|
Items in cart [4] |
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 115
Recommendations for a
Long-Term Research Program
This chapter provides recommendations for a long-term basic
research program to address subsurface contamination problems at
DOE sites, as directed by the statement of task (see Sidebar 1.1~. The
recommendations address the following three issues:
. .
program vision,
2. research agenda, and
3. implementation of the research agenda.
These recommendations are based on analyses of the information
provided in Chapters 2 through 5 ofthis report end the committee's
interim report (NRC, 1998), as well as the reports of the previous
National Research Council Committee on the Environmental Manage-
ment (EM) Science Program (N RC, 1 997b).
Program Vision
The EM Science Program has been in existence for almost four
years, but there does not appear to be a clear and agreed-upon pro-
gram vision in DOE, and especially in upper management in the Office
of Environmental Management (EM). This conclusion is based on two
observations made by the committee during the course of this study.
First, the EM Science Program does not appear to be an important part
of EM's plan for technology research and development. EM released its
Environmental Management Research and Development Plan in 1998
(DOE, 1 998f). This plan describes the investments to be made in sci-
ence and technology to support the DOE cleanup mission. The main
C h a p t e r 6
115
OCR for page 116
text of this plan is 36 pages in length, but only one section comprising
two paragraphs is devoted to a discussion of the EM Science Program.
The discussion in this plan focuses primarily on the management of the
program rather than the program's objectives and content.
Second, the program also does not appear to be a high priority,
judging by EM's budget requests to Congress. When the program was
created in fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $50 million to it
from EM's technology development programs. In fiscal year 1997, EM
requested $38 million for the program; however, Congress appropriated
$50 million, an increase of $12 million over EM's request. In fiscal year
1998, $32 million was requested; Congress again increased its appro-
priation to $47 mi 11 ion. For fiscal year 1 999, $32 mi 11 ion was requested
and appropriated.2 Congress and EM appear to have different views of
the importance of this program. In the committee's view, $50 million is
inadequate for a research program that has the scope of the EM Science
Program. This is especially true since the program was designed to
address a wide spectrum of problems, ranging from groundwater conta-
mination to high-level waste. Additional discussions of program funding
are provided later in this chapter.
The committee believes that if the program is to remain viable over
the long term and have a significant impact on the DOE cleanup mis-
sion, program managers must articulate a vision for the program that is
supported both programmatically and financially by upper management
in EM and DOE. In the committee's view, this vision should include the
following four elements:
1. The objective of the EM Science Program should be to generate
new knowledge to support DOE's mission to clean up its conta-
minated sites. This objective is consistent with the intent of the
congressional language that established this program in 1996
(see Chapter 1), with the conclusions in this committee's interim
report (NRC, 1998), and with the conclusions of the previous
NRC committee on the EM Science Program (NRC, 1 997b). This
objective also has been articulated in EM's strategic plan for its
science and technology programs (DOE, 1 998fl. The committee's
analysis of subsurface contamination problems in Chapter 2
shows that the environmental remediation and management mis-
sion is unlikely to succeed without new knowledge to support
the development of new and improved technologies to treat,
~Specifically, from the Office of Science and Technology.
2About $10 million of the appropriation wasfor research on low-dose ionizing
radiation.
S U B S U R F A C E S C ~ E N C E
OCR for page 117
remove, or contain and stabilize subsurface contamination at
DOE sites.
2. The EM Science Program should be well connected to DOE's dif-
ficult cleanup problems. In the past, the program was operated
somewhat like a first generation research and development pro-
gram, which has been characterized (perhaps with tongue in
cheek) as "put a few bright people in a dark room, pour in
money, and hope" (Hamel and Prahalad, 1989; see also Roussel
and others, 1991~. Clearly, this model is inappropriate for the
program, which will succeed only if it is well connected, both in
perception and fact, to EM's significant cleanup problems. The
efforts by the program managers to develop science plans repre-
sents a positive move in this direction. The committee hopes the
recommendations for basic research foci presented in this report
wi l l aid th is effort.
