| Copyright © 2010. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
A STRATEGIC
VISION
FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGy
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITy
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Committee on Building a Long-Term Environmental Quality Research
and Development Program in the Department of Energy
Board on Radioactive Waste Management
Division on Earth and Life Studies
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Gov-
erning Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from
the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of En-
gineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee respon-
sible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for
appropriate balance.
Support for this study was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy under
Grant No. DE-FC01-99EW59049. All opinions, findings, conclusions, or recom-
mendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily re-
flect the views of the U.S. Department of Energy.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-07560-2
Additional copies of this report are available from:
National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Box 285
Washington, DC 20055
(800) 624-6242
(202) 334-3313
Online at: http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating
society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research,
dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the
general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in
1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal govern-
ment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the
National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the
charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of out-
standing engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of
its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility
for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages
education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers.
Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of
Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions
in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The
Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences
by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon
its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr.
Kenneth 1. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of
Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology
with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal
government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the
Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in pro-
viding services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering
communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the
Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chairman and
vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
. . .
///
OCR for page R4
COMMITTEE ON BUILDING A LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
GREGORY R. CHOPPIN, Chair, Florida State University, Tallahassee
TERESA FRYBERGER,* Vice-Chair, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton,
New York
DAVID E. ADELMAN, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.
RADFORD BYERLY, JR., Independent Consultant, Boulder, Colorado
WILLIAM L. FRIEND, Bechtel Group, Inc. (retired), McLean, Virginia
THOMAS ISMCS, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California
JAMES H. JOHNSON, JR., Howard University, Washington, D.C.
CHARLES KOLSTAD, University of California, Santa Barbara
C. EDWARD LORENZ, E.l. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (retired), Wilmington,
Delaware
MICHAEL MENKE, Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, California
WARREN MILLER, JR., Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired), New Mexico
VICTORIA TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida
Staff
GREGORY H. SYMMES, Study Director
SUSAN B. MOCKLER, Research Associate
LATRICIA C. BAILEY, Senior Project Assistant
SUZANNE N. PESSOTTO, Project Assistant
* Recused herself from committee activities in November 2000 and resigned from
committee in January 2001 after accepting a management position within the
Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management.
lV
OCR for page R5
BOARD ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chair, Sigma Xi and Duke University, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina
CHARLES MCCOMBIE, Vice-Chair, Consultant, Gipf-Obertnck, Switzerland
ROBERT M. BERNERO, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (retired),
Gaithersburg, Maryland
ROBERT J. BUDNITZ, Future Resources Associates, Inc., Berkeley, California
GREGORY R. CHOPPIN, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida
RODNEY EWING, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
JAMES H. JOHNSON, JR., Howard University, Washington, D.C.
ROGER E. KASPERSON, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
NIKOLAY LAVEROV, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
JANE C. S. LONG, Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno
ALEXANDER MACLACHLAN, E.l. DuPont de Nemours & Company (retired),
Wilmington, Delaware
WILLIAM A. MILLS, Oak Ridge Associated Universities (retired), Olney, Maryland
MARTIN J. STEINDLER, Argonne National Laboratory (retired), Downers Grove,
Illinois
ATSUYUKI SUZUKI, University of Tokyo, Japan
JOHN J. TAYLOR, Electric Power Research Institute (retired), Palo Alto, California
VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida
Staff
KEVIN D. CROWLEY, Director
MICAH D. LOWENTHAL, Staff Officer
BARBARA PASTINA, Staff Officer
GREGORY H. SYMMES, Senior Staff Officer
JOHN R. WILEY, Senior Staff Officer
SUSAN B. MOCKLER, Research Associate
DARLA J. THOMPSON, Senior Project AssistanVResearch Assistant
TONI GREENLEAF, Administrative Associate
LATRICIA C. BAILEY, Senior Project Assistant
LAURA D. LLANOS, Senior Project Assistant
ANGELA R. TAYLOR, Senior Project Assistant
JAMES YATES, JR., Office Assistant
v
OCR for page R6
OCR for page R7
Preface
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for addressing
a host of environmental problems associated with radioactive, hazard-
ous, and mixed low-level wastes, nuclear materials, spent nuclear fuels,
and contaminated lands, waters, and buildings, at over a hundred sites
throughout the United States. DOE estimates that the nation will spend
over $200 billion to remediate, manage, and dispose of these wastes
and contaminated media over the next 70 years (DOE, 2000e). Even
after many contaminated sites have been "cleaned up" in accordance
with applicable regulations, residual risks to human health and the envi-
ronment will remain at most DOE sites for centuries, if not millennia, and
therefore will require some form of long-term stewardship (DOE, 1999a;
NRC, 2000a). DOE currently spends approximately $6.7 billion a year on
activities to manage and dispose of wastes and contaminated media
throughout the DOE complex (see Sidebar 2.1 for description of the DOE
complex). These activities are termed DOE's Environmental Quality (EQ)
business line.2
Approximately 4 percent of DOE's EQ business line budget is spent
on research and development (R&D) activities to improve scientific un-
derstanding and develop new approaches to address EQ problems.
