2

Review of DOE-EM Technology Development Efforts

This chapter addresses the first charge of the Statement of Task (see Sidebar 1.2 in Chapter 1), which calls for

A review of DOE-EM’s technology development efforts, including an assessment of the processes by which technologies are identified and selected for development.

Information to address this study charge was gathered from the following sources:

• Briefings from the Department of Energy’s Office of Environmental Management (DOE-EM) headquarters staff on that office’s technology development processes and programs.
• Briefings from DOE-EM site staff and cleanup contractors on technology development programs and processes at the Hanford (Washington), Idaho, Oak Ridge (Tennessee), Portsmouth (Ohio), and Savannah River (South Carolina) sites.
• Briefings from other national and international experts involved in cleanup activities and/or science and technology (S&T) development.
• Published documents that are cited in this chapter.

The chapter is organized as follows:

• Section 2.1 describes DOE-EM’s S&T programs and processes for the period the committee conducted its review (December

2017–November 2018) and the committee’s assessment of their effectiveness.

• Section 2.2 describes the initiatives that current DOE-EM leadership was exploring during the period of August 2018–October 2018 to improve the cleanup program.
• Section 2.3 provides the committee’s findings and recommendations.

2.1 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN DOE-EM

DOE-EM informed the committee that it spent approximately $120 million on S&T to support cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex in fiscal year (FY) 2018.¹ About $85 million of this funding was site directed and the remainder (~$35 million) was headquarters managed. Only about half of the headquarters-managed S&T (~$18.3 million) was subject to headquarters prioritization (headquarters directed); the remainder was allocated to support congressionally directed projects (~$15.4 million)² and a DOE mandate (~$1.3 million). See Figure 2.1 for the breakdown of DOE-EM S&T investments in FY2018.

The congressionally directed projects were the following:

• The Spent Nuclear Fuel Technologies Program at Idaho National Laboratory ($5 million). These funds were managed by DOE-EM’s Office of Nuclear Materials and Idaho National Laboratory.
• The Nuclear Facilities Clean Air Technologies Program ($5 million). The funds were managed by DOE-EM’s Technology Development Office, Mississippi State University’s Institute for Clean Energy Technology, and DOE-EM’s Office of River Protection.
• Independent review to support cost-effective, risk-informed cleanup decision making ($5 million). These funds were managed by DOE-EM’s Office of Regulatory, Intergovernmental, and Stakeholder Engagement, the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, and Vanderbilt University.
• This National Academies study ($0.4 million). This study was requested by Congress but no funds were appropriated. Funds for this study are managed by DOE-EM’s Office of Regulatory and Policy Affairs.

___________________

¹ Presentation by Rodrigo V. Rimando, Jr., Director, Technology Development Office, to the committee on October 19, 2018.

² Often referred to as “earmarks.”

The departmental mandate was the following:

• DOE’s Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer program ($1.3 million). These funds were managed by DOE’s Office of Science.

DOE-EM received $25 million for headquarters-managed S&T (about 0.3 percent of DOE-EM’s annual budget) in FY2019. Only $9 million of that amount is subject to DOE-EM headquarters prioritization.

2.1.1 Site-Directed S&T

Site-directed S&T focuses primarily on technology development and deployment to improve efficiencies and worker safety and achieve incremental improvements in current cleanup projects. Cleanup contractors take the lead for selecting this S&T and frequently involve national laboratories in its execution. DOE-EM provided to the committee a list of site-directed S&T activities and funding information for FY2018 (see Table 2.1). The committee observed that this S&T funding is not used exclusively for S&T development and deployment activities; some of it is also used for program or activity management or for purchasing equipment.³

The committee asked representatives of the DOE-EM sites that it visited to describe their processes for identifying and prioritizing cleanup challenges and funding S&T development. The site responses are summarized in Sections 2.1.1.1–2.1.1.5 below. DOE-EM does not provide detailed guidance or oversight of the decision-making processes that individual sites use to identify, select, or fund technology development.

2.1.1.1 Hanford

Technology needs for D&D activities carried out by the Richland Operations Office (RL) are identified in various regulatory documents such as the Remedial Design/Report Remedial Action Work Plan for the 300 Area (DOE-RL, 2014). Identified technology needs for RL’s soil and groundwater program are intended to support the implementation of the remedies identified in the Record of Decision issued by the Tri-Party Agreement for cleanup of contaminated soil and groundwater along the Columbia River in the 100 Area of the Hanford Site (EPA, 1999). RL staff meet annually with

___________________

³ For example, the Chief Technology Office program management of Hanford’s Office of River Protection (ORP) consumed about 10 percent of ORP’s S&T budget; the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant spent nearly 90 percent of its S&T budget on purchasing equipment to improve worker safety during decontamination and demolition (D&D) and other activities.

