Click for next page ( 142


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 141
10 Improving S&T Program Effectiveness The statement of task for this study (see Chapter 1 ) called for the committee to review the Integration Project's science and technology (S&T) program and recommend ways to improve its technical merit and relevance to cleanup decisions at Hanford and other Department of Energy (DOE) sites. Much of this task has been accomplished in Chapters 5 through 9, which review the S&T projects within the seven technical program elements. This concluding chapter is structured around a set of findings and recommendations that are offered to improve overall program effectiveness. Finding: There is a long-tenn and continuing need for S&T to support cleanup and stewardship of the Hanford Site. As discussed in Chapter 1, environmental cleanup at Hanford is slated to last until at least 2046 and to cost upward of $85 billion (DOE, 199Be).' Moreover, after this active phase of cleanup is complete, the federal government's stewardship responsibilities will last for centuries. Hanford cleanup schedules are being driven by regulatory agreements and decisions that are not necessarily compatible with S&T time lines. This has led to S&T prioritization that may be inappropriate from a research or process development perspective. DOE, its regulators, and the public face some hard truths about Hanford Site cleanup: the knowledge and technology to address the most difficult problems at the site do not yet exist. Consequently, much of the waste and contamination that is now in the subsurface, especially in the 200 Area, will very likely remain there for the foreseeable future. In addition, completion of Hanford cleanup could add substantially to this contamination, for example, during retrieval of tank waste. Currently, the range of available end-state, cleanup, containment, and monitoring options is greatly limited because of these knowledge and technology gaps. Advances in knowledge and technology will not be possible without continuing investments in S&T. Given the long lead times for many of the planned end-state and cleanup decisions at the Hanford Site, there is an opportunity now to undertake S&T that could substantially advance DOE's capabilities to address the site's most difficult waste and contamination problems, Life-cycle costs fully escalated to year of expenditure. These are DOE estimates and have not been reviewed or validated by the committee. 141

OCR for page 141
142 Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup especially for subsurface characterization, remediation, long-term containment, and monitoring (see Chapters 5 through 9~. Many of these advances will be enabled by scientific discoveries2 outside DOE that will undoubtedly occur over those same time spans. Continuing investments in S&T by DOE can help ensure that future cleanup and stewardship programs can take full advantage of such discoveries. The Integration Project has the potential to provide much of S&T needed to advance the Hanford cleanup program over the coming decades. Based on the planning documents reviewed by the committee, however, it is not clear whether DOE plans to maintain this project beyond 2004 (e.g., Table 3.1~. Clearly, a long-term commitment by DOE to S&T at Hanford will be essential for the future success of the site's cleanup and stewardship efforts. Finding: Given the technical and organizational complexity of the task, the Integration Project has made a good start in creating an S&T roadmap, defining and initiating an SOT program, and fulfilling the promise of its mission. Although the committee has identified weaknesses in the S&T program, as noted throughout this report, the committee is impressed that the Integration Project has, over the short period of its existence, been able to initiate S&T work on sensible, high-priority projects in spite of numerous organizational and funding challenges. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the Integration Project's task to provide S&T for site cleanup decisions is complicated by the number of organizations involved, the lack of clear authority and ownership, the extensive coordination requirements, and the lack of clearly defined site futures and cleanup decisions. The Integration Project comprises staff from several major Hanford contractor organizations and two DOE offices. Much of its work is being carried out in coordination with five core projects at Hanford and with the Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP), which is operated out of DOE Headquarters. Further, the Integration Project controls a small fraction of the S&T funding that supports its mission (Table 3.1 ) and does not have authority over the other parties operating the site or performing other S&T-related activities. Despite of these organizational obstacles, work is getting done. As discussed elsewhere in this chapter, S&T priorities and activities ideally would be determined through a top-down framework in which high-level goals in this case, site end states and the key cleanup 2The spectacular advances that have occurred since the second world war in information, communication, computation, bioengineering, and materials S&T should continue and may even accelerate in the decades ahead.

