Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS REVIEWS OF DOE'S ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO .................................................................................................................. The Department of Energy's (DOE's) Strategic Laboratory Council (SLC) recently conducted an analysis to determine the adequacy of the current portfolio of DOE research and development (R&D) activities to meet the objectives of the Environmental Quality (EQ) business line (DOE, 2000g). After the SLC's analysis was published, the Technology Development and Transfer Committee of DOE's Environmental Man- agement Advisory Board (EMAB) commented on the results of the analysis, evaluated the process used to develop the analysis, and of- fered recommendations in a letter report (DOE, 2000h). The major findings and recommendations from the adequacy analy- ses are summarized below, followed by a table summarizing the identi- fied major EQ R&D gaps and opportunities (Table C.1~. The full text of the EMAB letter report is included at the end of this appendix. Adequacy Analysis of the Environmental Quality Research and De- velopment Portfolio (DOE, 2000g) The SLC panel arrived at the following conclusions: The EQ R&D Portfolio adequately addressed three of the ten technology categories: als. · manage mixed low-level and TRU wastes; manage spent nuclear fuel; and dispose high-level waste, spent nuclear fuel, and nuclear materi- Three of the ten technology categories were addressed in a moderately adequate manner: 124
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 125 manage high-level waste; manage nuclear material; and dispose TRU, low-level, mixed low-level, and hazardous waste. Four of the ten technology categories were inadequately addressed: environmental remediation; deactivate and decommission; minimize waste generation; and long-term stewardship. The panel considered the magnitude of the gaps for each technology category and how important filling those gaps is to meeting the EQ strat- egy and objectives. The panel combined these estimates of the signifi- cance of these gaps with the adequacy assessment to identify four prior- ity areas for improving the portfolio: environmental restoration; manage high-level waste; deactivate and decommission; and long-term stewardship. The SLC panel developed a number of findings and recommenda- tions on how DOE might improve its EQ R&D portfolio: Finding 1: The EQ Portfolio has significant gaps and, as a whole, is un- derinvested. Recommendation 1: Additional R&D funding is warranted for priority investments. The highest priority areas are: environmental restoration; manage high-level waste; deactivation and decommissioning; and long- term stewardship. Finding 2: The R&D portfolio does not include a longer-term vision and "strategic" elements such as alternative technologies and next- generation solutions. Recommendation 2: Part of the R&D portfolio needs to focus on the long-term mission to provide fundamental information that will allow for better understanding and definition of the larger, more difficult problems that will not be solved in the next 5 to 10 years. A portion of the R&D profile should be devoted to strategic R&D, such as "backup" technolo-
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 126 gies in high risk/high budget areas to reduce the programmatic risk to the department. Finding 3: The funding distribution across the maturity spectrum is un- balanced. Recommendation 3: The portfolio needs to be more balanced across the technical maturity spectrum without sacrificing recent successes in technology deployment. The maximum benefit from R&D will be obtained through a balanced portfolio that will foster the development of next gen- eration solutions from basic R&D through applied research and devel- opment and ultimately to deployment. Basic research should continue to be targeted at a broad spectrum of disciplines that are relevant to the issues facing the EQ business line. Important areas of investment in ap- plied research include separations, robotics, characterization and sen- sors, and institutional controls related to stewardship. Finding 4: Significant life-cycle costs and corresponding R&D hinge on highly uncertain end states. Recommendation 4: DOE must continue to emphasize the development of waste acceptance criteria and definition of end states for both sites and facilities. This includes the need to gather data and develop funda- mental knowledge that supports these efforts. Finding 5: Additional effort is required to identify priorities based on risk. Recommendation 5a: DOE must develop a better understanding of the risk associated with hazardous materials and develop tools that credibly represent those risks in an open and transparent manner in order to in- crease the ability to balance human health and environmental risk with other considerations in DOE decision making. Recommendation fib: DOE must develop a better understanding of programmatic risks and their potential impact on meeting DOE objectives to improve the long-term management of EQ problems. This supports recommendation 2 on the need for alternative approaches in high risk/high cost areas. Finding 6: Technology Categories are highly interdependent. Recommendation 6: Both "Long-Term Stewardship" and "Minimize Waste Generation" categories require additional emphasis and the asso- ciated R&D should be applied across the other EQ objectives.