TABLE 2.1 List of Site-Directed S&T Activities in Fiscal Year 2018

a Activities listed here were described by DOE-EM as “applied engineering activities” and not S&T activities.

NOTE: D&D = decontamination and demolition; EOC = Emergency Operations Center; FBP = Fluor-BWXT Portsmouth; GIS = geographic information system; I-129 = iodine-129; Pu = plutonium; Tc-99 = technetium-99; TCCR = Tank Closure Cesium Removal; U = uranium; VOC = volatile organic compound.

SOURCE: Rodrigo V. Rimando, Jr., Director, Technology Development Office, DOE-EM, October 19, 2018.

staff from the Savannah River National Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to identify technical issues with the pump and treatment facilities and S&T to address those issues. The outcome of the meeting is an RL-generated statement of work for the national laboratories to carry out during the following year.

The contractor for the ORP has developed the River Protection Project Technology and Innovation Roadmap (Reid et al., 2017) to identify and prioritize immediate technology needs. Priority rankings are based on a priority letter developed with input from ORP assistant managers and technical leads. ORP also sponsors a grand challenge competition that focuses

on technology gaps requiring innovative solutions. These grand challenges are identified in a mission needs document that is also developed with input from ORP assistant managers and technical leads. The competition is open to federal employees, contractors, national laboratories, private companies, universities, and other stakeholders. Entries are judged by representatives from DOE, national laboratories, and federal contractors, and the top entries are considered for possible implementation by ORP.

2.1.1.2 Idaho

Research and development (R&D) at Idaho is managed by DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, whereas DOE-EM is responsible for major waste retrieval and remediation activities at the site. The contractor for the Idaho Cleanup Project, which is responsible for designing and constructing the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit⁴ (IWTU), has developed a “risk register” for the IWTU project. The risk register describes, among other information, the risks (technical, regulatory, financial, other) to the project, their likelihood of occurrence, and potential strategies to address them, some of which involve technology development. The contractor also established a technical review group to review technical approaches and results and provide recommendations. Members of the review group are from national laboratories, academia, and industry and have project-relevant experience.

2.1.1.3 Oak Ridge

The Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management issued a 10-year program plan (biannual updated provided in DOE-OREM, 2017) that established cleanup and programmatic goals at the site until 2024. Cleanup of mercury contamination is the driver for all of the site’s technology investments because of large historical losses of mercury to soils and surface waters at the Y-12 National Security Complex. S&T needs for mercury remediation are driven by recommendations in various strategic planning reports issued over the past few years (DOE-ORO, 2014; Pro2Serve, 2014; ORNL, 2015; DOE-EM, 2016b). The Water Resources Restoration Program, which is concerned with additional contaminants including tritium, strontium-90 (Sr-90), technetium-99 (Tc-99), uranium, and nitrates uses planning reports issued by the contractor (DOE-EM, 2013, 2017a) to identify S&T needs. Other S&T needs to reach final site closure have been identified but are not currently funded.

___________________

⁴ The IWTU is used to treat and immobilize liquid sodium-bearing tank waste using steam reforming technology.

2.1.1.4 Portsmouth

There is no formal process for technology needs identification, selection, and development at Portsmouth. Instead, site personnel rely on frequent communications with other sites, including transfers of and visits by staff among sites; expertise at national laboratories and at DOE-EM headquarters; and federal and contractor staff attendance at the annual Waste Management Symposia to support technology identification and development. For example, a tetherless robot for remote measurement of uranium-235 residues in process piping (RadPiper; see Figure 3.4 in Chapter 3) emerged from meetings at a Waste Management symposium and built on existing relationships and agreements between DOE-EM and Carnegie Mellon University.

2.1.1.5 Savannah River

The soils and groundwater program at Savannah River uses the DOE-EM’s 2007 Engineering and Technology Roadmap (DOE, 2007) as a starting point to identify technology needs. The liquid waste program (high-level radioactive waste disposition) uses the Liquid Waste Systems Plan (SRR, 2018), prepared by the site’s liquid waste program contractor, to identify S&T needs. The Technology Optimization Blueprint (SRR, 2018) communicates potential S&T needs and maintains an Integrated Priority List. Prioritization criteria focus on reducing technical risks, costs, and schedules; improving safety; and meeting regulatory requirements. In 2018, the liquid waste program contractor initiated a call for projects to fill technical needs outlined in the Technology Optimization Blueprint (SRR, 2018).