OCR for page 141
Improving S&T Program Effectiveness 143 decisions needed to achieve them are used to set S&T priorities and schedules. Unfortunately, this framework was not in place prior to the establishment of the Integration Project. Instead, the S&T program was established to meet incompletely defined cleanup goals and schedules, with no authority to compel cooperation from other organizations at the site on which the project was superimposed (see Chapter 3) and with no guarantee of adequate or sustained funding levels. Against the background of these constraints, the Integration Project has created and begun implementation of S&T activities that, taken as a whole, address some of the important contamination problems at the site. Although the current research agenda does not map against a defined set of information needs for meeting future site cleanup goals and technical details on many of the research projects are lacking, the Integration Project does appear to have developed a research portfolio that focuses on some of the important knowledge gaps at the site. The committee believes that there are at least two reasons for the Integration Project's Initial success in executing its S&T program despite these obstacles. First, the Integration Project appears to have effective leadership from both DOE and site contractor organizations.3 The staff with which the committee had regular contact during its study, particularly the project managers,4 were competent and enthusiastic, appeared to have instilled a sense of mission within the Integration Project staff, and also appeared to have established cooperative working relationships with the other entities at the site that are crucial to the project's success. Indeed, the Integration Project appears to have had some success In breaking through the organizational barriers at Hanford to encourage a cooperative atmosphere in which staff identify with projects rather than contractor organizations. Second, the Integration Project appears, at present, to have the support of DOE Headquarters and Hanford Site management. For example, DOE Headquarters has provided additional direct financial support to the Integration project through the EMSP, including $1 million to support workshops to bring principal investigators to Hanford to interact with problem holders (see Chapter 3~. Finding: Although the S&T program has made a good start, its success is by no means guaranteed. Improvements are needed in the processes used to 3This statement is based on the committee's interactions with Integration Project management and staff at its six information-gathering meetings as well as limited interactions by telephone and e-mail outside of those meetings. 4Particularly Mike Thompson (DOE), Michael Graham (Bechtel Hanford, Inc.), and Mark Freshley and John Zachara (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory).

OCR for page 141
144 Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup identify S&T priorities and to select, support, and manage SOT projects. The Hanford remediation and stewardship project is one of the most complex and largest environmental projects ever undertaken. It involves numerous interacting cleanup projects planned over a period of about five decades, each of which will potentially have numerous and distinct S&T needs. In fact, the number of identified S&T needs is in the thousands (DOE, 2000b).5 6 Only a small fraction of these needs are being pursued currently under the Integration Project S&T program or other programs such as the EMSP, largely due to time and funding constraints. Therefore, a prioritization system is needed to identify those knowledge gaps that, if addressed successfully, could best advance the Hanford cleanup effort. Although some prioritization takes place every year at budget time and other processes exist to screen site needs on a regular basis,7 there does not appear to be a formal and uniform prioritization system in place with specific criteria or guidelines that assign every S&T task at Hanford a priority ranking or number. This is true as well for the Integration Project S&T program. Given the lack of well- defined end states and cleanup decisions to be made at the site, the multiple organizations involved, and funding constraints, it is essential that an effective prioritization system be implemented to maximize the effectiveness of the S&T effort. Recent efforts on the part of Hanford Site management to better define end states (DOE, 2000i) represent, in the committee's view, a welcome step forward in the cleanup program. Nevertheless, in the absence of well-defined end states, the Hanford cleanup program appears to operate on the philosophy that Is better to take a step in approximately the right direction than to know exactly where it is going. The S&T program appears to be operating under the same philosophy. This step-at-a-time approach to S&T may be useful during the early stages of cleanup when major knowledge gaps are easier to identify, but this approach probably will not work as well as the cleanup program matures and a long-term stewardship program is initiated and 5The committee has not reviewed all of these needs to determine their relevance to site remediation or cleanup decisions. 6Hanford is developing another report entitled Hanford Site Cleanup: Challenges and Opportunities for Science and Technology that may contain additional needs. This report had not been released by the time the committee's report went to review, and the committee has not had an opportunity to review it. 7For example, the Hanford Site Technology Coordination Group collects and screens the S&T needs before they are sent to DOE Headquarters for selective contract awards.

