[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 211-219]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-114]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Research and Office of Environmental Management


Energy Research Financial Assistance Program Notice 98-08; 
Environmental Management Science Program: Research Related to High 
Level Radioactive Waste

AGENCY: Office of Energy Research and Office of Environmental 
Management. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice inviting grant applications.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Offices of Energy Research (ER) and Environmental 
Management (EM), U.S. Department of Energy, hereby announce their 
interest in receiving grant applications for performance of innovative, 
fundamental research to support specific activities for high level 
radioactive waste; which include, but are not limited to, 
characterization and safety, retrieval of tank waste and tank closure, 
pretreatment, and waste immobilization and disposal.

DATES: Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to submit a brief 
preapplication. All preapplications, referencing Program Notice 98-08, 
should be received by DOE by 4:30 P.M. E.S.T., January 27, 1998. A 
response encouraging or discouraging a formal application generally 
will be communicated to the applicant within three weeks of receipt. 
The deadline for receipt of formal applications is 4:30 P.M., E.D.T., 
April 16, 1998, in order to be accepted for merit review and to permit 
timely consideration for award in Fiscal Year 1998.

ADDRESSES: All preapplications, referencing Program Notice 98-08, 
should be sent to Dr. Roland F. Hirsch, ER-73, Mail Stop F-240, Office 
of Biological and Environmental Research, U.S. Department of Energy, 
19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874-1290.
    Preapplications will be accepted if submitted by U. S. Postal 
Service, including Express Mail, commercial mail delivery service, or 
hand delivery, but will not be accepted by fax, electronic mail, or 
other means.
    After receiving notification from DOE concerning successful 
preapplications,

[[Page 212]]

applicants may prepare and submit formal applications. Applications 
must be sent to: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research, 
Grants and Contracts Division, ER-64, 19901 Germantown Road, 
Germantown, MD 20874-1290, Attn: Program Notice 98-08. The above 
address for formal applications must also be used when submitting 
formal applications by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail, any commercial 
mail delivery service, or when hand carried by the applicant.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Roland F. Hirsch, ER-73, Mail Stop 
F-240, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Office of 
Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road, 
Germantown, MD 20874-1290, telephone: (301) 903-5349, fax: (301) 903-
0567, E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88fae7e4e9e6eca6e0e1fafbebe0c8e7edfaa6ece7eda6efe7fe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5a2835363b343e743233282939321a353f28743e353f743d352c">[email protected]</span></a>, or Mr. Mark Gilbertson, Office 
of Science and Risk Policy, Office of Science and Technology, Office of 
Environmental Management, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 
D.C. 20585, telephone: (202) 586-7150, E-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bed3dfccd590d9d7d2dcdbcccacdd1d0fedbd390dad1db90d9d1c8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="147975667f3a737d7876716660677b7a5471793a707b713a737b62">[email protected]</span></a>. This Notice is also available on the World 
Wide Web at http://www.er.doe.gov/production/grants/fr98__08.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office of Environmental Management, in 
partnership with the Office of Energy Research, sponsors the 
Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP) to fulfill DOE's 
continuing commitment to the cleanup of DOE's environmental legacy. The 
program was initiated in Fiscal Year 1996. We are soliciting ideas for 
basic scientific research which promotes the broad national interest of 
a better understanding of the fundamental characteristics of highly 
radioactive chemical wastes and their effects on the environment.
    The DOE Environmental Management program currently has ongoing 
applied research and engineering efforts under its Technology 
Development Program. These efforts must be supplemented with basic 
research to address long-term technical issues crucial to the EM 
mission. Basic research can also provide EM with near-term fundamental 
data that may be critical to the advancement of technologies that are 
under development but not yet at full scale nor implemented. Proposed 
basic research under this Notice should contribute to environmental 
management activities that would decrease risk for the public and 
workers, provide opportunities for major cost reductions, reduce time 
required to achieve EM's mission goals, and, in general, should address 
problems that are considered intractable without new knowledge. This 
program is designed to inspire ``breakthroughs'' in areas critical to 
the EM mission through basic research and will be managed in 
partnership with ER. ER's well-established procedures, as set forth in 
the Energy Research Merit Review System, as published in the Federal 
Register, March 11, 1991, Vol. 56, No. 47, pages 10244-10246, will be 
used for merit review of applications submitted in response to this 
Notice. This information is also available on the World Wide Web at 
http://www.er.doe.gov/production/grants/merit.html. Subsequent to the 
formal scientific merit review, applications that are judged to be 
scientifically meritorious will be evaluated by DOE for relevance to 
the objectives of the Environmental Management Science Program. 
Additional information can be obtained at <a href="http://www.em.doe.gov/
science">http://www.em.doe.gov/
science</a>.
    Additional Notices for the Environmental Management Science Program 
may be issued during Fiscal Year 1998 covering other areas within the 
scope of the EM program.

Purpose

    The need to build a stronger scientific basis for the Environmental 
Management effort has been established in a number of recent studies 
and reports. The FY 1998 Conference Report for Appropriations for 
Energy and Water Development, Report 105-271, dated September 26, 1997, 
on page 92 states the following:
    ``The conferees are pleased with the progress to date in 
implementing the environmental science program * * *''

    The Environmental Management Advisory Board Science Committee 
(Resolution on the Environmental Management Science Program, May 2, 
1997) made the following observations:

    ``EMSP results are likely to be of significant value to EM'' * * 
* ``Early program benefits include: improved understanding of EM 
science needs, linkage with technology needs, and expansion of the 
cadre of scientific personnel working on EM problems'' * * * 
``Science program has the potential to lead to significant 
improvement in future risk reduction and cost and time savings.''

    The objectives of the Environmental Management Science Program are 
to:
    <bullet> Provide scientific knowledge that will revolutionize 
technologies and clean-up approaches to significantly reduce future 
costs, schedules, and risks;
    <bullet> ``Bridge the gap'' between broad fundamental research that 
has wide-ranging applicability such as that performed in DOE's Office 
of Energy Research and needs-driven applied technology development that 
is conducted in EM's Office of Science and Technology; and
    <bullet> Focus the Nation's science infrastructure on critical DOE 
environmental management problems.

