|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. 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 12
1
INTRODUCTION
.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for a diverse
range of radioactive, hazardous, and mixed low-level wastes; nuclear
materials; spent nuclear fuels; and contaminated lands, waters, and facili-
ties (hereafter referred to collectively as "DOE wastes and contaminated
media," [see Sidebar 1.1~. These wastes and contaminated media pres-
ent the following general scientific, technical, and social challenges that
will endure long into the future (see Chapter 2 for a more complete dis-
cussion of these challenges):
Remediate DOE sites, and facilities that have severe radioactive
and hazardous waste contamination from past activities (also commonly
referred to as site "cleanup," see Sidebar 1.2~.
.
Manage, stabilize, process, and dispose of a legacy of widely
varying and often poorly understood DOE wastes (including spent nuclear
fuels and nuclear materials treated as waste) that are potential threats to
health, safety, and the environment.
.
Provide effective long-term stewardship of DOE sites that have
been remediated as well as currently practical, but that have residual risks
to health, safety, and the environment (see Sidebar 1.2 for definition of
"long-term stewardship"~.
Develop, open, and operate unique, first-of-a-kind facilities for the
permanent disposal of radioactive spent fuels and high-level wastes-
many of which will be hazardous for thousands to hundreds of thousands
of years.
· Limit contamination and materials management problems, in-
cluding the generation of wastes and contaminated media, in ongoing and
future DOE operations.
' See Sidebar 2.2 for a description of the largest DOE sites.
12
OCR for page 13
Introduction
13
OCR for page 14
~ Sumac ~~n Or DOE amend Quay R&D
DOE currently spends approximately $6.7 billion a year on activities de-
~gned ~ address these challenges. DOE ~m ~ these arrives as id
lit
The magnitude and duration of these challenges are related to:
OCR for page 15
Introduction
15
· the quantities of DOE wastes and contaminated media that are
distributed at numerous sites throughout the United States;
the quantities of wastes and contaminated media currently out-
side DOE (or to be generated in the future) that are expected to be added
to DOE's current inventories;
· the long half-lives (thousands to hundreds of thousands of years)
of some of the radioactive elements contained in these materials; and
· the potential risks to humans and the environment if radioactive
materials (and related hazardous substances) are not adequately isolated
from the biosphere.
The long-term nature of these challenges and the enormous costs as-
sociated with them create many opportunities to improve methods, lower
costs, reduce impacts to human health and the environment, and improve
stewardship through a strengthened long-term research and development
(R&D) effort (see Sidebar 1.3 for definitions of "research" and "develop-
ment"), as discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. One direct effect could
be to reduce the costs of managing and disposing of DOE wastes and
contaminated media through the development of more cost-effective ap-
proaches. Long-term R&D also could lead to novel approaches to reduce
the risks of DOE wastes and contaminated media to human health and
the environment to levels that are not possible given current technical ca-
pabilities and understanding. Another significant potential impact of long-
term EQ R&D is improvement in technical understanding of issues related
.
OCR for page 16
16
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
to cleanup, long-term stewardship, and the disposal of radioactive wastes,
which could help policy makers make more informed decisions.
R&D activities designed to address these challenges are supported
principally by three offices: the Office of Environmental Management
(EM), the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW), and
the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. In addition, the
Office of Fissile Materials Disposition conducts a small amount of R&D as
part of the EQ business line, and DOE's Office of Science, which is not
formally part of the EQ business line, supports a variety of basic research
activities related to DOE's EQ mission. A brief overview of the types of
R&D supported by these offices is provided in Sidebar 1.4.
DOE'S R&D PORTFOLIO PROCESS
In 1998 DOE began an effort under the direction of the Under Secre-
tary to develop comprehensive descriptions of its R&D activities. These
descriptions have been organized into R&D portfolio documents that de-
scribe the collection of R&D activities (i.e., the R&D portfolios) which sup-
ports each of the four programmatic business lines3 established in DOE's
strategic plan (DOE, 1997b, 2000f): EQ (DOE, 2000b), Energy Resources
(DOE, 2000a), National Nuclear Security (DOE, 2000c), and Science
(DOE, 2000d). The primary objective of this portfolio-development effort
was to ensure that R&D activities are focused on the goals outlined in
DOE's strategic plan. DOE stated that it would use these portfolios to
better manage its R&D programs, most notably in the following ways:
· to increase coordination and integration of R&D activities across
the department;
to identify R&D gaps and opportunities;
to balance R&D investments; and
· to provide a coherent rationale for R&D budget requests to the
Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Congress.
