National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5 Stakeholders' and Public Comments
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Review of the Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #1. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25093.
×

References

Cary, A. 2017. “World’s Largest Radioactive Waste Melter Assembled at Hanford,” Tri-City Herald, June 16, 2017.

Congress. 2016. Conference Committee Report, “Analysis of approaches for supplemental treatment of low-activity waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation,” Section 3134 of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, December 2016.

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. “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.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2011a. Cost Estimating Guide, Office of Management, DOE G 413.3-21, May 2011.

DOE. 2011b. Technology Readiness Assessment Guide, DOE G 413.3-4A, 2011.

DOE. 2013. Development of Probabilistic Risk Assessments for Nuclear Safety Assessments, DOE Standard, DOE-STD-1628-2013, November 2013.

DOE. 2017. D. Noyes, Assistant Manager, WTP Startup, Commissioning & Integration, “System Plan 8,” Office of River Protection, U.S. Department of Energy, December 6, 2017.

DOE-OIG (Officer of Inspector General). 2016. “Management of the Startup of the Sodium-Bearing Waste Treatment Facility,” Audit Report, DOE-OIG-16-09, March 2016.

FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) 2.101. See definition 2.101 at https://www.acquisition.gov/browsefar.

GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2014. Hanford Cleanup: Condition of Tanks May Further Limit DOE’s Ability to Respond to Leaks and Intrusions, Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden, U.S. Senate, GAO-15-40, November 2014.

GAO. 2017. Nuclear Waste: Opportunities Exist to Reduce Risks and Costs by Evaluating Different Waste Treatment Approaches at Hanford, Report to Congressional Addressees, GAO-17-306, May 2017.

Kruger, A.A., I.L. Pegg, K.S. Matlack, I. Joseph, I.S. Muller, and W. Gong. 2013. Final Report—Glass Formulation Development and DM10 Melter Testing with ORP LAW Glasses, VSL-09R1510-2, Rev. 0, dated 6/12/09.

Lee, P. 2018. “Overview of the 2017 Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment for LAW,” Washington River Protection Solutions, Public Meeting, Richland, Washington, February 28, 2018, available at: http://dels.nas.edu/Past-Events/Meeting-Supplemental-Treatment/DELS-NRSB-17-02/9769.

NRC (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.

NRC. 2005. Risk and Decisions About Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC. 2006a. Tank Waste Retrieval, Processing, and On-Site Disposal at Three Department of Energy Sites: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC. 2006b. Improving the Regulation and Management of Low-Activity Radioactive Wastes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NRC. 2011. Waste Forms Technology and Performance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

ORP (Office of River Protection). 2017. River Protection Project System Plan, Revision 8, ORP-11242, Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, October 2017.

Peterson, R.A., E.C. Buck, J. Chun, R.C. Daniel, D.L. Herting, E.S. Ilton, G.J. Lumetta, and S.B. Clark. 2018. “Review of the Scientific Understanding of Radioactive Waste at the U.S. DOE Hanford Site,” Environmental Science and Technology. Forthcoming.

PNNL and SRNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Savannah River National Laboratory). 2013. Supplemental Immobilization of Hanford Low-Activity Waste: Cast Stone Screening Tests, PNNL-22747 and SRNL-STI-2013-00465, September 2013.

Saaty, T.L. 2008. “Decision Making with the Analytical Hierarchy Process,” International Journal of Services Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1.

Smith, A. 2018. “Supplemental Treatment Hanford Low Activity Waste Discussion,” Washington State Department of Ecology, Public Meeting, Richland, Washington, March 1, 2018, available at: http://dels.nas.edu/Past-Events/Meeting-Supplemental-Treatment/DELS-NRSB-17-02/9769.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Review of the Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #1. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25093.
×

Trevellyan, K. 2017. “DOE, Contractor Tried to Shift IWTU Costs,” Post Register, September 18, 2017.

USNRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018. “Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA),” https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/risk-informed/pra.html, updated January 4, 2018, and accessed on April 2, 2018.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Review of the Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #1. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25093.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Review of the Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #1. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25093.
×
Page 29
Next: Appendix A: Section 3134 of the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act »
Review of the Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #1 Get This Book
×
 Review of the Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #1
Buy Ebook | $14.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

In 1943, as part of the Manhattan Project, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation was established with the mission to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. During 45 years of operations, the Hanford Site produced about 67 metric tonnes of plutonium—approximately two-thirds of the nation's stockpile. Production processes generated radioactive and other hazardous wastes and resulted in airborne, surface, subsurface, and groundwater contamination. Presently, 177 underground tanks contain collectively about 210 million liters (about 56 million gallons) of waste. The chemically complex and diverse waste is difficult to manage and dispose of safely.

Section 3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 calls for a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) to conduct an analysis of approaches for treating the portion of low-activity waste (LAW) at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation intended for supplemental treatment. The first of four, this report reviews the analysis carried out by the FFRDC. It evaluates the technical quality and completeness of the methods used to conduct the risk, cost benefit, schedule, and regulatory compliance assessments and their implementations; waste conditioning and supplemental treatment approaches considered in the assessments; and other key information and data used in the assessments.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!