Questions? Call 888-624-8373

PAPERBACK
list:$21.00
Web:$18.90
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

Free PDF Access
topleft topright

Science and Technology Needs for DOE Site Cleanup: Workshop Summary (2007)
Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board (NRSB)

Page
I
bottomleft bottomright
  E-mail
 Facebook
 Digg
 Stumble
 Twitter
More
Page
I

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY NEEDS FOR DOE SITE CLEANUP: WORKSHOP SUMMARY Kevin D. Crowley Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board Division on Earth and Life Studies PREPUBLICATION COPY: SUBJECT TO EDITORIAL CORRECTION THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management contract #DE-FC01-04EW07022. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13 (Book) International Standard Book Number-13 (PDF) Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2007 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. PREPUBLICATION COPY

OCR for page R3
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org PREPUBLICATION COPY

OCR for page R4
EM ROADMAP WORKSHOP ORGANIZING COMMITTEE EDWIN P. PRZYBYLOWICZ, Eastman Kodak (retired) ALLEN G. CROFF, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (retired) CAROLYN L. HUNTOON, CLH Associates, Inc. Staff KEVIN D. CROWLEY, Rapporteur RICK JOSTES, Senior Program Officer JOHN R. WILEY, Senior Program Officer TONI GREENLEAF, Administrative Associate MANDI M. BOYKIN, Program Assistant PREPUBLICATION COPY iv

OCR for page R5
NUCLEAR AND RADIATION STUDIES BOARD RICHARD A. MESERVE (chairman), Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC S. JAMES ADELSTEIN (vice chairman), Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts JOEL S. BEDFORD, Colorado State University, Fort Collins SUE B. CLARK, Washington State University, Pullman ALLEN G. CROFF, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (retired), St. Augustine, Florida DAVID E. DANIEL, The University of Texas at Dallas SARAH C. DARBY, Clinical Trial Service Unit (CTSU), Oxford, United Kingdom ROGER L. HAGENGRUBER, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque DANIEL KREWSKI, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KLAUS KÜHN, Technische Universität Clausthal, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany MILTON LEVENSON, Bechtel International (retired), Menlo Park, California C. CLIFTON LING, Memorial Hospital, New York City, New York PAUL A. LOCKE, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland WARREN F. MILLER, Texas A & M University, Albuquerque, New Mexico ANDREW M. SESSLER, E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California JOHN C. VILLFORTH, Food and Drug Law Institute (retired), Gaithersburg, Maryland PAUL L. ZIEMER, Purdue University (retired), West Lafayette, Indiana Staff KEVIN D. CROWLEY, Director EVAN B. DOUPLE, Scholar RICK JOSTES, Senior Program Officer MICAH D. LOWENTHAL, Senior Program Officer JOHN R. WILEY, Senior Program Officer NAOKO ISHIBE, Program Officer TONI GREENLEAF, Administrative and Financial Associate LAURA D. LLANOS, Administrative and Financial Associate COURTNEY GIBBS, Senior Program Assistant MANDI M. BOYKIN, Program Assistant SHAUNTEE WHETSTONE, Program Assistant JAMES YATES, JR., Office Assistant PREPUBLICATION COPY v

