Decision Making in the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental Management Office of Science and Technology (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
A Summary of Past NRC Reports on Decision Making in DOE-EM and OST
A Summary of Past NRC Reports on Decision Making in DOE-EM and OST
Pages 99-104
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 99... ...
Decisions need to be pushed downward in the hierarchy of DOE, There is a tendency to push things upward, especially during budget deliberations, Lines of authority should be clear, simple, and unambiguous, Headquarters must provide clear guidance to the field offices and contractors if objectives are to "Conclusion: Many decisions are now unnecessarily deferred by staff to higher management levels, sometimes creating delay and paralysis in decision making" (NRC, 1989, p.
|
From page 100... ...
Consistent risk assessment methodologies should be used to bring scientific information into decisions regarding extent of cleanup, cleanup methodologies, and priorities for environmental restoration" (NRC, 1989, p.
|
From page 101... ...
noted that the DOE-EM program had the following needs: · more specific goals; · a process for prioritizing tasks that would include risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis; · a peer-reviewed process for technology selection and development that is responsive to the needs of those implementing the remediation, and · incentives for successful implementation. These needs are contained in the report's principal recommendation: This committee believes getting on with the task, whichever definition one uses, will be accomplished most effectively by implementing a process for decision-making and accountability that includes · Having a more specific set of goals for the program · A process for prioritizing tasks which includes among its tools risk assessment (which should consider the perspectives and values of stakeholders as recommended in Building Consensus (NRC, 1994)
|
From page 102... ...
examined research programs in federal institutions, including the DeparDnent of Energy, and offered recommendations as to how to assess the value of such programs. One recommendation was that expert review (an enhanced form of peer review that calls on individuals with sufficient expertise in the field to be considered to review the program)
|
From page 103... ...
noted, among others, the following characteristics of and advice to the OST program (as of December 1994~: · a lack of quantifiable end goals, cleanup levels, and criteria (to define technology development specifications and cleanup end points) ; · environmental remediation should be an expenment, with flexibility, integration of efforts, and feedback; · long-term work, particularly basic research, should continue, because the cleanup program will take more than 30 years; it is recommended that R&D focus on identified problems at particular sites; the final disposal destination of wastes should be considered in remediation decisions; the concept of waste minimization is praised as a criterion for technology development projects; the development of technology backups to the current baseline methods is lauded; vagueness is a noted characteristic of both I
|
From page 104... ...
provided recommendations on the implementation of OST's peer review system to review projects that have been funded by the program and have reached sufficient maturity to show results of the technology development efforts. The report stressed that peer reviews should be conducted by technical experts external to (and independent of)
|
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.