Review of the Draft Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Review #2 (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Summary
Summary
Pages 1-6
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
In general, the committee intends for the suggestions to provide useful guidance for the FFRDC in the next phase of its analysis and for the recommendations to be actions that the FFRDC should definitely carry out to meet the congressional 1 According to DOE's Radioactive Waste Manual, low-activity waste means the waste that remains after as much of the radionuclides as technically and economically practicable have been removed from the tank waste, and that when immobilized in waste forms, may be disposed as low level waste in a near surface facility, as long as the waste meets criteria in the Waste Incidental to Reprocessing determination. Supplemental treatment refers to processing of the low-activity waste that is excess to that portion to be treated as part of the WTP.
|
From page 2... ...
, the final report is required to provide a costbenefit analysis. The committee observes that the draft report provides cost-estimation analysis, which is one component, but does not discuss or list the benefits for consideration of each treatment option; thus, the draft report does not provide a cost-benefit analysis.
|
From page 3... ...
Recommendation 2-2 The final report should emphasize and describe in detail the most important differences among the alternatives with respect to the decision-relevant attributes, and present the areas of difference in a parallel format that enables ready and accurate comparison for the purposes of the selection of a preferred alternative by the decision-maker. ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT APPROACHES The FFRDC team presents three primary alternatives, together with variants on each: vitrification, grouting, and steam reforming.
|
From page 4... ...
near Andrews, Texas, at this time, there are only draft waste acceptance criteria for the IDF at Hanford, and those draft criteria are only for a vitrified LAW waste form. To make a comparison among the various waste forms for the IDF, the FFRDC proposes on page 27 of its draft report that it will perform an analysis that will include "documentation of the waste form release mechanisms, waste form and disposal site assumptions including configuration, inventory of key contaminants, recharge/infiltration, barrier life, waste form release rate parameters, values, and basis, and modeling/assessment tools employed." The committee agrees with this analytic approach and suggests that the FFRDC's final report provide a clear description of this analysis (including assumptions and approximations)
|
From page 5... ...
In order to have meaningful comparisons, it is important that similar degrees of conservatism in data and assumptions be used in these comparison analyses. It is also important in the FFRDC's final report to describe and discuss the conceptual models and supporting data underpinning the treatment of barriers.
|
From page 6... ...
according to direct estimation of what is known about each of those factors. Recommendation 5-2 While ranking alternative approaches according to individual criteria, as the FFRDC has done in the draft report, may inform the decision-maker, the FFRDC's final report should refrain from attempting or presenting a single or unified ranking of alternatives, or assigning priorities or weights to the criteria -- and thus avoid supplanting the role of the decision-maker.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.