OCR for page 141
Improving S&T Program Effectiveness implemented. In particular, this approach will make it difficult to uncover long-term research needs, which are not easily identified, even in well- p/anned programs. The guiding principles for a useful S&T prioritization system are fairly straightforward: The S&T performed in support of Hanford cleanup should be relevant, should examine the best options of applicable alternatives, and should be cost-effective. At least three conditions must be satisfied to ensure that these requirements are met: 145 1. the critical decisions required to complete site cleanup must be defined; 2. the gaps in knowledge required to support such decisions must be identified; and 3. candidate S&T projects must be designed specifically to fill the identified knowledge gaps. Once identified, of course, projects must be reviewed periodically to ensure that they continue to be applicable and are making appropriate progress. These points are addressed in more detail elsewhere in this chapter. One of the most important criteria to be used in the prioritization system is the degree to which the S&T project contributes to the reduction in overall environmental risk and uncertainty (Sidebar 10.1 ) of a particular decision. In some S&T projects, uncertainty is the dominant issue. The degree to which the outcome of a particular S&T project is likely to reduce overall uncertainty must also be coupled with an economic analysis that compares the relative cost of the projects with the cost of proceeding with existing knowledge or the cost of reaching an incorrect decision if the project is not conducted. In addition to the uncertainties regarding the site and the future decisions that will be made with respect to site environmental risks, there are also technical risks with any individual S&T research activity or with portfolios of S&T activities. The fact that the degree of success of S&T activities is uncertain suggests that such project risks also be considered in the assignment of S&T priorities. This will facilitate determination of a project's cost-effectiveness. The process described above can be applied in a straightforward manner when all of the cleanup decisions and data gaps have been predefined. When this is not the case, the process frequently can be applied in an iterative fashion. Intermediate cleanup goals and end states can serve as the basis for defining S&T needs, at least to support near- term work. As more knowledge is gained, the decision logic can be refined so that previously unrecognized data gaps may become apparent and the relative importance of previously identified data gaps may change. The S&T program can be refocused accordingly.

OCR for page 141
