CRESP III: National nuclear waste issues to be tackled by multi-university team
CRESP, a multi-university consortium of engineers and scientists, have learned a lot during the last ten years about how to handle nuclear waste. By helping the nation through the U.S. Department of Energy find the best ways to clean up nuclear weapons production sites and to dispose of nuclear wastes safely, these nuclear waste experts hope to leverage their knowledge to help the U.S. find safe ways to effectively manage nuclear waste from civilian nuclear power as well as defense sources, which they see as an critical component if the nation is to accept expanded nuclear power generating capacities.
But the first step is to continue to clean up the “legacy wastes” of the Cold War, the Vanderbilt leaders of the consortium say. The CRESP Consortium partners include faculty members from Rutgers University, University of Pittsburgh, New York University, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Howard University, University of Arizona, and Oregon State University.
The multi-university Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation will be funded by a DOE cooperative agreement for the next five years (2006 - 2011) to continue to work with DOE and its stakeholders on how to clean up legacy wastes from the nuclear arms race and to contribute to the technical foundation for safe management of nuclear waste from a wide range of sources.
Although CRESP has focused on site remediation, its work has required engineers and scientists to understand the complete life cycle of nuclear power generation, weapons production and environmental impacts from nuclear weapons tests.
CRESP has since 1995 been researching ways to advance cost-effective clean up of the nation’s nuclear weapons production waste sites and test facilities. CRESP III will work to improve technical clarity based on experience developed earlier by CRESP to help guide both nuclear weapons sites remediation and safe management of wastes produced by nuclear power plants.
You are invited to attend a
Short Course
Introduction to Nuclear Chemistry and Fuel Cycle Separations
December 16-18, 2008
Vanderbilt University School of Engineering
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Nashville, TN 37240
Course Objective: To provide an introduction to the chemistry and separations processes of isotopes important to nuclear fuel cycles including: Nuclear fuel cycle fundamentals; Mining, milling and enrichment; Nuclear radiation; Reactors and fuels; Spent fuel reprocessing; Non-aqueous processes; Precipitation/crystallization/sorption; Sorbent development and analysis; Complexation reactions; Separations equipment; Waste forms; Environmental transport; Role of modeling; Role of risk assessments; and Nuclear proliferation and safeguards.
Targeted Audience: Professionals in management, oversight and regulation of nuclear processes and facilities. Also appropriate for graduate students in engineering and sciences planning a career focused on nuclear processes and as an introduction for professionals that will be engaged in nuclear separations processes and facility design.
Organizing Committee: Dr. Raymond G. Wymer, Chair; David S. Kosson, Vice-Chair, Vanderbilt University; Cynthia Atkins-Duffin, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; David dePaoli, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Kathryn Higley, Oregon State University; Terry Todd, Idaho National Laboratory. Additional information and registration
The Participatory Process on Risk at Hanford
A CRESP Status Report – March 2008
As part of its Cooperative Agreement, CRESP is assessing public participation and communication processes at Hanford where the Department of Energy’s risk evaluations are involved. The very nature of the questions we were asked to address tended to bring out areas of concern. CRESP initiated this process through a series of two types of “Listenings”. The first was with tribal environmental leaders, regulators, Hanford Advisory Board members and their relevant committees, DOE officials in the Tri-Cities and others. CRESP had completed an initial round of such listening in the late Fall and began a two pronged effort to follow up its initial findings. We went back to the tribes to make sure that what we had heard had been accurately represented and to see if, in follow-up sessions, we could better learn the significance of the points which differed among the tribes. The discussion of tribal issues that constitutes Part II of this document is the result of those discussions that took place on or near the tribal reservations.
CRESP accelerated its efforts to review the publicly-available written exchanges among
the several parties and to attend (either physically or by phone) key meetings identified
on the site’s public involvement calendar where public verbal exchanges are occurring
among the parties. While one of the main topics has been the Draft Risk Assessment
Report for the 100 Area and 300 Area Component of the River Corridor Baseline Risk
Assessment(RCBRA) , other stakeholder concerns about the risk assessment and
evaluation processes, the health of the Columbia River, and the health of Hanford overall
were typically discussed. In Part III, we discuss issues that arose over the winter and early spring about the redrafting of the RCBRA Draft A, and the definitiion of the river component among the several Hanford risk assessment processes.
View Report
“Best in Class” and Root Causes:
A CRESP Perspective on DOE‐EM’s Programs
The Office of Environmental Management currently
seeks to become “best in class”. In fact, the Office is
in a class by itself – and is, therefore, by definition
both the best and the worst in that class.
