Questions? Call 800-624-6242 About | Ordering | New Menu | Items in cart [0] SEARCH

Rights & Permissions Free Resources Display this book on your site! Related Titles Alternatives for High-Level Waste Salt Processing at the Savannah River Site Tank Waste Retrieval, Processing, and On-site Disposal at Three Department of Energy Sites: Final Report Other Related Titles Interim Report -- Committee on Cesium Processing Alternatives for High-Level Waste at the Savannah River Site (1999) Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources (CGER) Citation Manager Export the bibliographic data for this book in your chosen format Web Search Builder Use this book's key terms to search within this book, across our collection, or across the Web. Skim This Chapter Skim this chapter and use this chapter's key terms to search within this book. Reference Finder Paste in your own text to find books that relate to your topic. Citation Manager . "Attachment G: Statement of Task." Interim Report -- Committee on Cesium Processing Alternatives for High-Level Waste at the Savannah River Site. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1999. Please select a format: Page 27   E-mail Share on facebook Facebook Share on delicious Delicious Share on stumbleupon Stumble Share on twitter Twitter More Sharing ServicesMore The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. ATTACHMENT G STATEMENT OF TASK The committee will review the Department of Energy’s work to identify alternatives for separating cesium from high-level waste at the Savannah River site. This review will 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? Page 27 Letter from the Committee on Cesium Processing Alternatives for High-Level Waste at the Savannah River Site (1-9) Attachment A: Committee on Cesium Processing Alternatives for High-Level Waste at the Savannah River Site (10-10) Attachment B: Letter of Request for This Study (11-13) Attachment C: Background on the High-Level Waste Program at Savannah River (14-20) Attachment D: List of Report Reviewers (21-21) Attachment E: Documents Received by the Committee (22-25) Attachment F: Presentations Given During First Committee Meeting (26-26) Attachment G: Statement of Task (27-27)

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 27
ATTACHMENT G STATEMENT OF TASK The committee will review the Department of Energy’s work to identify alternatives for separating cesium from high-level waste at the Savannah River site. This review will 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?

Representative terms from entire chapter:

appropriately comprehensive