National Academies Press: OpenBook

A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development (2001)

Chapter: 2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission

« Previous: 1. Introduction
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"2. The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission." National Research Council. 2001. A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10207.
×
Page 39

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

24 o to C] LL U' - ~0 In In ,a) Cal C: Cal .O C' ,o lo' o CD Cal llJ m LL O Q ~ ~ 0' a) ~ ~ ~ '<ii O IL _ ~ C ~ =~ O ~ O O~ o 'A ' o LIJ In O J ~ In ._ cn ,0 - In .o ._ en o C: g . _ LL A _ _ ~ U] o . _ ._ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ O Cal I~- ·— (~) — ~~ (o C'D ·_ c~) ·_ Cal 6a 69 ~ 69 ~ (* a' a) a =5 ~ a~ a) a~ O C ~ ~ C — t~ O .0 ,0 Q S — ._ ._ ~) ~ Q Q Q CO ' 00 tS' O ~ h- c o E. 0 0 co G) ~ Q O) ' ~ _ Q ._ 0 E E E e 0 0 E E ~E 0 , z 0 8 C E_ E ~ E o o l' I S ~ I c, - 0 E 0 CO ~ ~ CC ~ a~ C~ CO ~ oc~ ~ C~ ~ I~ ~ c E ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ a) c~s ~ ~ ~ ~, ~— ~ ~ ~ a, ~ ~ ~ ' ~ E

25 AL o CO ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ O C Hi- ·— a) ~ Go ~ ~ c) t ~ o it, ~ ._ ~ ._ o o a) i,, ~ ~ u, ~ ,,, E ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ s ° ~ ~ s o ~ ._ ~ o a .—0 cL ·— ~ ·—0 I`_ ._ ~ Q ~ — ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ._ Cal ~ Cal ~ ~ Us Go s = al ~ ~ ~ ~ s o E, . ~ ~ ~> r C ~ ~ lo. O ~ O a) O O ~ ~ ~ 0 _ ~ ·— ~ ~ O O <~) 0 (/' ,~o, ~o ~D ~ =, ~ ~ ~ - a) o~ O ~ ~n c '~ 3: ~ ~ E ° °~ o ,,, '.~ o E ~ o, o ~ E E

26 ~ O Q o_~0 ~n a).o O) Q tt cn O U] ° E z 2 ~ z 2 D o E —C ~ ' c ~ 2 o=, .o ° ]9 E C ° ~ —= E U' a) .~ ~ o ._ .~ C~ = ~ ~ <: - o C' C~ llJ E c, a) a) = cn ·~ ~ a' ~ 0 ._ :,- g~o (0 a <', E o o a) a .O ~ S ~ O s~ , ~ ~ ~ .Q cn a' ,,0 X Q a) o $ - o .m >` a) <: ~ O O .m i~ >, O ~ ~ a' cn ~ ~ u, _ ._ o o S .—O Q^ ~ U' ~S ~ ._ ~ o E o ° -—s ~ m g ~ ~ O ~ o~ =w ~ ~ ~ ~ s O (15 ~ oo Rm ~ ~Q ~ ~ O) o o o C~ a C~ ._ - a) llJ - z o a C~ o - - a) - a' - C~ . - o ._ ._ .2 o C) ·— ._ Cl) ~0 Q O L) ~— ~ O ~ .m ~ a) - L1J OS - - ~ a) a) .— .m O a) ~ .o _ ~ ~ O ~ . _ a) LLI ~ Z - O >, ·5 =' ~ _ IL o c a) a ,~ ~ O '

