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.
A STRATEGIC VISION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGy ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITy RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Committee on Building a Long-Term Environmental Quality Research and Development Program in the Department of Energy Board on Radioactive Waste Management Division on Earth and Life Studies National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Gov- erning Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of En- gineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee respon- sible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. Support for this study was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FC01-99EW59049. All opinions, findings, conclusions, or recom- mendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily re- flect the views of the U.S. Department of Energy. International Standard Book Number 0-309-07560-2 Additional copies of this report are available from: National Academy Press 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Box 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624-6242 (202) 334-3313 Online at: http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine National Research Council The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal govern- ment on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of out- standing engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth 1. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in pro- viding services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. . . . ///
COMMITTEE ON BUILDING A LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GREGORY R. CHOPPIN, Chair, Florida State University, Tallahassee TERESA FRYBERGER,* Vice-Chair, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York DAVID E. ADELMAN, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C. RADFORD BYERLY, JR., Independent Consultant, Boulder, Colorado WILLIAM L. FRIEND, Bechtel Group, Inc. (retired), McLean, Virginia THOMAS ISMCS, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California JAMES H. JOHNSON, JR., Howard University, Washington, D.C. CHARLES KOLSTAD, University of California, Santa Barbara C. EDWARD LORENZ, E.l. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (retired), Wilmington, Delaware MICHAEL MENKE, Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, California WARREN MILLER, JR., Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired), New Mexico VICTORIA TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida Staff GREGORY H. SYMMES, Study Director SUSAN B. MOCKLER, Research Associate LATRICIA C. BAILEY, Senior Project Assistant SUZANNE N. PESSOTTO, Project Assistant * Recused herself from committee activities in November 2000 and resigned from committee in January 2001 after accepting a management position within the Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management. lV
BOARD ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT JOHN F. AHEARNE, Chair, Sigma Xi and Duke University, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina CHARLES MCCOMBIE, Vice-Chair, Consultant, Gipf-Obertnck, Switzerland ROBERT M. BERNERO, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (retired), Gaithersburg, Maryland ROBERT J. BUDNITZ, Future Resources Associates, Inc., Berkeley, California GREGORY R. CHOPPIN, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida RODNEY EWING, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor JAMES H. JOHNSON, JR., Howard University, Washington, D.C. ROGER E. KASPERSON, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden NIKOLAY LAVEROV, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow JANE C. S. LONG, Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno ALEXANDER MACLACHLAN, E.l. DuPont de Nemours & Company (retired), Wilmington, Delaware WILLIAM A. MILLS, Oak Ridge Associated Universities (retired), Olney, Maryland MARTIN J. STEINDLER, Argonne National Laboratory (retired), Downers Grove, Illinois ATSUYUKI SUZUKI, University of Tokyo, Japan JOHN J. TAYLOR, Electric Power Research Institute (retired), Palo Alto, California VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL, Landers and Parsons, Tallahassee, Florida Staff KEVIN D. CROWLEY, Director MICAH D. LOWENTHAL, Staff Officer BARBARA PASTINA, Staff Officer GREGORY H. SYMMES, Senior Staff Officer JOHN R. WILEY, Senior Staff Officer SUSAN B. MOCKLER, Research Associate DARLA J. THOMPSON, Senior Project AssistanVResearch Assistant TONI GREENLEAF, Administrative Associate LATRICIA C. BAILEY, Senior Project Assistant LAURA D. LLANOS, Senior Project Assistant ANGELA R. TAYLOR, Senior Project Assistant JAMES YATES, JR., Office Assistant v
Preface The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for addressing a host of environmental problems associated with radioactive, hazard- ous, and mixed low-level wastes, nuclear materials, spent nuclear fuels, and contaminated lands, waters, and buildings, at over a hundred sites throughout the United States. DOE estimates that the nation will spend over $200 billion to remediate, manage, and dispose of these wastes and contaminated media over the next 70 years (DOE, 2000e). Even after many contaminated sites have been "cleaned up" in accordance with applicable regulations, residual risks to human health and the envi- ronment will remain at most DOE sites for centuries, if not millennia, and therefore will require some form of long-term stewardship (DOE, 1999a; NRC, 2000a). DOE currently spends approximately $6.7 billion a year on activities to manage and dispose of wastes and contaminated media throughout the DOE complex (see Sidebar 2.1 for description of the DOE complex). These activities are termed DOE's Environmental Quality (EQ) business line.2 Approximately 4 percent of DOE's EQ business line budget is spent on research and development (R&D) activities to improve scientific un- derstanding and develop new approaches to address EQ problems. Since 1998, DOE has referred to these activities as its EQ R&D portfolio. The first comprehensive description of the portfolio was published in February 2000 (DOE, 2000b). In compiling this description, DOE recog- nized that its EQ R&D portfolio "may be under invested to sustain achievement of existing mission objectives beyond the near term, i.e., ' The committee refers to these diverse types of waste, spent fuels, nuclear materials, and contaminated media collectively as "DOE wastes and contaminated media" (see Side- bar 1.1 ). 2 EQ is one of DOE's four programmatic business lines. The other three programmatic business lines are Energy Resources, National Nuclear Security, and Science (see discus- sion in Chapter 1). The four programmatic business lines are supported by a corporate management function, which DOE's most recent strategic plan refers to as a fifth business line (DOE, 2000fl. . . vll