146 S. ~ : ~ ~ . ~ ... . .... . . ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~.. ~ ~ .. . ~ ... . ~ ~ ~.... ~- l~v=D^- .u..~-~.un.ce-ttal.O.~... Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup . :.;. : :;;~;; ~:.::-unen ~ ty ~ ~ ~ ~ s:~ ~;~ k- f: : ::::;-:;~;:; . --;: :: ::; :;-; ;~;;;;~;~:;~:;ko ~edne; as to what th ; .~: :~ .. :. -a-uaritl.tati.ve -~.RC. ~. 9~94bl 2 2ln- the~ f~mework. of ~ risk man.anement- -it' ;s .~.~.l-- -t- ~.thi -~k~- ' h ' Il-t, ~'~ ~g = r ~ terms' ~. .ara..u's'ed. oRen. tn~ describe..the~ nh~'rQl'h"'h-~ur~r '' ~ th' -~' '-~- ~. :~pmeesses; phe:oomena o~f intemst;:and:the:com:oon ts. ubs tems.- - an`d sy~tems lnvoJ~ed~ar,~::-to calculate associa~d risks-and ~ ~ 0 :un"dainties. The~ :~ van~s wun~w d~. when a is~lnhi rentjto ~tl ~b easu jjlh~,ent pr<=ess. Measurement uncertainty Qr the overall unceda'n~ ~n the value ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ : f e pararne er of interest re resents a t ~ : ~ - p proper y : la e: voumeofrraterial:or~aprpperty ha vares ertme.e i a : the value OT such a parameter also ~w~ll be:~sylt~lect~td~samplino error and ~ var~ess~pat~a'iy~temporally over the~olumeo t~ i d--~---~ ~-~-~ :::: Samolinn:e~rderives~m:~:ed :: i 1 ~io :ota ~ t_~ 1~ -~' ~ ~ ~ -~ of ':r~te nest, .the ~des.~.~.n~of.the.a~annement.oF..sam.~les. coll-e.cted. and~ . .-~ :~ he numt~er oT samples cpil ncedainty contributed by these sources can son~edmes be~ --; Unceda~nty'nt~due dby' k k ~ ~ ee b diffi -~t :: :: understan t h~ ' h w e ~ ~em Se ~ ~ ~ ~ be n~ua,J,

OCR for page 141
Improving S&T Program Effectiveness ~ :flow'thro.~-nh~-th'e~vadose. zo,n;e,Jlis~.inc.'ormct'~' ' ' ' ' ' I 'I ' i ' ' "fin ' 147 - ~ .~ . ~ i.:. :,~,.:. -.. . .... ..~ ....~..-,. ... A..... ~ ~~ ~.-~. :. : -:-: For~environm-en~l.-~.mble~m.s,..~.unc ~ -into -phi al-l ~::der.~s-tfflm ~ If. ~~ ~several..~soume~s~(~a~p.el.. -~-no..~..~a.rson,:.:.zuu.,~..~.~. ~~....~. .:'-.' ..~ . ~~.n~=lnti~P2 ' I' ~~ ' ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~1~ ELI t i::: ~::::~::~ -and :.:leveis~con~mihan~..andtheir:~ anti : thtim~; ~:~:~ U~nGe anises msulb.ng~kom~ inad~equati~ model~n~g-.~.ph~.c I: ~:- processes a.nd:.phenom.ena,.~. simplifying~:~-.assumption.s . :or.~.incom~Plete.. --.~.:..:....;:-~ degcripti.o-n. s of the system - s I: ~ I:. :-: -. un.cedain.ti~es.i ~ measumment:or i ~ : :-:a t :~ :iti ,: Aft: . and. soloing distortions.,. .:. .~ ~ :- . -I. I.: - ~.~ unceda~n.ties~ ::~ :i ~ ;~ I i . :li i -: ~ :::-;:;:;;: : incomol~e. und-erstandin. g. of the :a ~ o '- . ~r~i1m~ilPt~nplC= '~'nc~rt;~intv ~;whi:h a~ounts~.;:~r- Whether all;~of ~ ;:; -the- siar, lilcant onenom.er~a....~mce.s..ses,~..~.ln.lera~cilonst coup'-'ngs' . -ape ...... Feints are considered. - ~~ ~ - i; ;; -I; i; ~;;~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ -~Oncethese.~v'arioUs.~.ncena.i.n.t~es~.nave~.Deen~.oeterm.Inea- ~.~r,~ey~.m~us~;..De:.... co~mbinedinto-=tim~e~ ~ i i ~ ~j fia ~ & The committee did not observe the direct use of this risk- and uncertainty-based prioritization approach in the Integration Project S&T program. The Integration Project has given relatively greater priority and funding to S&T on the vadose zone over the other technical elements, presumably in recognition of the greater uncertainties in vadose zone contamination and fate and transport processes. As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee concurs with this prioritization. The committee believes that it would be useful, in an effort of this size and complexity, to systematically seek to identify the uncertainties that