Representative Research Areas

    Basic research is solicited in areas of science with the potential 
for addressing problems in the cleanup of high level radioactive waste. 
Relevant scientific disciplines include, but are not limited to, 
chemistry (including actinide chemistry, analytical chemistry and 
instrumentation, interfacial chemistry, and separation science), 
computer and mathematical sciences, engineering science (chemical and 
process engineering), materials science (degradation mechanisms, 
modeling, corrosion, non-destructive evaluation, sensing of waste 
hosts, canisters), and physics (fluid flow, aqueous-ionic solid 
interfacial properties underlying rheological processes).

Program Funding

    Up to a total of $4,000,000 of Fiscal Year 1998 Federal funds is 
expected to be available for new Environmental Management Science 
Program awards resulting from this Notice. Multiple-year funding of 
grant awards is anticipated, contingent upon the availability of funds. 
Award sizes are expected to be on the order of $100,000-$300,000 per 
year for total project costs for a typical three-year grant. 
Collaborative projects involving several research groups or more than 
one institution may receive larger awards if merited. The program will 
be competitive and offered to investigators in universities or other 
institutions of higher education, other non-profit or for-profit 
organizations, non-Federal agencies or entities, or unaffiliated 
individuals. DOE reserves the right to fund in whole or part any or 
none of the applications received in response to this Notice. DOE is 
under no obligation to pay for any costs associated with the 
preparation or submission of applications. A parallel announcement with 
a similar potential total amount of funds will be issued to DOE 
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs). All 
projects will be evaluated using the same criteria, regardless of the 
submitting institution.

Collaboration and Training

    Applicants to the EMSP are strongly encouraged to collaborate with 
researchers in other institutions, such as universities, industry, non-
profit

[[Page 213]]

organizations, federal laboratories and FFRDCs, including the DOE 
National Laboratories, where appropriate, and to incorporate cost 
sharing and/or consortia wherever feasible.
    Applicants are also encouraged to provide training opportunities, 
including student involvement, in applications submitted to the 
program.
    Collaborative research applications may be submitted in several 
ways:
    (1) When multiple private sector or academic organizations intend 
to propose collaborative or joint research projects, the lead 
organization may submit a single application which includes another 
organization as a lower-tier participant (subaward) who will be 
responsible for a smaller portion of the overall project. If approved 
for funding, DOE may provide the total project funds to the lead 
organization who will provide funding to the other participant via a 
subcontract arrangement. The application should clearly describe the 
role to be played by each organization, specify the managerial 
arrangements and explain the advantages of the multi-organizational 
effort.
    (2) Alternatively, multiple private sector or academic 
organizations who intend to propose collaborative or joint research 
projects may each prepare a portion of the application, then combine 
each portion into a single, integrated scientific application. A 
separate Face Page and Budget Pages must be included for each 
organization participating in the collaborative project. The joint 
application must be submitted to DOE as one package. If approved for 
funding, DOE will award a separate grant to each collaborating 
organization.
    (3) Private sector or academic applicants who wish to form a 
collaborative project with a DOE FFRDC may not include the DOE FFRDC in 
their application as a lower-tier participant (subcontract). Rather, 
each collaborator may prepare a portion of the proposal, then combine 
each portion into a single, integrated scientific proposal. The private 
sector or academic organization must include a Face Page and Budget 
Pages for its portion of the project. The FFRDC must include separate 
Budget Pages for its portion of the project. The joint proposal must be 
submitted to DOE as one package. If approved for funding, DOE will 
award a grant to the private sector or academic organization. The FFRDC 
will be funded, through existing DOE contracts, from funds specifically 
designated for new FFRDC projects. DOE FFRDCs will not compete for 
funding already designated for private sector or academic 
organizations. Other Federal laboratories who wish to form 
collaborative projects may also follow guidelines outlined in this 
section.

Preapplications

    A brief preapplication may be submitted. The original and five 
copies must be received by January 27, 1998, to be considered. The 
preapplication should identify on the cover sheet the institution, 
Principal Investigator name, address, telephone, fax and E-mail 
address, title of the project, and the field of scientific research 
(using the list in the Application Categories section). The 
preapplication should consist of up to three pages of narrative 
describing the research objectives and the plan for accomplishing them, 
and should also include a paragraph describing the research background 
of the principal investigator and key collaborators if any.
    Preapplications will be evaluated relative to the scope and 
research needs of the DOE's Environmental Management Science Program by 
qualified DOE program managers from both ER and EM. Preapplications are 
strongly encouraged but not required prior to submission of a full 
application. Please note that notification of a successful 
preapplication is not an indication that an award will be made in 
response to the formal application.

Application Format

    Applicants are expected to use the following format in addition to 
following instructions in the Office of Energy Research Application 
Guide. Applications must be written in English, with all budgets in 
U.S. dollars.
    <bullet> ER Face Page (DOE F 4650.2 (10-91))
    <bullet> Application classification sheet (a plain sheet of paper 
with one selection from the list of scientific fields listed in the 
Application Categories Section)
    <bullet> Table of Contents
    <bullet> Project Abstract (no more than one page)
    <bullet> Budgets for each year and a summary budget page for the 
entire project period (using DOE F 4620.1)
    <bullet> Budget Explanation
    <bullet> Budgets and Budget explanation for each collaborative 
subproject, if any
    <bullet> Project Narrative (recommended length is no more than 20 
pages; multi-investigator collaborative projects may use more pages if 
necessary up to a total of 40 pages):

Goals
Significance of Project to the EMSP
Background
Research Plan
Preliminary Studies (if applicable)
Research Design and Methodologies

    <bullet> Literature Cited
    <bullet> Collaborative Arrangements (if applicable)
    <bullet> Biographical Sketches (limit 2 pages per senior 
investigator)
    <bullet> Description of Facilities and Resources
    <bullet> Current and Pending Support for each senior investigator

Application Categories

    In order to properly classify each preapplication and application 
for evaluation and review, the documents must indicate the applicant's 
preferred scientific research field, (please use only the designation 
on this list and please select only one field of scientific research) 
from the following list of Field of Scientific Research:

1. Actinide Chemistry
2. Analytical Chemistry and Instrumentation
3. Interfacial Chemistry
4. Separations Science
5. Computer and Mathematical Sciences
6. Engineering Sciences
7. Materials Science
8. Physics
9. Other

Application Evaluation and Selection

    Scientific Merit. The program will support the most scientifically 
meritorious and relevant work, regardless of the institution. Formal 
applications will be subjected to scientific merit review (peer review) 
and will be evaluated against the following evaluation criteria listed 
in descending order of importance as codified at 10 CFR 605.10(d):

1. Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the Project
2. Appropriateness of the Proposed Method or Approach
3. Competency of Applicant's Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed 
Resources
4. Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget.

