24 research outputs found

    Supervision 2.0: Culturally Competent and Creative Online Supervision Practices

    Get PDF
    The below documentation is an analysis of online integrative based supervision ideas with multicultural considerations. Various interventions with supervisees, which are aimed for supervisee reflective growth and client beneficence, are also discussed. Following Integrated Supervision Framework (ISF) description, a case vignette introducing reflective and inclusive online strategies is described. Future issues potentially affecting consideration of online supervision will also be described

    WM-4522 QUANTIFYING THE CERCLA PROCESS: USE OF DECISION SUPPORT MODELING TO IMPROVE TECHNOLOGY SELECTION FOR AN ACTUAL MIXED WASTE SITE

    No full text
    ABSTRACT This paper describes a technology evaluation process that was used to evaluate various remediation technology options for mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes that are present in four subsurface "Vtanks" at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The process used a Decision Support Model that was specifically designed to support the technology evaluation process, in accordance with Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) guidelines. Use of a Decision Support Model had never been formally included before in CERCLA technology evaluation decisions conducted at the INEEL. The model significantly improved technology selection by quantifying the basis for the final decision. The subsurface tank wastes evaluated by this process are aqueous sludge sediments and non-aqueousphase liquids that were produced at the INEEL between the 1950s and 1980s. They contain a variety of inorganic, organic, and radioactive contaminants, such as mercury, cadmium, various chlorinated solvents, polychlorinated biphenyl, Cs 137 , Sr 90 and plutonium. A 1999 Record of Decision (ROD) is currently in place supporting off-Site treatment of this waste. The off-Site facility capable of treating the waste is no longer available, however. The technology selection process described here was part of a ROD amendment effort aimed at recommending new on-Site technology alternatives for the V-tank wastes. The process evaluated seven potential remediation technologies. They include two batch vitrification systems, three thermal desorption systems, and two chemical oxidation/stabilization systems. Each technology option was initially designed to meet CERCLA threshold criteria associated with Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment, and Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). The technology options were then evaluated in accordance with CERCLA balancing criteria related to Implementability, Short-Term Effectiveness, Reduction of Toxicity Mobility & Volume (TMV), Cost, and Long-Term Effectiveness, using the Decision Support Model. The report includes information on setup of the model, which broke the balancing criteria into smaller sub-criteria, and assigned value functions and weighting factors to each sub-criteria. The assigning of weighting factors was as defined by the Agencies (i.e., the U.S Department of Energy-Idaho Operations Office [DOE-ID], Region 10 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], and the Idaho State Department of Environmental Quality [IDEQ]). Technology experts within the INEEL then provided performance data useful in assigning relative "values" to each sub-criteria, for each of the seven technology options. The sub-criteria "values" were multiplied by their respective weighting factors, with the weighted "values" added together to produce an "overall value" for each technology option. These "overall" values were then compared against each other, to aid in the final technology selection process. Results of the technology evaluation identified Ex Situ Chemical Oxidation/Stabilization (ES-CO/S) as the preferred option for remediating the V-tank waste. Even though the "overall value" distinctions between the various technology options were somewhat less than desired, the quantified decision produced by the Decision Support Model was sufficient to accelerate Federal and State Agency acceptance of ES-CO/S as the preferred technology option. Use of the Decision Support Model also improved presentation of the technology evaluation process to the public
    corecore