Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Tucker, Brian

Publications and source records attributed to Tucker, Brian.

Potential Advantages to Employing an Onsite Laboratory at FUSRAP Sites Contaminated with Radionuclides and Metals - 20353

Various factors that support an evaluation of the relative costs, advantages and disadvantages of utilizing an onsite laboratory or an offsite laboratory for remediation of Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) sites contaminated with radionuclides and metals are presented. In terms of how much more quickly an onsite laboratory provides results versus an offsite laboratory, the results of this study provide tools for calculating the amount of cost savings per day for excavation of contaminated soils for various scenarios including: - State, municipal or local property remediation where the remediation schedule becomes time-critical due to the extra cost and inconvenience to the town or municipality caused by the need for increased security and safety personnel, possible road closures and detours, and the inconvenience to the public due to modified or decreased services of State or municipal facilities; - Residential property where the remediation schedule becomes time-critical due to the inconvenience to the homeowner as well as the importance of maintaining good community relations; - Commercial property where the remediation schedule becomes time-critical due to the hardship and potential loss of revenue endured by the property owner; - Open area where treatment of excavation water is required, and - Open area where treatment of excavation water is not required. For every scenario, the number of matrices, radionuclide and metal contaminants of concern and the project duration are important factors. The costs for the onsite laboratory included the capital costs associated with setting up the lab such as trailer(s) or building(s), power and water hookup, analytical testing equipment, balances, computers, desks and bookcases; support equipment such as hot plates, filtration assemblies, safety equipment, ovens, etc.; and supplies such as glassware, pipettes, filters, etc. and ongoing costs such as labor, chemicals and reagents, standards, cost of the laboratory obtaining certification and maintenance. Offsite laboratory sample testing costs are generally very competitive and typically substantially lower than onsite laboratory costs if only the sample testing costs are considered. The great disadvantage of using an offsite laboratory is that they often cannot guarantee rapid turnaround times for results which creates project delays associated with the remediation process including delays determining the completeness of the characterization and remediation processes, delays in backfilling a property and additional costs for treating wastewater (excavation water, stormwater or both). These costs will vary greatly depending upon the area of the country in which the project is located due to the wide range of labor costs for the onsite laboratory and field workers, as well as the contaminants of interest, matrices and most importantly the size of the impacted area and the number of properties located in that area. This paper provides guidelines for calculating the cost savings that may be realized if an onsite laboratory can generate results more quickly than an offsite laboratory by estimating the costs associated with the remediation process for the various scenarios noted above such as work crew labor costs, excavator and dump truck equipment rentals, wastewater treatment costs (if applicable) and the additional costs incurred by homeowners, commercial property owners and towns/municipalities that are reimbursed by the potentially responsible parties. Key assumptions involve the typical quickest turnaround time provided by the onsite and offsite laboratories. Costs for the operation of a wastewater treatment system and the remediation of a site area or property were provided by personnel who have been involved in the operation of a large FUSRAP site in New Jersey for many years. This study provides valuable information for determining the most cost-effective approach for analysis of project samples and therefore may be used on upcoming FUSRAP projects. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Using SCOR as a Supply Chain Management Framework for Government Agency Contract Requirements

This paper will present a model that uses the Supply-Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model as a foundation for a framework to illustrate the information needed throughout a product lifecycle to support a healthy supply chain management function and the subsequent contract requirements to enable it. It will also show where in the supply chain the information must be extracted. The ongoing case study used to exemplify the model is NASA's (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Ares I program for human spaceflight. Effective supply chain management and contract requirements are ongoing opportunities for continuous improvement within government agencies, specifically development of systems for human spaceflight operations. Multiple reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reinforce this importance. The SCOR model is a framework for describing a supply chain with process building blocks and business activities. It provides a set of metrics for measuring supply chain performance and best practices for continuously improving. This paper expands the application of the SCOR to also provide the framework for defining information needed from different levels of the supply chain and at different phases of the lifecycle. These needs can be incorporated into contracts to enable more effective supply chain management. Depending on the phase of the lifecycle, effective supply chain management will require involvement from different levels of the organization and different levels of the supply chain.

Paxton, Joseph↗

SCRL-Model for Human Space Flight Operations Enterprise Supply Chain

This paper will present a Supply Chain Readiness Level (SCRL) model that can be used to evaluate and configure adaptable and sustainable program and mission supply chains at an enterprise level. It will also show that using SCRL in conjunction with Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs) and National Aeronautics Space Administrations (NASA s) Project Lifecycle Process will provide a more complete means of developing and evaluating a robust sustainable supply chain that encompasses the entire product, system and mission lifecycle. In addition, it will be shown that by implementing the SCRL model, NASA can additionally define supplier requirements to enable effective supply chain management (SCM). Developing and evaluating overall supply chain readiness for any product, system and mission lifecycle is critical for mission success. Readiness levels are presently being used to evaluate the maturity of technology and manufacturing capability during development and deployment phases of products and systems. For example, TRLs are used to support the assessment of the maturity of a particular technology and compare maturity of different types of technologies. MRLs are designed to assess the maturity and risk of a given technology from a manufacturing perspective. In addition, when these measurement systems are used collectively they can offer a more comprehensive view of the maturity of the system. While some aspects of the supply chain and supply chain planning are considered in these familiar metric systems, certain characteristics of an effective supply chain, when evaluated in more detail, will provide an improved insight into the readiness and risk throughout the supply chain. Therefore, a system that concentrates particularly on supply chain attributes is required to better assess enterprise supply chain readiness.

Tucker, Brian↗