3. A major focus of the EM Science Program should continue to be
on research to resolve DOE's subsurface contamination prob-
lems. Based on its review of subsurface contamination problems
in Chapter 2, the committee concluded that DOE faces signifi-
cant difficulties in remediating radionuclide-, metal-, and sol-
vent-contaminated soil and groundwater at all of its major sites.
DOE's own analyses and publications (see Chapter 2) also sup-
port the conclusion that subsurface contamination is a significant
long-term problem. Moreover, previous National Research
Council reports have shown that DOE lacks the technologies
needed to effectively remediate much of the subsurface contam
nation at its sites (e.g., NRC, 1 997a,c, 1999~. The committee
believes, therefore, that new knowledge (and technologies) will
be required to address DOE's subsurface contamination prob-
lems, and the committee recommends that subsurface contami-
nation should continue to be a major focus of the EM Science
Program.
4. The EM Science Program should have a long-term, multidiscipli-
nary, basic-research3 focus. As discussed in Chapter 2, the active
phase of DOE's cleanup efforts is planned to last until at least
2050 (see Table 2.3), and DOE faces additional long-term moni-
toring commitments beyond 2070. Consequently, DOE has suffi
cient time to undertake and to benefit from long-term basic
research under the auspices of the EM Science Program.
3As noted in Sidebar 1.1, basic research creates new generic knowledge and is
focused on long-term, rather than short-term, problems.
C h a p t e r 6
117
OCR for page 118
A long-term basic research focus will allow the EM Science Program
to sponsor fundamental research on subsurface contamination that can
lead to significant knowledge and technology breakthroughs.4 It also
will insulate the program from the ongoing shifts in emphasis in the
DOE cleanup effort. Indeed a long-term focus will enable the orouram
. , . . ~ .. . . ..
. ~ ..
, O .
to provide sustained Tunaing, Incluaing renewals In Tunaing for success-
ful projects, so that investigators can pursue and build on significant
research results.
The committee defines "long term" as long enough to set ambitious
goals for addressing the knowledge gaps identified in Chapter 5 and to
have reasonable expectations that those goals can be attained. In the
committee's judgment, a time horizon on the order of a decade will be
required to make cumulative progress on the knowledge gaps, although
shorter-term results of use to DOE almost certainly will be obtained
over the lifetimes of individual research projects (i.e., over a three-year
time frame). A decadal time horizon would produce a critical mass of
researchers and research projects focused on the knowledge gaps; it
would provide for several proposal cycles so that investigators could
pursue important research ideas and develop significant research
results. With the proper encouragement from program managers, it
would also encourage researchers to develop collaborations that could
lead to novel approaches to addressing the knowledge gaps, many of
wh ich are h igh Iy i nterd isci pi i nary.5
The decadal time horizon would allow investigators to apply for
competitive renewals to pursue significant research findings. Such
renewals could accelerate progress in addressing the knowledge gaps,
keep good researchers focused on problems of importance to DOE, and,
in the case of university-funded projects, provide a strategic investment
in future generations of researchers knowledgeable of DOE's problems
through support for graduate students and postdoctoral scientists.
Research Agenda
The committee has identified four critical knowledge gaps that it
believes are significant impediments to the successful completion of
DOE's cleanup mission and that are addressable through a focused,
sustained, and adequately funded research program. Although these
4A good discussion of the value of long-term research is provided in a previous
N RC report (N RC, 1 997b), especial Iy in Chapter 2.
5The value of multidisciplinary research is discussed in some detail in a previous
N RC report (N RC, 1 997b).
S U B S U R F A C E S C ~ E N C E
OCR for page 119
may not be the only critical knowledge gaps in DOE's evolving subsur-
face cleanup program, the committee is certain that these four chal-
lenges must be addressed for DOE's cleanup program to be completed
safely and cost effectively.
