research needs in subsurface science · mary lou zoback, u.s. geological survey, menlo park,...

U.S. Department of Energy’sEnvironmental Management Science Program

Board on Radioactive Waste ManagementWater Science and Technology Board

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESSWashington, D.C.

i

RREESSEEAARRCCHH NNEEEEDDSS IINN

SSUUBBSSUURRFFAACCEE SSCCIIEENNCCEE

Copyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003

http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9793.html

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by theGoverning Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawnfrom the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academyof Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committeeresponsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and withregard for appropriate balance.

This study was supported by Contract/Grant No DE-FC01-94EW54069/Rbetween the National Academy of Sciences and The U.S. Department ofEnergy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed inthis publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect theviews of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number 0-309-06646-8

Additional copies of this report are available from National Academy Press,2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, D.C. 20055; (800)624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet:http://www.nap.edu

COVER IMAGE: Mercury contamination in soil at the Y-12 plant at the OakRidge Reservation. The mercury is visible as small droplets in the dark layernear the center of the photograph. SOURCE: Oak Ridge Reservation.

Printed in the United States of America

Copyright 2000 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

iiCopyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003


The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating soci-ety of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, ded-icated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the gen-eral welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in1863, 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 theNational Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the char-ter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstand-ing engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of itsmembers, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility foradvising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering alsosponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourageseducation and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers.Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy ofSciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions inthe examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. TheInstitute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciencesby its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, uponits own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr.Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy ofSciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technologywith the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federalgovernment. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by theAcademy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both theNational Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in pro-viding services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineeringcommunities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and theInstitute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairmanand vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

iii

National Academy of SciencesNational Academy of EngineeringInstitute of MedicineNational Research Council



COMMITTEE ON SUBSURFACE CONTAMINATION AT DOE COMPLEX SITES

JANE C. S. LONG, Chair, University of Nevada, RenoJAMES K. MITCHELL, Vice-Chair, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University, BlacksburgRANDALL J. CHARBENEAU, University of Texas, AustinJEFFREY J. DANIELS, Ohio State University, ColumbusJOHN N. FISCHER, Hydrologic Consultant, Oakton, VirginiaTISSA H. ILLANGASEKARE, Colorado School of Mines, GoldenAARON L. MILLS, University of Virginia, CharlottesvilleDONALD T. REED, Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, IllinoisJEROME SACKS, National Institute of Statistical Sciences, Research Triangle

Park, North CarolinaBRIDGET R. SCANLON, University of Texas, AustinLEON T. SILVER, California Institute of Technology, PasadenaCLAIRE WELTY, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

STAFF

KEVIN D. CROWLEY, Study DirectorSTEPHEN D. PARKER, Director, Water Science and Technology Board SUSAN B. MOCKLER, Research AssociatePATRICIA A. JONES, Senior Project Assistant

ivCopyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003


BOARD ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

MICHAEL C. KAVANAUGH, Chair, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Oakland, CaliforniaJOHN F. AHEARNE, Co-Chair, Sigma Xi and Duke University, Research

Triangle Park, North CarolinaCHARLES MCCOMBIE, Vice-Chair, Gipf-Oberfrick, SwitzerlandROBERT J. BUDNITZ, Future Resources Associates, Inc., Berkeley, CaliforniaMARY R. ENGLISH, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TennesseeDARLEANE C. HOFFMAN, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oakland,

CaliforniaJAMES H. JOHNSON, JR., Howard University, Washington, D.C.ROGER E. KASPERSON, Clark University, Worcester, MassachusettsJAMES O. LECKIE, Stanford University, Stanford, CaliforniaJANE C. S. LONG, Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, RenoCHARLES MCCOMBIE, Consultant, Gipf-Oberfrick, SwitzerlandWILLIAM A. MILLS, Oak Ridge Associated Universities (retired), Olney,

