Review of the Final Draft Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Review #3 (2019) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Context and Setting
1 Context and Setting
Pages 9-15
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 9... ...
In addition, it gives brief historical context about the waste treatment approaches considered or developed since 1989, when the TPA began. This context is important to highlight that past developments continue to influence the present treatment plan for the tank waste.
|
From page 10... ...
committee is in Appendix B The FFRDC team's task is to provide DOE and Congress with facts and analyses regarding treatment approaches, but not a recommendation concerning a preferred alternative.
|
From page 11... ...
(GAO, 2017) In its report, GAO noted that "DOE agreed with both recommendations." STUDY PROCESS In this third review report, the committee provides its peer review and discusses its observations of the FFRDC's final draft report, dated April 5, 2019, 2 and the FFRDC's presentations at the public meeting in Kennewick, Washington, on May 16, 2019.
|
From page 12... ...
January-February 2020 Anticipated final briefings to Congress, DOE, Washington State, and other stakeholders. To perform the peer review task, the National Academies formed a committee composed of 13 experts and one technical adviser whose expertise spans the issues relevant for reviewing the FFRDC's analysis, including risk assessments, cost estimation, cost-benefit analysis, waste processing, supplemental treatment approaches, legal and regulatory requirements, and large scale nuclear construction projects.
|
From page 13... ...
While one may quite reasonably find such limitations frustrating and sometimes even question-begging, they represent Congress's laudable effort to obtain a well-informed and reliable technical answer to a particular and important question before it. BRIEF HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF TANK WASTE TREATMENT APPROACHES To help explain why the Hanford waste treatment approaches are being considered, this section provides brief historical context about tank waste treatment at Hanford.
|
From page 14... ...
. Then in October 1990, because the DNFSB concluded that DOE's proposed implementation plan was not adequately responsive, it issued Recommendation 90-7 that specified: "Immediate steps should be taken to add instrumentation to the single shell tanks containing ferrocyanide that will establish whether hot spots exist or may develop in the future in the stored waste." In addition, that recommendaton called for other sensors, instrumentation, and sampling to meet "the urgent need for a comprehensive and definitive assessment of the probability of a violent chemical reaction" (DNFSB, 1990b)
|
From page 15... ...
, because the SLAW must be treated concurrently to allow the HLW to be treated at the WTP's full potential capacity. In DOE's 2013 Record of Decision on Hanford tank waste management, DOE stated that it "does not have a preferred alternative regarding supplemental treatment for the LAW; DOE believes it is beneficial to study further the potential cost, safety, and environmental performance of supplemental treatment technologies" (DOE, 2013)
|
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.