Skip to main content

Review of the Draft Analysis of Supplemental Treatment Approaches of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Review #2 (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

2 The Committee's Major Observations and Overarching Assessment of the FFRDC's Draft Report
Pages 16-21

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 16...
... The overall structure of the draft report is that it first briefly discusses "Parameters of the Analysis," including sections on "Strategy," "Scope," "Uncertainties," "Technical Challenges," and "Cost-Estimation Summary." It then gives an overview of the proposed processes at Hanford for treatment of LAW and SLAW. Next, it has a section on "Analysis Risk Assessment," which is essentially an outline of the components of the intended risk assessment for the types of risk to be considered (project, alternatives, and environmental)
Read the entire page →
From page 17...
... TABLE 2-1 List of the Chapters and Appendixes in the FFRDC Draft Report, "Report of Analysis of Approaches to Supplemental Treatment of Low-Activity Waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation," Dated July 15, 2018 Chapter No. Title 0 Executive Summary 1 Parameters of the Analysis 2 Hanford LAW Overview 3 Analysis Risk Assessment 4 Assessment Area Summaries (to be provided)
Read the entire page →
From page 18...
... The committee has also observed that the FFRDC team has done a credible job identifying individual key risks (and assumptions -- which by their nature can represent uncertainties in the risks) associated with the overall tank farm cleanup and its potential impact on SLAW composition and feed rates.
Read the entire page →
From page 19...
... of the draft report, comparative analysis is the essence of the congressionally mandated task, and the committee suggests that the FFRDC consider it as the organizing structure. A useful final report would be fundamentally structured around a common set of factors.
Read the entire page →
From page 20...
... It is clear that this benefit can vary depending on the waste form, chosen disposal site, and disposal performance, and the challenge for decisionmaking is in understanding the qualitative and quantitative differences in these benefits for different SLAW options. Thus, the main qualitative dimensions of these benefits need to be explained in understandable terms, and within those benefit dimensions the relative performance of each option needs to be reported in terms that allow direct comparison to each other.
Read the entire page →
From page 21...
... Because the fundamental purpose of the FFRDC analysis is to form the basis for making choices among alternatives, a direct comparison for each factor will greatly improve the utility of the report for decision-making. Recommendation 2-1 In order to distinguish one treatment approach from another, in its final report the FFRDC should identify the distinctive aspects of the chosen approaches in a comparative analysis.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • comparative analysis
  • slaw treatment
  • public meeting
  • treatment approaches
  • ffrdc team

  • committee suggests
  • discount rate
  • treatment approach
  • key risks
  • disposal site

  • supplemental treatment
  • overall observations
  • july public
  • considerations appendix
  • direct comparison

  • meaningful integration
  • approaches appendix
  • hanford nuclear
  • total costs
  • lacks meaningful

  • overall structure
  • site considerations
  • ffrdc draft
  • waste treatment
  • structured comparative

  • comparative table
  • report formed
  • pendix functions
  • report consider
  • government accountability


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.