    External peer reviewers are selected with regard to both their 
scientific expertise and the absence of conflict-of-interest issues. 
Non-federal reviewers may be used, and submission of an application 
constitutes agreement that this is acceptable to the investigator(s) 
and the submitting institution.
    Relevance to Mission. Subsequent to the formal scientific merit 
review, applications which are judged to be scientifically meritorious 
will be evaluated by DOE for relevance to the objectives of the 
Environmental Management Science Program. These objectives were 
established in the Conference Report for the Fiscal Year 1996 Energy 
and Water Development Appropriations Act, and are published in the 
Congressional Record--House, October 26, 1995, page H10956.

[[Page 214]]

    DOE shall also consider, as part of the evaluation, program policy 
factors such as an appropriate balance among the program areas, 
including research already in progress. Research funded in the 
Environmental Management Science Program in Fiscal Year 1996 and Fiscal 
Year 1997 can be viewed at http://www.doe.gov/em52/science-grants.html.

Application Guide and Forms

    Information about the development, submission of applications, 
eligibility, limitations, evaluation, the selection process, and other 
policies and procedures may be found in 10 CFR Part 605, and in the 
Application Guide for the Office of Energy Research Financial 
Assistance Program. Electronic access to the Guide and required forms 
is made available via the World Wide Web at <a href="http://www.er.doe.gov/
production/grants/grants.html">http://www.er.doe.gov/
production/grants/grants.html</a>.

Major Environmental Management Challenges

    This research announcement has been developed for Fiscal Year 1998, 
along with a development process for a long-term program within 
Environmental Management, with the objective of providing continuity in 
scientific knowledge that will revolutionize technologies and clean-up 
approaches for solving DOE's most complex environmental problems. The 
following is an overview of the technical challenge facing the 
Environmental Management Program in the area of High Level Radioactive 
Waste which is the focus of this announcement. More detailed 
descriptions of the specific technical needs and areas of emphasis 
associated with this problem area can be found in the Background 
section of this Notice.
    High-level Radioactive Waste Tanks. The Department is the guardian 
of over 300 large storage tanks containing over 90 million gallons of 
highly radioactive wastes, which include organic and inorganic chemical 
compounds, in solid, colloidal, slurry, and liquid phases. The 
environment within the tanks is highly radioactive and chemically 
harsh. A few of the tanks have leaked to the environment while others 
are corroding.
    Specific areas of emphasis in technology needs and research 
challenges related to high level waste (HLW) tank problems include, but 
are not limited to:
    <bullet> Characterization and Safety
    <bullet> Retrieval of Tank Waste and Tank Closure
    <bullet> Pretreatment and Separation Processes for Tank Waste
    <bullet> Waste Immobilization and Disposal
    Historically, characterization of tank waste has been very 
expensive, has failed to obtain representative data for many tanks, and 
has generated safety concerns from worker exposure to radioactive 
waste. Within the Characterization and Safety area there is the need to 
develop systems to identify chemical and physical characteristics of 
the waste in situ, improve data quality and timeliness, and reduce 
safety concerns.
    In the Retrieval of Tank Waste and Tank Closure area, there is the 
need to develop cost-efficient methods to remove saltcake, sludge, and 
waste heels and close a high-level waste tank that may contain a 
flammable gas environment. Some sites have numerous tanks that contain 
saltcake so that the potential cost savings of less expensive saltcake 
retrieval methods is very large.
    Pretreatment and Separation Processes for Tank Waste will separate 
tank wastes into low-and high-level fractions, thereby significantly 
reducing the volumes of high-level waste requiring disposal. These 
separations include not only chemical separations, but also physical 
separations.
    Low level waste (LLW) immobilization will reduce waste volumes and 
produce waste forms that are chemically and physically durable. EM is 
applying two technologies (grout and glass) to the same waste stream to 
allow an unbiased appraisal of the true costs and risks associated with 
implementing each technology for full-scale tank waste remediation. 
Both technologies must be robust enough to handle the range of 
constituents found in the tank wastes.
    The aforementioned areas of emphasis do not preclude, and DOE 
strongly encourages, any innovative or creative ideas contributing to 
solving EM HLW challenges mentioned throughout this Notice.

Background

    Environmental Management (EM) is responsible for the development, 
testing, evaluation, and deployment of remediation technologies within 
a system architecture to characterize, retrieve, treat, concentrate, 
and dispose of radioactive waste stored in the underground storage 
tanks at DOE facilities and ultimately stabilize and close the tanks. 
The goal is to provide safe and cost-effective solutions that are 
acceptable to both the public and regulators.
    Within the DOE complex, 335 underground storage tanks have been 
used to process and store radioactive and chemical mixed waste 
generated from weapon materials production and manufacturing. 
Collectively, these tanks hold over 90 million gallons of high-level 
and low-level radioactive liquid waste in sludge, saltcake, and as 
supernate and vapor. Very little has been treated and/or disposed of in 
final form.
    Tanks vary in design from carbon or stainless steel to concrete, 
and concrete with carbon steel liners. Two types of storage tanks are 
most prevalent: the single-shell and double-shell concrete tanks with 
carbon steel liners. Capacities vary from 5,000 gallons 
(19m<SUP>3</SUP>) to 1,300,000 gallons (4920m<SUP>3</SUP>). The tanks 
are covered with a layer of soil ranging from a few feet to tens of 
feet thick.
    Most of the waste is alkaline and contains a diverse portfolio of 
chemical constituents including nitrate and nitrite salts 
(approximately half of the total waste), hydrated metal oxides, 
phosphate precipitates, and ferrocyanides. The 784 MCi of radionuclides 
are distributed primarily among the transuranic (TRU) elements and 
fission products, specifically strontium-90, cesium-137, and their 
decay products yttrium-90 and barium-137. In-tank atmospheric 
conditions vary in severity from near ambient to temperatures over 
93 deg.C. Tank void-space radiation fields can be as high as 10,000 
rad/h.
    EM is focusing attention on four DOE locations:
    <bullet> Hanford Site near Richland, Washington.
    <bullet> Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 
near Idaho Falls, Idaho.
    <bullet> Oak Ridge Reservation near Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
    <bullet> Savannah River Site near Aiken, South Carolina.
    Hanford has 177 tanks that contain approximately 55 million gallons 
of hazardous and radioactive waste. There are 149 single-shell tanks 
that have exceeded their life expectancy. Sixty-seven of these tanks 
have known or suspected leaks. Due to several changes in the production 
processes since the early 1940s, some of the tanks contain incompatible 
waste components, generating hydrogen gas and excess heat that further 
compromise tank integrity.
    The 11 stainless steel tanks at Idaho store approximately 2 million 
gallons of acidic radioactive liquids. Additionally, approximately 4000 
m<SUP>3</SUP> of calcined waste solids are stored in seven stainless 
steel bins enclosed in massive underground concrete vaults.
    Dilute low-level waste (LLW) supernatants and associated sludge at 
Oak Ridge are stored in the inactive

