Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
--> An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks Committee on Technologies for Cleanup of High-Level Waste in Tanks in the DOE Weapons Complex Board on Radioactive Waste Management Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1999
OCR for page R2
--> NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This work was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, Contract No. DE-FC01-94EW54069. All opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Energy. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government, and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. International Standard Book Number 0-309-06183-0 Additional copies of this report are available from: National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Ave., NW, Box 285 Washington, DC 20055 800-624-6242 202-334-3313 (in the Washington Metropolitan Area) http://www.nap.edu Copyright 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
--> COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGIES FOR CLEANUP OF HIGH-LEVEL WASTE IN TANKS IN THE DOE WEAPONS COMPLEX B. JOHN GARRICK, Chair, PLG Inc. (retired), Newport Beach, California VICKI M. BIER, University of Wisconsin, Madison ALLEN G. CROFF, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee MARSHALL E. DRUMMOND*, Eastern Washington University, Cheney JOHN H. ROECKER, Consultant, Colbert, Washington CLAUDE G. SOMBRET, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique (retired), Villeneuve Les Avignon, France MARTIN J. STEINDLER, Argonne National Laboratory (retired), Downers Grove, Illinois RAYMOND G. WYMER, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (retired), Tennessee Staff ROBERT S. ANDREWS, Senior Staff Officer ERIKA L. WILLIAMS, Research Assistant PATRICIA A. JONES, Senior Project Assistant LAURA D. LLANOS, Project Assistant * Resigned from committee May 15, 1998
OCR for page R4
--> BOARD ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT MICHAEL C. KAVANAUGH, Chair, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Oakland, California JOHN F. AHEARNE, Vice Chair, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, and Duke University, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina ROBERT J. BUDNITZ, Future Resources Associates, Inc., Berkeley, California MARY R. ENGLISH, University of Tennessee, Knoxville DARLEANE C. HOFFMAN, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, California JAMES H. JOHNSON, JR., Howard University, Washington, D.C. ROGER E. KASPERSON, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts JAMES O. LECKIE, Stanford University, Stanford, California JANE C. S. LONG, University of Nevada, Reno CHARLES McCOMBIE, International Consultant, Wettingen, Switzerland WILLIAM A. MILLS, Oak Ridge Associated Universities (retired), Olney, Maryland D. WARNER NORTH, Northworks, Inc., Mountain View, California MARTIN J. STEINDLER, Argonne National Laboratory (retired), Argonne, Illinois JOHN J. TAYLOR, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California MARY LOU ZOBACK, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California BRWM Staff KEVIN D. CROWLEY, Director ROBERT S. ANDREWS, Senior Staff Officer THOMAS E. KIESS, Senior Staff Officer JOHN R. WILEY, Senior Staff Officer SUSAN B. MOCKLER, Research Associate TONI GREENLEAF, Administrative Associate ROBIN L. ALLEN, Senior Project Assistant PATRICIA A. JONES, Senior Project Assistant ANGELA R. TAYLOR, Senior Project Assistant LATRICIA C. BAILEY, Project Assistant LAURA D. LLANOS, Project Assistant
OCR for page R5
--> COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT, AND RESOURCES GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, Chair, University of Virginia, Charlottesville RICHARD A. CONWAY, Union Carbide Corporation (retired), S. Charleston, West Virginia THOMAS E. GRAEDEL, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut THOMAS J. GRAFF, Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, California EUGNIA KALNAY, University of Oklahoma, Norman DEBRA KNOPMAN, Progressive Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. KAI N. LEE, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts RICHARD A. MESERVE, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C. JOHN B. MOONEY, JR., J. Brad Mooney Associates, Ltd., Arlington, Virginia HUGH C. MORRIS, El Dorado Gold Corporation, Vancouver, British Columbia H. RONALD PULLIAM, University of Georgia, Athens MILTON RUSSEL, University of Tennessee, Knoxville THOMAS C. SCHELLING, University of Maryland, College Park ANDREW R. SOLOW, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida E-AN ZEN, University of Maryland, College Park MARY LOU ZOBACK, United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California Staff ROBERT M. HAMILTON, Executive Director GREGORY H. SYMMES, Associate Executive Director CRAIG SCHIFFRIES, Associate Executive Director for Special Projects JEANETTE SPOON, Administrative and Financial Officer SANDI FITZPATRICK, Administrative Associate MARQUITA SMITH, Administrative Assistant/Technology Analyst
OCR for page R6
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R7
--> Acknowledgement of Reviewers This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council (NRC) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the NRC in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals, who are neither officials nor employees of the NRC, for their participation in the review of this report: Robert J. Budnitz, Future Resources Associates, Inc. Gregory R. Choppin, Florida State University Donald R. Gibson, TRW Defense Services Harry D. Harmon, Harmon Consulting William E. Kastenberg, University of California William A. MacCrehan, III, National Institute of Standards and Technology Richard A. Meserve, Covington & Burling D. Warner North, Northworks, Inc. Frank L. Parker, Vanderbilt University John L. Swanson, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (retired) While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, it must be emphasized that responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the NRC.
