Download Free Tank Waste Retrieval Processing And On Site Disposal At Three Department Of Energy Sites Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Tank Waste Retrieval Processing And On Site Disposal At Three Department Of Energy Sites and write the review.

DOE Tank Waste: How clean is clean enough? The U.S. Congress asked the National Academies to evaluate the Department of Energy's (DOE'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 DOE's overall plan is workable, but some important challenges must be overcomeâ€"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.
DOE Tank Waste: How clean is clean enough? The U.S. Congress asked the National Academies to evaluate the Department of Energy s (DOE 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 DOE s overall plan is workable, but some important challenges must be overcome 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.
In response to a request from Congress, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) asked the National Academies to evaluate its plans for managing radioactive wastes from spent nuclear fuel at sites in Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington. This interim report evaluates storage facilities at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, with a particular focus on plans to seal the tanks with grouting. The report finds that tanks at the site do not necessarily need to be sealed shut as soon as the bulk of the waste has been removed. Postponing permanent closure buys more time for the development and application of emerging technologies to remove and better immobilize residual waste, without increasing risks to the environment or delaying final closure of the "tank farms." The report also recommends alternatives to address the lack of tank space at the site, as well as the need for focused R&D activities to reduce the amount and improve the immobilization of residual waste in the tanks and to test some of the assumptions used in evaulating long-term risks at the site.
The Dept. of Energy (DoE) manages more than 56 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous waste stored in 177 underground tanks at its Hanford Site in Wash. State. Many of these aging tanks have already leaked waste into the soil. Meanwhile, DoE¿s planned process for emptying the tanks and treating the waste has experienced delays, lengthening the time the tanks will store waste and intensifying concerns about the tanks¿ viability during a long cleanup process. This report addresses: (1) the condition, contents, and long-term viability of Hanford¿s underground tanks; (2) DoE¿s strategy for managing the tanks; and (3) the extent to which DoE has weighed the risks and benefits of its tank mgmt. strategy against the growing costs of that strategy. Illustrations.
In response to a request from Congress, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) asked the National Academies to evaluate its plans for managing radioactive wastes from spent nuclear fuel at sites in Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington. This interim report evaluates storage facilities at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, with a particular focus on plans to seal the tanks with grouting. The report finds that tanks at the site do not necessarily need to be sealed shut as soon as the bulk of the waste has been removed. Postponing permanent closure buys more time for the development and application of emerging technologies to remove and better immobilize residual waste, without increasing risks to the environment or delaying final closure of the "tank farms." The report also recommends alternatives to address the lack of tank space at the site, as well as the need for focused R&D activities to reduce the amount and improve the immobilization of residual waste in the tanks and to test some of the assumptions used in evaulating long-term risks at the site.
Beginning with the Manhattan Project and continuing through the Cold War, the United States government constructed and operated a massive industrial complex to produce and test nuclear weapons and related technologies. When the Cold War ended, most of this complex was shut down permanently or placed on standby, and the United States government began a costly, long-term effort to clean up the materials, wastes, and environmental contamination resulting from its nuclear materials production. In 1989, Congress created the Office of Environmental Management (EM) within the Department of Energy (DOE) to manage this cleanup effort. Although EM has already made substantial progress, the scope of EM's future cleanup work is enormous. Advice on the Department of Energy's Cleanup Technology Roadmap: Gaps and Bridges provides advice to support the development of a cleanup technology roadmap for EM. The book identifies existing technology gaps and their priorities, strategic opportunities to leverage needed research and development programs with other organizations, needed core capabilities, and infrastructure at national laboratories and EM sites that should be maintained, all of which are necessary to accomplish EM's mission.
The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017 contained a request for a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine review and assessment of science and technology development efforts within the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM). This technical report is the result of the review and presents findings and recommendations.
The U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office (RL) is in the first stages of contracting with private companies for the treatment and immobilization of tank wastes. The components of tank waste retrieval, treatment, and immobilization have been conceived in two phases (Figure 1.0-1). To meet RL's anticipated contractual requirements, the Project Hanford Management Contractor (PHMC) companies will be required to provide waste feeds to the private companies consistent with waste envelopes that define the feeds in terms of quantity, and concentration of both chemicals and radionuclides. The planning that supports delivery of the feed must be well thought out in four basic areas: (1) Low-activity waste (LAW)/high-level waste (HLW) feed staging plans. How is waste moved within the existing tanks to deliver waste that corresponds to the defined feed envelopes to support the Private Contractor's processing schedule and processing rate? (2) Single-shell tank (SST) retrieval sequence. How are Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party Agreement) (Ecology et al. 1994) milestones for SST retrieval integrated into the Phase I processing to set the stage for Phase II processing to complete the mission? (3) Tank Waste Remediation System (TWRS) process flowsheet. How do materials flow from existing tank inventories through: (1) blending and pretreatment functions in the double-shell tanks (DSTs), (2) contractor processing facilities, and (3) stored waste forms (Figure 1.0-2); (4) Storage and disposal of the immobilized low-activity waste (ILAW) and immobilized high-level waste (IHLW) product. How is the ILAW and IHLW product received from the private companies, the ILAW disposed onsite, and the IHLW stored onsite until final disposal?