Click for next page ( 139


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 138
Appendix D Crosscutting Programs The OST Crosscutting Programs in the areas of (~) Robotics, (2) Efficient Separations and Processing (ESP), and (3) Characterization, Monitoring, and Sensor Technology (CMST), fund projects that in principle could be applied to the environmental problems of more than one technology or Focus Area. In the past, these programs were directed by managers located at headquarters. In FY 1997, the lead management for these programs was transferred from DOE headquarters to DOE field offices. This appendix summarizes information learned by the committee from DOE documents and from presentations by senior Crosscutting Program managers during a June 6, 1997, meeting. ROBOTICS CROSSCUTTING PROGRAM The Robotics Crosscutting Program is a national program, funding work by several PIs done at multiple DOE sites to support all Focus Areas. The program is based at the DOE Albuquerque Operations Office. The Robotics Crosscutting Program uses a team of five to eight "coordinators"-contractor employees at several DOE labs with technical expertise in robotics to interact with the Focus Areas and STCGs in their robotics needs and technologies. The committee heard (Yarbrough, 1997) that this team is responsible for ensuring that they do not develop what could otherwise be bought from outside DOE. There is a chronology of events during a DOE fiscal year that leads to the selection of projects to fund~he important decisions to define the next year's program. In crafting the program, the Crosscutting Program follows the lead of the Focus Areas (and STCGs) in dictating priorities. Based on these priorities "initial guidance" of the robotics work to be calTied out in the next year is determined and ~ rim ~ ~ - ~ ~ shared with the Focus Areas to solicit their feedback. "Final guidance" Is then prepared that more curly defines the proposed scopes of work in each robotics Technical Task Plan (TTP). Part of the annual planning cycle includes gathering background materials aIld attendance at briefings, to gain knowledge of what the Focus Areas are planning. A key part of the Robotics Crosscutting Program planning for the next fiscal year is an annual planning meeting in May (a closed-door session with the coordinators), the result of which is a Major Thrust-Major Milestone micro TTP document (DOE, 1996t). After receiving input from coordinators, a prioritized list of TTP projects to fund is developed, based on criteria such as user commitment (usually driven by a compliance deadline), probability of deployment, momentum (i.e., how far along the cleanup project is to date), currency (i.e., relevance), specificity (i.e., whether the need is defined well enough to be taken seriously), and 38

OCR for page 138
Appendix Crosscutting Areas 139 clarity (i.e., how well organized the Focus Area is, as it affects the probability that the priority will not change in a year). There is no written formula or recorded formalized process of ranking projects using these criteria. The coordinators can provide feedback to make minor adjustments. The initial budget from OST upper management is a target value within a target range. Later in the fiscal year, the final budget figure for the following fiscal year is received. The Robotics Crosscutting Program budget is thus set in a top-down budget dictation by OST headquarters management. The FY 1997 budget was approximately $26 million, and the FY 1998 target budget is $! I.7 million. More than 50 percent of the Robotics Crosscutting Program budget goes to national laboratory projects; approximately 40 percent goes to industry; and approximately 10 to 15 percent goes to universities (Yarbrough, 1997~. Occasionally, project requests from EM-30 and EM-40 go directly to the Robotics program, outside the STCG and Focus Area routing system, and a few such projects are funded each year. These projects are cofunded, with joint financing between EM-30 or EM-40 funds and EM-50 Robotics Crosscutting Program funds. The Light Duty Utility Arm (LDUA) was a robotics project funded out of the Tanks Focus Area, not the Robotics Crosscutting Program. This now-developed arm, initially intended for use in the Hanford tanks, was deployed there in September 1997 and is now scheduled for deployments at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Fernald site, and the Savannah River site. In his presentation to the committee, Dr. Yarbrough stated that he tried to "build systems that make sense," hoping that the two years needed to build a system do not result in a reorientation of program priorities and an associated lack of interest in using it. He estimated that one in three systems has been used (in a f~rst-time deployment) to solve a real cleanup problem (e.g., an emergency contamination characterization problem for which a duct crawler was developed and used). His impression of the other two-thirds of the projects was that they involved equipment originally approved for construction that looked like a fit to priorities, but that the priorities and presumed applications did not materialize when the systems were finished two years later. Dr. Yarbrough stated that Focus Areas sometimes do not appear to know what they want well enough to provide significant feedback. He had similar difficulties with programs preceding the Focus Areas (i.e., the pre-1994 Integrated Demonstrations and Integrated Programs). Development of a project was never stopped in midcourse. Performance measures for each TTP project are its own progress milestones and deliverables. STCG needs documents are searched with key words to find robotics-related ones. Since essentially no money for new starts was available in FY 1997, those needs were compared to current projects to see what needs were being addressed by projects that were already funded. The Robotics Crosscutting Program manager interacts with many groups, internal and external to DOE, primarily by giving presentations describing the program. The Robotics Crosscutting Program has multiple oversight by many interested outside review groups, interactions with both DOE and contractor personnel (in managing projects and assessing activities at DOE field offices), and interactions with multiple OST program units (i.e., STCGs, Focus Areas, and headquarters management). The lines of authority and communication within DOE are themselves a new construct, with management of this and other Crosscutting Programs at the field offices starting in FY 1997. The field-based OST program manager reports to his or her local line managers as well as to headquarters OST managers. EFFICIENT SEPARATIONS AND PROCESSING CROSSCUTTING PROGRAM The ESP Crosscutting Program is based at the DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office. A "Core Management Team" includes both DOE and contractor representatives.