MarylandD. WARNER NORTH, NorthWorks, Inc., Mountain View, CaliforniaMARTIN J. STEINDLER, Argonne National Laboratories (retired), Argonne,

IllinoisJOHN J. TAYLOR, Electric Power Research Institute (retired), Palo Alto,

CaliforniaMARY LOU ZOBACK, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California

STAFF

KEVIN D. CROWLEY, DirectorROBERT S. ANDREWS, Senior Staff OfficerTHOMAS KIESS, Senior Staff OfficerGREGORY H. SYMMES, Senior Staff OfficerJOHN R. WILEY, Senior Staff OfficerSUSAN B. MOCKLER, Research AssociateTONI GREENLEAF, Administrative AssistantLATRICIA C. BAILEY, Senior Project AssistantPATRICIA A. JONES, Senior Project AssistantANGELA R. TAYLOR, Senior Project Assistant LATRICIA C. BAILEY, Project AssistantMATTHEW BAXTER-PARROT, Project AssistantLAURA D. LLANOS, Project Assistant

vCopyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003


WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BOARD

HENRY J. VAUX, JR., Chair, University of California, RiversideCAROL A. JOHNSTON, Vice -Chair, University of Minnesota, DuluthRICHELLE M. ALLEN-KING, Washington State University, PullmanGREGORY B. BAECHER, University of Maryland, College ParkJOHN S. BOYER, University of Delaware, LewesJOHN BRISCOE, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.DENISE FORT, University of New Mexico, AlbuquerqueSTEVEN P. GLOSS, University of Wyoming, LaramieEVILLE GORHAM, University of Minnesota, St. PaulWILLIAM A. JURY, University of California, RiversideGARY S. LOGSDON, Black & Veatch, Cincinnati, OhioRICHARD G. LUTHY, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaJOHN W. MORRIS, J. W. Morris, Arlington, VirginiaPHILLIP A. PALMER, DuPont Engineering, Wilmington, DelawareREBECCA T. PARKIN, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C.JOAN B. ROSE, University of South Florida, St. PetersburgRHODES TRUSSELL, Montgomery Watson, Inc., Pasadena, CaliforniaERIC F. WOOD, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey

STAFF

STEPHEN D. PARKER, DirectorJACQUELINE MACDONALD, Associate DirectorCHRIS ELFRING, Senior Staff OfficerLAURA EHLERS, Senior Staff OfficerJEFFREY W. JACOBS, Staff OfficerWILLIAM S. LOGAN, Staff OfficerJEANNE AQUILINO, Administrative AssociateMARK GIBSON, Research AssociateANITA A. HALL, Administrative AssistantELLEN de GUZMAN, Senior Project AssistantANIKÉ L. JOHNSON, Project Assistant

viCopyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003


COMMISSION ON GEOSCIENCES, ENVIRONMENT, AND RESOURCES

GEORGE M. HORNBERGER, Chair, University of Virginia, CharlottesvilleRICHARD A. CONWAY, Union Carbide Corporation (retired), S. Charleston,

West VirginiaLYNN GOLDMAN, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health,

Baltimore, MarylandTHOMAS E. GRAEDEL, Yale University, New Haven, ConnecticutTHOMAS J. GRAFF, Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, CaliforniaEUGENIA KALNAY, University of Maryland, College ParkDEBRA KNOPMAN, Progressive Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.BRAD MOONEY, J. Brad Mooney Associates, Ltd., Arlington, VirginiaHUGH C. MORRIS, El Dorado Gold Corporation, Vancouver, British

ColumbiaH. RONALD PULLIAM, University of Georgia, AthensMILTON RUSSELL, Joint Institute for Energy and Environment and University

of Tennessee (Emeritus),KnoxvilleROBERT J. SERAFIN, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder,

ColoradoANDREW R. SOLOW, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole,

Massachusetts E-AN ZEN, University of Maryland, College ParkMARY LOU ZOBACK, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California

