off-site disposal of some Hanford tank waste and Idaho sodium-bearing tank waste; the philosophy and methodology for post-closure monitoring; and plans for carrying out long-term stewardship, including how the federal government will maintain control “in perpetuity” at sites unsuitable for unrestricted release.

Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Tank Waste Retrieval, Processing, and On-site Disposal at Three Department of Energy Sites: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11618.
×
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Executive Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Tank Waste Retrieval, Processing, and On-site Disposal at Three Department of Energy Sites: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11618.
×
Page 2
Next: Summary »
Tank Waste Retrieval, Processing, and On-site Disposal at Three Department of Energy Sites: Final Report Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $84.00 Buy Ebook | $64.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

DOE Tank Waste: How clean is clean enough? The U.S. Congress asked the National Academies to evaluate the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) plans for cleaning up defense-related radioactive wastes stored in underground tanks at three sites: the Hanford Site in Washington State, the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, and the Idaho National Laboratory. DOE plans to remove the waste from the tanks, separate out high-level radioactive waste to be shipped to an off-site geological repository, and dispose of the remaining lower-activity waste onsite. The report concludes that DOE’s overall plan is workable, but some important challenges must be overcome—including the removal of residual waste from some tanks, especially at Hanford and Savannah River. The report recommends that DOE pursue a more risk-informed, consistent, participatory, and transparent for making decisions about how much waste to retrieve from tanks and how much to dispose of onsite. The report offers several other detailed recommendations to improve the technical soundness of DOE's tank cleanup plans.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!