National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Attachment A: Committee on Cesium Processing Alternatives for High-Level Waste at the Savannah River Site
Suggested Citation:"Attachment B: Letter of Request for This Study." National Research Council. 1999. Interim Report -- Committee on Cesium Processing Alternatives for High-Level Waste at the Savannah River Site. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9703.
×

ATTACHMENT B
LETTER OF REQUEST FOR THIS STUDY

The Under Secretary of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

June 28, 1999

Dr. Bruce Alberts

Chair, National Research Council

National Academy of Sciences

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418

Dear Dr. Alberts:

I am writing to request that the National Research Council conduct an independent technical review of the alternatives the Department of Energy is considering for processing the high-level radioactive waste (HLW) salt solutions as the Savannah River Site (SRS). The Department will probably select one of these alternatives as the preferred alternative. We will use the other alternatives as backup/technically viable to replace the In-Tank Precipitation (ITP) process on which work was stopped recently because of technical problems.

SRS was established during the early 1950s in support of the defense mission to produce plutonium and other materials for nuclear weapons. The 40-plus years of nuclear material production at the SRS has resulted in the generation of approximately 34 million gallons of high-level radioactive waste which is currently stored in large underground tanks at the site.

About 90 percent of this volume is comprised of salts and salt solutions that contain high levels of radioactive cesium, which was to be removed by the ITP process prior to treatment and immobilization. A systems engineering evaluation of all high-level waste salt separation processes was recently completed as a result of the problem with the ITP process. The Department is now considering three alternative processes to address the cesium removal problem.

The treatment of the HLW salts is a complex and costly technical challenge for the Department. The Department has spent about $489 million since 1983 at the SRS to design and construct facilities for cesium removal and is faced with the challenge of selecting and implementing an alternative process. We are proceeding with some urgency to identify an alternative to avoid costly disruptions to ongoing waste processing activities at the site. I am commmitted to ensuring that our decisions on a path forward have a sound technical basis.

Suggested Citation:"Attachment B: Letter of Request for This Study." National Research Council. 1999. Interim Report -- Committee on Cesium Processing Alternatives for High-Level Waste at the Savannah River Site. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9703.
×

For several decades the National Research Council’s advice to the Department has been helpful in its efforts to bring good science and technology to bear in the environmental management program. I believe that the Council can now assist the Department as we proceed to identify and implement an alternative process for processing the HLW salt solutions at the SRS. Therefore, I would like to request that the Council review and make recommendations on the alternative options that have been recommended for processing the HLW salt solutions at the SRS. I would like this review to address the following points:

  • Was an appropriately comprehensive set of cesium partitioning alternatives identified and are there other alternatives that should be explored?

  • Was the process used to screen the alternatives technically sound and did its application result in the selection of appropriate preferred alternatives?

  • Are there significant barriers to the implementation of any of the preferred alternatives taking into account their state of development and their ability to be integrated into the existing SRS HLW system?

  • Are the planned R&D activities, including pilot-scale testing, adequate to support implementation of a single preferred alternative?

Members of my staff have been in contact with Dr. Kevin Crowley of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management to discuss this project and develop the work scope for a National Research Council review I would like this review to begin immediately so that we can use the Council’s advice prior to making a final decision in April 2000.

Additionally, I would like to receive a preliminary report from the Council by the end of September 1990 that identifies significant issues or problems with the alternatives so that we can factor this advice into our draft environmental impact statement (EIS). Following issuance of the draft EIS. I would expect the availability of your final report during the public comment period.

Suggested Citation:"Attachment B: Letter of Request for This Study." National Research Council. 1999. Interim Report -- Committee on Cesium Processing Alternatives for High-Level Waste at the Savannah River Site. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9703.
×

Mr. Ralph Erickson and his staff are the Department’s principal points of contact for this work. The Environmental Management Program will fund this project under the cooperative agreement with the Council’s Board on Radioactive Waste Management (DE-FC01-99EW59049).

I appreciate the Council’s help on this very important project.

Sincerely,

Earnest J. Moniz

Suggested Citation:"Attachment B: Letter of Request for This Study." National Research Council. 1999. Interim Report -- Committee on Cesium Processing Alternatives for High-Level Waste at the Savannah River Site. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9703.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Attachment B: Letter of Request for This Study." National Research Council. 1999. Interim Report -- Committee on Cesium Processing Alternatives for High-Level Waste at the Savannah River Site. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9703.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Attachment B: Letter of Request for This Study." National Research Council. 1999. Interim Report -- Committee on Cesium Processing Alternatives for High-Level Waste at the Savannah River Site. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9703.
×
Page 13
Next: Attachment C: Background on the High-Level Waste Program at Savannah River »
Interim Report -- Committee on Cesium Processing Alternatives for High-Level Waste at the Savannah River Site Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  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!