STAFF

ROBERT M. HAMILTON, Executive DirectorGREGORY H. SYMMES, Associate Executive DirectorJEANETTE SPOON, Administrative and Financial OfficerDAVID FEARY, Scientific Reports OfficerSANDI FITZPATRICK, Administrative AssociateMARQUITA SMITH, Administrative Assistant/Technology Analyst

viiCopyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003


viiiCopyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003


Preface

The development of this report has provided an opportunity forcommittee members to examine and obtain an overview of a majornational environmental issue—subsurface contamination in the DOEcomplex. The committee faced a daunting task in making recommen-dations to the Environmental Management Science Program aboutfuture research emphases to address DOE’s subsurface contaminationproblems. To do this, we needed to obtain an overview of the problemsand a detailed understanding of the major clean-up issues. In addition,we needed to understand how the Environmental Management ScienceProgram had developed so far, whether it related well to the problemsas we understood them, and its relationship to environmental remedia-tion research done elsewhere. Finally, we were to complete this task inapproximately one year with a limited number of site visits.

Clearly, we could never have accomplished this task without thecomplete cooperation of the DOE and National Laboratory staff. Weowe major thanks to a large number of persons (see Appendix B) whoprepared presentations and organized visits that informed our process.A great deal of effort was spent to support us, and I would like to thankall of these people for their frankness and insights. I would especiallylike to recognize the efforts of Mark Gilbertson and Roland Hirsch fromDOE headquarters; Roy Gephart, John Zacara, and Karl Fecht fromHanford; Tom Williams from the Idaho National Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory; and Tom Hicks and Tom Temples fromSavannah River for their support of the committee.

I have served on a number of excellent National Research Councilcommittees, but I found the support provided by committee staff on thisstudy was beyond any level of service I have ever experienced. Studydirector Kevin Crowley made this difficult task possible. Without hisunderstanding, sense of group dynamics, and very significant level ofeffort there would have been no possibility of finishing this report. Wewere also provided excellent research and logistical support by the staffof the Board on Radioactive Waste Management and Water Science

P r e f a c e

ixCopyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003


and Technology Board, most notably Steve Parker, Patricia Jones, andSusan Mockler.

We were greatly privileged to have Jim Mitchell serve as the com-mittee’s vice-chair. Jim was the conscience of the committee andplayed a critical role in keeping us on course throughout our delibera-tions. His careful analysis, insight, and review provided quality to ourproduct. It was a great treat to work with Jim.

Normal committee dynamics are such that a few people do a dis-proportionate share of the work. This committee was an exception tothat rule; the members all contributed and all did the assignments wegave them. The committee was unusually productive and creative, andits members contributed not only their knowledge and understanding,but they also listened to others and incorporated this information into aconsensus. I learned a great deal from my committee colleagues, andmy sense is that the entire committee found the process beneficial.

The committee’s review left some very clear impressions concerningthe scope of DOE’s subsurface contamination problems. As noted inChapter 2 of this report, the committee concluded that much of thecontamination that is now in the subsurface at major DOE sites will notbe removed by any active remediation efforts. The huge scale of the“environmental insult” (to quote committee member Lee Silver) and theextraction of contamination on the scales required would require amajor decrease in entropy and would simply not be possible. Thismeans that a major focus of coming to terms with the problem has tobe understanding, predicting, and containing the subsurface contamina-tion. These issues are paramount in site closure. They have receivedinsufficient attention from the EMSP in the past and are a major focusof this report.