Since 1998, DOE has referred to these activities as its EQ R&D portfolio.
The first comprehensive description of the portfolio was published in
February 2000 (DOE, 2000b). In compiling this description, DOE recog-
nized that its EQ R&D portfolio "may be under invested to sustain
achievement of existing mission objectives beyond the near term, i.e.,
' The committee refers to these diverse types of waste, spent fuels, nuclear materials,
and contaminated media collectively as "DOE wastes and contaminated media" (see Side-
bar 1.1 ).
2 EQ is one of DOE's four programmatic business lines. The other three programmatic
business lines are Energy Resources, National Nuclear Security, and Science (see discus-
sion in Chapter 1). The four programmatic business lines are supported by a corporate
management function, which DOE's most recent strategic plan refers to as a fifth business
line (DOE, 2000fl.
. .
vll
OCR for page R8
viii
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
beyond 2006" (DOE, 2000b, p. Xiii).3 This recognition prompted the Un-
der Secretary of DOE to ask the National Academies' National Research
Council (NRC) to provide advice on how DOE's EQ R&D portfolio could
broaden its current short-term focus to include a more long-term, strate-
. .
91C view.
The committee was asked to address the following four questions,
focusing on post-2006 R&D:
1. In the context of EQ strategic goals and mission objectives, what
criteria should be used to evaluate the adequacy of the portfolio?
2. Using these criteria, what should be the principal elements of the
portfolio?
3. Should the portfolio be designed to address environmental
problems outside DOE (e.g., Department of Defense, Russia) that are
related to EQ strategic goals?
4. How to determine the level of future investments in EQ R&D?
These questions differ from many NRC task statements in that they
focus on high-level R&D management issues rather than detailed ques-
tions about a specific scientific or technical issue. Taken together, the
answers to these four questions constitute the committee's views of how
DOE's EQ R&D efforts can be made more effective by focusing more
explicitly on DOE's most challenging EQ problems, i.e., a "strategic vi-
sion for DOE EQ R&D." The task statement also is unusual for the NRC
because it asks for advice related to R&D funding levels. In particular,
the committee was asked to provide advice on how to determine the
level of future EQ R&D investments. It is important to recognize, how-
ever, that the committee was not asked to recommend a level of funding,
nor to comment on whether the current level is too high or too low.
The task did not call on the committee to conduct a detailed evalua-
tion of the existing EQ R&D portfolio. Such an analysis was conducted
last year by DOE's Strategic Laboratory Council (referred to throughout
the report as the "adequacy analysis" and summarized in Appendix C).
This report complements and builds on the results of the adequacy
analysis and also relies strongly on recent analyses of parts of the EQ
R&D portfolio that have been carried out by other NRC committees (see
annotated bibliography in Appendix F) and other review groups.
This study could not have been completed without the assistance of
many individuals and organizations. The committee wishes to thank the
many DOE staff members in the Office of Environmental Management;
the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management; the Office of Nu-
3 The portfolio's short-term emphasis has been confirmed by two subsequent analyses
of DOE's EQ R&D portfolio (DOE, 2000g,h).