Although DOE's motivation for the portfolio reviews did not include a
need to examine DOE's R&D responsibilities in the context of other U.S.
and international agencies, the committee believes that this is an impor-
tant issue to consider as well. The role of the EQ R&D portfolio in ad-
2 The committee uses the term "portfolio" to refer to the collection of R&D activities that
support each of DOE's four programmatic business lines, and the term "portfolio document"
to refer to the published description of these activities.
3 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,
2000f).
OCR for page 17
Introduction
17
dressing non-DOE problems, both national and international, is an explicit
charge to this committee (see below).
STATEMENT OF TASK
The Under Secretary of Energy asked the National Academies' Na-
tional Research Council to address the following questions related to the
EQ R&D portfolio, with a focus on post-2006 research:
· In the context of EQ strategic goals and mission objectives, what
criteria should be used to evaluate the adequacy of the portfolio?
· Using these criteria, what should be the principal elements of the
portfolio?
· Should the portfolio be designed to address environmental prob-
lems outside DOE (e.g., Department of Defense, Russia) that are related
to EQ strategic goals?
.
How to determine the level of future investments in EQ R&D?
One issue that the committee had to address in carrying out the study
was how to interpret the phrase "with a focus on post-2006 research." In
1996 EM established a formal goal of completing cleanup at as many
sites as possible by the year 2006 (DOE, 1998~. Because this goal fo-
cuses exclusively on the number of sites "cleaned up" by 2006 (see Side-
bar 1.2), it has had a major effect on EM's approach to remediation activi-
ties. In particular, the goal created an incentive to focus resources on
sites that could realistically be cleaned up within a 10-year or shorter time
frame relative to larger sites faced with more difficult problems. It also
may have given the incorrect perception to some federal decision makers
that environmental problems associated with DOE wastes and contami-
nated media would largely be addressed by 2006 (see discussion in
Chapter 2~. The short-term focus of the goal has had a marked impact on
the types of R&D activities supported by EM: It created a clear incentive
to support late-stage development and deployment of techniques that
could be used in the near term to facilitate cleanup of sites by 2006, and a
disincentive to fund long-term R&D activities that might address the more
difficult problems that will endure beyond 2006. These factors, together
with other external forces driving EM to produce results quickly (i.e., con-
gressional expectations, regulatory constraints), have resulted in a portfo-
lio of EM R&D activities heavily weighted toward short-term needs. It also
may partly account for the recent trend of decreasing investments in EQ
R&D (see discussion in Chapter 5~.
Although the year 2006 has no special meaning for the other DOE or-
ganizational units involved in the EQ business line, RW also has been
driven to focus its R&D activities on short-term needs" most notably, sci-
OCR for page 18
18
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
OCR for page 19
Introduction
19
OCR for page 20
20
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
entific investigations to assess the suitability of the proposed Yucca
Mountain repository, which if approved and licensed, could begin receiv-
ing waste as early as 2010 even though the program will endure and
should benefit from R&D for generations if successful. Therefore, by ask-
ing the committee to focus on post-2006 R&D activities, DOE was looking
for advice on how the EQ R&D portfolio could shift its current short-term
focus to a more long-term, strategic view. Throughout this report the
committee uses the term "short-term" to mean 5 years or less, and "long-
term" to mean greater than 5 years.
Finally, part of the committee's task is to provide "criteria ... to evalu-
ate the adequacy of the portfolio" and to "identify the principal elements of
the portfolio." To this end Chapter 3 describes a long-term vision for the
EQ portfolio, and Chapter 4 describes how DOE could achieve the vision.
One might say that, in the narrowest sense of the term "criteria," Chapter
3 fulfills the task and Chapter 4 exceeds it. However, the committee be-
lieves that it is important to describe more than where the portfolio should
be when it is "adequate," for doing only that would provide little practical
guidance today on steps to move in the correct direction. Describing the
characteristics of an adequate portfolio is necessary but not sufficient. It is
also necessary to describe a process that will achieve and maintain an
adequate portfolio. This is the proverbial difference between giving a man
a fish and teaching him to fish. In sum, one criterion for an adequate
portfolio is a process to develop and maintain it.
