|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. 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 141
10
Improving S&T Program Effectiveness
The statement of task for this study (see Chapter 1 ) called for the
committee to review the Integration Project's science and technology
(S&T) program and recommend ways to improve its technical merit and
relevance to cleanup decisions at Hanford and other Department of
Energy (DOE) sites. Much of this task has been accomplished in
Chapters 5 through 9, which review the S&T projects within the seven
technical program elements. This concluding chapter is structured around
a set of findings and recommendations that are offered to improve overall
program effectiveness.
Finding: There is a long-tenn and continuing need for
S&T to support cleanup and stewardship of the
Hanford Site.
As discussed in Chapter 1, environmental cleanup at Hanford is
slated to last until at least 2046 and to cost upward of $85 billion (DOE,
199Be).' Moreover, after this active phase of cleanup is complete, the
federal government's stewardship responsibilities will last for centuries.
Hanford cleanup schedules are being driven by regulatory agreements
and decisions that are not necessarily compatible with S&T time lines.
This has led to S&T prioritization that may be inappropriate from a
research or process development perspective.
DOE, its regulators, and the public face some hard truths about
Hanford Site cleanup: the knowledge and technology to address the most
difficult problems at the site do not yet exist. Consequently, much of the
waste and contamination that is now in the subsurface, especially in the
200 Area, will very likely remain there for the foreseeable future. In
addition, completion of Hanford cleanup could add substantially to this
contamination, for example, during retrieval of tank waste. Currently, the
range of available end-state, cleanup, containment, and monitoring
options is greatly limited because of these knowledge and technology
gaps. Advances in knowledge and technology will not be possible without
continuing investments in S&T.
Given the long lead times for many of the planned end-state and
cleanup decisions at the Hanford Site, there is an opportunity now to
undertake S&T that could substantially advance DOE's capabilities to
address the site's most difficult waste and contamination problems,
Life-cycle costs fully escalated to year of expenditure. These are DOE
estimates and have not been reviewed or validated by the committee.
141
OCR for page 142
142
Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup
especially for subsurface characterization, remediation, long-term
containment, and monitoring (see Chapters 5 through 9~. Many of these
advances will be enabled by scientific discoveries2 outside DOE that will
undoubtedly occur over those same time spans. Continuing investments
in S&T by DOE can help ensure that future cleanup and stewardship
programs can take full advantage of such discoveries.
The Integration Project has the potential to provide much of S&T
needed to advance the Hanford cleanup program over the coming
decades. Based on the planning documents reviewed by the committee,
however, it is not clear whether DOE plans to maintain this project beyond
2004 (e.g., Table 3.1~. Clearly, a long-term commitment by DOE to S&T
at Hanford will be essential for the future success of the site's cleanup
and stewardship efforts.
Finding: Given the technical and organizational
complexity of the task, the Integration Project has
made a good start in creating an S&T roadmap,
defining and initiating an SOT program, and fulfilling
the promise of its mission.
Although the committee has identified weaknesses in the S&T
program, as noted throughout this report, the committee is impressed that
the Integration Project has, over the short period of its existence, been
able to initiate S&T work on sensible, high-priority projects in spite of
numerous organizational and funding challenges. As discussed in
Chapters 2 and 3, the Integration Project's task to provide S&T for site
cleanup decisions is complicated by the number of organizations
involved, the lack of clear authority and ownership, the extensive
coordination requirements, and the lack of clearly defined site futures and
cleanup decisions. The Integration Project comprises staff from several
major Hanford contractor organizations and two DOE offices. Much of its
work is being carried out in coordination with five core projects at Hanford
and with the Environmental Management Science Program (EMSP),
which is operated out of DOE Headquarters. Further, the Integration
Project controls a small fraction of the S&T funding that supports its
mission (Table 3.1 ) and does not have authority over the other parties
operating the site or performing other S&T-related activities. Despite of
these organizational obstacles, work is getting done.
As discussed elsewhere in this chapter, S&T priorities and
activities ideally would be determined through a top-down framework in
which high-level goals in this case, site end states and the key cleanup
2The spectacular advances that have occurred since the second world war in
information, communication, computation, bioengineering, and materials S&T
should continue and may even accelerate in the decades ahead.
