A Review of Decontamination and Decommissioning Technology Development Programs at the Department of Energy (1998) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Committee Findings
2 Committee Findings
Pages 19-28
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 19... ...
In addition the committee was to review the processes that DDFA is using to compare the advantages expected from technology development to existing (within DOE) processes.
|
From page 20... ...
7~. Within the DDFA, the committee found that continual superficial changes, for example, changing the names of its key programs (the Technology Deployment Initiative is now the Accelerated Site Technology Deployment Program, and the Large-Scale Demonstration Program became the Large-Scale Demonstration and Deployment Program)
|
From page 21... ...
A conclusion of the 1995 CEMT report was that DOE should address planning in terms of a process, since "many organizations have found that the most valuable aspect of any strategic planning exercise is the process of assembling the plan rather than its specific details" (NRC, 1996~. The CEMT report recommended that the planning "receive the undivided attention of the highest-level decision makers." In the committee's view, a successful plan should provide sufficient guidance for technology development to ensure the timely availability of technologies needed to achieve a specified end state for each facility undergoing D&D.
|
From page 22... ...
Further, the committee believes that there is insufficient time to develop, test, and apply unproved, truly innovative, technologies to effect major cleanup tasks by 2006. OST's shift in emphasis from technology development toward technology deployment assistance is consistent with accelerated cleanup.
|
From page 23... ...
Such an exercise requires the judgment and participation of senior D&D subject-matter experts both external and internal to DOE, who can provide input on existing commercial and other government agency technologies and thus develop an overall, prioritized, topdown evaluation of needs to feed into the DDFA program. The committee also believes that the emphasis of this effort should be to identify and prioritize only those technologies needed beyond 2006 that may provide significant cost and/or safety benefits in the long term, as well as those few problem areas where no technology currently exists.
|
From page 24... ...
By developing reasonable target end states, DDFA will be able to justify its technology development program better. For example, presently available technology may not be able to reach a target end state, in which case, improved technology clearly is needed.
|
From page 25... ...
The committee found that DDFA may be harming its own credibility by promoting these as innovative technologies, and it questions whether simply testing and providing information about commercial technologies is a suitable role for the DDFA. TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT With increasing demand for justification of OST programs, methods must clearly be defined for determining the potential advantages of an innovative technology over the baseline.20 Although the potential for direct cost savings in the D&D operation is of primary importance, there are other technical and institutional issues that can have a major impact on the decision process.
|
From page 26... ...
Cost Estimation Since only technologies that have been proven to be safe and meet regulatory criteria can be considered for implementation, the choice among technologies is based almost entirely on economics. During its review, the committee placed considerable emphasis on evaluating the DDFA's methods for estimating cost savings that could result from implementing innovative technologies versus the baseline technologies.
|
From page 27... ...
Secondary waste produced by a new technology may lead to difficulties since it may well be different from that of the baseline technology and could require a new risk assessment and permitting process. The committee found that the LSDP fails to address these important institutional barriers to the deployment of new technologies.
|
From page 28... ...
To encourage site managers to accept new technologies, OST established its TDI in 1997 to provide financial incentive to potential users of its selected technologies. By the end of its review period, the committee had not been made aware of any documented technology deployment, nor could the committee find evidence to suggest that limited financial assistance will achieve the acceptance that eluded the LSDP.
|
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.