Secondly, the committee recognized that the amount of contamina-tion that is contained in surface and near-surface facilities at DOE sitesis massive compared to that which has already leaked into the subsur-face. Millions of gallons of waste and millions of curies of radioactivityare currently in storage at DOE sites and, if this waste is not managedcorrectly, it could potentially become a major source of future sub-surface contamination. Clearly, an important lesson DOE can learnfrom its current subsurface contamination problems is to not repeat themistakes of the past. It is true that DOE no longer places high-levelnuclear waste in barrels that are dumped into topographic lows (seeSidebar 2.5), but DOE is placing new land disposal facilities in regionsthat have generated massive contaminant plumes in the past (see, forexample, Sidebar 2.9). During the course of this study, the committeesaw no institutional process to address the question, “How should theresults and impacts of what was done in the past inform the decisions

S U B S U R F A C E S C I E N C E

xCopyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003


of the future?” The committee recognizes that DOE cannot changewhat was done in the past. DOE can, however, make better decisionsin the future. The committee believes that a very important role forresearch sponsored by the Environmental Management ScienceProgram is to provide the information DOE will need to make techni-cally sound and responsible waste management decisions in the future.

Jane C. S. Long, Chair

xi

P r e f a c eCopyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003


xiiCopyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003


List of Report Reviewers

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosenfor their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordancewith procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. Thepurpose of this independent review is to provide candid and criticalcomments that will assist the institution in making the published reportas sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutionalstandards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the studycharge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidentialto protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank thefollowing individuals for their participation in the review of this report:

Susan Brantley, Pennsylvania State UniversityHelen Dawson, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyJohn Fountain, State University of New YorkRobert Huggett, Michigan State UniversityPhilip Palmer, DuPont (retired)Frank Schwartz, Ohio State UniversityJohn Taylor, Electric Power Research Institute (retired)Peter Wierenga, University of Arizona

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many construc-tive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse theconclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of thereport before its release. The review of this report was overseen byGeorge Hornberger, appointed by the Commission on Geosciences,Environment, and Resources, and Paul Barton, appointed by the ReportReview Committee, who were responsible for making certain that anindependent examination of this report was carried out in accordancewith NRC procedures and that all review comments were carefully con-sidered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirelywith the authoring committee and the NRC.

xiii

L i s t o f R e p o r t R e v i e w e r sCopyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003


Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction and Task 11

2 Subsurface Contamination in the DOE Complex 15

3 Assessment of the EM Science Program Portfolio 47

4 Research Programs in Other Agencies of Government 59

5 Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs 93

6 Recommendations for a Long-Term Research Program 115

References 131

AppendixesA Description of the Environmental Management Science Program 137B List of Presentations 139C Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 141D Additional Resources 145E Interim Report 149F Acronym List 159

C o n t e n t s

xvCopyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003


xvii

RREESSEEAARRCCHH NNEEEEDDSS IINN SSUUBBSSUURRFFAACCEE SSCCIIEENNCCEE



xviiiCopyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003


Summary

In the spring of 1998, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) request-ed that the National Academies convene a committee of experts to pro-vide recommendations on the formulation of a long-term basic researchprogram to address subsurface contamination problems at DOE sites(see Sidebar 1.1 in Chapter 1). In response to this request, a committeewith expertise in basic research and research management was formedunder the joint auspices of the National Research Council’s Board onRadioactive Waste Management and Water Science and TechnologyBoard. A summary of the committee’s information-gathering activitiesand its conclusions and recommendations are presented in this report.

The report provides an overview of the subsurface contaminationproblems across the DOE complex and shows by examples from the sixlargest DOE sites (Hanford Site, Idaho Engineering and EnvironmentalLaboratory, Nevada Test Site, Oak Ridge Reservation, Rocky FlatsEnvironmental Technology Site, and Savannah River Site) how advancesin scientific and engineering knowledge can improve the effectivenessof the cleanup effort (see Chapter 2). The committee analyzed the cur-rent Environmental Management (EM) Science Program portfolio of sub-surface research projects (see Chapter 3) to assess the extent to whichthe program is focused on DOE’s contamination problems. This analy-sis employs an organizing scheme that provides a direct linkagebetween basic research in the EM Science Program and applied tech-nology development in DOE’s Subsurface Contaminants Focus Area.The committee also reviewed related research programs in other DOEoffices and other federal agencies (see Chapter 4) to determine theextent to which they are focused on DOE’s subsurface contaminationproblems. On the basis of these analyses, the report singles out thehighly significant subsurface contamination knowledge gaps andresearch needs that the EM Science Program must address if the DOEcleanup program is to succeed.