DOE's Environmental Quality Mission 27 onmental cleanup, materials management, and waste disposal responsi- bilities are discussed below. Addressing Environmental Contamination at DOE Sites The DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM) is responsible for addressing environmental contamination problems at 140 sites lo- cated in 31 states (DOE, 1998; 1999a), which are referred to collectively as "the DOE complex" (see Sidebar 2.1~. To date, DOE has identified almost 10,000 individual locations at these sites where toxic or radioac- tive substances were improperly abandoned or released directly into soil, groundwater, or surface waters (DOE, 1997a). An estimated 75 million cubic meters (2.6 billion cubic feet) of contaminated soil and 1.8 billion cubic meters (475 billion gallons) of contaminated groundwater may need to be remediated at these sites (DOE, 1997a). EM also is respon- sible for the deactivation and decommissioning of 2,700 facilities (of a total of about 20,000) determined to be surplus in the DOE complex (DOE, 1997a). Most of these facilities are seriously contaminated with radioactive or hazardous substances at levels that prohibit unrestricted release. Environmental remediation and deactivation and decommis- sioning activities are expected to continue at some sites through 2070, at a total life-cycle cost of nearly $50 billion for the entire DOE complex (DOE, 2000g). Managing DOE Wastes, Spent Nuclear Fuels, and Nuclear Materials EM is responsible for more than 36 million cubic meters (9.6 billion gallons) of hazardous or radioactive wastes (DOE, 1997a), including over 340,000 cubic meters (90 million gallons) of high-level radioactive waste. Managing these wastes is extremely challenging, because of the volumes at issue, their hazardous characteristics, their long periods of toxicity and because much of it (including some of the most dangerous) is in unstable configurations (e.g., the Hanford tanks), much has been released to the environment already, and much of the waste is at present very incompletely characterized. EM and DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) also are responsible for managing over 800 million kilograms (1.8 billion pounds) of non-waste materials in inventory, such as depleted uranium, plutonium spent nuclear fuel, lead, sodium, lithium, and a vari- ety of chemicals (DOE, 1996~. Most of these materials, the majority of which is depleted uranium, are stored at 44 facilities at 11 major produc- tion sites throughout the United States. DOE's radioactive waste (in- cluding spent nuclear fuel and nuclear materials treated as waste) man-

28 A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D

DOE's Environmental Quality Mission 29 agement responsibilities are expected to continue for many decades at an estimated total life-cycle cost of more than $85 billion (DOE, 2000g). Disposing of DOE Wastes, Spent Nuclear Fuels, and Nuclear Materials DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW) is re- sponsible for developing and managing a system to permanently dispose of a currently estimated 85,000 metric tons of heavy metal (MTHM) of commercial spent fuel, 2,500 MTHM of DOE spent fuel, and 22,000 canisters of high-level waste. RW currently is investigating the suitability of the Yucca Mountain Site as a geological repository for such wastes (see Sidebar 2.2~. The total cost of disposing of high-level waste, spent nuclear fuel, and nuclear materials in Yucca Mountain is estimated to be $52 to $57 billion over at least the next three to four decades (DOE, 20009~. EM is responsible for disposing of approximately 167,000 cubic me- ters (5.9 million cubic feet) of transuranic waste in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico (see Sidebar 2.3~. The esti- mated life-cycle costs of WIPP through its estimated closure date of 2039 is $8 billion (DOE, 2000g). DOE low-level waste is disposed of in shallow land facilities at sev- eral locations. Low-level waste from defense programs is disposed of generally at the site where it was produced, primarily Hanford, the Sa- vannah River Site, and the Idaho National Engineering and Environ- mental Laboratory. Envirocare in Utah receives very low level waste, for example, from facility decommissioning. DOE's EQ Challenges The preceding discussion makes clear that the EQ business line is responsible for managing and controlling a large number of facilities and huge volumes of DOE wastes and contaminated media under a broad range of conditions. For brevity, the committee has developed the fol- lowing summary statement of the scientific and technical challenges that face the EQ business line, hereafter referred to as DOE's "EQ chal- lenges": . Remediate (i.e., "clean up") DOE sites and facilities that have severe radioactive and hazardous waste contamination from past activi- ties. In many cases the extent, location, or types of contamination are not