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 127 Finding 7: Interfaces among business lines are not adequate to estab- lish fully complementary and synergistic programs. Recommendation 7a: Interfaces with other DOE business lines and their portfolios should continue to be recognized, developed, and fos- tered. Synergism and exchange of information should be sought out and acknowledged where appropriate. Recommendation 7b: Continue to improve the portfolio process so that it will provide a long-term view of the DOE business lines.
128 ._ C°: ~o Q ._ a) - ~n S Q a . _ ~n ._ ._ o Q o cn Q CD .m C] CL C: LL m ~ 0 o n n CD - .g s . ''O Q=, , ._ o ~ ~ E 0 ~ ,,, ~ o ~ o O) Q 0) O O ~~~ C7 == ~ ~'0 0o o ~ ~ 0 o E o o o, E ° 0' E ° ° C=0 a~ ~n O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ° ~ E C ~ E C ' E o ~ ~ ~ ,' ~ ~ s E 8 E o E o ° E ° ~ E c ~ ~ E ~ E , _ ~ ~0 O'~ ~ ~ °m - ~ o m~ ~ ~ S > ~ Q 8 ~ ~ - ~ ~ .= ~ .o =, ~7 =5 ~ o5 ~ c' 0 . cn o_~ ° 3 E ° E: ~ .= _ O Co ,,O ~ ' a) . - o .m o a > E u . ~ o. 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ 8 ~ ~ ~i i jli~ ~' _ _ ' a. =.= ~ ~ ·C,, ~ QQ o._ S ~n =5 ~ a .' ~ ~ ",~ ~ == ~ o 8 ~ N ~`' ~ E .> 0 ~ ~ ~ c' E ~ · io c-- ° ~ u, ~ ° ~ g ~ ° 0 . . N a O ~n s ~n ~ io ~ ~ . ·= 0= Q~ ~ ~ ~ ·- 8 a) o ._ o q, =5 s ' ' a s ~n ~ F; ._ ~ a, ~n ~ a co ~n ~ <~~ ~ O3 ~ ~o Yo ~ ~0 ~ ° E 8 ~ ~ c co n, ~ ' ~ ._ .° u~ _ ._ ~ 0 ~ 0d ] ~ u: a: c' o ~ ~ a o c-~) ·i~ .c ~ c (0 - o ~ _ C,' N 8.m ~ a) a ~C _ ~ C} N C .= ~ ' as s a: o U) >, ~ · ~ OSO-- a). ~ ~ .2 a) R l FO tl5 ~ ~ Cl: ~ O ~ ~ O >. ·= O G) Q C O _ ._ c {15 ~ a 8 ~ a) ~ ~ o ~ ~ .° ~ ._ ~ ° .° ._ ~ _ 8~~
129 o ~ ~ E ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q a' B m _ ° ~ ~ i o 8 . ~ ~ Hi, ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B c, ° ~ ° E °~ ' ~ i ° ° ~ ~ ' ~~ 2 Hi E | C ~ ~ ~ I ~ | ~ ~ ~ ; . a) An ,x 0't a) ~ 05 ~ ,, ox > . ~ I ~ a) _ ~ a) · ·
. Q o Q ~ 3 ~ g UJ s C~ tr 130 a' ~n a' ~n s3 ~o u) o C~ ~ ~o a' ~o - s ~ Q a) _ a) a, I 2 I =5 a) ~o o s 0 a o ' 8 a) ~ ~ =L g ~ ~, O._ Q o == ·,- (0 ~ ~ ~o V O ~ C' ~._~ .~ _ C~ V Q a) a) cl) o Y Z a, Q ~n a ' a' I ~ ~ ~ i i ~ · 8, ~ [ I ~ 5, ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ B :1 ° E ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 o 3 E ~ ~ E E s ~ ~ E B ' ~ g ° ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | g s ~ ~ i ~ i ~ E · ~ 0 IL ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ .u, ~ ~ a' X ~ E
131 G) 0 ~ Q [1] O ~ N o ~0 au O ·,~~ ~ O O Q O ~ Qua O o o) ~ 3 a) ~ <13 ~.~ o ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ o ~ ° E a' ~ 0, ' . <,, ,. a' s ~ a) ~ 0 ~ a) to ~ o ~ ~ ~ o · ~ ~ . P ~ 3 ~ , 2 ~ a= ~ e ~ | D o ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 E ~ a: ° E = , 2 E Q s E a,_ _ ~ ~ ~ 0, s s ~= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ s ~ z I =° ~ 8 . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ._ Cal a' Q ._ S cn
132 A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ADVISORY Bow TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER COMMITTEE U.S. Department of Energy October 10, 2000 Dr. David Bodde, Co-Chair EM Advisory Board U.S. Department of Energy 1000 independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20585 Mr. Joe! Bennett, Co-Chair EM Advisory Board U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20585 SUBJECT: Review of the "Adequacy Analysis of the Environ- mental Quality Research & Development Portfolio " (September 2000) Dear Dr. Bodde and Mr. Bennett: This letter provides the results of a review of the subject document that was recently conducted by the Technology Development and Transfer (TD&T) Committee of the Environmental Management Advisory Board (EMAB). Mr. Gerald Boyd, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Science and Technology, requested the re- view. BACKGROUND The Adequacy Analysis was prepared under the leadership of the Strategic Laboratory Council (SLC) and was released as a final report in September 2000. This SLC effort was co-chaired by Dr. Paul Kearns of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) and Dr. James Helt of Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). The stated purpose of the document was to determine the adequacy of DOE's research & development portfo- lio in providing the science and technology required to achieve the strategic goals and objectives of DOE's Environmental Quality (EQ) business line.