The committee recommends that the subsurface component of the
EM Science Program should emphasize research on the four knowledge
gaps that were identified in Chapter 5 and discussed below. The specif-
ic research topics suggested in this section are for illustrative purposes
and are not meant to be prescriptive. The committee expects that the
research supported by this program will be truly basic, imaginative, and
innovative. The committee's recommendation of four research foci does
not imply that the subsurface research supported in the current EM
Science Program portfolio is inappropriate or misdirected. Rather, these
four foci represent areas where more research clearly is needed.
Location and Characterization of Subsurface
Contaminants and Characterization of the Subsurface
The challenges of locating subsurface contamination are magnified
by the wide range of contaminant types (e.g., mixtures of organic sol-
vents, metals, and radionuclides) in the subsurface at many DOE sites;
the wide variety of geological and hydrological conditions across the
DOE complex; and the wide range of spatial resolutions at which this
contamination must be located and characterized, from widely dis-
persed contam i nation i n grou ndwater pi u mes to smal I isol ated hot spots
in waste burial grounds.
As discussed in Chapter 5, the committee believes that basic
research is needed to support the development of the following capabil-
ities to locate and characterize contamination in the subsurface and to
characterize subsurface properties at the scales that control contami-
nant fate and transport behavior:
· Improved capabilities for characterizing the physical, chemical,
and biological properties of the subsurface.
· Improved capabilities for characterizing physical, chemical, and
biological heterogeneity, especially at the scales that control
contaminant fate and transport behavior. Approaches that allow
the identification and measurement of the heterogeneity features
that control contaminant fate and transport to be obtained direct-
ly (i.e., without having to perform a detailed characterization of
the subsurface) are especially needed.
· Improved capabilities for measuring contaminant migration and
system properties that control contaminant movement.
· Methods to integrate data collected at different spatial and tem-
C h a p t e r 6
119
OCR for page 120
poral scales to better estimate contaminant and subsurface prop-
erties and processes.
.
Methods to integrate such data into conceptual models.
Conceptual MotIeIing
Existing conceptual and predictive models have often proven inef-
fective for understanding and predicting contaminant movement, espe-
cially at sites that have thick unsaturated zones or complex subsurface
characteristics. Accurate conceptualizations are essential for under-
standing the long-term fate of contaminants in the subsurface and the
selection and application of appropriate corrective actions. The com-
mittee believes that basic research explicitly focused on fundamental
approaches and assumptions underlying conceptual model develop-
ment could produce a tool box of methodologies that are applicable to
contaminated sites both inside and outside the DOE complex. This
research should focus on the following topics:
· New observational and experimental approaches and tools for
.
.
.
developing conceptual models that apply to complex subsurface
environments, including such phenomena as colloidal transport
and biologic activity.
New approaches for incorporating geological, hydrological,
chemical, and biological subsurface heterogeneity into concep-
tual model formulations at scales that dominate flow and trans-
port behavior.
Development of coupled-process models through experimental
studies at variable scales and complexities that account for the
interacting physical, chemical, and biological processes that gov-
ern contaminant fate and transport behavior.
Methods to integrate process knowledge from small-scale tests
and observations into model formulations, including methods for
incorporating qualitative geological information from surface and
near-surface observations into conceptual model formulations.
Methods to measure and predict the scale dependency of para-
meter values.
Approaches for establishing bounds on the accuracy of parame-
ters and conceptual model estimates from field and experimental
data.
The research needs outlined above call for more hypothesis-driven
experimental approaches that address how to integrate the understand-
ing of system behavior. This research will require expertise from a wide
range of disciplines and must be conducted at scales ranging from the
laboratory bench top to contaminated field sites. Moreover, to have
S U B S U R F A C E S C ~ E N C E
120
OCR for page 121
long-term relevance to the DOE cleanup mission, this research must be
focused on the kinds of subsurface environments and contamination
problems commonly encountered at major DOE sites.