2.1.2 Headquarters-Managed S&T

The Technology Development Office is the headquarters office responsible for S&T activities that span all stages of the technology lifecycle from basic research through technology deployment. The mission of that office (DOE-EM, 2016b) is as follows:

As noted throughout this chapter, the office’s activities address only portions of its mission as described in the statement above.

The Technology Development Office is currently (as of October 2018) staffed by four professionals and receives support from the Chief Engineer Office, which is also staffed by four professionals and provides technology assessments and advice to DOE-EM site offices. DOE-EM does not currently have a Chief Scientist to help ensure that research and scientific priorities line up with DOE-EM’s mission.

The Technology Development Office does not use an independent technical advisory body to provide technical or programmatic reviews of the S&T program. DOE-EM has independent advisory bodies, most notably the Environmental Management Advisory Board and the Site-Specific Advisory Board (SSAB). However, these boards do not provide technical advice.

2.1.2.1 Types of Technologies Managed

A list of headquarters-directed S&T projects is presented in Table 2.2. These projects focused on domestic and a few international activities involving other government agencies, national laboratories, universities, and industry. A major theme of the headquarters-directed S&T is robotics and remote systems. A number of headquarters-directed S&T projects were not funded in FY2018 because of congressional direction of funding and budget appropriation delays.⁵

The DOE-EM report Innovation and Technology: Charting the Path for Fiscal Years 2017–2021 (DOE-EM, 2016a) describes three types of headquarters-managed S&T. These are summarized in the following sections.

High-Impact Technologies

The Technology Development Office invested about $12 million in FY2018 on high-impact technologies to support S&T headquarters-directed and congressionally directed S&T. These investments aim to address knowledge and technology gaps that prevent DOE-EM from executing and completing its cleanup mission. High-impact technology development efforts are focused on the following five priorities:

___________________

⁵ Presentation by Rodrigo V. Rimando, Jr., Director, Technology Development Office, DOE-EM, to the committee on October 19, 2018.

TABLE 2.2 List of Headquarters-Directed S&T in Fiscal Year 2018

NOTE: This table does not include S&T activities performed by DOE’s national laboratories, such as those related to the mercury and technetium-99 challenges, next-generation solvents, glass waste forms, and deep vadose work.

SOURCE: Rodrigo V. Rimando, Jr., Director, Technology Development Office, November 20, 2018.

1. Technetium-99: T c-99 contamination has been identified as a problem at several sites, particularly Hanford, Savannah River, Portsmouth, and Paducah (Kentucky). S&T is focused on better characterizing T c-99 in facilities, waste streams, and groundwater and soil; identifying treatment options for immobilization, including ion exchange or manipulation of oxidation states; and improving understanding of the mobility of technetium once it is treated or remediated (DOE-EM, 2018d).
2. Mercury: Mercury is a challenge for facility D&D and environmental remediation at Oak Ridge and Savannah River. S&T at Oak Ridge is focused on instrumentation for mercury detection in water, soil, sediment, and debris; mercury isotope analysis; remote sensing and quantification of mercury in infrastructure such as equipment and building walls and floors; and Y-12 remediation including in situ soil stabilization and grout formulation for macroencapsulation. S&T at Savannah River is focused on improving understanding of mercury chemistry and speciation in the liquid waste system; treatments that convert organomercury to inorganic mercury to reduce mercury leachability in saltstone, and inorganic mercury to elemental mercury to improve mercury removal in the 2H/3H evaporator (DOE-EM, 2016c).
3. Cesium-137 and strontium-90: Cesium-137 (Cs-137) and Sr-90 are present in tank waste and the environment at Hanford, Idaho, and Savannah River. S&T is focused on advancing the processing and handling of wastes containing these isotopes.
4. Test beds: Test beds are physical or virtual-reality platforms that can be used to demonstrate cleanup tools, processes, and approaches. Physical test beds allow S&T testing in nuclear and industrial facilities and in radioactive and chemically hazardous environments (DOE-EM, 2018b).
5. Enhanced worker safety: S&T is focused on technological advancements in robotics and remote systems to reduce worker injury rates and radiation exposures and to remove workers from hazardous areas.

The Technology Development Office director told the committee that these five priorities were selected by former DOE-EM Assistant Secretary Dr. Monica C. Regalbuto with input from DOE-EM site offices and contractors, coordinated with technical input from the national laboratories.⁶ The committee was not provided with any convincing and/or documented

___________________

⁶ Presentations from Rodrigo V. Rimando, Jr., Director, DOE-EM Technology Development Office, to the committee on December 5, 2017, and October 19, 2018.

evidence showing that these priorities are in fact the five highest technology development needs across the DOE-EM complex.