OCR for page 143
Improving S&T Program Effectiveness
143
decisions needed to achieve them are used to set S&T priorities and
schedules. Unfortunately, this framework was not in place prior to the
establishment of the Integration Project. Instead, the S&T program was
established to meet incompletely defined cleanup goals and schedules,
with no authority to compel cooperation from other organizations at the
site on which the project was superimposed (see Chapter 3) and with no
guarantee of adequate or sustained funding levels.
Against the background of these constraints, the Integration
Project has created and begun implementation of S&T activities that,
taken as a whole, address some of the important contamination problems
at the site. Although the current research agenda does not map against a
defined set of information needs for meeting future site cleanup goals and
technical details on many of the research projects are lacking, the
Integration Project does appear to have developed a research portfolio
that focuses on some of the important knowledge gaps at the site.
The committee believes that there are at least two reasons for the
Integration Project's Initial success in executing its S&T program despite
these obstacles. First, the Integration Project appears to have effective
leadership from both DOE and site contractor organizations.3 The staff
with which the committee had regular contact during its study, particularly
the project managers,4 were competent and enthusiastic, appeared to
have instilled a sense of mission within the Integration Project staff, and
also appeared to have established cooperative working relationships with
the other entities at the site that are crucial to the project's success.
Indeed, the Integration Project appears to have had some success In
breaking through the organizational barriers at Hanford to encourage a
cooperative atmosphere in which staff identify with projects rather than
contractor organizations.
Second, the Integration Project appears, at present, to have the
support of DOE Headquarters and Hanford Site management. For
example, DOE Headquarters has provided additional direct financial
support to the Integration project through the EMSP, including $1 million
to support workshops to bring principal investigators to Hanford to interact
with problem holders (see Chapter 3~.
Finding: Although the S&T program has made a good
start, its success is by no means guaranteed.
Improvements are needed in the processes used to
3This statement is based on the committee's interactions with Integration
Project management and staff at its six information-gathering meetings as well as
limited interactions by telephone and e-mail outside of those meetings.
4Particularly Mike Thompson (DOE), Michael Graham (Bechtel Hanford, Inc.),
and Mark Freshley and John Zachara (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory).
OCR for page 144
144
Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup
identify S&T priorities and to select, support, and
manage SOT projects.
The Hanford remediation and stewardship project is one of the
most complex and largest environmental projects ever undertaken. It
involves numerous interacting cleanup projects planned over a period of
about five decades, each of which will potentially have numerous and
distinct S&T needs. In fact, the number of identified S&T needs is in the
thousands (DOE, 2000b).5 6 Only a small fraction of these needs are
being pursued currently under the Integration Project S&T program or
other programs such as the EMSP, largely due to time and funding
constraints.
Therefore, a prioritization system is needed to identify those
knowledge gaps that, if addressed successfully, could best advance the
Hanford cleanup effort. Although some prioritization takes place every
year at budget time and other processes exist to screen site needs on a
regular basis,7 there does not appear to be a formal and uniform
prioritization system in place with specific criteria or guidelines that assign
every S&T task at Hanford a priority ranking or number. This is true as
well for the Integration Project S&T program. Given the lack of well-
defined end states and cleanup decisions to be made at the site, the
multiple organizations involved, and funding constraints, it is essential that
an effective prioritization system be implemented to maximize the
effectiveness of the S&T effort.
Recent efforts on the part of Hanford Site management to better
define end states (DOE, 2000i) represent, in the committee's view, a
welcome step forward in the cleanup program. Nevertheless, in the
absence of well-defined end states, the Hanford cleanup program
appears to operate on the philosophy that Is better to take a step in
approximately the right direction than to know exactly where it is going.
The S&T program appears to be operating under the same philosophy.
This step-at-a-time approach to S&T may be useful during the early
stages of cleanup when major knowledge gaps are easier to identify, but
this approach probably will not work as well as the cleanup program
matures and a long-term stewardship program is initiated and
5The committee has not reviewed all of these needs to determine their
relevance to site remediation or cleanup decisions.
