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?



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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?