Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup at Hanford (2001) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
10 Improving S&T Program Effectivenes
10 Improving S&T Program Effectivenes
Pages 141-153
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 141... ...
Given the long lead times for many of the planned end-state and cleanup decisions at the Hanford Site, there is an opportunity now to undertake S&T that could substantially advance DOE's capabilities to address the site's most difficult waste and contamination problems, Life-cycle costs fully escalated to year of expenditure. These are DOE estimates and have not been reviewed or validated by the committee.
|
From page 142... ...
As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the Integration Project's task to provide S&T for site cleanup decisions is complicated by the number of organizations involved, the lack of clear authority and ownership, the extensive coordination requirements, and the lack of clearly defined site futures and cleanup decisions. The Integration Project comprises staff from several major Hanford contractor organizations and two DOE offices.
|
From page 143... ...
The committee believes that there are at least two reasons for the Integration Project's Initial success in executing its S&T program despite these obstacles. First, the Integration Project appears to have effective leadership from both DOE and site contractor organizations.3 The staff with which the committee had regular contact during its study, particularly the project managers,4 were competent and enthusiastic, appeared to have instilled a sense of mission within the Integration Project staff, and also appeared to have established cooperative working relationships with the other entities at the site that are crucial to the project's success.
|
From page 144... ...
Given the lack of welldefined end states and cleanup decisions to be made at the site, the multiple organizations involved, and funding constraints, it is essential that an effective prioritization system be implemented to maximize the effectiveness of the S&T effort. Recent efforts on the part of Hanford Site management to better define end states (DOE, 2000i)
|
From page 145... ...
Intermediate cleanup goals and end states can serve as the basis for defining S&T needs, at least to support nearterm work. As more knowledge is gained, the decision logic can be refined so that previously unrecognized data gaps may become apparent and the relative importance of previously identified data gaps may change.
|
From page 146... ...
and~ . .-~ :~ he numt~er oT samples cpil ncedainty contributed by these sources can son~edmes be~ -- ; Unceda~nty'nt~due dby' k k ~ ~ ee b diffi -~t :: :: understan t h~ ' h w e ~ ~em Se ~ ~ ~ ~ be n~ua,J,
|
From page 147... ...
The committee believes that it would be useful, in an effort of this size and complexity, to systematically seek to identify the uncertainties that are most important to end-state and cleanup decisions at the site and to identify and select S&T projects that would most reduce those uncertainties to enable sound decisions to be made. To this end, systems-based analyses such as the System Assessment Capability (SAC)
|
From page 148... ...
As discussed in the previous chapters of this report, some of these projects are developed and supported by the Integration Project, whereas others are developed and supported through Hanford core projects or DOE Headquarters programs such as the EMSP. The S&T projects performed in support of the Hanford cleanup must satisfy the same criteria discussed above for the S&T program: they should be relevant, represent the best options of applicable alternatives, and be cost-effective.
|
From page 149... ...
~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- -~ : It ~s then: necessa~ ~ -- evaluate the- quai~ty-(accu~-and ~ :~ rec~s~an ofthe~data~experdedtoba gene ed rom tine: su y o ~nre i whe her hevwillbesuffr.ietit ~fill~the:tarrJeteddata~nans .tdequatey Fiir~dlly,theu h ~ v nsorRc measure oT the probabilit~i 4} succew mu~t be we gh~ ~a nst alternate :~-obtain:inn the date,: t ~ - :i - dy:is t- ~ ti
|
From page 150... ...
There were, however, some clear exceptions to these generalizations. The EMSP projects, for example, were well documented, as were some of the projects supported under the Vaclose Zone Technical Element, particularly the vadose zone transport field studies (see Chapter 6~.
|
From page 151... ...
Peer review also can provide valuable alternate perspectives to the project and can be an efficient means of alerting project staff to research efforts and progress outside DOE.~° Although DOE is committed in principle to peer review of Integration Project S&T, it is too early in the project to determine exactly how such reviews will be implemented, especially for individual projects. The committee believes that there is likely to be a benefit to the Integration Project if peer review is applied in all aspects of the S&T program.
|
From page 152... ...
2~. A detailed discussion of peer review as applied to DOE science and technology programs is provided in NRC (1998)
|
From page 153... ...
Delays in completing current and planned S&T work will delay the transfer of potentially important S&T results to the cleanup program. Recommendation: The Integration Project should, with the help of EM as necessary, perform a systembased analysis of its funding needs for the S&T program once it develops the prioritization process recommended above.
|
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.