Incremental Technologies

The Technology Development Office invested about $13 million in FY2018 on incremental technologies to support headquarters-directed and congressionally directed S&T. These investments aim to improve existing cleanup capabilities and processes. Incremental technology development efforts are focused on the following three priorities:

1. Enhancing waste processing and disposition, for example, improving radionuclide separations processes, optimizing waste forms, and identifying waste-stream disposition pathways.
2. Environmental operations to improve the understanding of subsurface contaminant distributions and the physical, chemical, and biological processes that influence contaminant behavior; and to improve long-term monitoring of remediation systems.
3. State-of-the-art tooling to better characterize, stabilize, and remove contamination from high-hazard facilities.

It was not clear to the committee how these priorities were identified.

Basic Scientific Research

The Technology Development Office’s investments in basic scientific research were not separately estimated because they are often included in high-impact and incremental technology investments. Investments in scientific research aim to provide knowledge and capabilities that bear on DOE-EM challenges. DOE-EM stated that this research is conducted in cooperation with DOE’s Office of Science’s Energy Frontier Research Centers, Office of Basic Energy Sciences. However, the committee received a briefing from the senior technical advisor for the Energy Frontier Research Centers and did not find sufficient evidence of any coordination between the two offices on DOE-EM mission-directed basic research.

Other Investments

The Technology Development Office also spent about $10 million in program execution to support S&T subject to headquarters prioritization and congressionally directed S&T. This category of investments includes national laboratory support and technical services as well as collaborations with other government agencies. The Technology Development

Office also funded S&T development to support specific cleanup projects at DOE-EM sites. For example, the office supported the development of the Tank Closure Cesium Removal (TCCR) system for removal of cesium from liquid waste at the Savannah River Site;⁷ the RadPiper robotic system mentioned previously; and the Test Bed Initiative to provide a scale-up demonstration of options for retrieval and treatment of the low-activity portion of tank waste at the Hanford Site.

2.1.2.2 Processes for Selecting Headquarters-Directed S&T

As noted earlier, the Technology Development Office obtains input on S&T needs from DOE-EM sites and national laboratories, particularly the Savannah River National Laboratory, which is DOE-EM’s lead national laboratory. DOE-EM also follows the process outlined in an internal Standing Operating Policies and Procedures document⁸ for soliciting, evaluating, rating, and selecting projects related to international cooperation and collaboration. However, there is not a similar process or document for any other headquarters-directed S&T activities.

The committee found evidence that DOE-EM lacks integration mechanisms for its various S&T activities across the complex. For example, DOE-EM does not maintain inventories of

1. DOE complex-wide technical challenges and near-, mid-, and long-term S&T needs;
2. S&T available within and outside of DOE to address these challenges and needs; or
3. S&T developed and deployed across the complex to address these challenges and needs.

2.1.3 Coordination and Communication of S&T

The committee was informed about the existence of several formal channels between sites and headquarters that DOE-EM could use for communicating and coordinating S&T needs and for sharing of lessons learned. For example:

• There are liaisons between DOE-EM field offices for each site and DOE-EM headquarters; these liaisons can advocate for site technology challenges and needs.

___________________

⁷ Operations for TCCR began in January 2019.

⁸ Information provided by Rodrigo V. Rimando, Jr., Director, Technology Development Office, DOE-EM on January 3, 2019.

• The Energy Facility Contractors Group (EFCOG) can facilitate the sharing of ideas and practices among site contractors and promote collaboration and exchange of lessons learned and best practices in cleanup activities including S&T. The group can also identify S&T needs across the complex and issue relevant reports (see, e.g., EFCOG, 2018).
• The Office of Environmental Management National Laboratory Network is tasked, among other things, with matching DOE-EM site needs with the best available and most relevant expertise in DOE’s national laboratories and advising DOE-EM headquarters and the sites on new technologies. This network is led by the director of the Savannah River National Laboratory (DOE-EM’s lead national laboratory).
• The Chief Engineer Office can provide technology assessments and advice to site offices.

The committee observed that these formal channels are not being used effectively to communicate and coordinate S&T needs across the complex or for sharing of lessons learned. For example, the committee was told that the National Laboratory Network primarily meets via phone conferences about once per month. In the committee’s experience, this frequency and mode of communication is not sufficient for identifying and coordinating challenging technical tasks. The committee was also told that the Chief Engineer has developed a list of technologies utilized at DOE-EM cleanup sites; however, when the committee asked to see this list, it was informed that the list is not current and has not been updated for more than 1 year.

