Review of the Continued Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Review #3 (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Summary
Summary
Pages 1-6
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 1... ...
3134) with respect to approaches for treating the portion of lowactivity waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Richland, Washington, intended for supplemental treatment."1 The analysis "shall be designed, to the greatest extent possible, to provide decision makers with the ability to make a direct comparison between approaches for the supplemental treatment of low-activity waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation based on criteria that are relevant to decision making and most clearly differentiate between approaches." For the criteria that Congress wants considered, see Appendix A, which provides the complete texts of Sec.
|
From page 2... ...
Taken together, Chapters 3 and 4 can be seen as the committee's reflections on the most appropriate ways decision makers and stakeholders could make use of the extensive data, analysis, and conclusions of the FFRDC report. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following findings and recommendations are made based on the SoT given to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee, the strengths of the report as determined by the committee, as well as limitations.
|
From page 3... ...
However, the committee considers it important that decision makers recognize that they should scrutinize the robustness of the FFRDC's recommendation in the context of their own judgments regarding these two remaining criteria. Question 2.
|
From page 4... ...
Volume 2, Appendix I of the FFRDC report provides an excellent overview of the regulatory issues for SLAW, especially when used in conjunction with Appendix J, which is the detailed position of the Washington State Department of Ecology. However, as the FFRDC emphasizes, Appendix I does not attempt predictions about actual approval of specific options, the permitting process, and other aspects of regulatory approval.
|
From page 5... ...
The FFRDC report should not be used in a vacuum. Rather, decision makers must integrate the AoA, consent decree, holistic negotiations, and especially the regulatory approval and public acceptance criteria, in reaching a final decision on how to manage SLAW.
|
From page 6... ...
DOE should promptly turn attention to a thorough review of all types of grout options -- not limited to FFRDC options 4B and 6, and also extending the set of grout options that the FFRDC initially considered to include some of the additional ways that grouting can conform with the general attributes of the FFRDC recommendation that the committee has noted, while perhaps reducing some of the regulatory and public acceptance features of options 4B and 6. Specifically, the options considered should include on- and off-site grouting facilities, nearby and distant treatment options, commercial and public vendors (or public-private partnerships)
|
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.