Consensus Study Report
NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by a contract 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: 978-0-309-69083-6
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-69083-8
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26632
This publication is 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 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26632.
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.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
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
Members
JOHN S. APPLEGATE (Chair), Indiana University
ALLEN G. CROFF (Vice Chair), Vanderbilt University
C. E. “GENE” CARPENTER, JR., Booz Allen Hamilton
DAVID E. DANIEL (NAE), University of Texas at Dallas
TORI Z. FORBES, University of Iowa
ROBYN E. HANNIGAN, Clarkson University
CAROL M. JANTZEN, Savannah River National Laboratory (retired)
GEORGE F. LIST, North Carolina State University
LINDA K. NOZICK, Cornell University
JOHN L. PROVIS, University of Sheffield
GEOFFREY S. ROTHWELL, Longenecker & Associates
ANNE E. SMITH, National Economic Research Associates, Inc.
KEVIN W. SMITH, Falcon Cougar Management Consultants, LLC
CHRIS G. WHIPPLE (NAE), ENVIRON (retired)
Technical Consultant
BOB MANSEILL, Studsvik, Inc.
Staff
MICHAEL T. JANICKE, Study Director
CHARLES D. FERGUSON, Senior Board Director
LAURA LLANOS, Financial Business Partner
LESLIE BEAUCHAMP, Senior Program Assistant
DARLENE GROS, Senior Program Assistant
NUCLEAR AND RADIATION STUDIES BOARD
WILLIAM H. TOBEY (Chair), Los Alamos National Laboratory
AMY BERRINGTON DE GONZÁLEZ (Vice Chair), National Cancer Institute
SALLY A. AMUNDSON, Columbia University
STEVEN M. BECKER, Old Dominion University
MADELYN R. CREEDON, George Washington University
LAWRENCE T. DAUER, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
SHAHEEN A. DEWJI, Georgia Institute of Technology
PAUL T. DICKMAN, Argonne National Laboratory
DONALD P. FRUSH, Duke University School of Medicine
ALLISON M. MACFARLANE, University of British Columbia
ELEANOR MELAMED, U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration (retired)
PER F. PETERSON (NAE), University of California, Berkeley
R. JULIAN PRESTON, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MONICA C. REGALBUTO, Idaho National Laboratory
Staff
CHARLES D. FERGUSON, Senior Board Director
JENNIFER HEIMBERG, Senior Program Officer
MICHAEL T. JANICKE, Senior Program Officer
OURANIA KOSTI, Senior Program Officer
LAURA D. LLANOS, Financial Business Partner
LESLIE BEAUCHAMP, Senior Program Assistant
DARLENE GROS, Senior Program Assistant
Acknowledgments
A number of people and organizations contributed to the successful completion of this report. The committee thanks 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:
The committee is very grateful for the tour of the Hanford site that was arranged by DOE-ORP and One Hanford that set the stage for presentations and speakers at the April 26-28, 2022 meeting in Richland, Washington. The meeting included presentations from the Hanford Site offices and contractors, team members of the Federally Funded Research and Development Center led by the Savannah River National Laboratory, and regional stakeholders including the Yakama Nation. The committee is also appreciative of other public comments made at the April meeting as well as those submitted through the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s web portal. Public involvement in the consensus study helps the committee more fully understand the concerns of the locally and regionally affected communities.
The committee appreciates the outstanding assistance provided by the National Academies staff in organizing the committee meetings and preparing the report. The chair and vice chair are also thankful for the time and energy devoted by the committee members.
This page intentionally left blank.
Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives 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:
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 MARK T. PETERS (NAE), Battelle Memorial Institute, and THURE E. CERLING (NAS), University of Utah. 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. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
This page intentionally left blank.
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 Management (DOE-EM) has called the Hanford site the most challenging cleanup 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. Notably, DOE’s determination as to whether a volume of waste is 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 Management Manual. But this processing could still leave significant amounts 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. To qualify low-level waste to be disposed of in near-surface disposal facilities, DOE must ensure that drinking water in the vicinity of the disposal facility meets U.S. Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standards, via extensive performance assessment models and waste acceptance criteria. According to DOE’s plan, once the under-construction Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant becomes operational, it will vitrify (treat) the HLW stream and 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 Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement)—have yet to agree on the SLAW treatment method. The use of a technology other than vitrification for any LAW is controversial at Hanford—though it has been adopted at other DOE-EM sites—and such use is currently opposed by Washington State, key tribal nations, and many Hanford stakeholders.
In section 3125 of the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 116-283 (NDAA 2021). Congress directed DOE to enter into an arrangement with a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) to “conduct a follow-on analysis to the analysis required by section 3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017” (NDAA 2017) and develop an analytic framework that would help decision makers decide among the SLAW treatment technologies, waste forms, and disposal locations. In addition, section 3125 of NDAA 2021 requires the FFRDC team to perform additional analysis on grout treatment options, building on the analysis in the FFRDC report for section 3134 of NDAA 2017. As with the section 3134 study (NASEM, 2020), the National Academies were directed to form an ad hoc committee of experts to provide a concurrent review of the FFRDC team’s continuing draft and final analytic frameworks. The National Academies’ committee also has the role 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, other DOE national laboratories, and outside the laboratories’ network to perform the analysis. The National Academies appointed its committee to conduct the overlapping review. The first committee report, published in January 2022, was the opening stage of 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 that key decision makers can rely on in reaching a decision on the treatment and disposal of the SLAW. This second committee report provides the committee’s review of the complete draft FFRDC report received April 12, 2022, and makes findings and recommendations according to the terms of the Statement of Task. This committee report also gives summaries of the comments received during the 60-day public comment period.
The FFRDC team has presented its work to the committee three times: first, in an introductory online meeting on July 15, 2021; second, in an online meeting describing the status of the FFRDC’s draft analytic framework, on October 2021, 2021; third, in a hybrid meeting with in-person participants in Richland, Washington, on April 26-28, 2022, with the FFRDC team presenting the analysis and results of their complete draft report. The committee is grateful for the time and effort that went into the team’s presentations, as well as the presentations by other interested government agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public. The Washington State Department of Ecology, in particular, presented its perspectives at all three public meetings.
We hope that the present review will provide a useful guide to the FFRDC as it works on its final report that is planned to be available for public presentation in late January 2023. That public meeting will also focus on receiving additional comments from the Washington State Department of Ecology, tribal nations, and other stakeholders. We look forward to continued dialogue with interested government representatives, Hanford area 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
Contents
1.1 Congressional Mandate to Continue the Analysis and Review of Supplemental Treatment Approaches
1.3 Review Report Organization
2 THE COMMITTEE’S TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE FFRDC’S COMPLETE DRAFT REPORT
2.1 Statement of Task #1: Framework of Decisions
2.2 Statement of Task #2: Did the FFRDC Consider All of the Legislative Elements?
2.3 Statement of Task #3: Did the FFRDC Provide “Additional Analysis” of Grout?
3 THE COMMITTEE’S OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE FFRDC’S DRAFT REPORT
3.2 Review of the Choice of the Six Differentiating Criteria
3.3 Review of the Choice of Alternatives to Analyze and Adequacy of Their Descriptions
E BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF THE COMMITTEE, TECHNICAL ADVISER, AND STUDY DIRECTOR
This page intentionally left blank.