S u m m a r y

1Copyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003


Subsur face Contaminat ion at DOE S i tesNuclear weapons production has resulted in the contamination of

the large DOE sites. This contamination exists today in a wide range offorms and locations—including contaminated waste burial grounds;contaminated soil, sediment, and rock; and contaminated groundwa-ter—and is frequently difficult to locate, characterize, and remediate.Significant amounts of subsurface contaminants are likely to remaineven after DOE’s cleanup program is completed.

The committee concluded that subsurface contamination is an enor-mously difficult cleanup problem that represents a potentially largefuture mortgage for the nation. This mortgage could, however, bereduced significantly through the development and application of newand improved technologies. The development of such technologies willrequire advances in basic understanding of the complex natural systemsat DOE sites and the nature of the contaminants there. Given the long-term nature of the cleanup mission and its projected cost—the programis planned to last until 2070 and cost on the order of $200 billion—thecommittee believes that DOE has sufficient time to do the basicresearch required to support the development and deployment of newcleanup technologies.

EM Sc ience Program Research Por t fo l ioSince its establishment by Congress, the program has held four pro-

posal competitions and has awarded about $225 million in funding,which puts it among the largest environmental research efforts in thefederal government. The program has supported research projects rele-vant to many aspects of DOE’s cleanup program, including subsurfacecontamination, high-level waste, and deactivation and decommission-ing. The committee reviewed the research portfolio for fiscal years1996 and 1997 and identified 91 projects that were relevant to DOE’ssubsurface contamination problems. The committee’s review revealedsome significant areas of strength. Fifty projects address organic conta-mination problems and 38 projects use a combination of field-, labora-tory-, and modeling-based approaches. There appears to be a criticalmass of projects covering remediation of subsurface contamination,especially treatment and destruction of organic contaminants throughphysical, chemical, and biological processes.


2

Significant amounts of subsurface contami-nants are likely toremain even after DOE’scleanup program iscompleted.

Given the long-termnature of the cleanupmission and its project-ed cost . . . the commit-tee believes that DOEhas sufficient time todo the basic researchrequired to support the development anddeployment of newcleanup technologies.



The most notable gaps in the current portfolio concern containmentand validation.1 These are two of the most significant problem areas inthe DOE complex, because it is inevitable that DOE will have to man-age much of its subsurface contamination in place. There also appearto be relatively few projects that address radionuclide and metal conta-mination problems.

Research Programs in O therGovernment Agencies

The committee gathered information on research programs in otherDOE offices and other federal agencies to assess how they might con-tribute to solving DOE’s subsurface contamination problems. The com-mittee made the following observations in Chapter 4:

• The federal government is a major sponsor of basic research thatis related either directly or indirectly to environmental problems.The committee identified almost 50 such programs in its survey(see Table 4.1).

• A large number and variety of programs across the federal gov-ernment support research of direct relevance to the EM ScienceProgram and DOE cleanup. The committee identified 18 suchprograms, many of which are focused on hazardous chemicals,especially volatile organic contaminants and non-aqueous phaseliquids, and to a lesser extent on heavy metals. Many of these pro-grams are also focused on remediation, especially bioremediation.

• With some notable exceptions, there appears to be significantoverlap in scope among these 18 programs. It does not appear tothe committee that these programs are being coordinated effec-tively among the agencies.

The committee concluded that there would be value-added to theEM Science Program and, ultimately, to DOE’s cleanup efforts if therewere better interagency coordination among these 18 research pro-grams. The committee sees an opportunity for EM Science Programmanagers to promote and foster such coordination.