[[Page 215]]

Gunite and associated tanks, the old hydrofracture tanks, and other 
tanks. The wastes from underground collection systems are currently 
being retrieved and consolidated in the stainless steel central 
treatment/storage tanks, including eight Melton Valley Storage Tanks.
    Tank waste at Savannah River consists of 33 million gallons of 
salt, salt solution, and sludge containing waste stored in 51 
underground storage tanks, two of which have been closed (emptied of 
all waste and filled with grout). Twenty-three tanks are being retired, 
because they do not have full secondary containment. Nine tanks have 
leaked detectable quantities of waste from the primary tank to 
secondary containment.
    Most of the participant sites share four problem areas. These areas 
are:
    <bullet> Characterization and Safety.
    <bullet> Retrieval of Tank Waste and Tank Closure.
    <bullet> Pretreatment and Separation Processes for Tank Waste.
    <bullet> Waste Immobilization and Disposal.

Characterization and Safety

    DOE, contractors, and stakeholders have committed to a safe and 
efficient remediation of HLW, mixed waste, and hazardous waste stored 
in underground tanks across the DOE complex.
    Currently, there are only limited fully developed or deployed in 
situ techniques to characterize tank waste. In situ characterization 
can eliminate the time delay between sample removal and sample analysis 
and aid in guiding the sampling process while decreasing the cost 
(approximately $1 million is spent for one tank core extrusion) of 
waste analysis. Most importantly, remote analysis eliminates sample 
handling and safety concerns due to worker exposure. However, analysis 
of extruded tank samples allows a more complete chemical and physical 
characterization of the waste when needed. Knowledge of the chemical 
and radioactive composition and physical parameters of the waste is 
essential to safe and effective tank remediation.
    There are three primary drivers for the development of new chemical 
analysis methods to support tank waste remediation: (1) provide 
analyses for which there are currently no reliable existing methods, 
(2) replace current methods that require too much time and/or are too 
costly, and (3) provide methods that evolve into on-line process 
analysis tools for use in waste processing facilities.
    Characterization of the elemental and isotopic chemical 
constituents in DOE tank waste is an important function in support of 
DOE tank waste operation and remediation functions. Proper waste 
characterization enables: safe operation of the tank farms; resolution 
of tank safety questions; and development of processes and equipment 
for retrieval, pretreatment, and immobilization of tank waste. All of 
these operations are dependent on the chemical analysis of tank waste.
    Moisture is one of the key elements influencing the safety status 
of some of Hanford's HLW tanks. Ferrocyanides were added to tank wastes 
to increase the available storage space when production outstripped the 
ability to provide adequate storage space. Organics from some of the 
extraction processes used at Hanford ended up in tanks because of 
inefficient reagent recovery processes. Moisture provides a thermal 
buffer for the prevention of ignition and propagation of thermal 
reactions in waste containing ferrocyanides or organics. Insufficient 
moisture level raises the possibility of explosion. The conditions for 
a thermal event are reduced by the presence of water in the wastes. A 
method is needed to measure and quantify tank waste water 
concentrations in situ.
    The need for chemical characterization of the tank wastes is driven 
by both safety and operational considerations. Safety drivers include 
the monitoring of organic chemicals and oxidizers to address 
flammability and energetics, nitrate and nitrite levels to address 
corrosion concerns, plutonium levels to address criticality prevention 
considerations, and detection of organic and inorganic species to 
identify chemical incompatibility hazards associated with 
ferrocyanides, nitrates, sulfates, carbonates, phosphates, and other 
oxyanions. Operational concerns include the monitoring of phosphate 
levels driven by the potential formation of sodium phosphate crystals, 
thereby increasing the viscosity of the waste by formation of a 
gelatinous matrix which will reduce the ability of pumps to transfer 
and retrieve waste.
    Current techniques of tank waste analysis involve the removal of 
core samples from tanks, followed by costly and time consuming wet 
analytical laboratory testing. Savings in both cost and time could be 
realized in techniques that involve in situ probes for direct analysis 
of tank materials.
    Single-shell and double-shell waste tank construction is common 
across the DOE complex. The single-shell tanks present potential 
environmental hazards because only a single barrier contains the 
liquids and any breach in the barrier will cause contaminant spillage. 
A sluicing method being considered to retrieve the waste requires 
thousands of gallons of water, raising the possibility of HLW leakage 
into the surrounding environment. In other tanks, water is added to 
prevent the waste matrix from drying and provides a deterrent from 
possible ignition due to flammable gases. There is a need to develop 
instrumentation to determine the location of a leak, the amounts of 
materials that were exposed, and the quantity of the contaminant 
material.
    Assessments of the long-term performance of waste forms is rare; 
performance assessments of radionuclide containment rely primarily on 
the geologic barriers (e.g., long travel times in hydrologic systems or 
sorption on mineral surfaces). The physical and chemical durability of 
the waste form, however, can contribute greatly to the successful 
isolation of radionuclides; thus the effects of radiation on physical 
properties and chemical durability of waste forms are of great 
importance. The changes in chemical and physical properties occur over 
relatively long periods of storage, up to a million years, and at 
temperatures that range from 100 to 300 degrees Celsius, depending on 
waste loading, age of the waste, depth of burial, and the repository-
specific geothermal agent. Thus, a major challenge is to effectively 
simulate high-dose radiation effects that will occur over relatively 
low-dose rates over long periods of time at elevated temperatures. Thus 
there is a paramount need for improved understanding and modeling of 
the degradation mechanisms and behavior of primary radioactive waste 
hosts and/or their containment canisters, corrosion mechanisms and 
prevention in aqueous and/or alkali halide containing environments, and 
remote sensing and non-destructive evaluation.
    Examples of specific science research challenges include but are 
not limited to: basic measurement science and sensor development 
required for remote detection of low concentrations of hydrogen inside 
tanks and in containers; basic analytical studies needed to develop new 
methods for chemical and physical characterization of solid and liquids 
in slurries and for development of advanced processing methodologies; 
basic instrument development needed to perform in situ radiological 
measurements and collect spatially resolved species and concentration 
data; basic materials and engineering science needed to develop 
radiation hardened instrumentation.

