Part IV

Utilization of Science, Engineering, and Technology



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 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program Part IV Utilization of Science, Engineering, and Technology

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program SUBCOMMITTEE ON UTILIZATION OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY FRANK L. PARKER (Chair), Distinguished Professor of Environmental and Water Resources Engineering, Vanderbilt University JOHN F. AHEARNE, Lecturer in Public Policy, Duke University CHARLES B. ANDREWS, Vice President, S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. EDGAR BERKEY, President, National Environmental Technology Applications Center, University of Pittsburgh Applied Research Center HAROLD K. FORSEN, Senior Vice President (retired), Bechtel Hanford, Inc. WALTER W. KOVALICK, Director, Technology Innovation Office, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MICHAEL L. MASTRACCI, Director, Innovative Technology Programs, TECHMATICS, Inc. PHILIP A. PALMER, Senior Consultant, DuPont Specialty Chemicals, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company REBECCA T. PARKIN, Director of Scientific, Professional, and Section Affairs, American Public Health Administration ALFRED SCHNEIDER, Professor of Nuclear Engineering (retired), Georgia Institute of Technology CHRISTINE A. SHOEMAKER, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University C. HERB WARD, Foyt Family Chair of Engineering and Director, Energy and Environmental Systems Institute, Rice University JOHN T. WHETTEN, Senior Applications Consultant, Motorola RAYMOND G. WYMER, Consultant, Chemical Technology Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Staff Stephen Parker, Associate Executive Director Karyanil Thomas, Senior Program Officer Anita Hall, Administrative Assistant

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program Introduction This is the report of the Subcommittee on the Utilization of Science, Engineering, and Technology. Biographical information on the members is provided in Appendix B. This subcommittee examined how the Office of Environmental Management 's (EM) technology-development efforts could best utilize science, engineering, and knowledge of the health consequences of contaminated Department of Energy sites. The subcommittee met on July 11–14, 1995. In a workshop format, the subcommittee heard presentations from representatives of Department headquarters, Department sites, contractors at Department sites, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters, citizen groups, environmental advocacy groups, and industries engaged in large environmental remediation efforts. The workshop agenda and list of participants are included in Appendixes B and D, respectively. A roundtable discussion was held after the formal presentations to explore some of the relevant issues. The participants identified what they considered to be the most important matters that need to be addressed, and the subcommittee used the results of the roundtable discussion and contents of the presentations, as well as the experience of the participants, to develop a framework for this report. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY US involvement in the nuclear arms race for 50 years resulted in the development of a vast research, production, and testing network that has

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program come to be known as the nuclear weapons complex. Over $300 billion (in 1995 dollars) has been invested in the activities of this complex. Today, the Department is faced with the largest environmental remediation task in the federal government. Remediation will entail radiation hazards, vast volumes of contaminated water and soil, and over 7,000 contaminated structures (DOE, 1995a). DOE must characterize, treat, and dispose of hazardous and radioactive wastes that have been accumulating for some 50 years at 120 sites in 36 states and territories. Over the last 5 years, the Department has spent more than $25 billion in identifying, characterizing, and managing its waste and in assessing the nature of the remediation necessary for its sites and facilities. The Department estimates that remediation could cost a total of $200 –350 billion and take 75 years to complete (DOE, 1995b). This does not include the cost of cleaning most contaminated ground waters or currently active facilities. EM is also responsible for conducting waste minimization and pollution prevention for all of the Department of Energy. The variety and volume of the Department's activities make that effort a challenge in its own right. The Department has nearly 30 laboratories that employ about 50,000 people who are engaged in the full spectrum of scientific and engineering disciplines. Moreover, the Department is engaged in the largest weapons-dismantlement effort in its history. Those activities and current remediation efforts are subject to an effort announced by Secretary O'Leary to reduce the amount of toxic waste that the Department's facilities produce by 50% by 1999 (DOE, 1995c). PROBLEMS IN CORRECTING THE LEGACY EM was established in 1989 to deal with the environmental legacy of the nuclear arms race. The EM Program has six goals: To eliminate and manage urgent risks in the system. To emphasize health and safety for workers and the public. To establish a system that is managerially and financially in control. To demonstrate tangible results. To focus technology development on identifying and overcoming obstacles to progress. To establish a stronger partnership between the Department and its stakeholders. The Department's historical culture of secrecy and its contamination problems at nuclear weapons sites have profoundly affected public attitudes and opinions. Citizens have expressed concern at the community and national levels about both the potential health and environmental impacts of conditions within the DOE complex, urging that sites be cleaned up. Technology to characterize and remediate contaminated soil or water or to treat, store, and