OCR for page R6
PREFACE The Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) is developing a technology “roadmap” to guide planning and possible future congressional appropriations for its technology development programs. It asked the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) to provide technical and strategic advice to support the development and implementation of this roadmap, specifically by undertaking a study that identifies the following: Principal science and technology gaps and their priorities for the cleanup program based on previous National Academies reports, updated and extended to reflect current site conditions and EM priorities and input form key external groups, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Environmental Protection Agency, and state regulatory agencies. Strategic opportunities to leverage research and development from other DOE programs (e.g., in the Office of Science, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and the National Nuclear Security Administration), other federal agencies (e.g., Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency), universities, and the private sector. Core capabilities at the national laboratories that will be needed to address EM's long-term, high-risk cleanup challenges, especially at the four laboratories located at the large DOE sites (Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Savannah River National Laboratory). The infrastructure at these national laboratories and at EM sites that should be maintained to support research, development, and bench and pilot scale demonstrations of technologies for the EM cleanup program, especially in radiochemistry. This report addresses the first bullet of this study task and is organized into two parts. Part 1 provides a high-level synthesis of principal science and technology gaps identified in previous NRC reports. The NRC has been advising DOE and its predecessor agencies on the use of science and technology for waste management and environmental cleanup since the mid 1950s. Its published reports have identified, either directly or indirectly, science and technology gaps in the cleanup program. A complete list of NRC reports on waste management and environmental cleanup of DOE sites is provided in Appendix A. Part 1 is based on a discussion paper that was prepared for the March 13, 2007, NRC workshop entitled Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup of DOE Sites. The objective of the workshop was to bring together the “key” external groups identified in the first bullet of the study task to discuss current site conditions and science and technology needs. The workshop agenda and participants are provided in Appendixes B and C, respectively. A summary of the workshop presentations and discussions is provided in Part 2 of this report. It is intended to “update and extend” the Part 1 summary by providing comments on current cleanup priorities at four DOE sites (Hanford, Idaho, Oak Ridge, and Savannah River). Part 2 also provides a summary of workshop presentations and discussions on promoting more effective use of science and technology for DOE site cleanup. This discussion is intended to inform the next study phase, which is described below. PREPUBLICATION COPY vi

OCR for page R7
The remainder of the study task will be addressed in a “Phase 2” activity which is being carried out by an NRC-appointed committee; the committee membership is given in Appendix D. The committee may also offer additional comments on the first bullet of the study task. The committee is planning to visit the four sites that are the subject of this workshop and their associated national laboratories. The final report from the phase 2 study is expected to be issued in the fall of 2008. PREPUBLICATION COPY vii

OCR for page R8
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This workshop was organized on very short notice to inform the development of the Department of Energy's technology roadmap. The rapporteur and the National Research Council would like to thank the panelists and other participants for making this workshop a success. Special thanks go to Mark Gilbertson and his staff for helping to recruit Department of Energy (DOE) panelists; Terry Tyborowski for providing an important congressional perspective on the use of technology for DOE site cleanup; members of the workshop organizing committee (Ed Przybylowicz, Allen Croff, and Carolyn Huntoon) for helping to organize and run the workshop; and members of the Phase 2 study committee (Appendix D) for their insights on the workshop discussions. The rapporteur would also like to thank National Research Council staff, especially John Wiley, Rick Jostes, Greg Symmes, Toni Greenleaf, and Mandi Boykin, for their help with the workshop and this summary. It was truly a team effort. This summary has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purposes of this review are to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards of 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 wish to thank the following for their participation in the review of this report: Patricia J. Culligan, Columbia University Paul A. Locke, The Johns Hopkins University John Marra, Savannah River National Laboratory Andrew M. Sessler, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (retired) Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by the Division on Earth and Life Studies of the National Research Council, which was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. This report presents the rapporteur’s summary of workshop and does not necessarily represent the views of the workshop participants or the National Research Council. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the rapporteur and the National Research Council. PREPUBLICATION COPY viii

OCR for page R9
Contents INTRODUCTION 1 PART 1: OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL STUDIES ON WASTE AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 6 SYNTHESIS OF PREVIOUS NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORTS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY GAPS FOR DOE SITE CLEANUP 8 High-Level Waste and Tank Cleanup, 9 Facility Cleanup, 11 Groundwater and Soil Cleanup, 14 Waste and Contamination Containment, 16 Containment Monitoring, 17 CLOSING THOUGHTS: IMPORTANCE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP 18 PART 2: WORKSHOP SUMMARY 21 OPENING COMMENTS 21 CLEANUP CHALLENGES AT FOUR DOE SITES 24 Savannah River Site, 24 Idaho Site, 27 Oak Ridge Reservation, 31 Hanford Site, 36 PROMOTING THE EFFECTIVE USE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN DOE SITE CLEANUP 42 Perspectives from a Site Cleanup Contractor, 42 Perspectives from CRESP, 44 WORKSHOP WRAP-UP 45 FUTURE PLANS 46 APPENDIXES: A: NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL REPORTS RELATED TO WASTE MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP OF THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX 47 B: WORKSHOP AGENDA 54 C: LIST OF WORKSHOP ATTENDEES 57 D: EM ROADMAP COMMITTEE ROSTER 59 E: ACRONYMS 60 PREPUBLICATION COPY ix