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:
Appendix E: Presentations at the Committee's Information-Gathering Meetings and List and Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period
Appendix E: Presentations at the Committee's Information-Gathering Meetings and List and Summary of Comments Received During the Public Comment Period
Pages 94-108
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 94... ...
, Bill Bates, project leader, SRNL, with Michael Stone, SRNL, and Thomas Brouns, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory • Perspective Regarding Congressional Interests about Cleanup at the Hanford Site, David Bearden, Congressional Research Service • Perspective from Government Accountability Office's Reports on Treatment Options for Low Activity Waste at the Hanford Site, David Trimble and Nathan Anderson, U.S. Government Accountability Office • Independent Assessment of Challenges Concerning Cleanup at the Hanford Site, Robert Alvarez, Senior Scholar, Institute for Policy Studies Public Comments • John Greeves, independent consultant • Suzanne Dahl, Washington State Department of Ecology • Geoff Fettus, Natural Resources Defense Council • Ian Pegg, Vitreous State Laboratory, The Catholic University of America PUBLIC MEETING #2: RICHLAND, WASHINGTON, FEBRUARY 28-MARCH 1, 2018 Invited Presentation • Introductory Remarks on DOE-ORP, Jon Peschong, DOE-ORP Presentations by Washington River Protection System's Contractors • Introduction, Jason Vitali • Hanford Low-Activity Waste Historical Overview, Dave Swanberg • System Plan 8 Baseline Case SLAW Sizing, Jeremy Belsher • History of Supplemental LAW Treatment Reviews, Dave Swanberg 94
|
From page 95... ...
Public Comments • Paul Flaherty, CHC Consulting, LLC, who made an oral presentation and submitted a written comment on behalf of Knauf Insulation • Vince Panesko, Retired from the Hanford Site • Don Alexander, Retired from DOE Submitted Written Comments at the Public Meeting • John Vienna, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory • John Williford, Chrysalis Technology Group, Ltd. • Tom Carpenter, Hanford Challenge Submitted Written Comments to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Darryl Siemer, a consulting scientist who is retired from the Idaho National Laboratory, submitted a number of comments via e-mail.
|
From page 96... ...
Stakeholder Presentation • Agency's Comments on the First FFRDC Draft Report and the Committee's First Review Report, Alex Smith, Washington State Department of Ecology FFRDC Team's Presentations • FFRDC Team Overview, Bill Bates (SRNL) • Baseline, Feed Vector, Uncertainties, Michael Stone (SRNL)
|
From page 97... ...
• Additional Discussion with the FFRDC Team PUBLIC MEETING #5: ATLANTA, GEORGIA, JANUARY 8, 2019 There were no formal presentations. The FFRDC team and the National Academies committee had a 3hour long discussion about the FFRDC's incomplete draft report and next steps toward completing the report.
|
From page 98... ...
Stakeholders' Presentations • Perspective from Tri-City Development Council (TRIDEC) , David Reeploeg, Vice President, TRIDEC • FFRDC Draft Report & NAS Review #3, Alex Smith, Program Manager, and Suzanne Dahl, Section Manager of Tank Waste Treatment, Washington State Department of Ecology • Perspective from the Hanford Communities and the Energy Communities Alliance, Pam Larsen, Executive Director, Hanford Communities • Office of River Protection Glass Science Program, Albert A
|
From page 99... ...
• Catherine Lee, expresses the position that the incomplete study does not yet provide the complete technical basis needed for a decision; asks that a final decision not be based on "least expensive" considerations but instead favor "most likely to contain radioactivity effectively for long periods of time"; in addition, asks for a decision to take into consideration what is acceptable for disposal outside of Washington state and notes that she is from Texas, September 5, 2019. • Steve March, chair, and Dan Solitz, vice chair, Oregon Hanford Cleanup Board, who sent a letter dated September 3, 2019, which referenced a briefing and paper from the Oregon Department of Energy's staff (the National Academies also received that paper on August 14, 2019, and Jeff Burright of the Oregon Department of Energy presented about the topics of this paper to the committee at the public meeting on October 31, 2019; that paper is part of the record for the comment period)
|
From page 100... ...
• Tom Carpenter, executive director, Hanford Challenge, and Marco Kaltofen, Ph.D., engineering consultant to Hanford Challenge, wants "to be clear that Hanford Challenge considers Hanford's tank waste to be high-level waste as defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act"; expresses concern 100
|
From page 101... ...