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program dispose of accumulated waste safely is not necessarily available. Waste-disposal standards and cleanup goals for the environment have not been developed, agreed to, or applied at each site (EPA, 1995; OTA, 1991). Technology development is one element of the EM Program. It includes research and development of new environmental technologies whose use is intended to make Department operations and remediation “better, faster, cheaper, safer, and in compliance with existing regulatory requirements” (DOE, 1995c). EM has estimated that technology development could save 10–22% in costs of remediation, treatment, and disposal, depending on the amount of cleanup performed (DOE, 1995b), and EM 's Office of Technology Development estimates a savings of at least $10 billion. For fiscal year 1995, technology development accounted for 6.5% of the Department's EM budget (waste management and treatment and facility stabilization and decommissioning accounted for 66.0%, and environmental restoration accounted for 27.5%).

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program Findings and Recommendations This section provides a summary of the findings and recommendations that the subcommittee came to during its deliberations. The first subsection contains general observations about the Environmental Management Program and sets the context for the specifics regarding the use of science, engineering, and technology in the program. GENERAL GUIDANCE We recommend a life-cycle approach in which environmental consideration is given to all processes and products, with a goal of eliminating or drastically reducing waste streams at every stage of the activity. This should apply to both mission activities of the Department and all elements of the Department's environmental remediation efforts, which consist essentially of site characterization, remediation, waste management, and waste disposal. Implementation will require the creation of incentives and the removal of disincentives. For example, programmatic groups within the Department should use their own operational funds to pay EM for the management and disposal of the wastes that they generate, rather than use the current system whereby EM provides the service and the funding. That would provide a definite incentive for programmatic groups to minimize waste and to use appropriate technology. Goals specific enough to be used for decision-making (which incorporates such tools as risk-based and cost-benefit analysis) should be established for remediation. The goals should be developed with stakeholder input. They

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program should provide clear end points for risk-based cleanup for various land-use options, levels of long-term maintenance and monitoring, and schedules for accomplishing tasks based on difficulty. These goals should be set first at the national level with a clearly identified process that can be used to develop site-specific goals that will be within the limits of the national goals. Without knowledge of proposed land use and cleanup levels, the identification and implementation of appropriate technology for remediation is not possible. The emphasis that the Department has placed on these goals for future land-use plans and cleanup levels with stakeholder input is commendable. Although there is more to be done in this regard, failure to resolve these points completely should not be a barrier to continuing remediation activity. A possible way to overcome this barrier until these land-use and cleanup level goals are established is to use existing models, such as the Multimedia Environmental Pollutants Assessment System (MEPAS) and Argonne National Laboratory's RESRAD, to estimate the risks associated with the present system, the technology that will reduce the risks, and the cost to reach a socially acceptable solution. Planning and technology development must be iterative to take into account changing conditions and new developments in the light of the expectation that the remediation process will continue for at least 75 years and that needs and funding will change. That expectation should not be interpreted as a mandate for inaction. EM has vastly improved the working relationship between its site managers and stakeholders in the surrounding communities. It could make further progress by establishing incentives for Department officials and communities to make planning decisions that would result in more cost-effective and timely actions. Site actions must be consistent with state and federal laws; with compliance agreements among the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and the states; with the wishes of citizen advisory groups; and with resource limitations. Guidelines and limitations can be in conflict with each other or be unrealistic. The system has become overconstrained. To achieve consistency, the Department should attempt, as industry does, to take advantage of flexibility in laws and compliance agreements. However, industry does not have as many constraints as the Department (e.g., in the form of site-specific advisory boards and compliance agreements), and for the Department, relief might require legislation. The Department should manage its contractors by focusing on seeing that the outcomes desired are reached (i.e., performance goals). It should not manage the day-to-day activities performed by contractors in reaching those goals. The Department has taken preliminary steps in the creation of a Department-wide uniform process to evaluate risks to the environment and to health

