National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Appendix C: Section 3134 of Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act

« Previous: Appendix 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
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Section 3134 of Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act." 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.
×

Appendix C

Section 3134 of Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act

SEC. 3134. ANALYSIS OF APPROACHES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL TREATMENT OF LOW-ACTIVITY WASTE AT HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION.

  1. IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall enter into an arrangement with a federally funded research and development center to conduct an analysis of approaches for treating the portion of low‐activity waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Richland, Washington, that, as of such date of enactment, is intended for supplemental treatment.
  2. ELEMENTS.—The analysis required by subsection (a) shall include the following:
  1. An analysis of, at a minimum, the following approaches for treating the low‐activity waste described in subsection (a):
  1. Further processing of the low‐activity waste to remove long‐lived radioactive constituents, particularly technetium‐99 and iodine‐129, for immobilization with high level waste.
  2. Vitrification, grouting, and steam reforming, and other alternative approaches identified by the Department of Energy for immobilizing the low‐activity waste.
  1. An analysis of the following:
  1. The risks of the approaches described in paragraph (1) relating to treatment and final disposition.
  2. The benefits and costs of such approaches.
  3. Anticipated schedules for such approaches, including the time needed to complete necessary construction and to begin treatment operations.
  4. The compliance of such approaches with applicable technical standards associated with and contained in regulations prescribed pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) (commonly referred to as the “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976”), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) (commonly referred to as the “Clean Water Act”), and the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).
  5. Any obstacles that would inhibit the ability of the Department of Energy to pursue such approaches.
  1. REVIEW OF ANALYSIS.—
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Section 3134 of Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act." 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.
×
  1. IN GENERAL.—Concurrent with entering into an arrangement with a federally funded research and development center under subsection (a), the Secretary shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a review of the analysis conducted by the federally funded research and development center.
  2. METHOD OF REVIEW.—The review required by paragraph (1) shall be conducted concurrent with the analysis required by subsection (a), and in a manner that is parallel to that analysis, so that the results of the review may be used to improve the quality of the analysis.
  3. PUBLIC REVIEW.—In conducting the review required paragraph (1), the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shall provide an opportunity for public comment, with sufficient notice, to inform and improve the quality of the review.
  1. CONSULTATION WITH STATE.—Prior to the submission in accordance with subsection (e)(2) of the analysis required by subsection (a) and the review of the analysis required by subsection (c), the federally funded research and development center and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shall provide to the State of Washington—
  1. the analysis and review in draft form; and
  2. an opportunity to comment on the analysis and review for a period of not less than 60 days.
  1. SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.—
  1. BRIEFINGS ON PROGRESS.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 180 days thereafter until the materials described in paragraph (2) are submitted in accordance with that paragraph, the Secretary shall provide to the congressional defense committees a briefing on the progress being made on the analysis required by subsection (a) and the review of the analysis required by subsection (c).
  2. COMPLETED ANALYSIS AND REVIEW.—Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees the analysis required by subsection (a), the review of the analysis required by subsection (c), any comments of the State of Washington under subsection (d)(2), and any comments of the Secretary on the analysis or the review of the analysis.
  1. Limitations.—
  1. Secretary of energy.—This section does not conflict with or impair the obligation of the Secretary to comply with any requirement of—
  1. the amended consent decree in Washington v. Moniz, No. 2:08-CV-5085-RMP (E.D. Wash.); or
  2. the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order.
  1. State of Washington.—This section does not conflict with or impair the regulatory authority of the State of Washington under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) (commonly referred to as the “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976”) and any corresponding State law.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Section 3134 of Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act." 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 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Section 3134 of Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act." 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 92
Next: Appendix D: Statement of Task »
Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4 Get This Book
×
 Final Review of the Study on Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #4
Buy Paperback | $65.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
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.

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!