Containment and Stabilization
There has been an increasing emphasis on and acceptance of waste
containment and stabilization in recent years, both in DOE and by reg-
ulatory agencies. Decreasing cleanup budgets, evaluations that show
containment is a low-risk choice for some problems, and recognition
that some contamination cannot be remediated either with current
technologies or conceivable new technologies are responsible for this
change in philosophy. However, at some sites, containment and stabi-
lization may be an interim measure and has its own set of associated
technical problems. There is little understanding of the long-term perfor-
mance of containment and stabilization systems, and there is a general
absence of robust and cost-effective methods to validate that such sys-
tems are installed properly or that they can provide effective long-term
protection.
The construction of stabilization and containment systems is proper-
ly within the province of applied technology development. However,
basic research focused on the following topics will be needed to sup-
port this technology development effort:
· The mechanisms and kinetics of chemically and biologically
mediated reactions that can be applied to new stabilization and
containment approaches (e.g., reactions that can extend the use
of reactive barriers to a greater range of contaminant types found
at DOE sites) or that can be used to understand the long-term
reversibi I ity of chemical and biological stabi I ization methods.
· The physical, chemical, and biological reactions that occur
among contaminants (metals, radionuclides, and organics), soils,
and barrier components so that more compatible and durable
materials for containment and stabilization systems can be
developed.
· The fluid transport behavior in conventional barrier systems, for
example, understanding water infiltration into layered systems,
including infiltration under partially saturated conditions and
under the influences of capillary, chemical, electrical, and ther-
mal gradients can be used to support the design of more effec-
tive infi Itration barrier systems.
· The development of methods for assessing the long-term durabil-
ity of containment and stabilization systems.
C h a p t e r 6
121
OCR for page 122
Monitoring and Validation
Monitoring and validation are necessary at both the front and the
back ends of the site remediation process. At the front end, monitoring
and validation are used to support the development of conceptual and
predictive models of subsurface and contaminant behavior. At the back
end, monitoring and validation are used to demonstrate the effective-
ness of efforts to remove, treat, or especial Iy to contai n contami nation
and to gain regulatory acceptance for such corrective actions.
Moreover, such monitoring and validation efforts can also improve the
understanding of the contaminant fate and transport processes and can
be used to recalibrate and revise conceptual and predictive models-
important elements of the model building process.
The abi I ity to man itor and val idate is essential to the successfu I
application of any corrective action to a subsurface contamination
problem and regulatory acceptance of that action. However, the knowl-
edge and technology bases to support these activities are not fully
developed and are receiving little attention in EM's science and tech-
nology programs.
Many of the research opportunities for monitoring and validation
have been covered in the research emphases discussed above. In addi-
tion, the committee believes that basic research is needed on the fol-
lowing topics:
.
.
.
Development of methods for designing monitoring systems to
detect both current conditions and changes in system behaviors.
These methods may involve the application of conceptual,
mathematical, and statistical models to determine the types and
locations of observation systems and prediction of the spatial
and temporal resolutions at which observations need to be
made.
Development of validation processes. The research questions
include (1 ) understanding what a representation of system
behavior means and how to judge when a model provides an
accurate representation of a system behavior the model may
give the right answers for the wrong reasons and thus may not be
a good predictive tool; and (2) how to validate the future perfor-
mance of the model or system behavior based on present-day
measu remeets.
Data for model validation. Determining the key measurements
that are required to validate models and system behaviors, the
spatial and temporal revel utions at wh ich such measu remeets
must be obtained, and the extent to which surrogate data (e.g.,
S U B S U R F A C E S C ~ E N C E
122
OCR for page 123
data from lab-scale testing facilities) can be used in validation
efforts.
· Research to support the development of methods to monitor
fluid and gaseous fluxes through the unsaturated zone, and for
differentiating diurnal and seasonal changes from longer-term
secular changes. These methods may involve both direct (e.g.,
in situ sensors) and indirect (e.g., using plants and animals)
measu remeets over long ti me periods, particu I arly for harsh
chemical environments characteristic of some DOE sites. This
research should support the development of both the physical
instrumentation and measurement techniques. The latter includes
measurement strategies and data analysis (including statistical)
approaches.
