Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Appendix B: 1994 Letter Report on Systems Engineering
Pages 25-42

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 25...
... B 1 994 Letter Report on Systems Engineering 25
From page 26...
... 20007 The National Research Council's Committee on Remediation of Buried and Tank Wastes (Attachment ~ ~ has been in existence since early ~ 993, sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Remediation and Waste Management.
From page 27...
... Articulation of a mission statement, including clear operational objectives The mission statement for the Hanford tank-remediation program appropriately establishes that the broad end point is "to store, treat, and immobilize highly radioactive Hanford waste in an environmentally sound, safe, and cost-effective manner" (U.S. Department of Energy RichIand Field Office, ~ 9931.
From page 28...
... In the absence of thorough analyses of these types of technical uncertainties, a decision process will inevitably be handicapped. The Committee urges that major efforts be devoted immediately to exploring all of the significant technical uncertainties associated with today's mainline option and with each of the reasonable alternatives.
From page 29...
... While this has been done for some of the elements of the tank-remediation program, the Committee believes that in a number of important areas the evaluations are either weak or absent. Among these are the possibility of technical incompatibilities between the high-activity glass waste form and the not-yetdesignated geological repository; the possibility of a substantial mismatch between available funding and the planned program, a possibility that could be minimized with a thorough cost-benefit evaluation of alternatives; the possibility that occupational risks may turn out to be far greater than now expected, forcing the expensive, time-consuming reengineering of one or more of the planned remediation operations; and the previously mentioned possibility that the vitrification technology for the lower-activity fraction may not work out as expected.
From page 30...
... of the tank wastes stabilized in place, and the recent decision to maintain the grout facility only in a standby condition and to defer further grout technology development in favor of developing a vitrification approach for the lower-activity fraction of the tank waste. in each case, the Committee recommends that DOE carefully evaluate the program uncertainties associated with foreclosing the technical alternatives prematurely, and that where appropriate DOE carry along alternatives at levels sufficient to permit their fuller development, if needed.
From page 31...
... Program execution, including feedback Given the time available, the Committee did not make a thorough assessment of issues related to program execution. However, we have comments on one particular issue related to the indicated delegation of increased authority to the field offices for the execution of DOE remediation programs.
From page 32...
... Burke, The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health Robert J Catlin, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston James H
From page 33...
... Pane' to Review Planned DOE Disposal of Radioactive Waste in Single-SheI' Tanks at Hanford, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
From page 34...
... Tanks at Hanford Board on Radioactive Waste Management National Research Council National Academy of Sciences Washington, DC 28 February 1992 Attachment
From page 35...
... Support for this project was provided under funds for the Board on Radioactive Waste Management through the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No.
From page 36...
... Robert d. Catlin, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston James O
From page 37...
... reviewed a six-volume, yet to be completed draft report by a DOE contractor, Westinghouse Hanford Company, RichIand, WA, entitled Systems Engineering Study for the Closure of Sing/e-She// Tanks (Boomer et al., 1991~. Volumes ~ and 2 constitute the text of the draft Study report, supported by extensive background engineering information in appendices found in the remaining volumes.
From page 38...
... The integrated alternatives are then evaluated with a combination of qualitative and quantitative weighted rating factors. Finally, the draft Study report contains the recommendation that a group of the four integrated alternatives having the highest evaluations, plus two baseline cases [no action or deferred action, and the 1987 Hanford Defense Waste Environmental Impact Statement reference alternative for in situ waste stabilization and disposal (U.S.
From page 39...
... The Pane! has not yet received sufficient evidence to convince it that the four integrated alternatives recommended in the draft Study report are preferable to others that might be considered for tank closure.
From page 40...
... The draft Study report presents analysis from a small group at one organization; the Study needs input and review from a much larger and disparate segment of the scientific and technical community, as well as from the lay public. The Pane' understands that the Study is scheduled for completion in February 1992, to be followed by technical evaluation of the four most promising integrated alternatives, plus the two baseline alternatives, during the following 14 months.
From page 41...
... 1987. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranic and Tank Wastes, Hanford Site, Richiand, Washington.


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.