Retrieval of Tank Waste and Tank Closure

    Underground tanks throughout the DOE in Hanford, Savannah River, 
Oak

[[Page 216]]

Ridge, and Idaho have stored a diverse accumulation of wastes during 
the past fifty years of weapons and fuel production. If these tanks 
were entrapped in a manner that would preclude the escape into the 
environment for hundreds of years, there would be no reason to disturb 
them. However, a number of the storage tanks are approaching the end of 
their design life. At the four sites, 90 tanks have either leaked or 
are assumed to have leaked waste into the soil and sediments near the 
tanks.
    Recently, dewatering processes have removed much of the free liquid 
from the alkaline waste tanks. The tanks now contain wastes ranging in 
consistency from remaining supernate and soft sludge to concrete-like 
saltcake. Tanks also contain miscellaneous foreign objects such as 
Portland cement, measuring tapes, samarium balls, and in-tank hardware 
such as cooling coils and piping. Unlimited sluicing, adding large 
quantities of water to suspend solids, is the baseline method for 
sludge removal from tanks. This process is not capable of retrieving 
all of the material from tanks. Besides dealing with aging tanks and 
difficult wastes, retrieval also faces the problem of the tank design 
itself. Retrieval tools must be able to enter the tanks, which are 
under an average of 10 feet of soil, through small openings called 
risers in the tops of the tanks.
    Retrieval of tank waste and tank closure requires tooling and 
process alternative enhancements to mixing and mobilizing bulk waste as 
well as dislodging and conveying heels. Heel removal is linked to tank 
closure. The working tools and removal devices being developed include 
suction devices, rubblizing devices, water and air jets, waste 
conditioning devices, grit blasting devices, transport and conveyance 
devices, cutting and extraction tools, monitoring devices, and various 
mechanical devices for recovery or repair of waste dislodging and 
conveyance tools.
    The areas directly below the access risers are often disturbed or 
contain a significant amount of discarded debris. Therefore, evaluation 
of tank waste characteristics by measurements taken at these locations 
may not be representative of the properties of the waste in other areas 
of the tanks.
    To monitor current conditions and plan for tank remediation, more 
information on the tank conditions and their contents is required. 
Current methods used at DOE tank sites are limited to positioning 
sensors, instruments, and devices to locations directly below access 
penetrations or attached to a robotic arm for off-riser positioning. 
These systems can only deploy one type of sensor, requiring multiple 
systems to perform more than one function in the tank.
    Currently, decisions regarding necessary retrieval technologies, 
retrieval efficiencies, retrieval durations, and costs are highly 
uncertain. Although tank closure has been completed on only two HLW 
tanks (at Savannah River), the tank contents proved amenable to waste 
retrieval using current technology. DOE has just begun to address the 
issue of how clean a tank must become before it is closed. Continued 
demonstration that tank closure criteria can be developed and 
implemented will provide substantial benefit to DOE.
    A related problem that retrieval process development is examining, 
is the current lack of a retrieval decision support tool for the end 
users. As development activities move forward toward collection of 
retrieval performance and cost data, it has become very evident that 
the various sites across the complex need to have a decision tool to 
assist end users with respect to waste retrieval and tank closure. Tank 
closure is intimately tied to retrieval, and the sensitivity of closure 
criteria to waste retrieval is expected to be very large.
    All the existing processes and technologies that could be used as a 
baseline for tank remediation have not yet been identified. Identifying 
these processes is one of EM's major issues in addressing the tank 
problems. The overall purpose of retrieval enhancements is to continue 
to lead the efforts in the basic understanding and development of 
retrieval processes in which waste is mobilized sufficiently to be 
transferred out of tanks in a cost-effective and safe manner. From that 
basic understanding, data are provided to end users to assist them in 
the retrieval decisionmaking process. The overall purpose of retrieval 
enhancements is to identify processes that can be used to reduce cost, 
improve efficiency, and reduce programmatic risk.
    The hermetic sealing and closure of containment vessels and the 
long term resistance to corrosion and stress corrosion cracking and 
failure of such seals and closures warrants attention. Routine or 
conventional welding and joining procedures, while adequate to form 
hermetic seals in a non-hostile environment, may result in local 
composition gradients across weld or join interfaces and heat-affected-
zones that create local electrochemical cells that are vulnerable to 
galvanic degradation and/or corrosion related cracking. Research is 
needed to establish reliable welding or joining procedures that will 
not result in either the establishment of local gradients in chemical 
composition or in grain-boundary depletion of passivating chemical 
elements at welding or joining closures.
    Basic engineering and separation science studies are needed to 
support tank remediation of liquids which contain high concentrations 
of solids.

Pretreatment and Separation Processes for Tank Waste

    DOE has about 90 million gallons of HLW and LLW stored in tanks at 
four primary sites within the DOE complex. It is neither cost-effective 
nor practical to treat and dispose of all of the tank waste to meet the 
requirements of the HLW repository program and the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act.
    The current baseline technology systems for waste pretreatment at 
DOE's tank waste sites are expensive. Technology gaps exist. Large 
volumes of HLW will be generated, while there is limited space in the 
planned Nuclear Waste Repository for HLW from DOE. Even if adequate 
space were made available, treatment and disposal of HLW is still very 
expensive, estimated to be about $1 million for each canister of 
vitrified HLW.
    Only a small fraction of the waste, by weight, is made up of 
radionuclides. The bulk of the waste is chemical constituents 
intermingled with, and sometimes chemically bonded to, the 
radionuclides. However, the chemicals and radionuclides can be 
separated into HLW and LLW fractions for easier treatment and disposal.
    Most of the waste stored in tanks was put there as a result of 
nuclear fuel processing for weapons production. In that process, 
irradiated fuel and its cladding were first dissolved, uranium and 
plutonium were recovered as products, and the highly radioactive 
fission product wastes were concentrated and sent to tanks for long-
term storage.
    Fuel processing at Savannah River did not change substantially from 
the beginning of operations in about 1955 to the present. While these 
wastes are fairly uniform, they still require pretreatment to separate 
the LLW from HLW prior to immobilization. Waste at Idaho is stored at 
acidic pH in stainless steel tanks. Much of it has already been 
calcined at high temperature to a dry powder. Tank wastes at Oak Ridge 
are small in volume (less than 1 million gallons) and radionuclide 
inventory (0.16 MCi) compared to other sites (33