Accordingly, EM’s leaders and others often rightly
describe the Office’s work as being unique for
several reasons: (i) the nature, quantity and diversity
of the wastes to which its remediation program is
devoted, (ii) the complexity of the tasks EM faces,
(iii) where some wastes are found and problems
(risks) involved in their handling and (iv) the fact
that its remediation program’s requires first-of-akind
projects involving processes and construction
projects that are simply found nowhere else. In
reality, the EM program faces several distinct forms
of challenges: (i) radioactive waste processing, (ii)
remediation of contaminated geologic media (e.g.,
soil, sediments) and water from land surface to deep
subsurface, (iii) decommissioning, including
decontamination and demolition, of complex
contaminated structures and, (iv) establishment,
operation and closure of near surface disposal and
deep geologic repositories. In this paper we seek to
relate “best in class” concepts to earlier CRESP work
on roots causes of EM problems. We look back to
see how EM has or has not been able to use prior
advice as a guide to what kind of effort is needed to make an initiative on “best in class” effective. We
then propose a four-part approach to a comprehensive EM effort to drive for the quality and qualities
that will make it “best in class”. View Report
CRESP SPONSORED SYMPOSIA ON NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT
Vanderbilt University Roundtable:
Waste, Waste Forms and Disposition Pathways: Current and Future for Spent Nuclear Fuel, High Level Waste, and Future Reprocessing/Recycling Wastes
September 28, 2007
The roundtable focused on an overview of nuclear waste managment challenges including presentations on current activities at:
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials
- U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
- National Academies
Other topics presented and discussed included:
- Case Studies on Waste Form Definition and Current Waste Pathways
- Future Wastes & Possible Future Fuel Cycles
- WIPP, Yucca And Other Potential Repositories
- Approaches To Integrating the Management of the "Back-End" of of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
- Nuclear Facilities Emphasizing Nuclear Facilities including Nuclear Waste Facilities in Construction Management
Uncertainty in Long-Term Planning
Nuclear Waste Management, a Case Study
A Symposium and Celebration Honoring
Frank L. Parker
January 7-8, 2008
The conditions of nuclear waste management today were examined as a basis for exploring the potential paths forward over the mandated time period of 1 million years. Technical, programmatic, social, financial and natural risks over these time periods, as well as inter- and intra-generational responsibilities were considered. The possible changes, both positive and negative, in medical knowledge, technology, society and environmental conditions were discussed. Speakers and additional participants with diverse technical, social, political, philosophical and national backgrounds proposed potentially societally acceptable paths forward and the advantages and disadvantages of each of the paths.
Peer Review Literature
Burger, J., The Effect on Ecological Systems of Remediation to Protect Human Health. Am J Public Health, 2007. 97(9): p. 1572-1578. Abstract
Greenberg, M., Lowrie, K., Burger, J., Powers, C., Gochfeld, M., & Mayer, H. (2007). Preferences for alternative risk management policies at the United States major nuclear weapons legacy sites. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(2), 187 - 209. Abstract
Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Powers, C. W., & Greenberg, M. (2007). Defining an ecological baseline for restoration and natural resource damage assessment of contaminated sites: The case of the Department of Energy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(4), 553 - 566. Abstract
Greenberg, M., Lowrie, K., Burger, J., Powers, C. W., Gochfeld, M., & Mayer, H. (2007). Nuclear Waste and Public Worries: Public Perceptions of the United States' Major Nuclear Weapons Legacy. Human Ecology Review, 14(1), 1-12. Abstract
Kostelnik, K. M., Clarke, J. H., Harbour, J. L., Sanchez, F., & Parker, F. L. (2006). A Sustainable Environmental Protection System for the Management of Residual Contaminants. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 13, 117-137. Abstract
Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., & Jewett, S. (2006). Selecting species for marine assessment of radionuclides around Amchitka: Planning for diverse goals and interests. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 123(1-3), 371-391. Abstract
Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Powers, C. W., Kosson, D. S., Halverson, J., Siekaniec, G., Morkill, A., Patrick, R., and L.K. Duffy. (2006). Stakeholder driven, collaborative research with risks from consumption of marine fish and shellfish, Society of Risk Analysis Annual Meeting. San Antonio, Texas. Abstract
CRESP III Co-sponsors Workshop at the Savannah River National Laboratory 
The Savannah River National Laboratory, the Department of Energy, Vanderbilt University and the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) hosted the Cementitious Materials for Waste Treatment, Disposal, Remediation and Decommissioning Workshop on December 12-14, 2006. The workshop was preceded by one day of LeachXS Geochemical Software training, provided by Vanderbilt University. The purpose of the workshop was to facilitate technical exchange among subject matter experts across the DOE complex, additional national and international experts, and representatives from local advisory groups and state and federal agencies with roles at DOE sites. One hundred and ten people attended the workshop in person while another 250 people participated either in full or in part via web cast.Workshop Information
New Report: Engineered Cementitious Barriers for Low-Activity Radioactive Waste Disposal Workshop Summary and Recommendations for DOE Office of Environmental Management. This report provides a summary of the current state of knowledge and information gaps identified through a workshop on the use of engineered cementitious barriers for shallow land disposal of low-activity radioactive wastes.