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program with the publication of Risks and the Risk Debate: Searching for Common Ground (DOE, 1995d). The subcommittee did not review the report and cannot endorse its specific methodology or accuracy. Ultimately, the process should be able to identify the locations and situations across all DOE sites that pose the most serious imminent risks to the public, to workers at Department sites, and to the environment. Imminent risks to the environment and to public and worker health should have the highest priority for action. For nonimminent risks, risk assessment should be used to identify the benefits of risk reduction as part of overall cost-benefit analyses, which should form the basis for further priority-setting and for the timely resolution of contamination problems that must be addressed as required by law or compliance agreements. TECHNOLOGY SELECTION AND DEVELOPMENT An explicit, comprehensive approach is needed to identify technology needs, select candidate technologies, and pursue their development. A key to the success of this process is that it be intimately linked with identified customer needs (i.e., site-specific application) and that it use quantitative tools, such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. The process of technology selection must be iterative so that technologies under development reflect recent advances. The Department has made substantial efforts toward establishing such a comprehensive approach by the establishment of its focus areas for technology development. We support the further refinement of this framework and its decision-making processes. The Department should be vigilant in ensuring programwide and facilitywide implementation of this approach. The Department must dramatically improve its research and technology development outreach. That can be accomplished only by opening the Department's research and development program to all qualified individuals and organizations regardless of type or location. Concomitantly with the opening of the EM R&D procurement system, a broad-based system of external peer review must be carefully implemented and monitored to ensure that the best proposals are selected. Technology selection should incorporate a knowledgeable independent review group that has no vested interests in the outcome and that includes people from outside the Department who work in the commercial use of technologies. At the time of selection and throughout technology development, care should be taken that the products of technology development can be modified for similar applications throughout the Department complex. To the extent that technologies under development have the potential for use at a level that could support commercial development, the Department should become

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program an early partner of commercial companies to encourage the development of the technologies by the private sector. Incentives should be provided for the development of technologies that reduce waste generation, that lower costs of remediation, or that improve safety. The Department must link technology development to technology demonstration and utilization programs. At all stages of the process, efforts should be made to inform potential users of the existence and performance of newly developed technology. The technology-development process proposed by the Department includes multiple points of analysis and evaluation (gates) where further development must be justified. Analysis should include quantitative tools, such as risk analysis and cost-benefit analysis (to degrees of detail that depend on the stage of technology development).3 Such analyses must be benchmarked against available technologies, technologies under development in the Department, and technologies available in the broader commercial sector. There has not been a strong relationship between technology development and basic research. Technology development (already strongly influenced by technology users) must be strongly coupled to research and development at both the basic and the applied levels. The Department has recently begun efforts to improve this relationship (between the Office of Energy Research and Environmental Management) and it should continue to make this relationship a strong interactive one whereby technology-development needs can influence how basic-research budgets are allocated and vice versa. As in the case of technology development, basic research should be performed by the most appropriate institution as determined by competitive peer review. The decision as to whether National Laboratories, universities, or industry should take the lead in the development of any particular technology should be based on a competitive process that undergoes external review, not by formula or some other form of entitlement. Often, forming teams or partners among the different groups for the development of a particular technology is the most effective approach. National Laboratories constitute an extraordinary technical resource both in capability and in size. It must be recognized, however, that the Laboratories are unique in culture and expertise (especially in the case of nuclear materials); this can be both an advantage and a disadvantage in bringing new technologies to bear in restoration activities. There must be strong external benchmarking 3   In cost-benefit analysis, costs should include both life-cycle costs and short-term costs. Life-cycle cost is an estimate of the full cost of implementing a technology over its expected life according to a discounted present-value analysis that uses various interest rates (including 0%). Benefits can include some of the following: decreasing risk of contamination for a population, increasing reliability of the method to contain pollution or to remediate, decreasing production of secondary waste, increasing safety of workers in the EM Program, and developing methods that might have wide use or commercial value.