30 A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D well known, and methods to clean them up safely, timely, effectively, and economically are not available. Indeed, in many cases, DOE is unable to defensibly determine whether cleanup is required and its relative priority. · Manage, stabilize, process, and dispose of a legacy of widely varying and often poorly understood DOE wastes (including spent nu- clear fuels and nuclear materials treated as waste) that are potential threats to health, safety, and the environment. The techniques required to characterize, process, and treat these wastes are often undeveloped or poorly realized. · Provide effective long-term stewardship of DOE sites that have been remediated as well as currently practical but that have residual

DOE's Environmental Quality Mission 31 risks to health, safety, and the environment. Develop, open, and operate unique, first-of-a-kind facilities for 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. These EQ challenges drive the EQ R&D portfolio. EQ BUDGET AND R&D FUNDING EQ is DOE's second most expensive business line, accounting for $6.7 billion (or 34 percent) of the $1 9.7 billion DOE budget for fiscal year 2001 (see Figure 2.1a). In contrast, the annual investment in EQ R&D is the smallest of DOE's four programmatic business lines. For fiscal year 2001, funding for EQ R&D was approximately $298 million (or 4 percent) of DOE's total R&D spending (see Figure 2.1 b). These budget data sug- gest that decision makers in DOE, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress have not viewed R&D as an effective way to meet DOE's EQ responsibilities. One reason for this view may be the incorrect perception that DOE's EQ problems3 largely will be addressed in the next 3 The term "EQ problems" refers to the set of technical problems that collectively make up the "EQ challenges" described in the text. This is a useful concept in planning an R&D

32 A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D 3% 20 ~~ ire ~~< ~ ~ I ~ . r ~ ~ ~ FIGURE 2.1(a) DOE Fiscal Year 2001 Budget by Business Line. Of DOE's total budget of approximately $19.7 billion, $7.0 billion (35%) is spent by National Nu- clear Security (NNS), $6.7 billion (34%) by Environmental Quality (EQj, $3.2 bil- lion (16%) by Science, $2.5 billion (13%) by Energy Resources, and 0.3 billion (2%) by Corporate Management and Other (CM). Approximately 41% of DOE's $19.7 billion budget ($8.0 billion) is spent on R&D, which is distributed among the business lines as shown in (b). Data from Department of Energy Office of Chief Financial Officer. Available at: (http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budgeV02budgeV3-pager.pdfl Energy Resources 160~ EQ 40/0 ~_Sctence ~ i ~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . , .~ ~ ~ it ~ ~ ~ ..... , ,, ,, ~,.~ ..~ is NhlS Am% FIGURE 2.1 (b) DOE Fiscal Year 2001 R&D Spending by Business Line. Of DOE's $8.0 billion R&D investment, $3.4 billion (42%) is spent by NNS, $3.0 bil- lion (38%) by Science line, 1.3 billion (16%) by Energy Resources, and $298 million (4%) by EQ. Data for NNS, Science, and Energy Resources are from MAS (2001~; data for EQ are from Ker-Chi Chang, DOE (personal communica- tion). portfolio because the challenges are very broad, and must be broken down into manage- able parts to be addressed by R&D.

DOE's Environmental Quality Mission 33 few years (this issue is discussed below in "Temporal Breadth of DOE's EQ Missions. The committee examines EQ R&D budget issues more fully in Chapter 5. SCOPE OF DOE'S EQ MISSION The scope of DOE's EQ mission was the subject of extensive delib- eration and discussion within the committee. It is important consider this issue early in the report because any consideration of the adequacy of an R&D portfolio requires a clear understanding of the programmatic objectives that these R&D activities are intended to support in this case, DOE's EQ mission. Such clarity is a challenge because DOE's use of the term "environmental quality' is a misnomer that creates confusion, both within and outside DOE, and because DOE documents reviewed by the committee are not consistent in describing the EQ mission.4 For ex- ample, the EQ strategic goal and objectives in DOE's 1997 Strategic Plan (DOE, 1997b), which was in effect when the EQ R&D portfolio document was compiled, differ substantively in several ways from those in DOE's 2000 Strategic Plan (see Sidebar 2.4~. In particular, the 1997 Strategic Plan explicitly recognizes the importance of limiting the genera- tion of future DOE wastes by including "minimize future waste genera- tion" as part of the strategic goal and "prevent future pollution" as one of seven objectives. In addition, the 1997 Plan emphasizes the importance of focusing on the most serious risks (objective 1 ~ and reducing the costs of environmental cleanup (objective 6~. None of these important con- cepts were included in the strategic goal and objectives of DOE's 2000 strategic plan. In spite of these substantive differences, however, the strategic goal and objectives in both strategic plans (see Sidebar 2.4) clearly focus on addressing problems related to DOE wastes and con- taminated media. However, other parts of the 1997 strategic plan and the EQ R&D portfolio document (DOE, 2000b) suggest that the scope of DOE's EQ mission may extend beyond DOE wastes and contaminated media. For example, the 1997 strategic plan states that one of the three primary ar- eas of responsibility of the EQ business line is to "provide the technolo- 4 The committee believes that the most appropriate source for understanding what DOE means by its EQ mission is DOE's published strategic plans. These plans include "strategic goals" and "objectives" for its EQ business line, which together define DOE's EQ . . mission.