STUDY PROCESS
The National Academies appointed a committee of twelve experts4
with a range of perspectives and experience related to the task (see Ap-
pendix A for biographical information on committee members). The com-
mittee held its first information-gathering meeting on June 7 and 8, 2000,
in Washington, D.C. During this meeting, it discussed its task with DOE
leadership and heard presentations from a number of DOE program man-
agers. The primary information-gathering activity for the study was a two-
day public workshop held in Washington, D.C. on August 23 and 24,
2000. This workshop brought together approximately 50 participants from
DOE, the private sector, academia, and other federal agencies (see Ap-
pendix B for a list of participants and the workshop agenda). The work-
shop began with a series of keynote speakers who discussed various as-
pects of DOE's EQ R&D activities. Participants were then organized into
three working groups to examine issues associated with: (1) identifying
4 Teresa Fryberger, who served as vice-chair of the committee, recused herself from
committee activities in November 2000 and resigned from the committee in January 2001
after accepting a management position within DOE-EM.
OCR for page 21
Introduction
21
significant long-term EQ R&D needs; (2) evaluating the balance and value
of the EQ R&D portfolio; and (3) determining the appropriate level of in-
vestment in long-term EQ R&D. Prior to the workshop, the committee also
solicited input on significant long-term R&D needs from persons knowl-
edgeable about DOE's EQ mission, and these issues were used as input
to the workshop. The committee then held two closed meetings during
which it developed its findings, conclusions, and recommendations and
prepared this report.
This study complements and builds on two other recent analyses of
DOE's EQ R&D portfolio. Last year DOE's Strategic Laboratory Councils
conducted an adequacy analysis to examine the capability of the current
portfolio of DOE R&D activities to meet the objectives of the EQ business
line (DOE, 2000g). Based on an extensive review of the current portfolio,
the adequacy analysis recommended a number of changes to DOE's EQ
strategic goal and objectives, identified a large number of R&D gaps and
opportunities,6 and offered findings and recommendations on how the
portfolio could be improved. After the adequacy analysis was published,
the Technology Development and Transfer Committee of DOE's Environ-
mental Management Advisory Board (EMAB)7 was asked to evaluate the
analysis, resulting in an EMAB letter report in October 2000 (DOE,
2000g). The results of the adequacy analysis and the EMAB letter report
are summarized in Appendix C.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This chapter has provided an introduction and general background on
the issues addressed in the report. Chapter 2 describes the mission of
DOE's EQ business line, summarizes its major areas of responsibility, and
5 The Strategic Laboratory Council (SLC) consists of representatives from DOE's na-
tional laboratories. It provides assistance to EM offices and EM-related science organiza-
tions on science and technology issues dealing with EM's program. Operating in a consen-
sus manner, the SLC develops positions and offers recommendations that represent the
DOE laboratory system. SLC members took the lead in organizing panels to conduct the
adequacy analysis of the EQ R&D portfolio.
6 According to the SLC's adequacy analysis, an R&D gap exists where "the current
portfolio is less than adequate in some respect (e.g., lacking needed work), thus posing a
risk of failure to achieve an EQ objective." An R&D opportunity exists "when there is signifi-
cant potential to achieve a high return on investment or to excel in achieving an EQ objective
through a new research area or more investment in an existing research area" (DOE,
2000~).
EMAB is an advisory group chartered to provide advice to DOE's Assistant Secretary
for EM on issues related to environmental restoration and waste management issues. EMAB
members are chosen to represent key stakeholder groups in EM's decision-making process.
EMAB carries out much of its work through its committees, including the Technology Devel-
opment and Transfer Committee (which focuses on technology-related issues) and the Sci-
ence Committee (which focuses on the quality of science in the EM program). Also see
Sidebar 4.1.
OCR for page 22
22
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
discusses issues associated with the scope of the EQ mission. Chapters 3
and 4 together provide the committee's vision for a more effective long-
term EQ R&D portfolio. Chapter 3 begins by discussing the important
functions of such a portfolio, which are used as the basis of the commit-
tee's list of criteria to evaluate the adequacy of the portfolio that follows.
Based on these criteria and the findings of many recent studies, the
committee develops a short list of principal elements, presented at the
end of Chapter 3, that it believes are going to be essential to the success
of DOE's long-term EQ mission. Chapter 4 then describes how DOE could
build upon the adequacy criteria and principal elements developed in
Chapter 3 to achieve and maintain a more strategic, long-term R&D port-
folio. Finally, Chapter 5 describes processes that could be used to help
determine an appropriate level of investment in EQ R&D. Supporting ma-
terials are included as Appendixes A through F.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
adequacy analysis