are most important to end-state and cleanup decisions at the site and to identify and select S&T projects that would most reduce those uncertainties to enable sound decisions to be made. To this end, systems-based analyses such as the System Assessment Capability (SAC) could be a useful tool for setting research priorities in the S&T program. Recommendation: The Integration Project should develop and implement a system for planning and prioritizing its S&T activities to provide the information that Hanford Site management will need

OCR for page 141
148 Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup to mal OCR for page 141
Improving S&T Program Effectiveness 149 .... .. ... . ......... .. ............. ............. .............. ... .. ... ... .. E~:~S~lD 3AR~-1~.2:'~"S~&T ~ anNl-nD and ~rlori~tiZatlon logo So' .~ ':.'~ ' -.'.''' Rever~l.nl2annin'''''t I a il b-le-t a Beth - oesion--or--ws~- -- effective S&T programs to provide~m.e51~and relevant InTonnation ~ andlan :: sedecsions One ' - - : (DQO' Process is aescrib ash ~these, the:Data-QualiEV:~hfie~ivas: -- The DQO process: ; - ,: :i p :a hg: 1: ; - facilitate- m;ore Orient ~ i i ;; e : inv-e'sti"g'a2li'~ni' : ' ' ' ' ;~ ' ' 'j''j ''' ' i' :' ' i' ' ' '' ''' ''"'-I Eon errors-. The-pr i Ma ~-.s'ystemadc..ap~pr''oa~2to''.'prab.le.2''''- i - ' ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ -- - ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~- . ~ ~ . . ~ .~ ~ -~ . . - - ~. ~ . ~ ~. .-.- ~ - - - ~ envimnmental pmie~ where it is-~quently necessa~-:to m ~e : . ~ , . . . . . . .. ~ ... .. _ ... ~ .... ~ . -~-~dec~s~ons~n-t '~e- aceo ~su ~stan ~a uncedainty- ~ ~ --~994b).---~ ~ -~ ~'~ "' ~-'D-l~rinn -' i'n'nina '"Dl~ In 1rj ~ e t 1 I :l ti ~Iprima~ question fliat-must be e~raluate~d ~'s whether reu:uc~ng ~ ~ ~-~ unCedainly will actUa31y i ~i '6e-cigion..D-ependi'ng- '' i ' i ' '' ' i i i ~d'et'' rmin~ed and the'n.atur i j i 'i ol i ~ ~ ~ . ~. ~ ~. ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~. . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~t 1~os~e~..unCer :a~n les.~..~.~..o ..a. ways.~f oce ~e o.ec~s.l.o.n--~rmr. - n.-some -- :~c ~ases,~the~c DSt to~;reduce~Lle ~nce=Intyml y~exceedthe~cost of ~m~k ~n~n~ ~n~.nc~rre~-~dec's.~.o.n ~n th.e.~rs.t Dlace ~.The. DQO or.~cess~.~'s ~:- ~ ..~.d.es~'g.ned..to...~ plan.ner.s..~-anomss..~. ese..'ssues.-.~tn. al~.~ney can~ ~...... i denti~:the: most-.2 'wsL'e~.~,.'i ' i '; ~ : . .w.im awe.ptable . accum~ ,,.~,: : ~ 2 :,',:: 2The,:'pr~.c''ess' its' 1~"" a' i' ts' ~' ':'~l'! 'i'n 5t pS:, 0-~ ~ ~ ~: ~ Pv~''tnd--in.a Inai=' s i S e i ~: appr..oach :~r.so.lvin, g :a,'..-.~..p~bleffl"..~.~9,~,.,~.~m diati ~ a ~site), ~t - ' -~t - -- necessary~tb~defin~ethat~pi~lemconc~sely.~tIs;thennecessarytd - reduce ~e-pr~blem:to-a -ser~e, of ne or mo~ dec' ha eiine how s w~ll tee mod iedto eke t iscurn~ntstac o a fUture, desired state. To ~e extent that~options ex~st ~these too ~; sh-ouid. be. ide6tified.... i ' i .11 ... i I ' ' : - ~ev~aluabon ~ da~:' ~ich : g :e .~ ~. ~ ~-~ -~ ~. ~. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ .~.~ ~.