National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25710.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25710.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25710.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25710.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25710.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25710.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25710.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25710.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25710.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25710.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25710.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25710.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25710.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25710.
×
Page R14

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Committee on Supplemental Treatment of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board Division on Earth and Life Studies A Consensus Study Report of

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by award DE-EM0001172/NAS Proposal Number 10003497 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-67288-7 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-67288-0 Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25710 Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2020 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Cover photo courtesy of Charles D. Ferguson. Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25710.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www. nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

COMMITTEE ON SUPPLEMENTAL TREATMENT OF LOW-ACTIVITY WASTE AT THE HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION JOHN S. APPLEGATE (Chair), Indiana University, Bloomington ALLEN G. CROFF (Vice-Chair), Vanderbilt University, St. Augustine, Florida MARGARET S. Y. CHU, M.S. Chu + Associates, LLC, New York, New York KENNETH R. CZERWINSKI, University of Nevada, Las Vegas RACHEL J. DETWILER, Beton Consulting Engineers, LLC, Mendota Heights, Minnesota TIMOTHY A. DEVOL, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina RODNEY C. EWING, Stanford University, Stanford, California CRAIG S. HANSEN, Independent Consultant, Clinton, Tennessee CATHY MIDDLECAMP, University of Wisconsin–Madison ALFRED P. SATTELBERGER, Argonne National Laboratory (retired), Argonne, Illinois BARRY E. SCHEETZ, The Pennsylvania State University, State College ANNE E. SMITH, National Economic Research Associates, Inc., Washington, DC CHRIS G. WHIPPLE, ENVIRON (retired), Lafayette, California Technical Adviser DAVID W. JOHNSON, JR., Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies (retired), Bedminster, New Jersey 1 Staff CHARLES D. FERGUSON, Study Director TONI GREENLEAF, Administrative and Financial Associate (through September 1, 2019) LAURA D. LLANOS, Financial Business Partner (since September 1, 2019) DARLENE GROS, Senior Program Assistant 1 He became a technical adviser on May 1, 2018. v

NUCLEAR AND RADIATION STUDIES BOARD GEORGE APOSTOLAKIS (Chair), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (emeritus), Los Angeles, California JAMES A. BRINK (Vice Chair), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston SALLY A. AMUNDSON, Columbia University, New York, New York STEVEN M. BECKER, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia AMY BERRINGTON DE GONZÁLEZ, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland PAUL T. DICKMAN, Argonne National Laboratory, Washington, DC TISSA H. ILLANGASEKARE, Colorado School of Mines, Golden BONNIE D. JENKINS, Women of Color Advancing Peace and Security, Washington, DC ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, The George Washington University, Washington, DC NANCY JO NICHOLAS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico R. JULIAN PRESTON, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chapel Hill, North Carolina HENRY D. ROYAL, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri WILLIAM H. TOBEY, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts SERGEY V. YUDINTSEV, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow Staff CHARLES D. FERGUSON, Director JENNIFER HEIMBERG, Senior Program Officer OURANIA KOSTI, Senior Program Officer TONI GREENLEAF, Administrative and Financial Associate (through September 1, 2019) LAURA D. LLANOS, Financial Business Partner (since September 1, 2019) DARLENE GROS, Senior Program Assistant vi