6Hanford is developing another report entitled Hanford Site Cleanup:
Challenges and Opportunities for Science and Technology that may contain
additional needs. This report had not been released by the time the committee's
report went to review, and the committee has not had an opportunity to review it.
7For example, the Hanford Site Technology Coordination Group collects and
screens the S&T needs before they are sent to DOE Headquarters for selective
contract awards.
OCR for page 145
Improving S&T Program Effectiveness
implemented. In particular, this approach will make it difficult to uncover
long-term research needs, which are not easily identified, even in well-
p/anned programs.
The guiding principles for a useful S&T prioritization system are
fairly straightforward: The S&T performed in support of Hanford cleanup
should be relevant, should examine the best options of applicable
alternatives, and should be cost-effective. At least three conditions must
be satisfied to ensure that these requirements are met:
145
1. the critical decisions required to complete site cleanup must be
defined;
2. the gaps in knowledge required to support such decisions must
be identified; and
3. candidate S&T projects must be designed specifically to fill the
identified knowledge gaps.
Once identified, of course, projects must be reviewed periodically to
ensure that they continue to be applicable and are making appropriate
progress. These points are addressed in more detail elsewhere in this
chapter.
One of the most important criteria to be used in the prioritization
system is the degree to which the S&T project contributes to the reduction
in overall environmental risk and uncertainty (Sidebar 10.1 ) of a particular
decision. In some S&T projects, uncertainty is the dominant issue. The
degree to which the outcome of a particular S&T project is likely to reduce
overall uncertainty must also be coupled with an economic analysis that
compares the relative cost of the projects with the cost of proceeding with
existing knowledge or the cost of reaching an incorrect decision if the
project is not conducted. In addition to the uncertainties regarding the site
and the future decisions that will be made with respect to site
environmental risks, there are also technical risks with any individual S&T
research activity or with portfolios of S&T activities. The fact that the
degree of success of S&T activities is uncertain suggests that such
project risks also be considered in the assignment of S&T priorities. This
will facilitate determination of a project's cost-effectiveness.
The process described above can be applied in a straightforward
manner when all of the cleanup decisions and data gaps have been
predefined. When this is not the case, the process frequently can be
applied in an iterative fashion. Intermediate cleanup goals and end states
can serve as the basis for defining S&T needs, at least to support near-
term work. As more knowledge is gained, the decision logic can be
refined so that previously unrecognized data gaps may become apparent
and the relative importance of previously identified data gaps may
change. The S&T program can be refocused accordingly.
OCR for page 146
146
S. ~ : ~ ~ . ~ ... . .... . . ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~.. ~ ~ .. . ~ ... . ~ ~ ~....
~- l~v=D^- .u..~-~.un.ce-ttal.O.~...
Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup
. :.;. : :;;~;; ~:.::-un£en ~ ty ~ ~¢ ~ ~ s:~ ~;~ k- f: : ::::;-:;~;:; . --;: ::
::; :;-; ;~;;;;~;~:;~:;ko ~edne; as to what th ; .~:
:~ .. :. -a-uaritl.tati.ve -~.RC. ~. 9~94bl
2 2ln- the~ f~mework. of ~ risk man.anement- -it' ;s .~.~.l-- -t- ~.thi -~k~- ' h ' Il-t, ~'~
~g = r
~ terms' ~. .ara..u's'ed. oRen. tn~ describe..the~ nh~'rQl'h"'h-~ur~r '' ~ th' -~' '-~- ~.
:~pmeesses; phe:oomena o~f intemst;:and:the:com:oon ts. ubs tems.-
- an`d sy~tems lnvoJ~ed~ar,~::-to calculate associa~d risks-and ~ ~ 0
:un"dainties.