OCR for page 138
140 Decision Making in the DOE-OST The ESP Crosscutting Program has a mission to develop separation and treatment processes in partnership with the private sector and to scale up these results to achieve pilot-scale (or larger) deployments on DOE-EM wastes. The program has self-generated strategic goals. Important problem areas include tritium separation, needed by all STCGs; tank flowsheet uncertainties; transuranic separation, to reap the benefits of not sending waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WTPP-bound TRU waste costs are estimated at approximately $30,000 per cubic foot, while on-site low- leve! waste disposal costs approximately $30 per cubic foot); mercury separation, if the ongoing Mixed Waste Focus Area efforts to procure a solution from industry do not succeed; and separation of cesium, strontium, and technetium from tariff wastes. Projects typically run one to three years, at approximately $250,000 to $400,000 per year. Based on annual reviews, some projects that show insufficient progress have been terminated. Others have been terminated if the needs change so that the separation technique under development is no longer required. One project was ended because of poor PI performance. The ESP Crosscutting Program has three major processes: I. a Review of Proposed New Tasks, discussed below in more detail, 2. a Midyear Review of Tasks, also discussed below in more detail, and 3. an Annual Technical Exchange Meeting (TEM), which is held in January, with published proceedings. This meeting, plus other inputs (such as "milestone reports," budget levels, interactions with program managers and field coordinators, and a favorable midyear review), determines whether ongoing projects are continued. Proposed New Tasks and Their Review The generation of new task ideas was described (Harness, 1997) as coming from national labortories' solicitations and from one industry solicitation through a PANE request for proposal (RFP) a few years ago. Responses to these solicitations are reviewed by a group of typically four people a member of the core management team, an academic technical expert, a former DOE (or DOE contractor) technical expert, and a representative from a relevant Focus Area (DOE, 19961~. The review criteria are Benefits (weight = 30 percent), Probability of success (weight = 20 percent), Implementation and task plan (weight = 20 percent), Qualifications of staff (weight = ~ 0 percent), Resources (weight= 10 percent), and Cost of R&D (weight = ~ O percent). The numerical scores against these criteria are multiplied by the weighting factors, and the results are totaled. No cutoffs (i.e., threshold or screening criteria) are employed, nor are results multiplied (rather than added). The criteria and weights were developed (Mathur, 1997) in past discussions with core EM- 50 management. This system has been continued to the present because it seems to work reasonably well.

OCR for page 138
Appendix Crosscutting Areas 141 Midyear Reviews The Midyear Reviews are done in a two-step process described below. In the first step, statements of needs are used to draft RFPs. In the second step, these proposals are evaluated by an Independent Review r ~ cam. Needs As with all crosscutting programs, ESP Crosscutting Program priorities are in principle dictated by the Focus Areas. Hence, technology development needs come primarily from input from Focus Areas (which in turn obtain needs statements from STCGs), but additional needs come from three other sources: 1. extra STCG input independent of Focus Area interactions, 2. extra site input independent of a site's STCG, and 3. "experts." In all cases (i.e., regardless of origin of the need statements)), the ESP Crosscutting Program interacts iteratively with Focus Areas to obtain their acceptance of the final short list of needs used as the basis for calls for proposals. The final needs Mom these Focus Area iterations are sufficiently mature to define performance goals that a PI would have to meet. The output of these interactions are performance specifications for calls for proposals. Proposals go out in the usual dual solicitation to national labs and the private sector (industries and universities), the latter via FETC Program Research and Development Announcements and Research Opportunity Announcements (ROAs). Review of Proposals A review and ranking of the responses to solicitations, which are PT-proposed new work tasks, by the following groups of people: ESP Crosscutting Program managers, Technical Review Teams of experts composed of academics and DOE contractor retirees, and Focus Area representatives. The Midyear Reviews use the four criteria below. 1. Benefit. Specific considerations include the following: is a target problem identified, specific, and understood? is the corresponding baseline or best available technology understood? Is the relative advantage of the new technology understood? 2. Technicalprogress. Specific considerations include the following: Are partnerships appropriate and productive? Have the correct technical issues been identified that must be resolved? Are the technical accomplishments sound? 3. Programmatic status. Specific considerations include the following: is done