Preface The scale and complexity of the radioactive and hazardous waste disposal problem at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation are well known. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Manage- ment (DOE-EM) has called the Hanford site the most challenging clean-up task in DOE’s nuclear complex. DOE’s current plan for treating the nearly 56 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous chemical waste contained in 177 large tanks is to separate it into two waste streams: a high-level waste (HLW) stream that will have less than 10 percent of the volume but more than 90 percent of the radioactivity, and a low- activity waste (LAW) stream that will have more than 90 percent of the volume but less than 10 percent of the radioactivity. (DOE’s intention is to send the HLW to a deep, mined geologic repository, while the LAW can be disposed of in near-surface disposal facilities.) Notably, DOE’s determination as to whether a given volume of waste can be considered LAW depends on the removal of “key radionuclides to the maximum extent that is technically and economically practical,” as stated in DOE’s Radioactive Waste Manual. However, this processing could still leave more than 90 percent of long-lived radionuclides such as iodine-129 (half-life of 15.7 million years) and technetium-99 (half-life of 210,000 years) in the LAW stream, and these radionuclides are problematic because of their high mobility in an oxidizing environment as compared to most other radionuclides. According to DOE’s plan, once the under-construction Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant becomes operational, it will vitrify (treat by binding the waste into a glass-like product) the HLW stream, as well as one-third to perhaps one-half of the LAW stream. The excess LAW that still needs to be treated is called supplemental LAW (SLAW). DOE, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—the three parties under the legally binding 1989 Tri-Party Agreement—have yet to agree on the SLAW treatment method. The use of technologies other than vitrification for any LAW is controversial at Hanford—though they have been adopted at other DOE-EM sites such as the use of grout at the Savannah River Site and the development of a fluidized bed steam reforming treatment facility at Idaho National Laboratory—and the use of non-glass technologies is currently opposed by the State of Washington, key tribal nations, and many Hanford stake- holders. In Section 3134 of the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress directed DOE to contract with a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) to analyze at least three potential technologies for treating the SLAW—vitrification, grouting (binding the waste in a cementitious form), and fluidized bed steam reforming (binding the waste in a calcined powder or a monolithic crystalline ceramic waste form)—and to report on its findings. It further directed DOE to contract with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) to undertake an independent peer review of the FFRDC report, not only after the final draft report is completed, but also at certain points during the FFRDC’s effort in previous draft reports. Congress also expressly required the FFRDC and the National Academies review committee to solicit and consider stakeholder input at every step of the process. DOE appointed Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) as the FFRDC to lead this study, and then SRNL assembled a team of experts from SRNL and other DOE national laboratories to perform the analysis. The National Academies appointed its committee to conduct the overlapping review. The first committee report, published on June 8, 2018, began an iterative exchange between the FFRDC team and the National Academies committee that—together with stakeholder comments—is intended ultimately to lead to a final report on which key decision-makers can rely in reaching a decision regarding the treatment and disposal of the SLAW. On November 2, 2018, the second committee report was published and that interim report provided the committee’s review of the FFRDC team’s draft report, dated July 15, 2018. On vii

Preface August 15, 2019, the third review report was published, and it provided the committee’s overall assessment of the FFRDC team’s final draft report, dated April 5, 2019. The FFRDC team has presented its work to the committee seven times: first in an introductory meeting in Washington, DC, on December 12-13, 2017; second in a meeting describing the status of the FFRDC’s draft analysis, held in Richland, Washington, on February 28 and March 1, 2018; third in a meeting de- scribing the FFRDC’s draft report, held in Richland, Washington, on July 23-24, 2018; fourth in a meeting describing the FFRDC’s progress toward a final draft report, held in Richland, Washington, on November 29-30, 2018; fifth in a meeting discussing the next steps required for the FFRDC to produce a final draft report, held in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 8, 2019; sixth in a meeting discussing the final and complete draft report, held in Kennewick, Washington, on May 16, 2019; and most recently in a meeting focusing on receiving final stakeholders’ and interested members of the public’s comments on the previously pub- lished review report, as well as on presentations from the FFRDC team on their final report, held in Rich- land, Washington, on October 31, 2019. The FFRDC’s final report is dated October 18, 2019, and is marked “Predecisional.” In keeping with the iterative nature of the congressionally mandated review process, the committee is not expected to review the final FFRDC report. Rather, the committee’s fourth and final re- view focuses on comments on the committee’s third review report. Throughout this study, the committee has been grateful for the time and effort that went into the team’s draft reports, final report, and presentations, as well as the presentations and comments by other interested government agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public. The Washington State Department of Ecol- ogy, in particular, presented in detail and responded to the committee’s questions at every public meeting in Richland and Kennewick. The committee’s third review report provides an overall assessment of the FFRDC’s final draft report and makes findings and recommendations according to the terms of the Statement of Task, with a particular focus on how the FFRDC’s report can be used by decision-makers. In this final review report, the committee stands by the third review’s findings and recommendations, but it provides commentary on selected find- ings and recommendations in light of events since the publication of the third review and comments re- ceived from stakeholders and members of the public. This final review also summarizes those comments and shows the executive summary and conclusions of the FFRDC final report. We hope that this final review will provide a useful guide to this study for decision-makers, other stakeholders, and interested members of the public. John S. Applegate, Chair Allen G. Croff, Vice-Chair Committee on Supplemental Treatment of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation viii

Acknowledgments A number of people and organizations contributed to the successful completion of this report. The committee wishes to thank the study sponsor, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM), for supporting this project, and especially the following DOE staff: Kaylin Burnett, DOE-Office of River Protection (ORP) Paula Call, DOE-ORP Betsy Connell, DOE-EM Elaine Diaz, DOE-ORP Naomi Jaschke, DOE-ORP Beth Moore, DOE-EM Rob Seifert, DOE-EM Linda Suttora, DOE-EM The committee appreciates the work of Jennifer Colburn of Mission Support Alliance, LLC, in helping with public and external communications to Hanford area stakeholders about the study’s public comment period and the committee’s seventh public meeting on October 31, 2019. The committee also thanks the presenters and speakers who gave high-quality presentations during the public meetings as listed in Appendix E. In particular, for the most recent public meeting on October 31, 2019, the committee is pleased to note the very informative presentations given by Federally Funded Research and Development Center team leader, Bill Bates, and team members Thomas Brouns and Michael Stone. In addition, the committee is grateful for stakeholder presentations during that public meeting, no- tably the continued public engagement during this meeting and other meetings by the Washington State Department of Ecology, Oregon Department of Energy, Tri-City Development Council, Hanford Commu- nities, and Hanford Advisory Board. Moreover, the committee thanks representatives of the major tribes in the region for their presentations during the course of the study. Furthermore, the committee is grateful for additional submitted stakeholders’ and public comments, which were essential in helping the committee better understand concerns and views during this final phase of the study. The committee deeply appreciates the outstanding assistance provided by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine staff in supporting the committee’s work, organizing the committee’s meetings, and preparing this final review report. The chair and vice-chair are especially thankful for the time and energy devoted by the committee members. ix