[[Page 217]]

million gallons and 534 MCi at Savannah River and 55 million gallons 
and 198 MCi at Hanford).
    At Hanford, several processes were used over the years (beginning 
in 1944), each with a different chemical process. This resulted in 
different waste volumes and compositions. Wastes at Hanford and 
Savannah River are stored as highly alkaline material so as not to 
corrode the carbon steel tanks. The process of converting the waste 
from acid to alkaline resulted in the formation of different physical 
forms within the waste.
    The primary forms of waste in tanks are sludge, saltcake, and 
liquid. The bulk of the radioactivity is known to be in the sludge 
which makes it the largest source of HLW. Saltcake is characteristic of 
the liquid waste with most of the water removed. Saltcake is found 
primarily in older single-shell tanks at Hanford.
    Saltcake and liquid waste contain mostly sodium nitrate and sodium 
hydroxide salts. They also contain soluble radionuclides such as 
cesium. Strontium, technetium, and transuranics are also present in 
varying concentrations. The radionuclides must be removed, leaving a 
large portion of waste to be treated and disposed of as LLW and a very 
small portion that is combined with HLW from sludge for subsequent 
treatment and disposition.
    Waste in tanks has been blended and evaporated to conserve space. 
Although sludge contains most of the radionuclides, the amount of HLW 
glass produced (vitrification is the preferred treatment of HLW) could 
be very high without pretreatment of the sludge. Pretreatment of the 
sludge by washing with alkaline solution can remove certain 
nonradioactive constituents and reduce the volume of HLW. Pretreatment 
can also remove constituents that could degrade the stability of HLW 
glass. If the alkaline sludge washing is not effective, some sludge may 
need to be dissolved in acid and treated by extraction techniques to 
make a suitable feed to HLW vitrification. This option is currently 
outside the sites baseline.
    The pretreatment functional area seeks to address multiple needs 
across the DOE complex. The primary objectives are to reduce the volume 
of HLW, reduce hazards associated with treating LLW, and minimize the 
generation of secondary waste.
    The concentration of certain chemical constituents such as 
phosphorus, sulfur, and chromium in sludge can greatly increase the 
volume of HLW glass produced upon vitrification of the sludge. These 
components have limited solubility in the molten glass at very low 
concentrations. Some sludge has high concentrations of aluminum 
compounds which can also be a controlling factor in determining the 
volume of HLW glass produced. Aluminum above a threshold concentration 
in the glass must be balanced with proportional amounts of other glass-
forming constituents such as silica. There are estimated to be 25 
different types of sludge at Hanford distributed among more than 100 
tanks. Samples from 49 tanks would represent approximately 93 percent 
sludge in Hanford tanks. Testing of enhanced sludge washing, the 
combination of caustic leaching and water washing of sludge, on all of 
these samples is needed to determine whether enhanced sludge washing 
will result in an acceptable volume of HLW glass destined for the 
repository and will allow processing in existing carbon steel tanks at 
Hanford and Savannah River.
    The efficiency of enhanced sludge washing is not completely 
understood. Inadequate removal of key sludge components could result in 
production of an unacceptably large volume of HLW glass. Improvements 
are needed to increase the separation of key sludge constituents from 
the HLW.
    Enhanced sludge washing is planned to be performed batchwise in 
large double-shell tanks of nominal one million gallon capacity. This 
will generate substantial volumes of waste solutions which require 
treatment and disposal as LLW. Settling times for suspended solids may 
be excessive and the possibility of colloid or gel formation could 
prohibit large-scale processing. Alternatives are needed that will 
reduce the amount of chemical addition required and prevent the 
possibility of colloid formation. Sludge at Savannah River, Hanford, 
and Oak Ridge will be washed to remove soluble components prior to HLW 
vitrification. Removing suspended solids from the wash solutions is 
inherently inefficient due to long intervals required for the solids to 
settle out. The baseline process for sludge washing at Savannah River 
and Hanford is done batchwise in large, one-million gallon underground 
storage tanks. This requires large volumes of wash solution, powerful 
mixing pumps, and long settling times. Retrieval of waste using large 
volumes of dilution water is planned at Hanford. To consider the 
benefits of flocculent addition and the possibility of using 
countercurrent decantation to help optimize sludge washing, the 
settling characteristics of the solids need to be determined.
    Baseline sludge washing processes at both Hanford and Savannah 
River call for large volumes of caustic (sodium hydroxide) solution. 
The supernatant from sludge washing then becomes feed to LLW treatment. 
The added caustic can be recovered after washing and recycled to 
subsequent sludge washing steps. In addition, the HLW sludge at Hanford 
and Savannah River contains large quantities of sodium salts that can, 
in principle, be recovered as sodium hydroxide and also be recycled.
    Approximately 1.8 million gallons of acidic liquid waste are stored 
in single-shell, stainless steel, underground storage tanks at Idaho. 
In 1992 a Notice of Noncompliance was filed stating that the tanks did 
not meet secondary containment requirements of the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act. Subsequently, an agreement was reached 
between DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Idaho 
Department of Health and Welfare that commits DOE to remove the liquid 
waste from all underground tanks by the year 2015. Recent discussions 
with the state of Idaho have accelerated this date to 2012.
    The baseline treatment for Idaho liquid wastes produced after 2012 
is the full treatment option, wherein actinides and fission products 
will be removed from the liquid waste and HLW calcine.
    The depleted stream will be processed to Class A LLW standards and 
the radionuclides will be immobilized in an HLW fraction.
    The transuranic extraction process for removal of actinides, or 
transuranics, from acidic wastes has been tested on actual Idaho waste 
in continuous countercurrent process equipment. The strontium 
extraction process shows promise for co-extraction of strontium and 
technetium and also has been demonstrated on Idaho waste in continuous 
countercurrent operation.
    DOE's underground storage tanks contain liquid wastes with high 
concentrations of radioactive cesium. The various processes for 
retrieving and redissolution of HLW calcine for pretreatment are not 
fully demonstrated.
    DOE's underground storage tanks at Hanford, Savannah River, Oak 
Ridge, and Idaho contain liquid wastes with high concentrations of 
radioactive cesium. Cesium is the primary radioactive constituent found 
in alkaline supernatant wastes. Since the primary chemical components 
of alkaline supernatants are sodium nitrate and sodium hydroxide, the 
majority of the waste could be disposed of as LLW if the radioactivity 
could be reduced below Nuclear Regulatory Commission limits. Processes 
have been