The committee was also told that, during the 30-year existence of DOE-EM’s cleanup program, the cleanup workforce has developed additional ways to communicate and exchange information that are not formally documented. They were also informed that meetings such as the Waste Management Symposia, the RadWaste Summit, and other topical workshops allow for the cleanup workforce to interact and exchange information.

2.2 DOE-EM LEADERSHIP VIEWS ON S&T

In October 2018, the committee received a briefing from DOE-EM’s new and then mostly acting⁹ leadership on its views on the role of S&T

___________________

⁹ At the time of the briefing (October 2018), two of the top three positions in DOE-EM’s leadership were filled by temporary apppoinments. Assistant Secretary for DOE-EM Anne Marie White was sworn into office in March 2018; Mark A. Gilbertson was named Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in August 2018 and became Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in December 2018; Kenneth G. Picha was named Acting Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Field Operations in May 2018. He was replaced by Jeff C. Griffin in November 2018.

in the cleanup program. Mr. Mark A. Gilbertson and Mr. Kenneth G. Picha briefed the committee on behalf of Assistant Secretary Anne Marie White. They noted that the DOE-EM leadership has a mission-completion philosophy, which focuses on reducing DOE-EM’s environmental liability. Mr. Gilbertson also noted that the cleanup industry is mature and has the tools that DOE-EM needs to complete its mission. Therefore, the current DOE-EM leadership is focused on S&T deployment instead of S&T development.

At the time of this writing, DOE-EM was developing an EM-wide strategic plan supported by a set of site-specific, 10-year alternative analyses focused on cleanup completion and site closure. DOE-EM was also exploring contracting and regulatory reform initiatives to improve the cleanup program (DOE-EM, 2018a). These initiatives include the following:

1. Revising the DOE-EM procurement model to provide incentives to contractors to reduce cleanup costs and timelines.
2. Reforming regulations related to
   • Interpretation of the definition of high-level radioactive waste¹⁰ to provide additional disposal pathways for DOE-EM’s tank wastes.
   • Nuclear safety management (10 CFR Part 830; DOE-EHSS, 2018) to improve operational efficiencies while maintaining robust safety performance by revising the process for facility hazard categorization and approval of safety documentation.

According to DOE-EM, the above-listed innovations could drive down cleanup timelines at some sites to 10 years. The committee was not tasked by Congress with assessing the effectiveness of these initiatives or the DOE-EM strategic plan and therefore has not evaluated this DOE-EM assertion.

The committee recognizes that there are nontechnical impediments that add to the high costs and long lifecycles of the cleanup program by preventing

1. A truly risk-informed approach to the cleanup program, for example, by revising definitions of waste to represent actual hazard, rather than defining it by origin, or by defining levels of risk below which human health risks are indistinguishable from background risks; and

___________________

¹⁰ DOE-EM is requesting public comment (DOE-EM, 2018c) on its interpretation of the definition of the statutory term “high-level radioactive waste” as set forth in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. DOE interprets the statutory term to allow some reprocessing wastes to be classified as non-high-level radioactive waste and disposed of in accordance with their radiological characteristics.

2. Identifying and developing alternative disposition pathways for high-level radioactive wastes.

The committee judges that the aggressive pursuit of S&T is essential for reducing cleanup lifecycle costs and timelines. There are technical challenges in the cleanup program that can be addressed only through technology innovation in a broad spectrum of scientific areas (see Chapter 3). The committee therefore judges that S&T must be an integral component of DOE-EM’s strategic plan and its supporting initiatives.

2.3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DOE-EM has successfully cleaned up 91 sites during its 30-year existence. However, much cleanup scope remains at the largest and most complex DOE sites that contain vast quantities of liquid and solid wastes stored in tanks or disposed underground, large volumes of contaminated soil and groundwater, and massive facilities to be decontaminated and demolished or stabilized.

During the course of this study, the committee received different estimates for DOE-EM’s environmental liability ranging from as low as $232 billion (based on DOE-EM’s IPABS estimate) to $377 billion (based on DOE’s FY2018 financial statements) and at least an additional

50 years.¹¹ The committee asked DOE-EM for an explanation on the discrepancy between the different estimates. A DOE-EM staff member¹² noted that there are three categories of costs included in the environmental liability estimate prepared by DOE that are not included in the IPABS estimate. These are the following:

1. Not yet approved baseline change requests for cleanup activities,
2. Placeholder adjustments for activities that are deemed “more likely than not” to occur, and
3. Additional contingencies for funding assumptions.

In addition, DOE-EM’s IPABS estimate is reported in escalated dollars¹³ whereas the environmental liability based on DOE’s financial statements is reported in constant (unescalated) dollars.¹⁴ This makes the actual difference between the two estimates even larger and harder to compare.