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program and peer review within National Laboratories. The Laboratories must be open to procurement of outside capabilities even when the main body of the R&D fits within the Laboratories. As with all participants in technology development, the Laboratories should structure their efforts to be responsive to the technology customers. Many of the Department's waste-management issues are not peculiar to the Department—they are issues that are faced by private industries and by the Department of Defense as well. The Department should use fully the expertise and talent available in universities, industry, and other federal agencies. The role of industry and universities should have several elements: as sources of peer review, as collaborators in technology development, and as primary participants in technology development. TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION During testing and demonstration on a federal facility, the Department should indemnify a technology developer against an unplanned contamination of the environment, but not against failure to properly perform the work. Site operators and the local stakeholders who have taken risks in deciding to utilize innovative technology should be rewarded, not penalized, if a technology fails. All procurement approaches for developed technology must include provisions for testing and validation of technologies in the context of constraints of actual problems. The possibility of some degree of failure to meet target criteria or goals of well-conceived projects must be accommodated without excessive penalties. A group of competent, trained and experienced scientists, engineers, technicians, and support personnel must be maintained at Department sites to be able to judge the viability and facilitate the introduction of innovative technologies. It is essential in ensuring the successful introduction and utilization of technologies. In most cases, the site operating contractor must retain the responsibility of final approval for the use of proposed technology to the extent that it must ensure the health and safety of people both on the site and in the community around the sites and ensure preservation of the investment in the site.

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program Policy The subcommittee believes that several issues must be addressed by DOE if it is to use scientific and engineering information successfully in its EM Program. It must have a vision of how it wishes to go about its mission activities. It must have clear and specific goals by which to accomplish its mission and do so in a way that fulfills its vision. There needs to be a clear decision-making process to support the establishment of goals and their implementation. This section discusses these topics. THE VISION US industry is refocusing and substantially broadening its vision of environmental management. The Department of Energy should do likewise. For current products and processes, that means setting pollution-prevention goals and acknowledging that the most effective way to reach them is to incorporate environmental criteria into experimental, process, and product designs. The subcommittee recommends a life-cycle approach to ensure that environmental consideration is given to all processes and products, with a goal of eliminating or drastically reducing waste streams at every stage of the activity. In other words, the Department should pay more attention to the “front end” of the production cycle to minimize or eliminate what comes out the “back end.” Generally, it is much more effective from both environmental and cost standpoints to eliminate waste at the source (source reduction) than to try to reduce the volume or toxicity of waste once it is generated.

