Skip to main content

Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Review #4 (2020) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

4 The Committee's Observations and Responses to Comments
Pages 26-30

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 26...
... The committee notes that the Oregon Department of Energy's letter contains a detailed review of the literature on this topical area, and here, the committee provides its response on the main themes of that letter. The letter from the Oregon Department of Energy raises two main points related to the disposal of grout at Hanford: (1)
Read the entire page →
From page 27...
... The Department of Ecology has yet to issue a permit based on the PA, and in the Department of Ecology's submitted written comments, it states that since the 2012 Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement, it has been known that "some of the secondary waste would have to be treated with improved grout formulations. Vitrification alternatives analysis should not be unfairly penalized by treating the secondary waste with lesser performing grout." In contrast, the WCS facility has an approved PA and waste acceptance criteria as part of a license to operate.
Read the entire page →
From page 28...
... This is why the committee emphasizes in Review #3 that one of the principal contributions of the FFRDC study is to "[open] the door to serious consideration of other disposal locations, specifically the WCS facility near Andrews, Texas, and possibly the EnergySolutions facility near Clive, Utah." Concerning additional engineered changes to the IDF, the committee acknowledges the Department of Ecology's comment that Review #3 "appeared to advocate consideration of enhancing the disposal facility design to enhance the performance of each waste form….
Read the entire page →
From page 29...
... In light of these interrelated systems across the landscape, network of rivers and wetlands, and the long temporal period for some radionuclides, the committee recognizes the serious concerns of many stakeholders and members of the public. In particular, the committee calls attention to concerns about climatic impacts, risks of major flooding, and seismic events that have not yet been taken into account for all waste forms.
Read the entire page →
From page 30...
... • Performance of steam reformed waste forms (for the case of disposal at the IDF) When assessing the readiness of various technologies, the committee suggests that assessors use a rigorous structured assessment process such as that described in DOE's Technology Readiness Assessment Guide (DOE, 2011b)
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • waste forms
  • bulk vitrification
  • disposal facility
  • oregon department
  • secondary waste

  • grout waste
  • radionuclide speciation
  • facility near
  • waste control
  • waste management

  • committee calls
  • hanford challenge
  • radionuclide release
  • performing grout
  • oxidation state

  • ffrdc report
  • integrated disposal
  • control specialists
  • performance requirements
  • magnesium oxide

  • coal combustion
  • near andrews
  • written comments
  • level waste
  • waste treatment

  • describe waste
  • transuranic waste
  • specific waste
  • particular waste
  • waste isolation


    • 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.