Other Recommendations on the Research Agenda
Within the four research emphases described above, the committee
recommends that the EM Science Program encourage research on met-
als and radionuclides. Many of the metal and radionuclide contamina-
tion problems are almost whol Iy "owned" by DOE, especial Iy
transuranic contaminants. The committee recognizes that DOE also has
many dense non-aqueous phase liquid contamination problems at its
sites, but as discussed in Chapter 4, there are many research programs
in other parts of DOE and in other federal agencies that provide fund-
ing for research on this contaminant. The committee judges that this is
less true for research on metals and radionuclides.
The committee also recommends that there be sufficient flexibility
in future calls for subsurface proposals so that support can be provided
for high-risk but potentially high-payoff research ideas that intersect
with the four research emphases. Such projects could produce major
knowledge breakthroughs leading to significant improvements in DOE's
cleanup capabilities and costs.
implementation of the Research Agenda
The EM Science Program is a basic research program focused on
very real DOE problems. The program's success will be measured both
by its impact on advancing the science and its impact on DOE site
cleanup. To be successful, the program must not only be focused on the
right problems but it must also encourage researchers to do the right
work; and it must find a way to hand off the results of this work to tech-
nology developers and problem holders at DOE sites. In this section the
C h a p t e r 6
OCR for page 124
committee offers strategic recommendations for achieving the first two
objectives;6 these recommendations address the following:
integration,
field sites, and
program funding.
Integration
The committee believes that EM Science Program managers must
encourage and support integration activities across the program if it is
to advance subsurface science and have a significant impact on DOE
cleanup. To this end, the program's implementation strategy should
have the following three integrative elements:
1 . The program should continue to reach beyond the usual group
of DOE researchers to pull in new and novel ideas to address
DOE-specific problems. Much of the expertise needed to address
the knowledge gaps identified in Chapter 5 can be found outside
the traditional DOE research community. Indeed, the previous
NRC committee on the EM Science Program encouraged pro-
gram managers to broaden the community of investigators
involved in the program and to expand the core or committed
cadre of investigators who are knowledgeable of EM's problems
(NRC, 1 997b, p. 4~. Judging from the committee's review of the
current program portfolio in Chapter 3, the program appears to
be making progress in meeting this objective. The committee
encourages program managers to continue their efforts to broad-
en the community of researchers from government agencies with
research capabilities, national laboratories, universities, and
industry.
2. The program should continue to encourage multidisciplinary
research and university-national laboratory-industry collabora-
tions that will promote new insights into the very complex sub-
surface problems at DOE sites. Many of the challenges identified
in Chapter 5 are technically difficult and inherently interdiscipli-
nary. The committee believes that to make significant progress in
addressing them, the program must encourage and support mul-
tidisciplinary research teams. There is a good representation of
multiple-investigator projects in the current program portfolio
(see Table 3.1 ), especially collaborations among university and
6The third objective on moving science into application, although extremely
important, is beyond the statement of task for the present study.
S U B S U R F A C E S C ~ E N C E
124
OCR for page 125
national laboratory scientists. The committee recommends that
program managers continue to encourage such collaborations by
providing support for workshops and seminars to bring scientists
together with site problem holders to discuss DOE contamina-
tion problems and possible research approaches; this was recom-
mended by the previous NRC committee on the EM Science
Program (NRC, 1 997b). The committee offers an additional rec-
ommendation to encourage collaborations in the next section of
this chapter.
The program should integrate existing data and ideas both from
DOE sites and basic research programs outside DOE to pro-
mote advancements in subsurface science and improvements in
capabilities to address DOE's subsurface contamination prob-
lems. The program can also play a lead role in integrating the
considerable amount of relevant subsurface science research that
is being supported by DOE and other federal agencies. As dis-
cussed in Chapter 4, there is a great deal of potentially relevant
subsurface research that is being supported outside the EM
Science Program, but the committee found that there is little or
no effort being made to coordinate these research investments or
to transfer results into the DOE cleanup program.