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 133 October 10, 2000 Page 2. The document was developed with the participation of people drawn mostly from national laboratories, large EM sites, and DOE's Office of Environmental Management, Office of Science, and Office of Civilian and Radioactive Waste Management. In addition, one representative each from the Environmental Protec- tion Agency and the Department of Defense participated, as well as several persons not affiliated with DOE. CHARGE TO TTIE TD&T COMMITTEE Mr. Boyd's charge to the TD&T Committee for the review in- volved three aspects: I. Does the Committee think the process used in devel- oping the document was adequate? 2. What is the Committee's opinion about the results of the analysis? Finally, does the Committee have any recommenda- tions with regard to the analysis? TD&T REVIEW PROCESS Members of the TD&T Committee met in Washington, D.C. on October 3-4, 2000. The first day of the review involved a set of interactive discussions with OST's senior management team, Drs. Kearns and Helt of the SLC, and senior technical persons repre- senting various contractors at Hanford, Savannah River, and Idaho, who had either participated in the analysis or were knowledgeable about the results. During the meeting, we also received a progress report from Greg Symmes of the National Research Council (NRC), who is directing a related effort on EM's R&D Portfolio that is underway at NRC.
134 October 10, 2000 Page 3. A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D The Committee appreciated the participation of so many key indi- viduals in this review and benefited greatly from the discussions that took place. Based on the information and views exchanged, Committee members were readily able to address all elements of the charge. The Committee's findings and recommendations re- lated to each element are provided below. An agenda and commit- tee membership list are attached. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Charee 1: Adequacy of the process used to develop the analy- . sls. The impact of future adequacy analyses will be more far-reaching if conducted earlier in the budgetary cycle, and if more time is provided to enable a comprehensive understanding of adequacies and gaps to be developed. All participants in the review agreed that the adequacy analysis had been conducted over a relatively short timeframe. Nevertheless, the Committee found that the proc- ess used to develop the results had many positive elements, yielded a useful product that can be built upon in the future, and was gen- erally adequate. We recognized that this was the first time an ade- quacy analysis of the EQ R&D Portfolio had ever been undertaken by DOE. This, in itself, represents a major step forward. The SLC (and especially Drs. Kearns and Helt) should be commended for taking the leadership on this effort and for arranging the excellent facilitating support from the INEEL, which allowed the partici- pants to work quickly and efficiently. It was further clear to the Committee that the interactions that had taken place among the various participants during development of the analysis was a very valuable aspect in arriving at the final re- sults. The involvement of a cross-section of EM-sawy individuals
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 135 October 10, 2000 Page 4. from different organizations for an EM corporate purpose proved highly beneficial and yielded additional perspectives that are usu- ally not attained by a top-down or bottom-up analysis of this type. The final document provides many useful insights and recommen- dations that can guide a stronger R&D program for EM. Overall, the Committee found that the process directed by the SLC pro- duced a positive document that lends credibility and bolsters the rationale for many parts of the OST program. Although the Committee believes that the results of the analysis are valuable, the Committee also thinks the process would benefit in the future by including more reviewers not directly responsible for the work being analyzed. The group of participants could be considered to lack full objectivity for the adequacy analysis since many of their organizations conduct the work that was analyzed. While the commitment of the participants to an EM corporate per- spective dunng the analysis was evident and should be congratu- lated, the Committee noted that the vast majority of the partici- pants are directly linked to DOE, so some could interpret the re- sults as lacking certain independence. The Committee recognizes that DOE has artificially confined the scope of the EQ business line, and therefore, this limits what the EQ R&D Portfolio can include. Obviously, this was a major con- straint to conducting a comprehensive adequacy analysis of the portfolio for the first time. We take this opportunity to reiterate our previously expressed conclusion that DOE needs to broaden the definition of the EQ business line and integrate it with relevant parts of DOE's other business lines.