Irrespective of the current liability estimate, the fact remains that because of significant technical challenges in the cleanup program, the total environmental liability has grown (GAO, 2017a) and will likely continue to grow in the future. A recent report by GAO identified this National Academies study as an opportunity for DOE-EM to better understand and manage its environmental liability (GAO, 2019).

DOE-EM’s environmental liability estimates reflect current DOE cleanup baselines and do not account for additional cleanup scope likely to be assigned to DOE-EM in the future.¹⁵ The current liability estimates are unreliable for additional reasons. For example, many cleanup projects remain in a planning stage, and DOE-EM does not yet have an understanding of their technical challenges. Furthermore, DOE-EM relies on a disposal path for high-level radioactive waste that does not currently exist.¹⁶ There-

___________________

¹¹ As noted in Section 1.1 of Chapter 1, the recent update on Hanford’s lifecycle cost and time estimates (DOE-RL, 2019) suggests that DOE’s current $377 billion/50-year-plus estimate for complex-wide cleanup costs and timelines could be low by hundreds of billions of dollars and several decades.

¹² Rodrigo V. Rimando, Jr., Director, Technology Development Office, DOE-EM.

¹³ Estimates that use escalated dollars account for cost of money over time. Estimates that use unescalated (also referred to as current or constant dollars) allow comparability without the effect of future inflation.

¹⁴ Written communication between Rodrigo V. Rimando, Jr., Director, Technology Development Office, DOE-EM, and Ourania Kosti, the National Academies, on January 30, 2019.

¹⁵ For example, DOE-EM’s environmental liability could extend to 2095 at Idaho, 2137 at Hanford, and 2165 at Savannah River (Presentation by Rodrigo V. Rimando, Jr., Director, Technology Development Office, DOE-EM, to the committee on December 5, 2017).

¹⁶ Following the termination of the Yucca Mountain repository program, DOE proposed separate repositories for defense high-level and commercial waste. GAO reported that DOE’s new approach excluded the costs and time frames for key activities. See GAO (2017b).

fore, the committee judges that DOE-EM underestimates the true lifecycle costs of the cleanup program, which are likely to continue to increase by billions of dollars in the future.

Although the committee appreciates the challenge of quantifying the lifecycle costs of the cleanup program because of the program’s complexity, the first-of-a-kind projects involved, and untested technologies deployed, it strongly judges that a reliable, independent, and transparent assessment of the cleanup program’s lifecycle costs and schedules is needed to inform Congress, stakeholders, and taxpayers and to identify the cleanup challenges that can be addressed with a robust S&T development program. The committee also judges that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) qualifies to perform this assessment (see Sidebar 2.1), which should include a technical risk and uncertainty analysis for DOE-EM’s cleanup program. An assessment performed by USACE would reveal technology needs to address the identified risks and uncertainties. DOE-EM should use the findings of the independent assessment to set strategic priorities, refocus some of the program’s S&T investments, and make any other necessary adjustments to its S&T development program. Best practices benchmarking for S&T development programs of similar complexity in international nuclear waste cleanup programs or other industries can help DOE-EM make decisions and set performance targets.

DOE-EM relies on site contractors to identify S&T needs and make S&T investments focused on near-term cleanup needs, and it lacks the means to judge whether these site-directed investments are prioritized appropriately¹⁷ and/or are a good return on dollars spent. This site-based approach, which gives site contractors (and the associated site offices) autonomy in selecting technologies to invest in and deploy, consistent with various compliance agreements (federal, state, or other), can work well for achieving short- and mid-term project-specific cleanup goals because site contractors are familiar with the cleanup project and are incentivized to

___________________

¹⁷ For example, the committee is not aware of any S&T investments made by the Richland Operations Office or its contractor toward safer demolition of the Plutonium Finishing Plant despite the reported incidents of radioactive contamination of workers (see Sidebar 3.3 in Chapter 3 for more information) or toward stabilization of the PUREX tunnel that partially collapsed in May 2017.

optimize their fee-earning potential. However, this approach does not work well for tackling the longer-term, complex-wide cleanup challenges that DOE-EM faces (see Chapter 3). In addition, the committee saw evidence that if a site is on track to meet a remedial goal by using a baseline technology, it has little to no interest to explore alternative technologies that could drive down costs and completion schedules.¹⁸

It is the committee’s expert opinion that integrated and headquarters-coordinated S&T management focused on identifying and reducing complex-wide liabilities is better suited to tackling DOE-EM’s longer-term and complex-wide cleanup challenges and ensuring that S&T investments are sufficient and appropriate.