The program has the potential to provide leadership in the
advancement of subsurface science, primarily because it can
provide access to scientifical Iy interesting and inter lectual Iy chal-
lenging problems at DOE sites problems that do not exist any-
where else in the United States and few places in the world-
and because many DOE sites possess rich caches of data that
can be used i n research projects to address the knowledge gaps
identified earlier in this chapter. Groundwater monitoring data
from sites like Hanford, for example, could be used to develop
forensic methods to estimate contaminant release rates or to
develop and test conceptual models (see Chapter 2~. However,
to be useful in this regard, researchers must have access to DOE
data, sites, and site-knowledgeable personnel.
FieItl Sites
The committee recommends that program managers examine the
feasibility of developing field research sites where investigators with
program awards could work on the knowledge gaps described earlier in
this chapter. These field sites could include contaminated or uncontami-
nated areas at the major DOE sites; analog uncontaminated sites that
have subsurface characteristics similar to contaminated DOE sites; and
even virtual sites comprised of data on historical and contemporary
C h a p t e r 6
125
OCR for page 126
contamination problems. These sites could be established by the pro-
gram itself or in cooperation with other research programs.7
Access to field research sites could allow investigators to make sig-
nificant progress in addressing the four knowledge gaps identified pre-
viously in this chapter. For example, research on location and charac-
terization will require access to field sites where measurements on real
subsurface and contaminant properties can be made and where mea-
surement methodologies can be compared. Research on conceptual
model development and testing and on validation and monitoring are
inherently field based. Researchers must have hands-on familiarity that
comes from working in the field to develop and test new methodologies
and approaches. Research on containment and stabilization will require
access to field sites to test ideas developed in the laboratory or model-
ing studies, for example, to measure in situ rates of chemical reactions
that could be used to develop new and improved containment and
treatment approaches.
The establishment of field research sites could have several tangible
benefits to the program. First, program managers could encourage
research on specific knowledge gaps by establishing field sites in cer-
tain kinds of contaminated environments. For example, program man-
agers could encourage research on unsaturated zone contamination by
establishing an unsaturated zone field site at one of the major DOE
installations in the western United States. Second, such sites could
attract new researchers to the program, especially if the field sites could
provide research opportunities unavailable through other programs.
Third, field sites could encourage both formal and informal multidisc.
plinary collaborations among the researchers working at these sites,
thereby providing benefits that are greater than the sum of individual
projects. Such collaborations could be enhanced if the program identi-
fied a site manager who could coordinate the research activities at the
site and encourage researchers with common interests to work together.
Finally, the establishment of field research sites could facilitate the
transfer of research results into application because of site proximity to
the problem holders and the problems themselves.
The establishment of field research sites is potentially expensive,
especially if the field sites are located in contaminated areas where
drilling, sample collection, and sample handling would be costly and
where investigators would be required to follow DOE environmental
7For example, the Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Research program
(see Chapter 4) plans to establish a field research site at a major DOE site in fiscal
year 2000 and may be an appropriate test bed for research sponsored by the EM
Science Program.
S U B S U R F A C E S C ~ E N C E
OCR for page 127
health and safety procedures.8 Moreover, the program may have to pay
for the services of a site manager and may have to develop procedures
and provide funding to ensure that site data are properly archived and
disseminated to researchers and cleanup personnel. Consequently, the
establishment of such sites would require additional budget support
beyond that required to fund individual research projects, and well
beyond the amount of funding available to the program for new starts
in fiscal year 1999. Indeed, support for field research sites could con-
sume a significant fraction of the program budget for new starts. How-
ever, field research is just one component in a well-balanced research
program and should not be supported at the expense of projects that
involve laboratory and modeling approaches. Consequently, additional
funding would have to be made available to the program to support the
development of field sites, or funding for the sites would have to come
from other parts of EM (e.g., the Office of Site Closure or the Office of
Project Completion, which have the primary responsibility for cleanup
of contaminated soil and groundwater). The use of such sites would
have to be evaluated periodically to determine whether they are adding
value to the research effort, particularly given the cost of such sites rela-
tive to the total size of the program budget.