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program National Laboratories constitute an extraordinary technical resource in both capability and size. It must be recognized, however, that they are unique in culture and expertise (especially with nuclear materials); this can be both an advantage and a disadvantage in bringing new technologies to bear in restoration activities. There must be strong external benchmarking and peer review of research and technology-development efforts in National Laboratories. The Laboratories must be open to procurement of “outside” capabilities even when the main body of the R&D fits inside. As with all participants in the technology-development effort, a Laboratory should structure efforts to be responsive to the technology customers. Experience has demonstrated time and again that the National Laboratories are most effective at producing technologies that have potential for commercialization when they are linked to industry at the earliest possible time. The idea is for industry to provide “technology pull ” that can guide R&D so that a product meets customer requirements and there are no surprises when it is turned over to industry for commercialization. Partnerships between industry, the Laboratories, and universities in which each party contributes what it does best may be desirable. 4 The National Laboratories, for example, have extraordinary expertise in simulation and modeling, advanced materials, chemistry, fluid dynamics, and other disciplines of potential interest to industry. Furthermore, the Laboratories have officially designated user facilities —usually one-of-a-kind instruments or Laboratories that are available for industrial collaboration with a minimum of paperwork and bureaucracy. Other models for technology development have not been very successful. Technologies that are developed without industry participation face a much more difficult road to commercialization for a variety of reasons, ranging from difficulty of manufacture to the “not invented here” syndrome where a company is not interested in developing a technology because it had nothing to do with its earliest development. 4   An example of this partnership model is developing at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. In early 1995, Motorola approached the Laboratory about developing technologies for cleanup of solvent-contaminated groundwater. Motorola visited the Laboratory on several occasions to inform Laboratory scientists and engineers of the customer requirements, including providing information on the extent of the problem and possible approaches that would be acceptable in the existing corporate and regulatory environment. The Laboratory plans to allocate some of its FY 1996 laboratory-directed research and development funds to start a small number of projects that will be conducted with expanded industry involvement, including that of Motorola and other interested companies. If promising solutions can be developed during the coming year, Motorola has agreed to lead a program-development effort for continued funding.

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program Technology Utilization The magnitude and diversity of Department waste-management problems dictate that there be a hierarchy of approaches to deciding where and when technologies are used or developed. The hierarchy should apply even within a technology-selection process like that described above. These approaches can be categorized according to the nature of the remediation activity as Technologies related to interim waste-management measures, such as those needed to maintain burial grounds, existing facilities, waste repositories, and plant-waste treatment systems until a final remediation option is agreed on and effected. Technologies related to final remediation of wastes, such as those needed for processing waste-tank contents, producing final waste forms, and decontaminating and decommissioning equipment and facilities. It is important to note here that the EM Program must define final waste forms in collaboration with the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Disposal if it is to guide the development of these technologies properly. Technologies needed in connection with custodial activities, including a wide spectrum of instrumentation for monitoring and isolating sites that must still be retained by the Department. Which technology approach to pursue will be determined by which goals (such as land use and cleanup levels) are selected and what level of priority a particular site or remediation activity receives on the basis of the magnitude of associated risks and cost-benefit rating. There are several ways to obtain technologies. The best approach will

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program depend upon whether the problem is peculiar to Department sites, is not peculiar to Department sites but poses a need for improved technologies and processes for remediation, or can be solved with existing technologies supplied by private companies. It is important to establish an explicit policy to encourage private-company participation in solving problems in the first two categories. Successful participation in the first category will mean that the waste-management experience of the private sector will be shared and market-driven management principles will be brought to the problem. In the second category, involvement of the private sector might lead to the development of a process or technology that gains broader commercial-market acceptance. For private companies to enter the technology market for Department waste problems successfully, they must have or develop an adequate and secure financial base, a facility for manufacturing and distributing equipment, and a good understanding of the regulatory and liability aspects of doing business with the Department. If any of those requirements are missing, the Department should be prepared to assist the companies if it finds the technology desirable. The technology must be both “robust” and safe. In all procurement approaches, there must be provisions for testing and validation of technologies in real-world conditions. The possibility of failure to meet target criteria or goals must be accommodated without excessive penalties. In fact, what is learned from failure can sometimes be as valuable as success would have been. The Department should indemnify a technology developer during test and demonstration against an unplanned contamination of the environment, but not against failure to properly perform the work. The site operator and the local stakeholders who have taken risks in deciding to use innovative technology should be rewarded, not penalized, if the technology fails. When the point is reached where technology procurement is required it is essential that the responsible, knowledgeable people at the individual sites be intimately involved in defining the bounds of the problem. It is necessary to have trained, experienced, competent people; support organizations to ensure the health and safety of personnel; and management and maintenance functions to sustain the site infrastructure. In most cases, the site-operating contractor must retain the right of final approval of the proposed technology, to the extent that it can ensure the health and safety of people both on the site and in the community around the site, so that it can ensure preservation of its investment in the site. Technologies exist both in the Department complex and in private industry to deal with many of the Department's waste problems. Some problems, however, are so complex that there is no identifiable technological solution. A possible way to deal with such problems is to break them into smaller problems. That creates a requirement for important systems analyses and