~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . -~ ~ ~ :notavailable~or:of:good:quality then ~t d/~::( :: ;S&T: ~ e~3~ : may~be required to fi:ll tlie;id~enti~fied~data~gaps. ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- - -~ : It ~s then: necessa~ ~--evaluate the- quai~ty-(accu~-and ~ :~ rec~s~an ofthe~data~experdedtoba gene ed rom tine: su y o ~nre i whe her hevwillbesuffr.ietit ~fill~the:tarrJeteddata~nans .tdequatey Fiir~dlly,theu h ~ v nsorRc measure oT the probabilit~i 4} succew mu~t be we gh~ ~a nst alternate :~-obtain:inn the date,: t ~ - :i - dy:is t- ~ ti

OCR for page 141
150 Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup By;explici y a dressing the t~ar~dling at uncertainty arid ie cost I trad - Of age n da n t on i ts ~ control, the DQO p recess cou id it used I appropriate y substantialyimprove the r tion end d igntf5&T restudies that are performed In~support Of de iiiiiap 3ff6rts~ at Hanfer3. Of ~ ~ I ... I .... - ~ . - ~ - ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ . ~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . - ~ ~ ~ ~ - . - .. :. . - .... ... .. . ~ ~ - . - - . . . . . I ~ ~ . ~ - ~ ~ . ~ .--. '=~me, the-.~ili~'.~;the.;:DQO.p~m'c'es:s ah0'-: ' ' ' ':S~ pi' ' ' i . ''to' i '; ' ' -i .''w2~ll; -be.'only' as.g'o' I'd;' I I . ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ .. ~ ~ At .... ~ ~ .. : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ................... ~~ are not off-iehr He t ls,especially appli irkrts such I l ad Hari.fnr.dl art the will~requ~ire~a gUeat:~refUl sloughs Andes end If they eat to be applied surly ~ ~ ~ -if- -- The DQO--anoma ppprOychettinjg;gA. neex.ceN RC `'sgg9 soon of other s~tems-based - - - i 2. This documentation must be evaluated to ensure that the projects selected for funding are of high technical quality and are likely to meet S&T goals. As noted in numerous places in this report, many of the current and planned S&T projects reviewed by the committee were poorly documented. Documentation on project objectives, technical study designs, work plans, and work products was frequently cryptic or unavailable.9 Work schedules and cost information, when provided, generally were not useful for determining whether sufficient funding and time were being allowed for project objectives to be met. There were, however, some clear exceptions to these generalizations. The EMSP projects, for example, were well documented, as were some of the projects supported under the Vaclose Zone Technical Element, particularly the vadose zone transport field studies (see Chapter 6~. Because of the lack of documentation, many of the individual S&T projects were unreviewable by the committee. There was no basis to determine why some projects were included in the S&T roadmap or whether they would, if funded, meet the stated S&T goals. The committee believes that such projects would also be very difficult to manage for the same reasons. Recommendation: The Integration Project should develop and implement guidelines for documenting 9The committee requested in writing the documentation for the S&T projects and was informed in writing that such documentation existed only for a small number of projects.