136 October 10, 2000 Page 5. A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D Charge 2: Opinion on results of the adequacy analysis. The Committee generally agreed with the results of the overall adequacy analysis, especially the fact that the R&D Portfolio has a short-term focus and lacks a longer-term strategic vision. We agree that the area of Environmental Remediation, which includes the whole myriad of major subsurface issues that remain to be un- derstood, and the area of Managing High Level Waste are the areas that contain the most significant gaps that need to be addressed by the R&D Portfolio. We also agree that the area of Deactiva- tion/Decommissioning supports the major EM objective of Reme- diating Sites and Facilities but has not yet received adequate atten- tion from the portfolio. The Committee found that the revised framework for the R&D Portfolio developed by the participants dunng the adequacy analy- sis was a significant improvement over the original framework and should be adopted by DOE. The three elements (Cleanup the Leg- acy, Disposition Wastes and Unneeded Materials, and Manage Future Risk) and five objectives (linked to individual technical categories) that were defined to support the revised framework do a much better job of communicating what the portfolio is all about. The elements also provide an excellent basis for formulating a more compelling message about the contents of the portfolio, de- veloping a better rationale for it, and broadening support.
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 137 October 10, 2000 Page 6. The Committee also found that defining two new technical catego- ries for the Portfolio (Minimize Waste Generation and Long Term Stewardship) was a very positive outcome. Both of these catego- ries highlight the evolving EQ responsibilities of DOE, especially regarding EM sites. With respect to these two categories, how- ever, the Committee was concerned that the element under which they are found in the revised framework (i.e., Manage Future Risk) could be interpreted more like "Manage Risk in the Future." it is critical that this interpretation not be conveyed because, while both waste minimization and long-term stewardship are more focused on the future, R&D efforts on their behalf need to start now. The message should be that future programmatic risk must be managed starting now. Unfortunately, the Committee could not agree on a crisp re-wording of this element so that the wrong message was not conveyed. This may be worthy of further consideration as the Portfolio is revisited. Additionally, the Committee is aware of efforts underway within EM (as well as within EMAB) to increase the visibility and impact of efforts involving Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (KS OH) in the R&D Portfolio. Nevertheless, we noted that ESOH issues were still not sufficiently evident in the results of the current adequacy analysis. Given the current DOE emphasis on this topic, we believe it would be well for EM to consider how relevant ESOH issues are being addressed as part of the EQ R&D Portfolio. The Committee also considered and discussed individually each of the seven Findings presented in the Adequacy Analysis. The first four Findings relate to the R&D Portfolio, while the remaining three relate to operational practices. The Committee spent most of its time considenug the Findings involving the R&D Portfolio. Our comments on these four Findings are presented below. For clarity, each Finding is re-stated from the final report before our
138 October 10, 2000 Page 7. A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D comments are presented. For the record, the Committee generally concurred with the three Findings on operational practices without significant comment. "Finding 1: The EN Portfolio has signing cant gaps and, as a whole, is underin vested. " Committee comments -- While the Committee generally agreed with this Finding, we also found ourselves agreeing that a compel- ling case for greater investment in the Portfolio still has not been made by EM. Given the scale of the challenge facing EM, we be- lieve that such a case can be made, even considering the lack of definition of such factors as the EM baseline, site end-states, risks, long-term budgets, political support, and appropriate contract in- centives. These are realities whose existence needs to be acknowledged but which should not be used as an excuse for fail- ing to support science and technology in EM with sound rationale and planning. The Committee has been encouraged by the progress we have seen within EM during the past few years regarding science and tech- nology and the new mechanisms that are being put into place. These include the development of roadmaps, development of waste disposition maps, increased use of projectization, and R&D Port- folio planning and analysis. The Committee believes the support- ing case for increased R&D investment needs to be made in terms of real payoff to the country. In this context, participants in the EQ R&D Portfolio need to clearly move away from a community enti- tlement mentality as the basis for receiving increased investment. This means moving from thinking like "We should receive 'X' percent of the overall budget for R&D purposes. " to a value-added approach that emphasizes something like "Our R&D efforts wiR address and resolve these criticalpublic and environmental health, cost, and schedule risks. "