Reviewer Acknowledgments This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse per- spectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Lake H. Barrett, independent consultant, Venice, Florida Larry Camper, independent consultant, Montgomery Village, Maryland Thure Edward Cerling (NAS), The University of Utah Jonathan “JD” Dowell, Fluor, Kennewick, Washington B. John Garrick (NAE), B. John Garrick Institute for the Risk Sciences, Los Angeles, California Sue E. Ion (NAE), independent consultant, Leyland, United Kingdom Kevin Smith, independent consultant, Richland, Washington Gabrielle Wong-Parodi, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford, California Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Michael L. Corradini, University of Wisconsin– Madison, and Robert J. Budnitz, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (retired). They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibil- ity for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. xi

Contents SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 10 Proposed Treatment Plan and Congressional Mandate to Analyze and Review the Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches, 10 Study Process, 13 Review Report Organization, 15 2 DEVELOPMENTS SINCE PUBLICATION OF REVIEW #3 ............................................................. 16 Availability of the Performance Assessment for the Integrated Disposal Facility, 16 Publication of the FFRDC’s Final Report and Comments Received from the FFRDC, 17 3 THEMES OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD .................... 21 Opposition to Grout for Treatment of Supplemental Low-Activity Waste and Disposal at Hanford and Concerns About Retention of Long-Lived Radionuclides in the Grout Waste Form, 21 Concerns About Climatic Change, Major Flooding, and Seismic Activity in the Hanford Region, 22 Tribal Members Call for Care of the Land for All Future Generations, 22 Interest in Use of Waste Control Specialists for Disposal of Non-Vitrified Waste Forms, 22 Structural Integrity and Monitoring in Perpetuity of the Integrated Disposal Facility, 23 Concept of “As Good as Glass,” 23 Advanced Glass Waste Forms to Reduce or Eliminate SLAW Treatment, 23 Consideration of Additional Treatment Technologies, 24 Costs and Budgetary Considerations, 24 Specific Comments Directed to the Committee’s Review #3, 25 4 THE COMMITTEE’S OBSERVATIONS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ............................. 26 Concept of “As Good as Glass,” 26 Grout Waste Forms, Retention of Long-Lived Radionuclides, and Concerns About Releases of Iodine-129 and Technetium-99 into the Environment, 26 Advantages of Waste Control Specialists Versus the Integrated Disposal Facility, 27 Bulk Vitrification, 28 Examine the Entire System, 29 Springboard Concept, 29 5 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 31 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................. 33 APPENDIXES A MAJOR PARTS OF REVIEW OF THE FINAL DRAFT ANALYSIS OF SUPPLEMENTAL TREATMENT APPROACHES OF LOW-ACTIVITY WASTE AT THE HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION: REVIEW #3......................................................... 34 xiii

Contents B EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FROM THE FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER’S REPORT OF ANALYSIS OF APPROACHES TO SUPPLEMENTAL TREATMENT OF LOW-ACTIVITY WASTE AT THE HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION ................................................................................................................. 87 C SECTION 3134 OF FISCAL YEAR 2017 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT......... 91 D STATEMENT OF TASK ........................................................................................................................ 93 E PRESENTATIONS AT THE COMMITTEE’S INFORMATION-GATHERING MEETINGS AND LIST AND SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.................................................................................................... 94 F BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISER, AND STUDY DIRECTOR.................................................................................................................... 109 G ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. 115 xiv

Next: Summary »
Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4 Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $65.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management is responsible for managing and cleaning up the waste and contamination at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, the nation's biggest and most complex nuclear cleanup challenge. At the site, 177 underground tanks collectively contain about 211 million liters of waste that includes high-activity and low-activity materials.

At the request of Congress, Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4 focuses on approaches for treatment and disposal of the supplemental portion of the low-activity waste from the tanks. This review report discusses developments since the publication of Review #3 and provides a summary of public comments on the third committee review report. The authoring committee then shares their views on these comments and whether they change any of the findings or recommendations in the third review report.

  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. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    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!