A flowsheet with the uncertainty in liquid volumes included is needed"; cites the GAO report DOE and NNSA Should Improve Their Lessons-Learned Process for Capital Asset Projects, GAO-19-25, December 2018; "The cost estimates in the FFRDC report are for only limited portions of the complete scope. The FFRDC report provides part of the picture, but does not examine the overall life cycle costs"; evaluate "the beyond the scope topics" for risk; there is a need for rebaselining of the waste treatment project using root cause analysis, which would meet the requirements of DOE Order 413.3B; expresses concern about tritium releases, October 29, 2019.
|
From page 102... ...
Patricia Janesh, Ph.D., M.P.H., opposes grout and believes that the "use of glass appears to be the most effective" treatment approach," October 31, 2019. Laura Feldman, opposes putting Hanford's tank waste in grout; SLAW should have long-lived radionuclides removed and immobilized in glass; do not dispose of grouted SLAW at Hanford site, October 31, 2019.
|
From page 103... ...
"While the research results for enhanced grout and ceramic waste form FBSR since the 2012 Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact Statement (TC&WM EIS) are encouraging, the State considers these two waste forms in the research and development stage … [and]
|
From page 104... ...
, emphasizes that the Hanford area "holds cultural sig nificance for many reasons" such as providing "foods and medicines that cannot be found anywhere else"; underscores that under the Treaty of 1855 the Yakama Nation was established and "ceded over 12 million acres of land to the United States," but preserved rights for the Yakama people to, among other usages, "right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places" to include places on the Columbia River; notes the vital importance of this river to the Yakama Nation; notes that Re view #3 makes it "very apparent that the committee has found substantial uncertainties in the tech nologies for waste treatment and disposal" as analyzed by the FFRDC; believes that the committee "should include a recommendation for evaluation of impacts to Tribal people and resources in rec ommendations 2-1 and 3-1"; states their view that leaving waste on the Hanford site is not an ac ceptable alternative because it will restrict their access to their "accustomed places," impacting their Treaty rights, and notes that the Hanford Challenge's submitted comments supports their po sition; suggests "the committee add Tribal, State, and Other Entities opposition as a bullet point to Recommendation 2-1 (d) "; "shares the concerns with Hanford Challenge regarding the threats posed to groundwater, the use of impractical long ranged institutional controls, and the potential effects of climate change and severe weather events that could compromise the protection of human health and the environment from long lived radionuclides present in this waste stream," October 31, 2019.
|
From page 105... ...
Gilbert, Ph.D., Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders, Seattle, Wash ington, opposes putting Hanford's tank waste in grout; SLAW should have long-lived radionuclides removed and immobilized in glass; do not dispose of grouted SLAW at Hanford site, October 31, 2019. • Ted Granger, opposes putting Hanford's tank waste in grout; SLAW should have long-lived radi onuclides removed and immobilized in glass; do not dispose of grouted SLAW at Hanford site; he also noted in his comment that "This is the stock text from Hanford Challenge, which is fine, but perhaps too mild in reacting to the absurdity of encasing nuclear waste in concrete or grout." He also mentioned his 60 years of experience in construction, mostly as a registered architect, with extensive experience in dealing with concrete, October 31, 2019.
|
From page 106... ...
• Randolph W Urmston, opposes putting Hanford's tank waste in grout; SLAW should have long lived radionuclides removed and immobilized in glass; do not dispose of grouted SLAW at Hanford site, October 31, 2019.
|
From page 107... ...
RCRA regulators have the authority to regulate the chemi cally hazardous aspects of mixed waste, whereas regulators with nuclear regulatory authority -- here DOE -- have authority over the radioactive components. Under this allocation, RCRA regula tors do not have authority to impose different regulatory requirements depending on the radioac tivity of mixed wastes unless those differences affect the chemically hazardous character of the wastes"; "Developing an adequately protective and cost-effective treatment plan for non-HLW SLAW wastes requires that DOE, Washington state, and EPA fully and carefully consider the po tential applicability of all available LDR flexibility mechanisms….
|
From page 108... ...
• Carlgh, expresses concern that the FFRDC report seems to confuse terms of high-level, low-activ ity, and supplemental low-activity waste, and that this apparent confusion appears to contradict the legal definition of HLW as defined by the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, November 7, 2019. • Leah Boehm Brady, do not reclassify radioactive waste; "keep this poison away from the river"; "protect the Columbia River," November 7, 2019.
|
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.