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program technology-interface studies before decisions on technology procurement can be made. It is especially important that narrowly defined solutions to individual problems not create or exacerbate other problems. For example, technologies for treating Hanford tank wastes might very well remove wastes from the tanks, but the resulting product streams could be very expensive to vitrify or could lead to excessive volumes of waste. It is critical to consider the waste problem and its solution broadly enough for the solution chosen to deal effectively and acceptably with the whole problem in a systems context. It does little to solve the Hanford tank-waste problem (although it may help some in reducing worker risks) by emptying the tanks to within 99% of total cleanup if there has been significant leakage from the tanks already into the surrounding soil. In a case like that, barrier technology to isolate the tank farm might be preferable to technology for cleaning out the tanks and separating the waste constituents for individual disposal.

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program References Blush, Steven M. and Thomas H. Heitman. 1995 Train Wreck Along the River of Money: an Evaluation of the Hanford Cleanup, A Report for the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, D.C. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1994. A New Approach to Environmental Research and Technology Development at the Department of Energy: Action Plan. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1995a. Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production in the United States and What the Department of Energy is Doing About It. The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of Strategic Planning and Analysis (EM-4), Washington, D.C. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1995b. Estimating the Cold War Mortgage: The 1995 Baseline Environmental Management Report. Volume I, March 1995. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management, Washington, D.C. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1995c. Environmental Management 1995: Progress and Plans of the Environmental Management Program. The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management Washington, D.C. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1995d. Risks and the Risk Debate: Searching for Common Ground “The First Step”. The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management Washington, D.C. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1995e. Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy Laboratories. The U.S. Department of Energy, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Washington, D.C. NRC (National Research Council). 1994. Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Risk Management in the Department of Energy's Environmental Remediation Program. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program NRC (National Research Council). 1995. Committee on Environmental Management Technologies: Report for the Period Ending December 31, 1994. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. OTA (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment). 1991. Complex Cleanup: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production OTA-O484. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Parker, Frank L. Statement of Frank L. Parker, Distinguished Professor of Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Westinghouse Distinguished Scientist Professor of Environmental Systems Engineering, Clemson University. Senate Committee on Environment and Public May 9, 1995.

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program Appendix PREVIOUS STUDIES The titles and brief summaries of many of the studies on improving technology development follow. Status and Analysis of Environmental Technology Management at DOE, October 1994. The report summarizes major observations made in analyzing the technology-development efforts of the Office of Waste Management, the Office of Environmental Restoration, and the Office of Technology Development and makes recommendations on the basis of some of these observations. Among the observations are the following: technology developers must recognize that environmental technology is needed now for field application to problems that pose a threat, industrial partners must be involved, most of the Department's technology-development efforts are directed toward the enhancement of existing technologies, and a considerable number of environmental technologies and services available in the private sector can be applied now to the Department 's environmental-restoration needs. The Department is implementing a new approach to environmental technology and development that will correct some of the conditions observed. The new structure is aimed at reducing redundancy, increasing communication, and coordinating and streamlining the process of technology development and management better. Barriers to Environmental Technology Commercialization, Environmental Management Advisory Board, Technology Development and Transfer Subcommittee, April 1995. The subcommittee categorized the numerous complex