viii A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D beyond 2006" (DOE, 2000b, p. Xiii).3 This recognition prompted the Un- der Secretary of DOE to ask the National Academies' National Research Council (NRC) to provide advice on how DOE's EQ R&D portfolio could broaden its current short-term focus to include a more long-term, strate- . . 91C view. The committee was asked to address the following four questions, focusing on post-2006 R&D: 1. In the context of EQ strategic goals and mission objectives, what criteria should be used to evaluate the adequacy of the portfolio? 2. Using these criteria, what should be the principal elements of the portfolio? 3. Should the portfolio be designed to address environmental problems outside DOE (e.g., Department of Defense, Russia) that are related to EQ strategic goals? 4. How to determine the level of future investments in EQ R&D? These questions differ from many NRC task statements in that they focus on high-level R&D management issues rather than detailed ques- tions about a specific scientific or technical issue. Taken together, the answers to these four questions constitute the committee's views of how DOE's EQ R&D efforts can be made more effective by focusing more explicitly on DOE's most challenging EQ problems, i.e., a "strategic vi- sion for DOE EQ R&D." The task statement also is unusual for the NRC because it asks for advice related to R&D funding levels. In particular, the committee was asked to provide advice on how to determine the level of future EQ R&D investments. It is important to recognize, how- ever, that the committee was not asked to recommend a level of funding, nor to comment on whether the current level is too high or too low. The task did not call on the committee to conduct a detailed evalua- tion of the existing EQ R&D portfolio. Such an analysis was conducted last year by DOE's Strategic Laboratory Council (referred to throughout the report as the "adequacy analysis" and summarized in Appendix C). This report complements and builds on the results of the adequacy analysis and also relies strongly on recent analyses of parts of the EQ R&D portfolio that have been carried out by other NRC committees (see annotated bibliography in Appendix F) and other review groups. This study could not have been completed without the assistance of many individuals and organizations. The committee wishes to thank the many DOE staff members in the Office of Environmental Management; the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management; the Office of Nu- 3 The portfolio's short-term emphasis has been confirmed by two subsequent analyses of DOE's EQ R&D portfolio (DOE, 2000g,h).
Preface lX clear Energy, Science and Technology; and the Under Secretary's office for their active participation in committee meetings and in responding to requests for information. The committee is especially grateful to Gerald Boyd, who served as DOE's primary contact for this study, and his staff, particularly Mark Gilbertson, Jef Walker, Ker-Chi Chang, and Lana Nich- ols. The committee expresses its deep appreciation to everyone who participated in the committee's two-day workshop in August 2000 (see Appendix B). The diverse mix of participants from DOE (headquarters and the sites), other agencies, national laboratories, academia, non- governmental organizations, and the private sector contributed to lively discussions that provided great insights into the committee's task. The committee is grateful to speakers Jack Gibbons, David Heyman, James Owendoff, and Ivan Itkin, who helped set the stage for the workshop dis- cussions. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC Report Review Committee. The pur- pose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical com- ments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional stan- dards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remains confi- dential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: John F. Ahearne, Sigma Xi and Duke University John Applegate, Indiana University School of Law Allen G. Croff, Oak Ridge National Laboratory James Economy, University of Illinois John Fischer, U.S. Geological Survey (retired) John C. Fountain, State University of New York at Buffalo Thomas Leschine, University of Washington Alexander MacLachlan, E.l. DuPont de Nemours & Company (retired) John Pendergrass, Environmental Law Institute Although the reviewers listed above have provided many construc- tive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Mi- chael Kavanaugh (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.) and Paul Barton (U.S. Geologi- cal Survey, retired). Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was car-
x A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D ried out in accordance with NRC procedures and that all review com- ments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the NRC. Finally, the committee thanks the NRC staff who assisted the com- mittee throughout the study. Latricia Bailey provided very strong admin- istrative support in all phases of the study, especially during committee meetings and in the preparation of the report. Suzanne Pessotto was instrumental in ensuring the success of the committee's summer work- shop by doing an exceptional job handling all of the logistical challenges. Susan Mockler provided research support and prepared meeting min- utes. Jennifer Nyman, a summer intern with the Board on Radioactive Waste Management, assisted in information gathering activities early in the study. Kevin Crowley, director of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management, provided helpful strategic advice to the committee. Greg- ory Symmes, the study director, was of invaluable assistance to the committee in preparation for and during the workshop and the other meetings and in turning committee members' writing into a cohesive and effective report. Gregory R. Choppin Chair
Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction DOE's R&D Portfolio Process, 16 Statement of Task, 17 Study Process, 20 Organization of Report, 21 1 12 2 The Department of Energy's Environmental Quality Mission 23 DOE's EQ Responsibilities, 23 EQ Budget and R&D Funding, 31 Scope of DOE's EQ Mission, 33 3 A Long-Term Vision for Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development Important Functions of an Effective EQ R&D Portfolio, 40 Criteria to Evaluate the Adequacy of the EQ R&D Portfolio, 60 Principal Elements of an Effective EQ R&D Portfolio, 61 Extending the EQ R&D Portfolio Beyond DOE, 69 Meeting DOE's Long-Term EQ R&D Needs, 69 4 Achieving and Maintaining the Long Term Vision for Environmental Quality Research and Development R&D Portfolio Management Process, 72 Institutional Mechanisms, 82 5 The Level of Investment in Department of Energy Environmental Quality Research and Development Defining the Goals and Objectives of the EQ Mission, 95 Balancing R&D Investments with Other Important EQ Needs, 96 Determining an Appropriate Level of R&D Investment, 98 Conclusion, 107 xl 40 71 93
X11 References Appendixes A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members, 1 13 B Participants List and Agenda for August Workshop, 1 18 C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's Environmental Quality Research and Development Portfolio, 124 D Descriptions of DOE's Environmental Quality Technical Categories, 143 Descriptions of Related Research and Development Programs, 149 Annotated Bibliography of Selected Recent National Research Council Reports, 160 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations, 169 108