DOE-EM should develop and implement a formal S&T management process in place of its current piecemeal approach if it is to successfully complete its cleanup mission in a timely and cost-effective manner. The committee recommends that DOE-EM develop and implement an S&T management process having the following elements:

1. A priority-ranked inventory of cleanup challenges that can be addressed using existing and new S&T. The cleanup challenges considered should cover DOE-EM’s current and future cleanup scope. The inventory can be rolled up from existing site inventories of cleanup challenges, supplemented by DOE-EM, the National Academies, GAO, and national laboratory reports on DOE-EM cleanup needs and challenges, as well as the results of the assessment from Recommendation A in this report.¹⁹
2. Strategies for identifying breakthrough S&T developed outside of the DOE-EM cleanup program. This will require DOE-EM to reach out more broadly to the domestic and international scientific and engineering communities and to encourage appropriate collaborations among DOE-Office of Science, university/college, industry, and national laboratory researchers. As noted later in this chapter, the committee recommends that the actual development of

___________________

¹⁸ For example, the groundwater remediation goal at Test Area North at the Idaho Site is to meet drinking water standards by 2095. Site representatives informed the committee that the site is on track to meet the remedial goal by using in situ bioremediation at the source of the contaminated groundwater plume; pump and treat in the medial zone of the plume; and natural attenuation in the distal zone of the plume. Therefore, the site is not exploring any alternative technological approaches. Yet, the annual cost estimate for soil and groundwater remediation at the site was $45 million in FY2018 (DOE, 2017). Investments in new and/or alternative technologies today could save tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars over the lifecycle of this cleanup project.

¹⁹ This priority-ranked inventory together with the recommended independent assessment of the environmental liability (Recommendation A in this report) will likely force DOE-EM to reevaluate the challenges it currently considers as its major challenges (see Section 2.1.2.1).

3. breakthrough S&T relevant to DOE-EM’s mission be carried out outside of DOE-EM (see Recommendation C and supporting text).

4. Strategies for efficiently using national laboratory expertise, especially those laboratories that are colocated with large DOE-EM cleanup sites and have extensive technical knowledge about those sites.
5. Strategies for effectively engaging with DOE’s Office of Science and with universities and colleges on S&T development.
6. Peer-review processes for evaluating the S&T management process, projects, and impacts. See additional discussion below.
7. Processes for documenting and sharing S&T outcomes and lessons learned, including problems, successes, and best practices from S&T development and deployment efforts, with DOE-EM and contractor staff at headquarters and sites, regulators, other interested stakeholders, DOE leadership, and Congress.
8. Strategies for encouraging S&T development by site contractors. This could be achieved for example by issuing performance-based cleanup contracts, which define contractor performance expectations in terms of milestones rather than technologies employed; incentivizing site contractors to deploy promising technologies, including the deployment of competing technologies to assess their relative effectiveness; and allowing cleanup contractors to spend a portion of their funding on S&T, similar to the DOE-National Nuclear Security Administration’s Plant-Directed Research and Development and the Department of Defense’s Independent R&D effort.
9. Strategies for using the S&T program to promote the development of future-generation technical workforces to serve the cleanup program.

As DOE-EM develops the S&T management process, it will also benefit from reviewing and adopting good practices from international cleanup programs. The committee saw evidence of an integrated management approach by the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). NDA has developed and implemented a defensible strategic approach to support, using science and technology, the challenges of its cleanup program. NDA performs an annual review²⁰ to determine whether its mission is supported by sufficient and appropriate S&T and makes appropriate adjustments.²¹

___________________

²⁰ This review is performed using Technical Baseline and Underpinning Research and Development documents.

²¹ Although smaller in scale, the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Decommissioning program total investments on S&T are around 3 percent annually across the whole program, with the NDA center investments (equivalent of DOE-EM headquarters) at about 0.3 percent. Briefing from Melanie Brownridge and James McKinney, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, United Kingdom, October 15, 2018.

DOE-EM needs to develop a robust technical capability within headquarters before it implements the committee-recommended S&T management process so that it can become an effective and authoritative manager of its S&T program. Moreover, DOE-EM needs to effectively disseminate information about the S&T program and its contributions toward site cleanup and closure with federal and site staff, regulators, other stakeholders, and Congress. Effective communications can help raise the profile of the S&T program with stakeholders, DOE-EM’s leadership, and Congress and help ensure sustainable funding and support.