The~ :~ van~s wun~w d~. when a
is~lnhi rentjto ~tl ~b easu jjlh~,ent pr<=ess. Measurement uncertainty Qr
the overall unceda'n~ ~n the value ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~
: f e pararne er of interest re resents a t ~ : ~ -
p proper y : la e:
voumeofrraterial:or~aprpperty ha vares ertme.e i a : the
value OT such a parameter also ~w~ll be:~sylt~lect~td~samplino error and ~
var~ess~pat~a'iy~temporally over the~olumeo t~ i d--~---~ ~-~-~
:::: Samolinn:e~rderives~m:~:ed :: i 1 ~io :ota ~
t_~ 1~ -~' ~ ~ ~
-~ of ':r~te nest, .the ~des.~.~.n~of.the.a~annement.oF..sam.~les. coll-e.cted. and~ . .-~
:~
he numt~er oT samples cpil ncedainty contributed by these
sources can son~edmes be~
--; Unceda~nty'nt~due dby' k k ~ ~ ee b diffi -~t :: ::
understan t h~ ' h w e
~ ~em Se ~ ~ ~ ~ be n~ua,J,
OCR for page 147
Improving S&T Program Effectiveness
~ :flow'thro.~-nh~-th'e~vadose. zo,n;e,Jlis~.inc.'ormct'~' ' ' ' ' ' I 'I ' i ' ' "fin '
147
- ~ .~ . ~
i.:. :,~,.:.
-.. . ....
..~ ....~..-,.
... A.....
~ ~~ ~.-~. :. : -:-: For~environm-en~l.-~.mble~m.s,..~.unc ~ -into -phi al-l ~::der.~s-tfflm ~ If.
~~ ~several..~soume~s~(~a~p.el.. -~-no..~..~a.rson,:.:.zuu.,~..~.~. ~~....~.
.:'-.' ..~ . ~~.n~=lnti~P2 ' I' ~~ ' ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~1~ ELI t i::: ~::::~::~
-and :.:leveis~con~mihan~..andtheir:~ anti : thtim~; ~:~:~
U~nGe anises msulb.ng~kom~ inad~equati~ model~n~g-.~.ph~.c I: ~:-
processes a.nd:.phenom.ena,.~. simplifying~:~-.assumption.s . :or.~.incom~Plete.. --.~.:..:....;:-~
degcripti.o-n. s of the system - s I: ~ I:.
:-: -. un.cedain.ti~es.i ~
measumment:or i ~ : :-:a t :~ :iti ,: Aft:
. and. soloing distortions.,. .:.
.~ ~ :- . -I. I.: - ~.~ unceda~n.ties~ ::~ :i ~ ;~ I i . :li i -: ~ :::-;:;:;;: :
incomol~e. und-erstandin. g. of the :a ~ o
'- . ~r~i1m~ilPt~nplC= '~'nc~rt;~intv ~;whi£:h a~ounts~.;:~r- Whether all;~of ~ ;:;
-the- siar, lilcant onenom.er~a....~mce.s..ses,~..~.ln.lera~cilonst coup'-'ngs' . -ape ......
Feints are considered. - ~~ ~ - i; ;; -I; i; ~;;~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~
-~Oncethese.~v'arioUs.~.ncena.i.n.t~es~.nave~.Deen~.oeterm.Inea- ~.~r,~ey~.m~us~;..De:....
co~mbinedinto-=tim~e~ ~ i i ~ ~j fia ~ &
The committee did not observe the direct use of this risk- and
uncertainty-based prioritization approach in the Integration Project S&T
program. The Integration Project has given relatively greater priority and
funding to S&T on the vadose zone over the other technical elements,
presumably in recognition of the greater uncertainties in vadose zone
contamination and fate and transport processes. As noted elsewhere in
this report, the committee concurs with this prioritization. The committee
believes that it would be useful, in an effort of this size and complexity, to
systematically seek to identify the uncertainties that are most important to
end-state and cleanup decisions at the site and to identify and select S&T
projects that would most reduce those uncertainties to enable sound
decisions to be made. To this end, systems-based analyses such as the
System Assessment Capability (SAC) could be a useful tool for setting
research priorities in the S&T program.