[[Page 218]]

demonstrated that removed cesium from alkaline supernatants and 
concentrate it for eventual treatment and disposal as HLW.
    At Hanford, cesium must be removed to a very low level (3 Ci/m3) to 
allow supernatant waste to be treated as LLW and disposed of in a near-
surface disposal facility. The revised Hanford Federal Facility 
Agreement and Consent Order, or Tri-Party Agreement (between DOE, 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of 
Ecology) also recommends treatment of LLW in a contact-maintained or 
minimally shielded vitrification facility to speed remediation and 
reduce costs. Cesium removal performance data are needed to estimate 
dose rates for this process and provide input to the design of an LLW 
pretreatment facility for Hanford supernatants.
    At Savannah River, cesium removal by ion exchange may be needed as 
an alternative to the current in-tank precipitation process. Cesium ion 
exchange may also be needed to separate cesium from Defense Waste 
Processing Facility recycle, or offgas condensate, to greatly reduce 
the amount of cesium that is routed back to the waste storage tanks.
    Technetium (Tc)-99 has a long half-life (210,000 years) and is very 
mobile in the environment when in the form of the pertechnetate ion. 
Removal of Tc from alkaline supernatants and sludge washing liquids is 
expected to be required at Hanford to permit treatment and disposal of 
these wastes as LLW. The disposal requirements are being determined by 
the long-term performance assessment of the LLW waste form in the 
disposal site environment. It is also expected that Tc removal will be 
required for at least some wastes to meet Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
LLW criteria for radioactive content. To meet these expected 
requirements, there is a need to develop technology that will separate 
this extremely long-lived radionuclide from the LLW stream and 
concentrate it for feed to HLW vitrification.
    A number of liquid streams encountered in tank waste pretreatment 
contain fine particulate suspended solids. These streams may include 
tank waste supernatant, waste retrieval sluicing water, and sludge wash 
solutions. Other process streams with potential for suspended solids 
include evaporator products and ion exchange feed and product streams. 
Suspended solids will foul process equipment such as ion exchangers. 
Radioactive solids will carry over into liquid streams destined for LLW 
treatment, increasing waste volume for disposal and increasing the need 
for shielding of process equipment. Streams with solid/liquid 
separation needs exist at all of the DOE tank waste sites.
    Some examples of specific science research challenges include but 
are not limited to: fundamental analytical chemical studies needed for 
improvement of separation processes; materials science of waste forms 
germane to their performance; elucidation of technetium chemistry; 
basic engineering and separation science studies required to support 
pretreatment activities and the development of solid/liquid 
separations; fundamental separations chemistry of precipitating agent 
and ion exchange media needed to support the development of improved 
methods for decontamination of HLW; fundamental physical chemistry 
studies of sodium nitrate/nitrite needed for HLW processing; basic 
materials science studies concerned with the dissolution of mixed oxide 
materials characteristic of calcine waste needed to design improved 
pretreatment processes; basic chemistry of sodium when mixed with rare 
earth oxides needed for the development of alternative HLW forms; 
fundamental chemical studies associated with high temperature 
(500 deg.C) calcination of nitrate solutions using agents others than 
sugar needed for advanced HLW calcination processing.

Waste Immobilization and Disposal

    Waste immobilization technology converts radioactive waste into 
solid waste forms which will last in natural environments for thousands 
of years. Wastes requiring immobilization at DOE sites include LLW such 
as the pretreated liquid waste from waste tanks and HLW such as the 
tank sludge. There are also a number of secondary wastes requiring 
immobilization that result from tank waste remediation operations, such 
as resins from cesium and technetium removal operations.
    The baseline technologies to immobilize radioactive wastes from 
underground storage tanks at DOE sites include converting LLW to either 
grout or glass and converting HLW to borosilicate glass. Grout is a 
cement-based waste form that is produced in a mixer tank and then 
poured into canisters or pumped into vaults. Glass waste forms are 
created in a ceramic-lined metal furnace called a melter. Tank waste 
and dry materials used to form glass are mixed and heated in the melter 
to temperatures ranging from 1,800 deg.F to 2,700 deg.F. The molten 
mixture is then poured into log-shaped canisters for storage and 
disposal. The working assumption is that the LLW will be disposed of on 
site, or at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant if transuranic elements are 
present. The HLW will be shipped for off-site disposal in a licensed 
HLW repository, such as the one proposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
    Methods are needed to immobilize the LLW fraction resulting from 
the separation of radionuclides from the liquid and high-level calcine 
wastes at Idaho. LLW is to be mixed with grout, poured into steel 
drums, and transferred to an interim storage facility, but alternatives 
are being considered. Tests must be conducted with surrogate and actual 
wastes to support selection of a final waste form. Savannah River has 
selected saltstone grout (pumped to above ground concrete vaults and 
solidified) as the final waste form. Savannah River would like to 
evaluate LLW glass as an alternative to saltstone disposal.
    DOE sites at Hanford, Savannah River, Idaho and Oak Ridge will 
remove cesium from the hazardous radioactive liquid waste in the 
underground storage tanks. If cesium is removed, it costs less to treat 
the rest of the waste. However, cesium removal from tank waste, while 
cost-effective, creates a significant volume of solid waste that must 
be turned into a final waste form for ultimate disposal. The plan is to 
separate cesium from the liquid waste using ion exchange or other 
separations media, treat the cesium-loaded separations media to prepare 
it for vitrification, and convert the cesium product into a glass waste 
form suitable for final disposal. Personnel exposures during processing 
and the amount of hazardous species in the offgases must be kept within 
safe limits at all times.
    The effectiveness of advanced oxidation technology for treating 
organic cesium-loaded separations media prior to vitrification is not 
proven. After a suitable melter feed is obtained, vitrification of the 
cesium-loaded media must be demonstrated. Technology development is 
needed because: (1) Compounds are in the separation media that must be 
destroyed or they will cause flammability problems in the melter and 
decrease the durability and waste loading of the final waste form, (2) 
high beta/gamma dose rates are associated with handling cesium-
containing waste, and (3) cesium volatizes in the melter and becomes a 
highly radioactive offgas problem.
    Confidence and assurance that long-term immobilization will be 
successful in borosilicate glass warrants research and improved 
understanding of the