34 A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D

DOE's Environmental Quality Mission 35 gies and institutions to solve domestic and international environmental problems" (DOE, 1997b, p. 24~. Taken literally, this would imply that DOE's EQ mission encompasses a wide spectrum of environmental is- sues (e.g., climate change, biodiversity, ecosystem protection), which as discussed above, is not consistent with the EQ strategic goal and objec- objectives in the same document. Similarly, the EQ R&D portfolio docu- ment includes a vision of a significantly expanded future EQ R&D portfo- lio (termed a "Strategic Portfolio for the 21St Century"), which would in- clude additional R&D investments in areas such as sustainable devel- opment and global environmental protection (DOE, 2000b, p. 45~. Fur- thermore, in describing the role of DOE EQ, the document includes the statement that it "provides global leadership to environmental quality ef- forts" (DOE, 2000b, p. xv). Parts of the 1997 strategic plan and the EQ R&D portfolio document therefore suggest that DOE's EQ mission in- cludes, or should be broadened to include, a myriad of environmental issues beyond DOE wastes and contaminated media. Given these major inconsistencies, what is the appropriate scope of DOE's EQ mission? The committee discusses three aspects of this is- sue. The first is the topical breadth of the EQ mission within DOE. In par- ticular, whether DOE's EQ mission includes (or should be broadened to include) environmental issues within DOE beyond wastes and contami- nated media. The second is the temporal breadth of DOE's EQ mission, i.e., whether DOE's EQ mission should focus more extensively on long- term problems or in preventing the occurrence of future problems, rather

36 A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D than simply addressing past problems. The third is the national and in- ternational breadth of DOE's EQ mission, i.e., whether DOE's EQ re- sponsibilities should be extended to problems outside DOE, such as those in other agencies or nations. This issue is addressed at the end of Chapter 3 (see "Extending the EQ R&D Portfolio Beyond DOES. Topical Breadth of DOE's EQ Mission As discussed above, recent DOE documents have not been con- sistent in describing the topical breadth of DOE's EQ mission. The EQ strategic goal and objectives in DOE's two most recent strategic plans are quite clear that the topical breadth of DOE's EQ mission is restricted to problems directly related to DOE wastes and contaminated media. However, other parts of the 1997 strategic plan and some parts of the EQ R&D portfolio document suggest that the topical breadth of DOE's EQ mission should be much broader. Faced with these two very different views, the committee concludes that the more narrow interpretation is more appropriate at the present time. Its reasoning is simple. First, the committee's task explicitly directed the committee to conduct its analysis "in the context of EQ strategic goals and mission objectives," which as discussed above, are quite clear about the topical breadth of the EQ mission. Second, as discussed in Chapter 3, there currently exist a large number of important R&D gaps and opportunities in the EQ R&D portfolio, even within the narrower EQ mission. The committee believes that it would be inappropriate to con- sider expanding the topical breadth of DOE's EQ mission until the R&D portfolio adequately addresses its current mission. Third, expanding the topical breadth of the EQ mission to include all areas of the environment, such as sustainable development and global environmental protection would create significant overlap with DOE's other missions (in particular, the Energy Resources and Science missions), as well as the missions of other federal agencies with longstanding environmental responsibilities, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceano- graphic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Geological Sur- vey. Furthermore, such an expansion would make the committee's task nearly impossible, and well beyond the committee's collective expertise.5 Conclusion: The EQ mission should continue to focus on problems associated with DOE wastes and contaminated media. 5 Readers interested in broader environmental R&D needs are encouraged to read a recent NRC report, Grand Challenges in Environmental Sciences (NRC, 2000j).