Program Funding
The issue of funding for the EM Science Program has received a
great deal of attention from a previous NRC committee (NRC, 1 997b),
which concluded that the "program must be large enough to support a
significant number of 'new starts' (i.e., new projects or competitive
renewals) each year if it is to be successful in attracting innovative pro-
posals from outstanding researchers ...." The program needs to have a
significant number of new starts each year to keep potential investiga-
tors engaged and willing to invest the time and intellectual energy to
become knowledgeable of DOE problems and develop research ideas
to address them.
New starts will help establish a cadre of knowledgeable and com-
mitted investigators undergraduates, graduates, postdocs, and profes-
sionals who can be called on by DOE in the years ahead for help
with its most difficult contamination problems. New starts are also
needed to maintain continuity in the research effort; the advancement
of scientific knowledge is a cumulative effort involving many scientists
Afield research at a contaminated site would need to be carefully reviewed by
managers familiar with the research activity and the nature of hazards at the site to
ensure that health and safety requirements are met and that the research activity
does not exacerbate the spread of contamination.
C h a p t e r 6
127
OCR for page 128
over long periods of time. This effort is set back significantly each time
program funding is interrupted. Researchers may become frustrated and
move on to other projects, and graduate students and postdocs may
seek training in other fields. Even a single year's interruption in program
support can have negative effects that last for several years.
Small program budgets can also lead to significant investigator frus-
tration, especial Iy when proposal success rates fal I below accepted
norms and highly rated proposals are declined. When proposal success
rates fall to low levels, talented investigators may view the proposal
preparation and submission process as a bad investment of their time
and may stop submitting proposals. This wi 11 have an immediate nega-
tive impact on the quality of the research being sponsored and long-
term negative impact on the DOE technology development efforts.
It is the committee's strong impression that the current level of pro-
gram funding is not sufficient to support the research emphases out-
lined in this report, especially when subsurface research is just one of
many research areas supported by the program. However, the commit-
tee has no basis on which to recommend a specific funding level, and
such a recommendation would be well beyond the committee's state-
ment of task. The committee believes that it is the responsibility of EM
Science Program managers to estimate the amount of funding required
to provide adequate support for a research program focused on address-
ing the knowledge gaps presented in Chapter 5. One approach for esti-
mating the annual research budget is to estimate the number of projects
needed to attain a critical mass of research on each technical challenge
area, and then to multiply that number by the average annual grant
size.
The committee believes that such estimates could be used to justify
future, and possibly larger, budget requests to upper DOE management
and Congress, especially if the estimates were reviewed and validated
by DOE's internal advisory committees like the Environmental
Management Advisory Board or other external advisory committees.
Future and larger budget requests are likely to be seen in an increasing-
ly more favorable light as the EM Science Program becomes more firm-
ly connected to EM's cleanup problems.
Concluding Observations
The basic research supported by the EM Science Program and other
relevant research programs in the federal government will have little if
any impact on DOE cleanup unless research results are transferred into
technology development programs in EM and to problem holders at
S U B S U R F A C E S C ~ E N C E
OCR for page 129
DOE sites. EM Science Program managers have a responsibility to
ensure that specific procedures are in place to foster the handoff from
research to development, both for research results developed in its pro-
grams and from other relevant programs in the federal government.
The committee believes that there must be strong scientific, techni-
cal, and management leadership at all levels of EM, from the EM
Science Program up to and including the assistant secretary for environ-
mental management, if significant progress on closing the knowledge
gaps and applying results effectively to the cleanup effort is to be made
in the next decade. The development of such leadership remains a con-
tinuing chal lenge and a significant opportunity for the EM Science
Program and DOE.
C h a p t e r 6
129
OCR for page 130
S U B S U R F A C E S C I E N C E
130
Representative terms from entire chapter:
doe sites