3

S u m m a r y

1The term "validation" is used to describe processes for testing a conceptual orpredictive model to determine whether it adequately represents the system behaviorof interest, and it is also applied to monitoring and testing to confirm the effective-ness of remediation actions. See Chapter 5.



Formulat ion of a Long-Term ResearchProgram

The committee’s recommendations for a long-term basic researchprogram on subsurface contamination address the following issues:

• program vision,• research emphases, and • implementation.

The principal conclusions and recommendations are summarizedbelow. Additional details can be found in Chapters 5 and 6.

Program VisionThe EM Science Program has been in existence for almost four

years, but there does not appear to be a clear and agreed-upon visionfor this program within DOE. If the program is to remain viable overthe long term and to have a significant impact on the DOE cleanupmission, program managers must articulate a vision for the program thatis supported both programmatically and financially by DOE uppermanagement. The committee recommends that this vision include thefollowing four elements:

1. The program objective should be to generate new knowledge tosupport DOE’s mission to clean up its contaminated sites.

2. The program should be well connected to DOE’s difficultcleanup problems.

3. A major focus of the program should continue to be on researchto resolve DOE’s subsurface contamination problems.

4. The program should have a long-term, multidisciplinary basicresearch2 focus.

The committee defines “long term” as long enough to set ambitiousgoals to fill the knowledge gaps identified in Chapter 5 and to have rea-sonable expectations that those goals can be attained. In the commit-tee’s judgment, a time horizon on the order of a decade will berequired to make cumulative progress on the knowledge gaps identifiedin Chapter 5, although shorter-term results of use to DOE’s cleanup pro-gram will almost certainly be obtained over the lifetimes of individualresearch projects.


4

2Basic research creates new generic knowledge and is focused on long-term,rather than short-term, problems. See Sidebar 1.1 in Chapter 1.



Research EmphasesThere are significant impediments to the successful completion of

DOE’s cleanup mission that can be removed through a focused, sus-tained, and adequately funded basic research program. Based on theanalysis of DOE’s subsurface contamination problems in Chapters 2and 5, the committee recommends that the subsurface component ofthe EM Science Program have the following four research emphases:

1. Location and characterization of subsurface contaminants andcharacterization of the subsurface. Basic research that supportsadvances in capabilities to locate and characterize subsurfacecontamination and elucidate relevant subsurface conditions willhelp DOE to better assess the potential hazards of its contamina-tion problems and to design and implement appropriate correc-tive action strategies. Moreover, research on subsurface hetero-geneity in geology, geochemistry, hydrology, and microbiologywill provide a framework for assessing the fate and transport ofcontaminants. The committee believes that basic research isneeded to support the development of the following capabilities:

• improved capabilities for characterizing the physical, chemi-cal, and biological properties of the subsurface;

• improved capabilities for characterizing physical, chemical,and biological heterogeneity, especially at the scales thatcontrol contaminant fate and transport behavior;

• improved capabilities for measuring contaminant migrationand system properties that control contaminant movement;

• methods to integrate data collected at different spatial andtemporal scales to better estimate contaminant and subsur-face properties and processes; and

• methods to integrate such data into conceptual models.

2. Conceptual modeling.3 Basic research on the fundamentalapproaches and assumptions underlying conceptual modeldevelopment could produce a “tool box” of methodologies thatcan be applied to contaminated sites both inside and outside the DOE complex. This research should focus on the followingtopics:

S u m m a r y

5

3A conceptual model is a description of the subsurface as estimated fromknowledge of the known site geology and hydrology and the physical, chemical,and biological processes that govern contaminant behavior. See Chapter 5.

The committee recom-mends that the subsur-face component of theEM Science Programhave the following fourresearch emphases: 1.Location and character-ization of subsurfacecontaminants and characterization of the subsurface. . . .2. Conceptual model-ing. . . . 3. Containmentand stabilization. . . .4. Monitoring and vali-dation.