DOE's Environmental Quality Mission 37 This conclusion does not exclude the possibility that an expanded mission might be warranted some time in the future when the EQ R&D portfolio adequately addresses the important long-term problems that are already within the EQ mission. It also does not lessen the importance of closely coordinating EQ R&D with related R&D efforts by DOE's other business lines. One of the committee's important conclusions in Chapter 3 is that EQ R&D should build upon the R&D activities of, and take into account the needs of, DOE's Science, Energy Resources, and National Nuclear Security business lines. Finally, the committee believes that some of the inconsistencies de- scribed above arise from the fact that DOE uses the term "environmental quality' as the name of its EQ business line. The term environmental quality is used by many federal and state agencies to refer to a much broader spectrum of environmental issues than problems associated with wastes and contaminated media. For example, issues as diverse as cli- mate change, drinking water protection, ecosystem biodiversity, and protection of marine fisheries would be considered part of environmental quality by agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The use of the term "environmental quality' as the name of DOE's EQ business line therefore does not reflect its current mission. The committee encourages DOE to change the name of the EQ business line (and its corresponding R&D portfolio) to more accurately reflect the topical breadth of its EQ mission. Temporal Breadth of DOE's EQ Mission As discussed earlier, the EQ strategic goal and objectives in DOE's 1997 and 2000 strategic plans are not consistent about the importance of addressing long-term problems or in preventing the occurrence of future problems. Both the 1997 strategic plan (objective 7) and 2000 strategic plan (second half of objective 1) recognize a continuing responsibility in the area of long-term stewardship. The 1997 strategic plan also recog- nizes the importance of minimizing the generation of new wastes. This concept was not included in the 2000 strategic plan, however. The com- mittee believes that it is important for DOE to strive to prevent the types of contamination and waste management problems that have character- ized past DOE activities in ongoing and future DOE operations and facili- ties by assuring that sufficient environmental considerations and protec- tions are built into them up front.6 6 The Strategic Laboratory Council's adequacy analysis (DOE, 2000g) recognized the importance of reducing the future waste generation when it recommended a new EQ ob- jective to "minimize the risk, volume and cost of newly generated DOE radioactive and hazardous waste."

38 A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D Although the inclusion of long-term stewardship as an explicit objec- tive of DOE's EQ mission does recognize an important element of DOE's enduring EQ mission, the committee believes that DOE's strategic plans (especially the 2000 strategic plan) still present a rather limited, short- term view of DOE's long-term EQ responsibilities. This short-term view is reflected in DOE's approach to addressing EQ problems. For example, the recent focus of EM has been to meet the ambitious cleanup goals of the 2006 remediation deadlines and legal or regulatory mandates, such as site implementation plans (DOE, 1998~. It is important to recognize, however, that EM's definitions of cleanup for the great majority of DOE sites has meant"securing sites" and "minimizing exposures"- but not rendering the sites suitable for unrestricted use (see Sidebar 1.2; NRC, 2000a). In reality, radioactive and other wastes will remain at most DOE sites even after achieving the cleanup goals, and over 100 sites will re- quire some form of long-term stewardship to protect human health and the environment after they have been closed (NRC, 2000a; DOE, 1999, 2001 b). Furthermore, DOE's most contaminated sites with the largest quantities of wastes and contaminated media (e.g., Hanford, Washing- ton; Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory; Savan- nah River, South Carolina) will not achieve closure for decades (DOE, 2000e; see Sidebar 2.1). Similarly, the focus of RW has been to assess the site suitability for licensing of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository by 2010. This short- term emphasis has enabled RW to develop a technical base for deter- mining whether the Yucca Mountain Site could be a suitable geological repository, but generally has not looked beyond licensing to address en- vironmental science, engineering, and social science issues that will arise during the licensing and operation of the repository. For example, improved understanding of the performance of the waste packages within the geological environment and novel monitoring techniques are needed during the pre-closure period, which will last from decades to more than a century. Although the short-term focus of EM and RW has provided a means for making progress on some short-term elements of the EQ mission, it also may have been misinterpreted by some decision makers to mean that DOE's EQ mission will be essentially completed by 2006 or 2010, i.e., a "going out of business within the next decade" view of DOE's EQ mission. Here the committee needs to explain what it means by the phrase "going out of business within the next decade," because as indi- cated above, in some respects a going out of business attitude is appro- priate for large parts of the EQ business line, and thus for a proportional part of its supporting R&D portfolio. This is because DOE is responsible for sites and materials that today pose serious risks to health and the environment. Thus DOE must act with urgency to mitigate these risks as soon as possible. DOE must put as many as possible of these risks "out

