4
Committee’s Review of the Information and Data Used by the FFRDC
The committee’s third charge in the Statement of Task is to evaluate the technical quality and completeness of key information and data used in the Federally Funded Research and Development Center’s (FFRDC’s) assessments.
KEY POINTS IN THE FFRDC’S WORK
The FFRDC team lists in its draft report and presentations many references and other documents that appear relevant to the analysis of the various supplemental treatment approaches, risks, cost estimation, cost-benefit analysis, and regulatory compliance, among other issues germane to the study. Notably, the FFRDC’s draft report and the presentations mention two key documents that form the starting point of their analysis:
Cree, L.W., J.M. Colby, M.S. Fountain, D.W. Nelson, V.C. Nguyen, K.A. Anderson, M.D. Britton, S. Paudel, and M.E. Stone. 2017. “One System River Protection Project Integrated Flowsheet,” RPP-RPT-57991, Rev. 2, 24590-WTP-RPT-MGT-14-023, Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) One System, Richland, Washington.
This is often referred to as the One System Integrated Flowsheet. The FFRDC is using spreadsheets and computer modeling simulations based on this WRPS document to calculate feed rates and compositions as a function of time.
Office of River Protection. 2017. “River Protection Project System Plan,” U.S. Department of Energy, Richland, Washington, ORP-11242, Rev. 8, October 2017.
As mentioned previously, this is often referred to as System Plan 8.
COMMITTEE’S OBSERVATIONS
Because the analysis and assessments are in the earliest stages of selection and implementation, it is certain that the FFRDC will need to gather additional data to perform a detailed analysis. In particular, the committee notes that it appears from the listed references in the draft report that the FFRDC might not have collected many references on the previous work done on waste forms. Much of the emphasis of the FFRDC’s listed references is on the three treatment technologies—with very limited comments on the resulting waste forms and their performance characteristics. Several such references are listed in the 2011 National Research Council report Waste Forms Technology and Performance (NRC, 2011).
As mentioned previously about System Plan 8, while SLAW treatment is included in System Plan 8, this plan is intended to provide the basis for discussion among the parties in the Tri-Party Agreement. Also, System Plan 8 is not intended to be used for decision-making and budgeting purposes, but it can be used to develop rough cost estimates. While the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has stated that System Plan 8
is a planning document, “DOE believes further analysis is needed that focuses on how the assumptions and conditions interact with one another to impact the costs and the hypothetical completion dates of the RPP [River Protection Project] mission” (DOE, 2017).
COMMITTEE’S SUGGESTIONS
The committee encourages the FFRDC to explicitly identify and check the underlying assumptions in the One System Integrated Flowsheet and System Plan 8 that impact its analysis. The committee also suggests that the team, if it has not yet done so, obtains and analyzes credible existing studies and data on long-term waste form performance.
The committee recommends the following documents that address topics relevant to the FFRDC’s attention:
National Research Council. 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Management of the Department of Energy’s Environmental Remediation Program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. 2005. Risk and Decisions About Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. 2006b. Improving the Regulation and Management of Low-Activity Radioactive Wastes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