OCR for page R9
Preface
lX
clear Energy, Science and Technology; and the Under Secretary's office
for their active participation in committee meetings and in responding to
requests for information. The committee is especially grateful to Gerald
Boyd, who served as DOE's primary contact for this study, and his staff,
particularly Mark Gilbertson, Jef Walker, Ker-Chi Chang, and Lana Nich-
ols.
The committee expresses its deep appreciation to everyone who
participated in the committee's two-day workshop in August 2000 (see
Appendix B). The diverse mix of participants from DOE (headquarters
and the sites), other agencies, national laboratories, academia, non-
governmental organizations, and the private sector contributed to lively
discussions that provided great insights into the committee's task. The
committee is grateful to speakers Jack Gibbons, David Heyman, James
Owendoff, and Ivan Itkin, who helped set the stage for the workshop dis-
cussions.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for
their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with
procedures approved by the NRC Report Review Committee. The pur-
pose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical com-
ments that will assist the institution in making the published report as
sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional stan-
dards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge.
The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remains confi-
dential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to
thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this
report:
John F. Ahearne, Sigma Xi and Duke University
John Applegate, Indiana University School of Law
Allen G. Croff, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
James Economy, University of Illinois
John Fischer, U.S. Geological Survey (retired)
John C. Fountain, State University of New York at Buffalo
Thomas Leschine, University of Washington
Alexander MacLachlan, E.l. DuPont de Nemours & Company (retired)
John Pendergrass, Environmental Law Institute
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many construc-
tive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the
conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the
report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Mi-
chael Kavanaugh (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.) and Paul Barton (U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey, retired). Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for
making certain that an independent examination of this report was car-
OCR for page R10
x
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
ried out in accordance with NRC procedures and that all review com-
ments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of
this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the NRC.
Finally, the committee thanks the NRC staff who assisted the com-
mittee throughout the study. Latricia Bailey provided very strong admin-
istrative support in all phases of the study, especially during committee
meetings and in the preparation of the report. Suzanne Pessotto was
instrumental in ensuring the success of the committee's summer work-
shop by doing an exceptional job handling all of the logistical challenges.
Susan Mockler provided research support and prepared meeting min-
utes. Jennifer Nyman, a summer intern with the Board on Radioactive
Waste Management, assisted in information gathering activities early in
the study. Kevin Crowley, director of the Board on Radioactive Waste
Management, provided helpful strategic advice to the committee. Greg-
ory Symmes, the study director, was of invaluable assistance to the
committee in preparation for and during the workshop and the other
meetings and in turning committee members' writing into a cohesive and
effective report.
Gregory R. Choppin
Chair
OCR for page R11
Contents
Executive Summary
1 Introduction
DOE's R&D Portfolio Process, 16
Statement of Task, 17
Study Process, 20
Organization of Report, 21
1
12
2 The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission 23
DOE's EQ Responsibilities, 23
EQ Budget and R&D Funding, 31
Scope of DOE's EQ Mission, 33
3 A Long-Term Vision for Department of Energy Environmental
Quality Research and Development
Important Functions of an Effective EQ R&D Portfolio, 40
Criteria to Evaluate the Adequacy of the EQ R&D Portfolio, 60
Principal Elements of an Effective EQ R&D Portfolio, 61
Extending the EQ R&D Portfolio Beyond DOE, 69
Meeting DOE's Long-Term EQ R&D Needs, 69
4 Achieving and Maintaining the Long Term Vision for
Environmental Quality Research and Development
R&D Portfolio Management Process, 72
Institutional Mechanisms, 82
5 The Level of Investment in Department of Energy Environmental
Quality Research and Development
Defining the Goals and Objectives of the EQ Mission, 95
Balancing R&D Investments with Other Important EQ Needs, 96
Determining an Appropriate Level of R&D Investment, 98
Conclusion, 107
xl
40
71
93
OCR for page R12
X11
References
Appendixes
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members, 1 13
B Participants List and Agenda for August Workshop, 1 18
C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's Environmental Quality
Research and Development Portfolio, 124
D Descriptions of DOE's Environmental Quality Technical
Categories, 143
Descriptions of Related Research and Development Programs,
149
Annotated Bibliography of Selected Recent National Research
Council Reports, 160
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations, 169
108