DOE Tank Waste: How clean is clean enough? The U.S. Congress asked the National Academies to evaluate the Department of Energya (TM)s (DOEa (TM)s) plans for cleaning up defense-related radioactive wastes stored in underground tanks at three sites: the Hanford Site in Washington State, the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, and the Idaho National Laboratory. DOE plans to remove the waste from the tanks, separate out high-level radioactive waste to be shipped to an off-site geological repository, and dispose of the remaining lower-activity waste onsite. The report concludes that DOEa (TM)s overall plan is workable, but some important challenges must be overcomea "including the removal of residual waste from some tanks, especially at Hanford and Savannah River. The report recommends that DOE pursue a more risk-informed, consistent, participatory, and transparent for making decisions about how much waste to retrieve from tanks and how much to dispose of onsite. The report offers several other detailed recommendations to improve the technical soundness of DOE's tank cleanup plans.
Committee on the Management of Certain Radioactive Waste Streams Stored in Tanks at Three Department of Energy Sites, National Research Council
1 Front Matter; 2 Executive Summary; 3 Summary; 4 I Introduction; 5 II Background and Overview of the Current Situation; 6 III Tank Waste Retrieval; 7 IV Processing and Treatment of Retrieved Tank Waste; 8 V Tank Grouting and Closure; 9 VI Performance Assessment; 10 VII Monitoring; 11 VIII Decision-Making Process; 12 IX Focused Research and Development Needs; 13 X Illustrative Example of the Recommended Decision-Making Process; 14 XI Conclusions; 15 References; 16 Appendix A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members; 17 Appendix B Statement of Task; 18 Appendix C Section 3116, Order 435.1, and Performance Objectives; 19 Appendix D Information-Gathering Meetings; 20 Appendix E Interim Report Summary and Follow-up; 21 Appendix F Waste Retrieval Status; 22 Appendix G Tank Waste Retrieval Techniques and Experience at West Valley and Oak Ridge; 23 Appendix H Features of a Good Monitoring Program; 24 Appendix I Performance Assessment Process; 25 Appendix J Relevant Maps of the Three Sites; 26 Appendix K Glossary
National Research Council, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Animal Nutrition, Subcommittee on Dog and Cat Nutrition
National Research Council, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Nutrient Requirements of Horses
National Research Council, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Nutrient Requirements of Horses
National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, and Statistical Sciences Committee on AIDS Research and the Behavioral, Social, Lincoln E. Moses, Heather G. Miller, Charles F. Turner
National Research Council, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Materials Advisory Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, Committee on Superhard Materials
National Research Council, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, Committee on Alternative Chemical Demilitarization Technologies
and Medicine National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, Committee on State of Molybdenum-99 Production and Utilization and Progress Toward Eliminating Use of Highly Enriched Uranium, National Academies of Sciences Engineeri, National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, Division On Earth And Life Studies, Nuclear And Radiation Studies Board
National Research Council, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, Committee on Development and Implementation of a Cleanup Technology Roadmap, Division On Earth And Life Studies, Nuclear And Radiation Studies Board