The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
committee’s statement of task. The committee also offers several recommendations in the concluding paragraphs of this report.
Task 1: Was the process used to screen the alternatives technically sound and did its application result in the selection of appropriate preferred alternatives?
The screening process (see Attachment C) to identify cesium removal alternatives was undertaken by the Salt Disposition Systems Engineering Team under the sponsorship of WSRC. This team was comprised of 10 members with expertise in science and engineering, operations, waste processing, and safety and regulations. The team interacted with experts throughout the DOE complex and undertook a historical review and literature survey to identify about 140 possible processes that could potentially be used to process the high-level waste salt solutions at Savannah River. These processes were grouped into an “initial list” of 18 alternative processing options, which were subsequently screened using a multi-attribute analysis to obtain a “short list” of four alternative processing options: small tank tetraphenylborate (TPB) precipitation, caustic side solvent extraction, direct disposal in grout, and crystalline silicotitanate (CST) ion exchange. This screening process has been reviewed by numerous groups, including two expert teams assembled by DOE, and has received generally favorable marks.
The committee has not yet had an opportunity to perform a detailed examination of this screening process. Therefore, a full response to this part of the task statement must be deferred to the committee’s final report. However, the committee does have one comment at this time relative to this question: Given the ambitious schedule that the Department has defined for selecting and implementing a process for treating the cesium-bearing salt solutions at Savannah River—a draft EIS is to be issued in October 1999, a Record of Decision (ROD) is to be made in spring 2000, and the selected option is planned to be implemented no later than 2008 8 —a negative answer by the committee to this statement-of-task question could delay Savannah River’s plans to process this waste and could markedly increase the total cost of the processing operations 9 . This question could have been asked earlier to permit more meaningful input into the screening process.
The storage of high-level liquid wastes in underground tanks, some of which are several decades old, represents a potential hazard to workers and the environment at the site and a continuing burden on U.S. taxpayers. The committee shares the Department’s (and WSRC’s) sense of urgency to address this hazard by removing and treating the waste as soon as safe and practical. Consequently, in addressing this part of its statement of task, the committee will be asking the question “Did the screening process lead to the identification of technically sound options for processing the waste?” The committee’s initial impression is that the screening process did result in the identification of several potentially viable alternative processing options. The committee will perform a more detailed review of the overall screening process during the remainder of this study.
8
It is not clear to the committee how this process will be implemented. The committee learned that DOE will likely issue a request for proposals (RFP) from industry to implement one of these options. However, DOE Savannah River staff were unable to provide the committee with any details on this RFP.
9
According to WSRC staff, the operating costs of the high-level waste system at Savannah River are about $400 million per year.
Items in cart [1]
