National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×

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.

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×

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

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1999. An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6366.
×
Page R12
Next: Summary »
An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $39.00 Buy Ebook | $31.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

A major issue in the cleanup of this country's nuclear weapons complex is how to dispose of the radioactive waste resulting primarily from the chemical processing operations for the recovery of plutonium and other defense strategic nuclear materials. The wastes are stored in hundreds of large underground tanks at four U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites throughout the United States. The tanks contain hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of radioactive and hazardous waste. Most of it is high-level waste (HLW), some of it is transuranic (TRU) or low- level waste (LLW), and essentially all containing significant amounts of chemicals deemed hazardous. Of the 278 tanks involved, about 70 are known or assumed to have leaked some of their contents to the environment. The remediation of the tanks and their contents requires the development of new technologies to enable cleanup and minimize costs while meeting various health, safety, and environmental objectives.

While DOE has a process based on stakeholder participation for screening and formulating technology needs, it lacks transparency (in terms of being apparent to all concerned decision makers and other interested parties) and a systematic basis (in terms of identifying end states for the contaminants and developing pathways to these states from the present conditions). An End State Methodology for Identifying Technology Needs for Environmental Management, with an Example from the Hanford Site Tanks describes an approach for identifying technology development needs that is both systematic and transparent to enhance the cleanup and remediation of the tank contents and their sites. The authoring committee believes that the recommended end state based approach can be applied to DOE waste management in general, not just to waste in tanks. The approach is illustrated through an example based on the tanks at the DOE Hanford Site in southeastern Washington state, the location of some 60 percent by volume of the tank waste residues.

  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!