OCR for page 141
Improving S&T Program Effectiveness the objectives, technical study designs, work plans, work products, work schedules, and costs for its S&T projects. To this end, the Integration Project should consider and adapt, as appropriate, guidelines from other S&T programs such as the Environmental Management Science Program. 151 As noted in Chapters 1 and 3 of this report, one of the primary objectives of the Integration Project is to "reestablish an independent technical peer review' of the work under its purview. The work of this committee and the Integration Project Expert Panel (see Chapter 3) are manifestations of DOE's commitment to this objective. Other examples of this commitment include DOE-sponsored peer review (through DOE Headquarters) of EMSP projects supported under the Vadose Zone, Monitoring, and Remediation Technical Elements (see Chapters 6 and 9), as well as a peer review of the Hanford Site groundwater model (Gorelick et al., 1999~. The committee agrees with DOE that peer review should be an essential element of the Integration Project. Peer review can provide independent assessments of the technical merit and relevance of the proposed work, an opportunity for midcourse adjustments in project plans and/or experiments, and an assessment of the quality of the work that has been completed. Peer review also can provide valuable alternate perspectives to the project and can be an efficient means of alerting project staff to research efforts and progress outside DOE.~ Although DOE is committed in principle to peer review of Integration Project S&T, it is too early in the project to determine exactly how such reviews will be implemented, especially for individual projects. The committee believes that there is likely to be a benefit to the Integration Project if peer review is applied in all aspects of the S&T program. Recommendation: Peer reviews should be used for program prioritization, selection of S&T projects to 4See also the recommendation of peer review of vadose zone transport field studies in Chapter 6. Projects supported by DOE Headquarters, for example the EMSP and other Office of Science and Technology projects, are routinely selected for funding on the basis of peer review. 42A peer review is a documented, critical review performed by ~peers" (i.e., persons having technical expertise in part or all of the subject matter to be reviewed) who are independent of the work being reviewed. The peer's independence from the work being reviewed means that the peer was not involved as a participant, supervisor, or adviser in the work being reviewed and, to the extent practical, has sufficient freedom from funding considerations to ensure

OCR for page 141
152 Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup be funded, and periodic assessments of multIyear projects to ensure that they continue to meet program objectives. To this end, Integration Project should consider and adapt, as appropriate, guidelines from other SOT programsfor example, DOE's Office of Science, DOE's Environmental Management Science Program, and the National Science Foundation. Of course, once S&T projects are reviewed and selected, funding must be provided to carry out the proposed work. At present, the Integration Project funding has not been sufficient to support the selected projects due to reductions in planned budgets (see Table 3.1~. In response to a question from the committee about the impact of funding reduction on the S&T program in fiscal year 2001, the Integration Project stated that [miore than 50 percent of the research planned will not be done as planned. This shortfall will impact the duration of the S&T effort and what will eventually be accomplished. Of the S&T research activities documented in Rev. 0 and Rev. 1 of the S&T roadmap ... several areas have not been funded, including significant portions of the Groundwater and Columbia River technical elements, and more recently, the Risk technical element. Within the other technical elements, the budget restrictions will result in less work being performed. The committee has not performed a detailed analysis of the Integration Project's budget and does not have enough information to determine whether or not the current funding level is appropriate. The committee observes, however, that the current funding level ($4.6 million) is low relative to the magnitude of the current $1 billion plus annual cleanup effort at Hanford. However, S&T is being carried out by other organizations at Hanford and DOE Headquarters, so the total investment in S&T is much greater than $4.6 million. S&T work is also being carried out by the core projects and the Office of Science and Technology at DOE Headquarters (see Chapter 3~. However, this S&T work is not organized or reviewed on a system basis, and it is not clear how approval and funding decisions are that the review is impartial (from USNRC, 1988, p. 2~. A detailed discussion of peer review as applied to DOE science and technology programs is provided in NRC (1998).

OCR for page 141
Improving S&T Program Effectiveness 153 prioritized across the Hanford Site or the Environmental Management (EM) Program. Examination of Hanford Site and relevant EM S&T work on a system basis and its prioritization accordingly could be of great benefit to S&T planning and effectiveness, especially to determine whether the planned investments in Integration Project S&T are appropriate. Once this examination is completed, the adequacy of funding for Integration Project S&T can be better evaluated. Additionally, the appointment of S&T personnel to spearhead the S&T work for each critical system could enhance the coordination and effectiveness of that work. Regardless of absolute funding levels, the lack of stable funding is impeding the Integration Project's ability to plan and execute its work. Delays in completing current and planned S&T work will delay the transfer of potentially important S&T results to the cleanup program. Recommendation: The Integration Project should, with the help of EM as necessary, perform a system- based analysis of its funding needs for the S&T program once it develops the prioritization process recommended above. ~