Decision Making in the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Management Office of Science and Technology (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
C Focus Areas
C Focus Areas
Pages 114-137
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 114... ...
To address site needs and DOE program priorities to identify and develop environmental technologies to address soil and ground water remediation problems, the SCFA has identified the following four strategic goals: I ability to contain and/or stabilize contamination sources that pose an imminent threat to surface and ground waters; 2.
|
From page 115... ...
The suite of SCFA projects in December 1996 primarily addressed treatment of contamination by volatile organic compounds. The SCFA intends to obtain complete engineering cost and perfonnance data for ~ ~ of the existing portfolio technologies by 1999 so that they can be moved into the private sector.
|
From page 116... ...
In Situ Destructive Treatment Technologies for DNAPL's Advanced Subsurface Containment Systems Design and Performance Validation Mobilization, Extraction, Removal of Metals and Radioactive Contaminants Long-Term Containment Systems Monitoring and Maintenance Soil Removal, Segregation, and Treatment of Waste Unit Secondary Waste Treatment of Extracted Ground Water Reaction Zone Barrier Systems for Metals and Radioactive Contaminants Innovative Alternative Containment System Deployment Reaction Zone Barrier Systems for DNAPL's Mobilization, Extraction, Removal Technologies for DNAPL's In Sits Bulk Waste Treatment NOTE: Not shown is WP1, program management, which comprises approximately 5% of the program budget. These work packages were used by program managers to build the program and budget to be aligned with user needs.
|
From page 117... ...
These criteria, selected by SCFA and DOE-HQ, were public safety and health, site personnel safety and health, environmental protection, mortgage reduction, pervasiveness of the problem, regulatory compliance, social or cultural impact and economic risk reduction, and · . mission Impact.
|
From page 118... ...
These included redundancies involving criteria such as regulatory acceptance and exclusion issues relating to cost and baseline technology criteria. As a result, SCFA solicited additional comments in an October 1996 stakeholder workshop.
|
From page 119... ...
The Deployment Plan input from the Technical Team includes periodic reviews to evaluate compliance with federal and state agreements. The peer review team is to be comprised of technical personnel knowledgeable about the problem and technology, and the peer review report is submitted to the SCFA Lead Office.
|
From page 120... ...
The Technical Team Lead first recommends whether SCFA should develop the technology or whether the solution is available from private industry. The Technical Team also coordinates the program with associated funding agencies such as Crosscutting Programs, the EM Science Program, Industry Programs, and other federal agencies.
|
From page 121... ...
These Waste Type Managers and Waste Type Teams provide important technical input (Conner and Connolly, 1996~; however, DOE employees make the final decisions on any funding allocations. The MWFA conducts outreach to stakeholder groups at a national level, such as the National Technical Workgroup, the interstate Technology Regulatory Committee, and the CEN.
|
From page 122... ...
These ratings were combined in a weighted manner using relative weights of 40, 15, 25, and 25 percent, respectively, applied to the above-mentioned criteria. The result of this exercise was a prioritized list of flowsheets.
|
From page 124... ...
Contracting for Technology Development Work For each technical deficiency, the MWFA solicits additional information on such issues as technical performance requirements, stakeholder and regulatory issues, and availability of off-the-shelf technology. The latter is done in part via a Request for Information (RFI)
|
From page 125... ...
The output of OST technology development work would be available to bidders as proven, demonstrated technology that can be built and implemented as one process component of any full-scare operation. With this strategy, demonstrations at the end of the technology development work are done in accordance with written test plans, and the demonstration results are recorded in a Technical Performance Report (TPR)
|
From page 126... ...
of 31 national D&D technology needs, a nonbinding informative input (to create awareness) to the LSDP Integrated Contractor Teams and the Crosscutting, Industry, and University Programs, for their
|
From page 127... ...
127 ~ o AL l 1~1~ ~ T121~1 ~ for 1= 1~1 C 1~ loo 1~ 1 =1 2c~z~ :~: ~N LR -1 ~1 1= 1- 1 1~10 ~ 1~10 1 10 1 10 1 1~1 1~1 =~: _^ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
|
From page 128... ...
, with additional D&Drelated technology development work represented by approximately $13 million to $14 million in the budgets of industry Programs and Crosscutting Programs. Large-Scale Demonstration Projects The cornerstone of DDFA's technology development program is a series of LSDPs, which are conducted at unused nuclear facilities already slated for D&D (by EM-40 or 60)
|
From page 129... ...
provide a full-scale demonstration of a new technology to EM-40 and 60 federal employees and obtain side-by-side demonstrations of innovative technologies with baseline methods, reduce supplier risk and liability associated with the first-time use of new technologies, and introduce these new technologies to the community of contractors who will be bidding on future work at other DOE sites and who need to know of the technologies in order to use them. As a measure of success, 30 technologies had been demonstrated as of August 1996 in the first three LSDPs, and ~ ~ of these have been retained for use to complete the D&D of that LSDP facility, having proven themselves in the judgment of the contractor teams managing the jobs superior to the baseline methods.
|
From page 130... ...
achieved meaningful technology demonstrations that qualify for commercialization and/or wider application throughout the DOE complex; · expedited deployment of D&D technologies required to meet specific customer needs while meeting OST established ROT guidelines, identified technology activities that should be reviewed for continuing DOE support; and · introduced commercial business practices to technology deployment, thereby illustrating DOE's commitment to performance-based strategies and contracting reform. However, many of the technologies and teamworking activities have already been demonstrated | on other decommissioning projects, in both commercial and DOE sectors (e.g., the Shippingport Station Decommissioning Project, the University of California, Berkeley research reactor, Yankee Rowe, Shoreham, Fort St.
|
From page 131... ...
Selection of Individual Technologies to Be Demonstrated at an LSDP Facility. The integrating Contractor Teams and Strategic Alliances (SAs)
|
From page 132... ...
This process has varied from one LSDP to another, based on the DDFA's experience and the different legal arrangements that define the interaction between the Integrating Contractor Team and DOE managers. Each LSDP has a target number of demonstrations to be done, during the D&D job, and payment of EM50 funds to the contractor teams is made in stages as individual technologies are demonstrated (according to pre-approved test plans)
|
From page 133... ...
, the term "innovative" as applied to the DDFA might be best defined as "never been used before in the DOE complex"~nean~ng that a technology does not necessarily have to be new in the non-DOE world for it to be considered for DDFA funding. For the CP-5 Reactor LSDP, where 20 innovative technologies were planned to be demonstrated, 10 of these were mature full-scale hardware systems from OST-funded technology development projects and 10 came from outside DOE (i.e., they were already in use in the private sector and abroad, see Box C.3~.
|
From page 134... ...
Identification of Technology Needs The TFA technology needs identification for year N begins in the first quarter of the prior fiscal year (FY N - I) by sending each of the four relevant site STCGs a call for identification of prioritized technology development needs.
|
From page 135... ...
135 or x '~J Q ._ _ ~ ._ _ .0 0 ~ ~ cn lo U)
|
From page 136... ...
First, the needs are prioritized by the TFA Technical Team. This draft prioritization is then reviewed by representatives of the four tank site STCGs and representatives of site contractor users via discussions and meetings.
|
From page 137... ...
However, it is not clear that the TFA has effective mechanisms in place to terminate successful development projects and transfer emphasis to other areas. In some areas, investigators have developed yet-to-be-implemented technologies and are now proposing to pursue "second-generation" technologies while other aspects of tank remediation require more resources to develop first-generation technologies.
|
Key Terms
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.