Once the S&T management process is implemented, day-to-day activities could be carried out (under appropriate headquarters oversight) by a national laboratory or national laboratory consortium having the appropriate technical expertise. National laboratories would likely provide more programmatic continuity, flexibility, and technical expertise because there is generally less turnover at national laboratories, and laboratories can borrow and/or hire staff relatively quickly to obtain needed expertise and skillsets.

Peer review needs to be infused throughout the S&T management process, including

• A one-time, up-front review of the S&T management process so that it can be vetted and improved before it is implemented. The review group should have expertise in the development, implementation, and management of S&T programs.
• Reviews of individual S&T projects for scientific merit and relevance to DOE-EM’s cleanup challenges, which can be used to prioritize and select projects for funding. The review group should have relevant technical expertise and knowledge of DOE’s cleanup challenges and S&T needs.
• Periodic reviews of S&T outcomes and impacts, which can be used by DOE-EM management to improve the S&T effort. The review group should have expertise in S&T program management and scientific communication.

These reviews could be carried out by a standing committee of national and international subject-matter experts, specifically established by DOE-EM to provide advice to the S&T program, similar to DOE’s Office of Science Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee and Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee. These aforementioned committees include representatives of universities, national laboratories, and industries with subject-matter expertise and operate in accordance to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L. 92-463).

The DOE-EM cleanup program is benefiting today from S&T investments made in the past. For example, much of the work on glass formulations for long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste dates back to the 1980s (Lutze and Ewing, 1988). Similarly, DOE-EM needs to invest in S&T today to address future cleanup challenges. However, S&T has not been a high priority for DOE-EM since at least the early 2000s. Indeed, the headquarters-directed S&T budget has been a miniscule (0.3–0.5 percent)

portion of the annual DOE-EM budget for at least the past decade (see Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1). Even DOE-EM has recognized that “this level of funding for technology is not commensurate with the technical uncertainties and risks associated with the work EM has to accomplish in the next several decades” (DOE-EM, 2016a).

This committee was not tasked with recommending how much DOE-EM should spend on S&T each year and did not perform an industry-wide analysis to benchmark S&T investments. However, it agrees with the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB, 2014) task force’s assessment that “successful completion of the cleanup of the sites likely will require significant new technology” and that “advances in science and technology can provide the means for completing the EM mission more swiftly, more inexpensively, more safely, and more effectively” (SEAB, 2014, p. 3). The SEAB report recommended that DOE-EM increase headquarters-directed investments in S&T to about 3 percent of the annual DOE-EM budget.

The committee judges that an important spinoff benefit of S&T investments is rejuvenation of DOE-EM’s S&T and associated workforce. The committee observed during its visits to DOE-EM sites that the S&T workforce is aging. It received the same message from DOE site personnel. DOE-EM will require at least two future generations of technical workers during the planned 50-year duration of its cleanup program. Continuous commitment to support S&T is one way to build this future workforce.

It was clear to the committee from the briefings it received that DOE-EM’s leadership’s priority is deployment of current technologies, not S&T development (see Section 2.2 in this chapter). Consequently, the committee determined that DOE-EM was not the appropriate organization to manage an S&T program focused on developing breakthrough S&T solutions to DOE-EM’s most difficult cleanup challenges. The committee instead determined that ARPA-E is better qualified to manage such a program in coordination with DOE-EM. Such a program would require substantial new funding from Congress, separate from the DOE-EM budget.

ARPA-E is the DOE entity tasked with promoting and funding research and development of advanced energy technologies (see Sidebar 2.2). It was conceptualized following the National Academies report Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (NAS et al., 2007). ARPA-E has a record of bringing together experts from different technical disciplines and professional communities to think about technical challenges in new and innovative ways. The committee judges that ARPA-E could do the same for the DOE-EM cleanup program.

A recent congressional bill (H.R.5906; ARPA-E Act of 2018) aimed to expand the goals of ARPA-E to include the development of non-energy research and to provide transformative solutions to improve the management,

cleanup, and disposal of low- and high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. The committee identified opportunities that could lead to breakthrough solutions and technologies that could be explored by the ARPA-E-managed breakthrough S&T development program. These opportunities are discussed in Chapter 3.

The committee recommends that DOE-EM should work cooperatively with ARPA-E to identify and implement these breakthrough technologies and solutions in the cleanup program. However, it is DOE-EM’s responsibility to facilitate the transition of promising S&T results into applied

solutions. Therefore, a handoff mechanism from ARPA-E to DOE-EM needs to be developed so that promising breakthrough solutions get deployed in the cleanup program in an effective and timely manner. This cooperative effort can only be impactful if enthusiastically supported by DOE-EM’s leadership.

Independent peer review should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of ARPA-E’s technology development and DOE-EM’s deployment efforts.