OCR for page 138
142 Decision Making in the DOE-OST Has there been progress toward DOE implementation? Has appropriate progress been made toward commercializing the technology? 4. Future plans. Specific considerations include the following: context? Is closure of the R&D effort defined, and are plans for the next fiscal year appropriate in this Is there a clear strategy for implementing the technology during and after closure? Budget The FY 1998 budget target is $5 million, down from the FY 1997 budget of $12.7 million. One-third to one-fourth of this money goes to industry; the rest is predominantly for national laboratory researchers. The funds available for new starts are calculated by using an estimate of the program funding level for the next Final veer This estimate is nrovirler1 hv ~,nner-level (ART m~nn~ement whr, handle - - . ~ . . . ~ . ~ _ . ~ _ - ~ . A_ A,_ ~ _ Am, ~ ~ , Interactions with external agencies te.g., the congressional budget Entice and Entice of Management and Budget) to approve OST's overall budget and divide this budget among various OST programs. Subtracted from this estimate is the "mortgage" (i.e., money tied up in ongoing projects) for the next year and the PRDA funding (the industry solicitation portion) associated with the program. The remaining funds are available for new starts in the national laboratory arena; however, at the current funding level, there are no new starts. Program Accomplishments Significant accomplishments credited to the ESP Crosscutting Program have included the following (Harness, 1997~: crystalline silicotitanate (C ST) ion exchange medium for cesium removal, the "High Temperature Vacuum Distillation Process" used to remove plutonium at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANLl, and transferred for a second deployment at Rocky Flats; ,, ~ , I' ~ .. .. . the C`Process Absorber Development Unit" of 3M-Empore, using its membrane technology for hosting selective ion exchange ligand media; (ORNL). liquid polymers, for mercury and RCRA metals (winner of an R&D 100 Award); and technetium speciation work, applicable to ground water at Oak Ridge National Laboratory The ESP Crosscutting Program has sponsored work that has produced 40 peer-reviewed publications and 7 patents. No information was readily available (as of June 1997) on how many of the technology development projects led to deployments. Despite these accomplishments, the future budgets for this program are at $5 million or less for each year. CHARACTERIZATION, MONITORING, AND SENSOR TECHNOLOGY CROSSCUTTING PROGRAM Dr. Caroline Purdy, the HQ lead program manager of the CMST Crosscutting Program for 1991- 1997, and John Jones, the recent field lead at the Nevada Operations Office, described the program during a committee meeting on June 6, 1997. This program has approximately 10 percent of its fiends going to

OCR for page 138
Appendix Crosscutting Areas 143 program support, twice the EM-50 target level, because of the personnel-intensive tasks of interfacing with people and marketing. Decision Process to Fund Projects The project selection process is briefly described as follows: A. Technology deficiencies are identified by STCG and 2006 Plan documents. Note: Over time, there has been an EM-50-wide evolution of the quality and sources of information on needs (Purdy, 1997~. The most recent needs statements are generated from planning exercises associated with Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure (DOE, 199Sa); previous needs references have been issued by the STCGs and the Focus Areas. B. Calls for proposals are issued jointly by the CMST Crosscutting Program and the Focus Areas. C. Proposals received in response to solicitations are reviewed during the CMST Crosscutting Program's annual review meeting in April by three groups of people. In this meeting, each PI performing ongoing work and those proposing new initiatives present their project in an open forum to an audience of technical reviewers and OST program managers. The three types of reviewers at this meeting are the following: I . Technical peers. Each PI's project is reviewed by three individuals from universities, industry, DOE, or other federal agencies, who score projects individually and then meet collectively (in a "closed- door" evaluation) to active at a consensus group recommendation. These reviewers judge each project against criteria (Purdy, 1997) that include . technical quality (approach and merit); cost savings over baseline technology; past performance of the PI; collaborations; personnel qualifications, project organization, experience, and commitment; and facilities and equipment. User and FA representatives. These are three individuals nominated by the FAs, who assess Me relevance of the project to a user need. 3. DOE program managers. These individuals assess program policy factors and make the final decisions. Their considerations include budget and program balance. The typical project lasts three years, so in a flat-funding environment with perfect staggering of projects, one-third of each year's program money would be available for new starts. The achievement of program balance considers relative percentage of projects in support of each Focus Area and alignment with EM goals. The program policy factors are (Purdy, 1997) program drivers, safety and health risk reduction, regulatory and stakeholder acceptability, technology commercialization or implementation, breadth of application, projected future technology development needs, and balance between risk and reward, long term verses short term. D. For fimded work, project progress is monitored in three ways:

OCR for page 138
144 Decision Making ir' the DOE-OST I. by facilitators, who are full-time DOE program managers, each of whom monitors from four to six projects and interfaces between the Pl: and the program; 2. through monthly technical progress reports; and 3. through annual technology summary sheets. Budget and Future Demand for CMST Work Products The FY 1997 budget was $ 13.4 million, and the FY 1998 target is $!1.3 million in an era of declining budgets (the overall EM-50 budget was reduced by 25 percent in FY 1997 over FY 1996~. One reason offered (Purdy, 1997) for the CMST Crosscutting Program budget's not being cut as much as that of other programs was that monitoring of the performance of subsurface balTier walls has been identified as the key to verification of their integrity, and EM strategy relying on baITier walls would therefore drive a significant investment in appropriate sensors and monitoring technologies. This strategy and rationale were employed to generate future budget targets (the DOE budget process has a two-year-out planning vehicle, as well as a one-year-out one), establishing in FY 1996 a high target for the CMST Crosscutting Program FY 1998 budget. One technical need area discussed was for continuous emission monitors for offgas streams, an area that six CMST Crosscutting Program projects address, since these monitors are perceived to be crucial to the regulatory licensing and public approval of thermal (i.e., incinerator-based) treatment systems. Other major technology deficiency areas in high demand from many sites are long-term monitoring of subsurface contaminants and barrier walls; subsurface and D&D characterizations; in-tank sensors and sampling devices; process control monitors for high-level waste (HEW) treatment; mixed waste stream characterization to assist in a decision to treat versus dispose (presumably if one can show cheaply that one meets land disposal restrictions (LDRs), then one can dispose on-site via shallow land burial); D&D needs for nondestructive assay or examination of pipes and equipment; nondestructive assay or examination for RCRA metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in WIPP-bound TRU waste; and moisture and corrosion detection for spent nuclear filet (SNF). Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure (DOE, 1998a) cost calculations allow for a rough estimation of cost savings that could be achieved by new CMST-related technologies. These calculations require that a baseline method already be established; that a credible, more innovative method also be identified; and that good cost and performance data be available to make a comparison. A major goal for future starts is to impact cost savings using such projections. CMST program managers have helped formulate ASTD proposals, and it is hoped that many of those chosen will be related to the CMST Crosscutting Program. Information Resources and Technology Comparisons Attention is paid to knowing the state of the art outside DOE. The resources known and used by the program include

OCR for page 138
Appendix Crosscutting Areas . 145 documentation of the status of sensor technology published by the Hazardous Waste Remedial Actions Program, and workshop reports by the EPA and individual national laboratories. waste), Comparisons of the performance of different technologies ("bake-offs") on the same test surrogate are sometimes conducted. In FY 1997, for example, such bake-offs were run (Purdy, 1997) for continuous emission monitors non-destructive assay techniques (gauging performance on a sample 55-gallon drum of TRU pipeline slurry monitors, cone penetrometer sensors, and welIhead VOC monitors (in a joint EPA-DOE verification test). Interactions with Other Programs The CMST crosscutting program interacts with the Industry Program (TP, to craft ROA and PRDA proposals based on CMST-related needs), the University Program (UP, to provide universities with CMST-related issues), and the TISA Domestic Program. Outside OST, the program has interacted with (Purdy, 1997) the Office of Energy Research, in its Small Business Innovation Research grant program; Disney Corporation, through a cooperative agreement not in the IP or UP; other federal agencies to develop cone penetrometer work via an interagency activity; and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).