OCR for page R8
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R9
--> Contents Summary 1 The Approach, 1 An Example, 3 Conclusions and Recommendations, 5 1 Introduction 9 High-Level Waste Tanks, 10 Tank Waste Remediation Technology Development Program, 13 Layout of the Report, 14 2 Conceptual Approach to Defining Technology Development Requirements Based on End State Criteria 15 Definition, Purpose, and Meaning of An End State Based Approach, 15 Benefits and Limitations of the Approach, 18 Characterizing the Initial State, 20 Reference and Alternative Scenarios, 20 End State Specifications, 22 Defining Functional Flowsheets and Requirements, 23 Functional Flowsheets Consolidation, 24 Functional Requirement Allocation, 24 Technology Assessment, 24 Performing Technology Development, 26 Summary, 26 3 Example of an End State Based Analysis of Technology Development Needs for the Hanford Tanks 29 Scope, 30 Conditions Affecting Scenario Specification, 30 End State Analysis, 33 Development of Functional Flowsheets, 38 Functional Flowsheet Consolidation, 51 Summary, 51
OCR for page R10
--> 4 Results of an End State Based Analysis of Technology Development Needs for the Hanford Tanks 53 Technology Development Program for Hanford Tank Wastes, 54 Technology Assessment for Selected Functions of the Scenarios, 55 Summary and Conclusions, 63 5 Conclusions and Recommendations 64 The End State Methodology, 64 The Hanford Example, 67 DOE Tank Waste Remediation Technology Development Program, 68 General Factors, 69 Abbreviations and Acronyms 71 Glossary 72 References 74 Appendix A: Summary of Scenario-Based Studies of the Remediation of High-Level Waste in Tanks 79 Appendix B: Management Strategies for Remediation of High-level Waste at the Hanford Site 84 Appendix C: Statement of Task 90 Appendix D: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 91
OCR for page R11
--> Figures and Tables Figure 1 DOE Tank Sites 11 Figure 2 Two Basic Types of Hanford Tanks 12 Figure 3 Process for Using End State Criteria to Derive Technology Development Requirements 17 Figure 4 Committee's Reference and Plausible Bounding Scenarios and Functional Flowsheets for Hanford Site Tanks and Associated Wastes 41 Figure 5 Committee's Reference and Plausible Bounding Scenarios and Functional Flowsheets for Hanford Site Tanks and Associated Wastes (same of Figure 4), with Functions Selected for Discussion in This Report Shown in Bold Outlined Boxes 56 Table 1 Waste Tanks in the DOE EM Remediation Area Program by Site 11 Table 2 Waste Volumes for the Hanford Tanks, as of May 31, 1998 33 Table 3 Selected Impacts of Hanford Tank Waste Remediation Alternatives 39 Table 4 Committee's Reference Hanford Tank Remediation Scenario—Concentration Goals for Key Radionuclides in Low-Activity Waste (LAW) for the Purposes of Planning Technology Development 44 Table 5 Extensive Separations Hanford Tank Remediation Scenario—Concentration Goals for Key Radionuclides in Low-Activity Waste (LAW) for the Purposes of Planning Technology Development 50 Table 6 Department of Energy Office of Science and Technology Projects on Enhanced Sludge Washing 59 Table 7 Department of Energy Office of Science and Technology Projects on Enhanced Barriers 62
OCR for page R12
This page in the original is blank.