DOE's Environmental Quality Mission 39 of business", e.g., perhaps mitigating the risks by cleaning up a site, or by isolating nuclear wastes in a well-designed repository. It is in this sense, for these treatable risks, that a going out of business attitude is appropriate; EQ's overall mission is to put itself out of business by ad- dressing past problems, and by anticipating and preventing future prob- lems. However, at present there exists no adequate technology to address other risks, including some of the worst risks. For these, DOE needs parallel programs of long term stewardship and as-long-term-as- necessary R&D to find solutions. And a sense of urgency with respect to these programs is needed in order to protect public health and the envi- ronment. Nevertheless, for these risks the sense of urgency does not imply going out of business at any time in the near future. It rather im- plies getting on with what can be done now, which here is long-term stewardship and R&D.To recapitulate, because DOE faces many seri- ous risks to health and environment, and because some of the worst risks are now unsolvable, the agency must cultivate a balanced sense of urgency, proceeding with deliberate speed to mitigate those risks it can in the short term, and in parallel to initiate R&D on solutions for the cur- rently intractable problems so that in the long term their risks also are addressed. Where this report refers to "going out of business within the next decade," the committee is referring to a mistaken attitude or belief that all EQ problems will be handled in the relatively near future, and the DOE EQ mission completed at that point. As one might expect, the short-term focus also has had a major im- pact on DOE's approach to EQ R&D. One of the most consistent and important findings of two recent analyses of DOE's EQ R&D portfolio is that it lacks a long-term strategic vision (DOE, 2000g,h; see also Appen- dix C). This issue will be discussed at length in Chapter 3. Finding: A "going out of business within the next decade" view of DOE's mission has served to obscure DOE's long-term EQ respon- sibilities and has done little to address DOE's most challenging EQ problems. Recommendation: DOE should develop strategic goals and objec- tives for its EQ business line that explicitly incorporate a more comprehensive, long-term view of its EQ responsibilities. For exam- ple, they should emphasize long-term stewardship and the importance of limiting contamination and materials management problems, including the generation of wastes and contaminated media, in ongoing and future DOE operations. The committee's statement of DOE's "EQ challenges" could be used as the basis for these revised strategic goals and objectives.

Next: 3. A Long-Term Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development »
A Strategic Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $75.00 Buy Ebook | $59.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The National Academies' National Research Council undertook this study in response to a request from the Under Secretary of Energy to provide strategic advice on how the Department of Energy could improve its Environmental Quality R&D portfolio. The committee recommends that DOE develop strategic goals and objectives for its EQ business line that explicitly incorporate a more comprehensive, long-term view of its EQ responsibilities. For example, these goals and objectives should emphasize long-term stewardship and the importance of limiting contamination and materials management problems, including the generation of wastes and contaminated media, in ongoing and future DOE operations.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!