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program barriers into two broad groups: primary barriers, which the Department can influence substantially; and secondary barriers, which are more generic. Examples of identified primary barriers are lack of adequate Departmentsite characterizations, insufficient technology performance or cost data, and cumbersome Department contracting and procurement requirements. Examples of identified secondary barriers are lack of entrepreneurial management, lack of adequate development funding, lack of consistent regulatory enforcement, and limited technology applications for the private sector. Some of the secondary barriers are acknowledged to be outside the realm of the Department. The subcommittee also acknowledges that developing new environmental technologies to reach the marketplace is a battle. The subcommittee recommends the acceleration of assessments of Department-site contamination to provide faster definition of technology and market needs, strengthening of the linkage between technology development and technology deployment, and continuation of aggressive collaborative efforts with EPA and states to resolve or reduce major impediments to permitting. Committee on Environmental Management Technologies Report for the Period Ending December 31, 1994, NRC, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, 1995. The first report of this committee supports EM's attempts to find generic solutions to major environmental problems through integration of the activities of EM-30, EM-40, EM-50, and EM-60 and encourages EM to continue to focus R&D efforts on clearly identified problems. The committee also recommends the development of new technologies as backups to current technologies. Federal Environmental Research and Development, Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, 1992. The report recognizes that the federal government generally lacks a coordinated approach toward environmental R&D. That lack makes it difficult to establish budget priorities and conduct efficient and effective research. Preparing for the Future Through Science and Technology: An Agenda for Environmental and Natural Resources, National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, March 1995. The report divides research in the areas of toxic substances and wastes into risk assessment and risk management (pollution prevention, controls, remediation, and monitoring). Subjects of “enhanced emphasis ” named in the report include improving risk-assessment capabilities and improving risk-management tools. The report emphasizes the need for developing more cost-effective means of remediating short-term environmental problems. The report recommends accelerating the diffusion of new technologies into the marketplace through partnerships with industry, state and local governments, academe, and nongovernment organizations.

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Environmental Security, Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition and Technology, April 1995. The DOD environmental-remediation effort costs billions of dollars per year. Among the subjects for improvement that the report addresses is accelerating environmental-technology development and deployment. It notes that many existing technologies offer risk-reduction and cost-reduction potentials that are not being realized, partly because of regulatory barriers. It identifies the barriers to deployment of new environmental technology as forming the most serious bottleneck and expresses concern that with today 's shrinking environmental budgets, investments in environmental science and technology that could substantially reduce future costs will not be made. The group made several recommendations for accelerating technology development and deployment. Among them are devoting an additional $150 million per year for accelerated environmental-technology demonstration and verification, making assignment of responsibility clear, developing a set of incentives for federal-site directors to use new technologies, and expanding cooperation among agencies and with industry. Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy Laboratories, February 1995. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Chapter III, “The Energy, Environment, and Related Sciences and Engineering Role. ” This report, also known as the Galvin report, examines the role of the Department's National Laboratories. This section reviewed the Department's EM Program and addressed the Laboratories' energy and environmental roles and strongly criticized the EM Program. One of the most important challenges facing the Department and its Laboratories, as noted in the report, is to achieve greater integration of its various applied and fundamental energy R&D programs. Many facets of research and technology development constitute the appropriate energy agenda for the Laboratories. Management Changes Needed to Expand Use of Innovative Cleanup Technologies, U.S. General Accounting Office, August 1994. The report identifies internal and external barriers to the use of new environmental technologies. It notes that although the Department has spent a large amount to develop waste-cleanup technology, little new technology is being incorporated into the agency's cleanup actions. Part of the agency 's problem, the report notes, is that the Department does not have a well-coordinated and fully integrated technology-development program. The Department's plan to restructure its technology development programs is a step toward alleviating these problems. In addition, field offices will consider new and innovative technologies more seriously. Cleaning Up the Department of Energy's Nuclear Weapons Complex, Congressional Budget Office, May 1994. The report outlines the Department 's environmental problems and its cleanup program, including such policy issues as understanding risks, weighing costs and benefits, setting priorities, and

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program investing in the development of better technologies. The report acknowledges that the Department's cleanup program must address a problem that was created and largely ignored over the last 50 years. The Department is faced with addressing that problem during an especially tight budget climate. The report suggests that understanding of risks and costs better would be the best way to determine priorities for allocating scarce cleanup funds. It recommends investing more heavily in technology development, delaying technically difficult projects, and cutting overhead costs to improve the efficiency of cleanup efforts. In addition, new management systems might help the Department and Congress track the performance of cleanup projects.

OCR for page 97
Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE's Environmental Management Program This page in the original is blank.