Recommendation: The Integration Project should
develop and implement a system for planning and
prioritizing its S&T activities to provide the
information that Hanford Site management will need
OCR for page 148
OCR for page 150
OCR for page 151
OCR for page 152
OCR for page 153
Representative terms from entire chapter:
hanford site
148
Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup
to mal
Improving S&T Program Effectiveness
149
.... .. ... . ......... .. ............. ............. .............. ... .. ... ... ..
E~:~S~lD 3AR~-1~.2:'~"S~&T ~ anNl-nD and ~rlori~tiZatlon logo So'
.~ ':.'~ ' -.'.''' Rever~l.nl2annin'''''t I a il b-le-t a Beth - oesion--or--ws~- --
effective S&T programs to provide~m.e51~and relevant InTonnation ~
andlan :: sedecsions One ' - - :
(DQO' Process is aescrib ash ~these, the:Data-QualiEV:~hfie~ivas:
-- The DQO process: ; - ,: :i p :a hg: 1: ;
- facilitate- m;ore Orient ~ i i ;; e :
inv-e'sti"g'a2li'~ni' : ' ' ' ' ;~ ' ' 'j''j ''' ' i' :' ' i' ' ' '' ''' ''"'-I
Eon errors-. The-pr i Ma
~-.s'ystemadc..ap~pr''oa~2to''.'prab.le.2''''- i - '
~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ -- - ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~- . ~ ~ . . ~ .~ ~ -~ . . - - ~. ~ . ~ ~. .-.- ~ - - - ~
envimnmental pmie~ where it is-~quently necessa~-:to m ~e :
. ~ , . . . . . . .. ~ ... .. _ ... ~ .... ~ .
-~-~dec~s~ons~n-t '~e- aceo ~su ~stan ~a uncedainty- ~ ~ --~994b).---~ ~ -~
~'~ "' ~-'D-l~rinn -' i'n'nina '"Dl~ In 1rj ~ e t 1 I :l ti
~Iprima~ question fliat-must be e~raluate~d ~'s whether reu:uc~ng ~ ~ ~-~
unCedainly will actUa31y i ~i
'6e-cigion..D-ependi'ng- '' i ' i ' '' ' i i i
~d'et'' rmin~ed and the'n.atur i j i 'i ol i ~ ~
~ . ~. ~ ~. ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~. . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . ~ . .
~ ~t 1~os~e~..unCer :a~n les.~..~.~..o ..a. ways.~f oce ~e o.ec~s.l.o.n--~rmr. - n.-some --
:~c ~ases,~the~c DSt to~;reduce~Lle ~nce=Intyml y~exceedthe~cost of
~m~k ~n~n~ ~n~.nc~rre~-~dec's.~.o.n ~n th.e.~rs.t Dlace ~.The. DQO or.~cess~.~'s ~:- ~
..~.d.es~'g.ned..to...~ plan.ner.s..~-anomss..~. ese..'ssues.-.~tn. al~.~ney can~ ~......