[[Page 219]]

structural and thermodynamic properties of glass (including the 
structure and energetics of stable and metastable phases), systematic 
irradiation studies that will simulate long-term self-irradiation doses 
and spectra (including archived glasses containing Pu or Cm, and over 
the widest range of dose, dose rate and temperature) and predictive 
theory and modeling based on computer simulations (including ab initio, 
Monte Carlo, and other methods).
    Some examples of specific science research challenges include but 
are not limited to: fundamental chemical studies needed to determine 
species concentrations above molten glass solutions containing heavy 
metals, cesium, strontium, lanthanides, actinides, with and without a 
cold cap composed of unmelted material; materials science studies of 
molten materials that simulate conditions anticipated during 
vitrification and storage in vitrified form of HLW needed to develop 
improved processes and formulations; fundamental physical chemistry 
studies of sodium nitrate/nitrite mixtures needed for HLW 
stabilization.

References for Background Information

    Note: World Wide Web locations of these documents are provided 
where possible. For those without access to the World Wide Web, hard 
copies of these references may be obtained by writing Mark A. 
Gilbertson at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section.

    DOE. 1997. Accelerating Cleanup: Focus on 2006, Discussion Draft. 
http://www.em.doe.gov/acc2006
    DOE. 1997. Radioactive Tank Waste Remediation Focus Area Technology 
Summary (Rainbow Book). <a href="http://www.em-52.em.doe.gov/ifd/rbbooks/tanks/
tansrb.htm">http://www.em-52.em.doe.gov/ifd/rbbooks/tanks/
tansrb.htm</a>
    DOE. 1997. Research Needs Collected for the EM Science Program--
June 1997. http://www.doe.gov/em52/needs.html
    DOE. 1997. U.S. Department of Energy Strategic Plan. <a href="http://
www.doe.gov/policy/doeplan.htm">http://
www.doe.gov/policy/doeplan.htm</a>
    DOE. 1996. Estimating the Cold War Mortgage: The 1996 Baseline 
Environmental Management Report. March 1996. U.S. Department of Energy 
Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C. <a href="http://
www.em.doe.gov/bemr96/index.html">http://
www.em.doe.gov/bemr96/index.html</a>
    DOE. 1996. Office of Environmental Restoration EM-40. <a href="http://
www.em.doe.gov/er/index.html">http://
www.em.doe.gov/er/index.html</a>
    DOE. 1996. Office of Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization 
EM-60. http://www.em.doe.gov/menu/?nucmat.html
    DOE. 1996. Office of Science and Risk Policy EM-52 and 
Environmental Management Science Program. <a href="http://www.em.doe.gov/
science/
">http://www.em.doe.gov/
science/
</a> DOE. 1996. Office of Science and Technology EM-50. http://em-
50.em.doe.gov/
    DOE. 1996. Office of Waste Management EM-30. <a href="http://www.em.doe.gov/
menu/">http://www.em.doe.gov/
menu/</a>?wstmgmt.html
    DOE. 1996. Spent Nuclear Fuel. DOE-Owned SNF Technology Integration 
Plan. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. DOE/SNF-PP-002, May 
1996. http://tikal.inel.gov/tip__int.htm
    DOE. 1996. Taking Stock: A Look at the Opportunities and Challenges 
Posed by Inventories from the Cold War Era. The U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Washington, DC. <a href="http://
www.em.doe.gov/takstock/index.html">http://
www.em.doe.gov/takstock/index.html</a>
    DOE. 1995. Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The 
Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production in the United States 
and What the Department of Energy is Doing About It. The U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of 
Strategic Planning and Analysis, Washington, D.C. <a href="http://
www.em.doe.gov/circle/index.html">http://
www.em.doe.gov/circle/index.html</a>
    ``Radiation Effects in Glasses Used for Immobilization of High-
Level Waste and Plutonium Disposition'', W. J. Weber, R.C. Ewing, C. A. 
Angell, G. W. Arnold, A. N. Cormack, J.M. Delaye, D. L. Griscom, L. W. 
Hobbs, A. Navrotsky, D. L. Price, A. M. Stoneham, and M. C. Weinberg, 
J. Mater. Res., Vol. 12, No. 8, August 1997, pp. 1946-1978.
    National Research Council. 1997. Building an Environmental 
Management Science Program: Final Assessment. National Academy Press, 
Washington, DC. <a href="http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/envmanage/
">http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/envmanage/
</a> National Research Council. 1995. Improving the Environment: An 
Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program. National Academy 
Press, Washington, D.C. <a href="http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/doeemp/
">http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/doeemp/
</a> Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. Alternative Futures for the 
Department of Energy National Laboratories. February 1995. Task Force 
on Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National 
Laboratories, Washington, D.C. <a href="http://www.doe.gov/html/doe/whatsnew/
galvin/tf-rpt.html">http://www.doe.gov/html/doe/whatsnew/
galvin/tf-rpt.html</a>
    U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Complex Cleanup: 
The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production, February 1991. 
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. NTIS Order number: 
PB91143743. To order, call the NTIS sales desk at (703) 487-4650. 
http://www.wws.princeton.edu:80<difference>ota/disk1/1991/9113__n.html
    National Science and Technology Council. 1996. Assessing 
Fundamental Science, Council on Fundamental Science. <a href="http://
www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/ostp/assess/

">http://
www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/ostp/assess/

</a> The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for this 
program is 81.049, and the solicitation control number is ERFAP 10 
CFR Part 605.

    Issued in Washington, DC, December 24, 1997.
Ralph H. DeLorenzo,
Acting Associate Director for Resource Management, Office of Energy 
Research.
[FR Doc. 98-114 Filed 1-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>