National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×

Image

Review of the Continued Analysis of
Supplemental Treatment Approaches
of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford
Nuclear Reservation

Report #3

__________

Committee on Supplemental Treatment
of Low-Activity Waste at the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation

Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board

Division on Earth and Life Studies


Consensus Study Report

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×

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. 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: 978-0-309-69973-0
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-69973-8
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26872

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 2023 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. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Report #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26872.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×

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.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×

COMMITTEE ON SUPPLEMENTAL TREATMENT OF LOW-ACTIVITY WASTE AT THE HANFORD NUCLEAR RESERVATION

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), The University of Texas at Dallas

TORI Z. FORBES, The University of Iowa

ROBYN E. HANNIGAN, Ursinus University

CAROL M. JANTZEN, Savannah River National Laboratory (retired)

GEORGE F. LIST, North Carolina State University

LINDA K. NOZICK, Cornell University

JOHN L. PROVIS, The 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 MANSIELL, Studsvik, Inc.

Staff

MICHAEL T. JANICKE, Study Director

CHARLES D. FERGUSON, Senior Board Director, Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board

LAURA LLANOS, Financial Business Partner

LESLIE BEAUCHAMP, Senior Program Assistant

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×

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, The 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, The 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

MICHAEL T. JANICKE, Senior Program Officer

LAURA D. LLANOS, Financial Business Partner

LESLIE BEAUCHAMP, Senior Program Assistant

DARLENE GROS, Senior Program Assistant

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×

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:

CRAIG H. BENSON, University of Virginia

WILLIAM L. EBERT, Argonne National Laboratory

ROBERT B. GILBERT, University of Texas at Austin

MARK LEPOFSKY, Factor, Inc.

SHEILA M. OLMSTEAD, University of Texas at Austin

DETLOF VON WINTERFELDT, University of Southern 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 MARK T. PETERS (NAE), Battelle Memorial Institute, and THURE E. CERLING (NAS), The 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.

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×

Acknowledgements

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:

KAYLIN BURNETT, DOE-One Hanford

BETH MOORE, DOE-EM

DELMAR NOYES, DOE’s Office of River Protection (DOE-ORP)

ELAINE PORCARO, DOE-ORP

BRIAN VANCE, DOE-One Hanford

MING ZHU, DOE-EM

The committee is grateful for the assistance throughout the study and most recently with the public meeting held virtually January 11, 2023, and the in-person meeting Richland, Washington, January 31–February 1, 2023. These meetings 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, regional stakeholders, affected communities and tribal nations. 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.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×

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 processing 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 can be managed as 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 435.1-1. 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. Among other things, to qualify as low-activity waste to be disposed in near surface disposal facilities, DOE must ensure drinking water in the vicinity of the disposal facility meets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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 (WTP) becomes fully operational, it will process the HLW and LAW tank streams and vitrify (treat) the HLW stream and one-third to perhaps one-half of the LAW stream. The LAW that exceeds the capabilities of the WTP LAW vitrification facility still needs to be treated and is called supplemental LAW (SLAW). DOE, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the EPA—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 that will be implemented by DOE decision makers 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 the State of Washington, key tribal nations, and some Hanford stakeholders.

In Section 3125 of the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (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 select 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

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×

report for Section 3134 of NDAA 2017. As with the Section 3134 study, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (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 how to manage the SLAW. The second committee report provided 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. That committee report also gave summaries of the comments received during the 60-day public comment period. This third and final committee report is based on the culmination of the committee’s and FFRDC’s hard work and focused on the third report given to committee on January 16, 2023.

The FFRDC team has presented its work to the committee four times: (1) introductory online meeting on July 15, 2021; (2) a virtual meeting describing the status of the FFRDC’s draft analytic framework, on October 20–21, 2021; (3) a hybrid meeting with in-person participants in Richland, Washington, on April 26–28, 2022, for the committee to hear from the FFRDC, regulators, and other key stakeholders concerning the then-current draft analytic framework, with the FFRDC team presenting the analysis and results of their complete draft report that was also circulated for public comment; and (4) the final meeting with the FFRDC January 31–February 1, 2023. 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 and Oregon Department of Energy, in particular, presented their perspectives at all four public meetings.

We hope that the reviews were meaningful guides to the FFRDC as it worked on its final report that was released to the public in January 2023. It is anticipated that this journey with the FFRDC and the National Academies study committee results in a beneficial framework for decision makers as they move forward with the mission at Hanford. A final public meeting is scheduled for June 2023 to focus on concluding comments from the FFRDC, DOE-EM, Washington State Department of Ecology, Oregon Department of Energy, tribal nations, and other stakeholders.

John S. Applegate, Chair
Allen G. Croff, Vice Chair
Committee on Supplemental Treatment of
Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26872.
×
Page R16
Next: Summary »
Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation: Review #3 Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $23.00 Buy Ebook | $18.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the state of Washington produced about two-thirds of the nations plutonium for nuclear weapons from 1944 until the last reactor was shut down in 1987. The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) manages the ongoing clean-up at Hanford and has built a plant to convert the high-level radioactive waste into a glass form (vitrification) for safe disposal. However, decisions remain about how best to treat and dispose of the low-level waste at Hanford, which comprises over 90% of the volume of waste. To inform its decision, DOE contracted with key Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC), led by Savannah River National Laboratory, to carry out an analysis. This final in a trilogy of reports from the National Academies reviews the FFRDC third report released in January 2023.

The review finds that the FFRDC team made a strong technical case that converting the supplemental low-level waste from the vitrification process to a grout form (like cement) is the best option in terms of cost-effectiveness and timeliness, and that off-site disposal of that grout is a valid option as it will be away from potable water. The FFRDC provided a useful framework to help decision-makers understand the issues and trade-offs of the disposal options and did an excellent job of isolating specific factual considerations that can be analyzed, often quantified, and compared with each other. The FFRDC chose to provide a purely technical analysis that excluded analysis of two important factors to be considered - securing regulatory permissions and public acceptance - treating them, for now, as uncertainties. Looking ahead, the DOE faces many uncertainties and should emphasize flexibility in its overall approach, allowing for multiple, redundant options and pathways, as well as the ability to change over time.

  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!