i denti~:the: most-.2 'wsL'e~.~,.'i ' i '; ~ :
. .w.im awe.ptable . accum~ ,,.~,: : ~
2 :,',:: 2The,:'pr~.c''ess' its' 1~"" a' i' ts' ~' ':'~l'! 'i'n 5t pS:, 0-~ ~ ~ ~: ~
Pv~''tnd--in.a Inai=' s i S e i
~: appr..oach :~r.so.lvin, g :a,'..-.~..p~bleffl"..~.~9,~,.,~.~m diati ~ a ~site), ~t - ' -~t - --
necessary~tb~defin~ethat~pi~lemconc~sely.~tIs;thennecessarytd
- reduce ~e-pr~blem:to-a -ser~e, of ne or mo~ dec'
ha eiine how s w~ll tee mod iedto eke t iscurn~ntstac o
a fUture, desired state. To ~e extent that~options ex~st ~these too ~;
sh-ouid. be. ide6tified.... i ' i .11 ... i I ' ' :
- ~ev~aluabon ~ da~:' ~ich : g :e
.~ ~. ~ ~-~ -~ ~. ~. ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ .~.~ ~.~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . -~ ~ ~
:notavailable~or:of:good:quality then ~t d/~::( :: ;S&T: ~ e~3~ :
may~be required to fi:ll tlie;id~enti~fied~data~gaps. ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --
- -~ : It ~s then: necessa~ ~--evaluate the- quai~ty-(accu~-and ~ :~
rec~s~an ofthe~data~experdedtoba gene ed rom tine: su y o
~nre i whe her hevwillbesuffr.ietit ~fill~the:tarrJeteddata~nans
.tdequatey Fiir~dlly,theu h ~ v nsorRc measure oT
the probabilit~i 4} succew mu~t be we gh~ ~a nst alternate
:~-obtain:inn the date,: t ~ - :i - dy:is t- ~ ti
150
Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup
By;explici y a dressing the t~ar~dling at uncertainty arid ie cost
I trad - Of age n da n t on i ts ~ control, the DQO p recess cou id it used I
appropriate y substantialyimprove the r tion end d igntf5&T
restudies that are performed In~support Of de iiiiiap 3ff6rts~ at Hanfer3. Of ~ ~ I
... I .... - ~ . - ~ - ~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ . ~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . - ~ ~ ~ ~ - . - .. :. . - .... ... .. . ~ ~ - . - - . . . . . I ~ ~ . ~ - ~ ~ . ~
.--. '=~me, the-.~ili~'.~;the.;:DQO.p~m'c'es:s ah0'-: ' ' ' ':S~ pi' ' ' i . ''to' i '; ' ' -i
.''w2~ll; -be.'only' as.g'o' I'd;'
I I . ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ .. ~ ~ At .... ~ ~ .. : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ................... ~~
are not off-iehr He t ls,especially appli irkrts such I
l ad Hari.fnr.dl art the will~requ~ire~a gUeat:~refUl sloughs Andes
end If they eat to be applied surly ~ ~ ~ -if- --
The DQO--anoma
ppprOychettinjg;gA. neex.ceN RC `'sgg9 soon of other s~tems-based - - - i
2. This documentation must be evaluated to ensure that the
projects selected for funding are of high technical quality and are likely to
meet S&T goals.
As noted in numerous places in this report, many of the current
and planned S&T projects reviewed by the committee were poorly
documented. Documentation on project objectives, technical study
designs, work plans, and work products was frequently cryptic or
unavailable.9 Work schedules and cost information, when provided,
generally were not useful for determining whether sufficient funding and
time were being allowed for project objectives to be met.
There were, however, some clear exceptions to these
generalizations. The EMSP projects, for example, were well documented,
as were some of the projects supported under the Vaclose Zone
Technical Element, particularly the vadose zone transport field studies
(see Chapter 6~.
Because of the lack of documentation, many of the individual S&T
projects were unreviewable by the committee. There was no basis to
determine why some projects were included in the S&T roadmap or
whether they would, if funded, meet the stated S&T goals. The committee
believes that such projects would also be very difficult to manage for the
same reasons.
Recommendation: The Integration Project should
develop and implement guidelines for documenting
9The committee requested in writing the documentation for the S&T projects
and was informed in writing that such documentation existed only for a small
number of projects.
Improving S&T Program Effectiveness
the objectives, technical study designs, work plans,
work products, work schedules, and costs for its S&T
projects. To this end, the Integration Project should
consider and adapt, as appropriate, guidelines from
other S&T programs such as the Environmental
Management Science Program.
151
As noted in Chapters 1 and 3 of this report, one of the primary
objectives of the Integration Project is to "reestablish an independent
technical peer review' of the work under its purview. The work of this
committee and the Integration Project Expert Panel (see Chapter 3) are
manifestations of DOE's commitment to this objective. Other examples of
this commitment include DOE-sponsored peer review (through DOE
Headquarters) of EMSP projects supported under the Vadose Zone,
Monitoring, and Remediation Technical Elements (see Chapters 6 and 9),
as well as a peer review of the Hanford Site groundwater model (Gorelick
et al., 1999~.