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 139 October 10, 2000 Page 8. "Finding 2: The R&D portfolio does not include a longer-term vision and 'strategic' elements such as alternative technologies and next-generation solutions. " Committee comments -- The Committee agreed with this Finding and believes it is not only a manifestation of the under-investment problem but also of the cultural and financial situation in which EM finds itself, governed by compliance agreements that were formulated independently of current budgetary and technical reali- ties. Further, the Committee believes that science and technology (S&T) continues to be under appreciated within EM as the source of needed long-term solutions. While this situation has clearly im- proved during the tenure of Undersecretary Moniz, we are con- cerned that some of the positive recent impacts and advances we have seen may not become more solidly institutionalized. "Finding 3: The funding distribution across the technology ma- turity spectrum is unbalanced. " Committee comments -- The bimodal funding distribution, in which DOE's investments in S&T are focused on basic research and demonstration/deployment activities, leaves a gap in applied research and development. The Committee believes that this is another manifestation of under-investment. However, it also re- flects EM's reaction to the pressure from Congress to show more deployments (i.e., more payoff from past investments). Further, it indicates that EM has still not developed an integrated S&T pro- gram that links basic and applied research seamiessly with devel- opment and deployment efforts that address and solve problems in the field.
140 October 10, 2000 Page 9. A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D The Committee is convinced that the imbalance in funding distri- bution cannot be successfully addressed unless "users" are more effectively involved in the overall S&T process from the begin- ning. Users in EM have consistently demonstrated that they are willing to co-invest with OST in such programs as the Technology Deployment Initiative (TDT) and Accelerated Site Technology De- ployment (ASTD). However, these programs have still not be- come firmly institutionalized. In addition, DOE has not fully sup- ported adequate funding from Congress for the EM Science Pro- gram and has seen funding for this program decline steadily. The current increase in the FY01 budget for OST proposed by Con- gress is heartening to the Committee. Hopefully, this will provide EM with a further opportunity to move toward a more coherent, integrated, seamless, effective S&T program. "Finding 4: Signif cant life-cycle costs and corresponding R&D hinge on highly uncertain end-stafes. " Committee comments -- This Finding appears to be a fact-of-life in the EM world that must be accepted and continually dealt with. Rather than dealing with the often-elusive concept of defining "end-states," which are often decades away, it may be more useful to focus on defining a series of more limited "intermediate-points" or "end-points," the sum total of which can eventually lead to an end-state. We believe that end-points can potentially be better de- fined, and they lend themselves to better overall management and measurement of progress. More precise terminology may also build more credibility with Congress and assist in making a case for more funding for technology needs. Charee 3: Recommendations about the adequacy analysis. The Committee's recommendations regarding the adequacy analy- sis are presented below.
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 141 October 10, 2000 Page 10. DOE should institutionalize the process of conducting an adequacy analysis of the EQ R&D Portfolio. This effort should become a deliberate and formal process, and adequate time and resources should be allocated for it. 2. EM (OST) should accept the results of the first ade- quacy analysis and use them in a proactive way to im- prove its R&D Portfolio. 3. EM should perform an adequacy analysis of its R&D Portfolio at least every two years. 4. The community of participants used to develop an ade- quacy analysis should be broadened to enhance the credibility and perspective (objectivity) of the Portfolio and the results. The participants should include a lim- ited number of external independent experts. 5. EM still needs to focus on more effective ways to de- fine and support the expected payoff from the OST program. The waste disposition roadmaps developed by the INEEL should be more widely used as the basis for helping to define where OST should be making its S&T investments. This concludes our comments and recommendations. The Com- mittee very much appreciated the opportunity to conduct this re- view and offer our views for consideration by EM. We received excellent cooperation from OST management, as well as from the SEC and senior individuals from the DOE contractor community.
142 October 10, 2000 Page ~ I. A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D We are encouraged by the attention being given to improving the S&T program and look forward to working with EM on the whole range of issues represented by the EQ R&D Portfolio. Sincerely yours Edgar Berkey, Ph.D. Chairman Technology Development & Transfer Committee cc: James Melillo, DOE-EM, EMAB TD&T Committee Members Attachments knot included in appendix]
