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:
1 Context and Setting
1 Context and Setting
Pages 7-15
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 7... ...
PROPOSED TREATMENT PLAN AND CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE TO ANALYZE AND REVIEW THE ANALYSIS OF SUPPLEMENTAL TREATMENT APPROACHES The salient points for understanding the proposed treatment plan and the congressional mandate are the following. DOE-EM has proposed to retrieve the waste from the tanks to produce two waste streams, high-level waste (HLW)
|
From page 8... ...
3134 highlights the necessity of consultation with the State of Washington and an opportunity for it to comment on the FFRDC's draft report and the committee's review of that report. The committee received invited presentations during the 1 For clarity, to the extent possible, this review report uses the nomenclature of the team for the FFRDC's investigators, the committee for the National Academies committee, the draft report for the FFRDC team's work, and the review or review report for the committee's work.
|
From page 9... ...
TABLE 1-1 List of the FFRDC's Presentations, given on July 23-24, 2018, in Richland, Washington Presentation No. Title 1 FFRDC Team Overview -- Bill Bates 2 Baseline, Feed Vector, Uncertainties -- Michael Stone 3 Analysis Approach -- Tom Brouns 4 Base and Variant Case Overview -- Michael Stone 5 Pretreatment Approaches -- Michael Stone 6 "Other" Considerations -- Tom Brouns 7 Vitrification Cases -- Alex Cozzi 8 Grout Cases -- George Guthrie 9 Steam Reforming Cases -- Nick Soelberg 10 Transportation and Disposal Site Considerations -- Paul Shoemaker 11 Estimate Methodology and Results -- Frank Sinclair 12 Analysis Results -- Sharon Robinson 13 Summary -- Bill Bates TABLE 1-2 Planned Schedule of Forthcoming Public Meetings, FFRDC Reports, and Committee Reviews Timing Activity June 8, 2018 The committee's first review report was published; the FFRDC received this review report to take into account during its continued work on the analysis.
|
From page 10... ...
A freeflowing section of the Columbia River, the Hanford Reach, forms the northern boundary of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The availability of electricity from the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River was a major factor in choosing the Hanford Site during the Manhattan Project.
|
From page 11... ...
• We want the natural and cultural resources to be protected, restored, clean, and safe to use. He also emphasized that members of his tribe do not view Hanford with the same time perspective as do many others, stating, "We have been here for 10,000 years." This review report adds the voice of Alfrieda Peters, a representative of the Yakama Nation, who also spoke of the tribal and personal connections to the Columbia River and of the importance she gave to the land surrounding it: • Since time immemorial, our ancestors fished, hunted, and gathered food on this land.
|
From page 12... ...
VITRIFICATION, THE CONCEPT OF "AS GOOD AS GLASS" FOR OTHER WASTE FORMS, AND WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS During the three public meetings, the committee heard strong views, especially from representatives of the Washington State Department of Ecology, in favor of using a vitrified waste form for SLAW. Because the selection of the SLAW treatment approach is central to this study, this section provides context for the Washington State Department of Ecology's position.
|
From page 13... ...
Data in DOE's Final Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, Washington, dated November 2012, appear to support the Washington State Department of Ecology's position that the non-vitrified waste forms being considered for SLAW treatment are not "as good as glass" or have significant uncertainties as to whether they are "as good as glass." For example, page S-75 of the Environmental Impact Statement states: Because the release rates for [Immobilized] glass are low and are supported by experiment, there is less uncertainty regarding this waste form compared to bulk vitrification glass, cast stone waste [grout type waste form]
|
From page 14... ...
The committee notes that the Washington State Department of Ecology's presentation on July 23, 2018, mentioned that the need for SLAW could be overtaken by events, for example: "If DOE optimizes the operation of current facilities and glass loading." Alternatively: "If DOE foregoes pretreatment and replaces it with Direct Feed HLW." And finally: "If DOE considers off-site (out of state) disposal of LAW at Waste Control Specialists in Texas." As a major party to the TPA and as the Washington State environmental regulatory agency, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the State officials to which it reports obviously have a key role, if not the key role, in determining whether to permit non-vitrified waste forms in the IDF.
|
From page 15... ...
These four processes are additional SLAW pre-treatment, off-gas treatment, secondary waste, and load (SLAW feed rate) leveling and waste blending.
|
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.