The committee agrees with DOE that peer review should be an
essential element of the Integration Project. Peer review can provide
independent assessments of the technical merit and relevance of the
proposed work, an opportunity for midcourse adjustments in project plans
and/or experiments, and an assessment of the quality of the work that has
been completed. Peer review also can provide valuable alternate
perspectives to the project and can be an efficient means of alerting
project staff to research efforts and progress outside DOE.~°
Although DOE is committed in principle to peer review of
Integration Project S&T, it is too early in the project to determine exactly
how such reviews will be implemented, especially for individual projects.
The committee believes that there is likely to be a benefit to the
Integration Project if peer review is applied in all aspects of the S&T
program.
Recommendation: Peer reviews should be used for
program prioritization, selection of S&T projects to
4°See also the recommendation of peer review of vadose zone transport field
studies in Chapter 6.
Projects supported by DOE Headquarters, for example the EMSP and other
Office of Science and Technology projects, are routinely selected for funding on
the basis of peer review.
42A peer review is a documented, critical review performed by ~peers" (i.e.,
persons having technical expertise in part or all of the subject matter to be
reviewed) who are independent of the work being reviewed. The peer's
independence from the work being reviewed means that the peer was not
involved as a participant, supervisor, or adviser in the work being reviewed and, to
the extent practical, has sufficient freedom from funding considerations to ensure
152
Science and Technology for Environmental Cleanup
be funded, and periodic assessments of multIyear
projects to ensure that they continue to meet
program objectives. To this end, Integration Project
should consider and adapt, as appropriate,
guidelines from other SOT programs—for example,
DOE's Office of Science, DOE's Environmental
Management Science Program, and the National
Science Foundation.
Of course, once S&T projects are reviewed and selected, funding
must be provided to carry out the proposed work. At present, the
Integration Project funding has not been sufficient to support the selected
projects due to reductions in planned budgets (see Table 3.1~. In
response to a question from the committee about the impact of funding
reduction on the S&T program in fiscal year 2001, the Integration Project
stated that
[miore than 50 percent of the research planned will not
be done as planned. This shortfall will impact the duration
of the S&T effort and what will eventually be
accomplished. Of the S&T research activities
documented in Rev. 0 and Rev. 1 of the S&T roadmap ...
several areas have not been funded, including significant
portions of the Groundwater and Columbia River
technical elements, and more recently, the Risk technical
element. Within the other technical elements, the budget
restrictions will result in less work being performed.
The committee has not performed a detailed analysis of the
Integration Project's budget and does not have enough information to
determine whether or not the current funding level is appropriate. The
committee observes, however, that the current funding level ($4.6 million)
is low relative to the magnitude of the current $1 billion plus annual
cleanup effort at Hanford.
However, S&T is being carried out by other organizations at
Hanford and DOE Headquarters, so the total investment in S&T is much
greater than $4.6 million. S&T work is also being carried out by the core
projects and the Office of Science and Technology at DOE Headquarters
(see Chapter 3~. However, this S&T work is not organized or reviewed on
a system basis, and it is not clear how approval and funding decisions are
that the review is impartial (from USNRC, 1988, p. 2~. A detailed discussion of
peer review as applied to DOE science and technology programs is provided in
NRC (1998).
Improving S&T Program Effectiveness
153
prioritized across the Hanford Site or the Environmental Management
(EM) Program.
Examination of Hanford Site and relevant EM S&T work on a
system basis and its prioritization accordingly could be of great benefit to
S&T planning and effectiveness, especially to determine whether the
planned investments in Integration Project S&T are appropriate. Once this
examination is completed, the adequacy of funding for Integration Project
S&T can be better evaluated. Additionally, the appointment of S&T
personnel to spearhead the S&T work for each critical system could
enhance the coordination and effectiveness of that work.
Regardless of absolute funding levels, the lack of stable funding
is impeding the Integration Project's ability to plan and execute its work.
Delays in completing current and planned S&T work will delay the transfer
of potentially important S&T results to the cleanup program.
Recommendation: The Integration Project should,
with the help of EM as necessary, perform a system-
based analysis of its funding needs for the S&T
program once it develops the prioritization process
recommended above. ~