• new observational and experimental approaches and toolsfor developing conceptual models that apply to complex sub-surface environments;

• new approaches for incorporating geological, hydrological,chemical, and biological subsurface heterogeneity into con-ceptual model formulations at scales that dominate flow andtransport behavior;

• development of coupled-process models through experimen-tal studies at variable scales and complexities that accountfor the interacting physical, chemical, and biological process-es that govern contaminant fate and transport behavior;

• methods to integrate process knowledge from small-scaletests and observations into model formulations;

• methods to measure and predict the scale dependency ofparameter values; and

• approaches for establishing bounds on the accuracy of para-meters and conceptual model estimates from field and exper-imental data.

3. Containment and stabilization. Increasing reliance is beingplaced on containment and stabilization because DOE recog-nizes that cleanup at some sites is technically infeasible, or thatcontamination at some sites does not pose a high risk to humansor the environment. Basic research that supports the develop-ment of new waste containment and stabilization technologiescould lower the cost, accelerate regulatory approvals, andincrease public confidence in solving subsurface contaminationproblems. Research focused on the following topics is especiallyneeded:

• mechanisms and kinetics of chemically and biologicallymediated reactions that can be applied to new stabilizationand containment approaches or that can be used to under-stand the long-term reversibility of chemical and biologicalstabilization methods;

• physical, chemical, and biological reactions that occuramong contaminants, soils, and barrier components so thatmore compatible and durable materials for containment andstabilization systems can be developed;

• fluid transport behavior in conventional barrier systems; and • development of methods for assessing the long-term durabili-

ty of containment and stabilization systems.




4. Monitoring and validation. Basic research leading to improve-ments in capabilities to monitor and validate contaminant loca-tions and perform remedial actions will greatly enhance thetechnical success of DOE’s efforts to remediate or contain andstabilize contamination. Many of the research opportunities formonitoring and validation have been covered in the researchemphases discussed above. In addition, the committee believesthat basic research is needed on the following topics:

• development of methods for designing monitoring systems todetect both current conditions and changes in system behav-iors;

• development of validation processes.• determining the key measurements that are required to vali-

date models and system behaviors, the spatial and temporalresolutions at which such measurements must be obtained,and the extent to which surrogate data can be used in valida-tion efforts; and

• research to support the development of methods to monitorfluid and gaseous fluxes through the unsaturated zone, andfor differentiating diurnal and seasonal changes from longer-term secular changes.

Within these four emphases, the committee further recom-mends that the EM Science Program encourage research on met-als and radionuclides, which is generally not receiving muchattention in other federal research programs. There should, how-ever, be sufficient flexibility in the program so that support canbe provided for high-risk but potentially high-payoff researchideas that intersect with these recommended research emphases.

The committee’s recommendation of these four researchemphases does not mean that the subsurface research in the cur-rent program portfolio is inappropriate or misdirected. Rather,the recommended emphases represent areas where moreresearch clearly is needed.

ImplementationThe EM Science Program is a basic research program focused on

very real DOE problems. The program’s success will be measured bothby its impact on advancing the science needed for site remediation andits impact on DOE site cleanup. To be successful, the program must notonly be focused on the right problems but it also must encourageresearchers to do the right work; and it must be structured so that

S u m m a r y



research results can be handed off to technology developers and prob-lem holders at DOE sites. The committee concluded that the followingactions would help ensure the long-term success of the program inmeeting the first two of these objectives:4

1. Program Integration. Program managers must encourage andsupport program-wide integration activities to optimize impactsof advances in subsurface science on DOE site cleanup. To thisend, the program’s implementation strategy should contain thefollowing integrative elements:

• Continue to reach beyond the usual group of DOE researchersto pull in new and novel ideas to address DOE-specificproblems.

• Continue to encourage multidisciplinary research anduniversity-national laboratory-industry collaborations that willpromote new insights into the very complex subsurfaceproblems at DOE sites.

• Integrate existing data and ideas—both from DOE sites andbasic research programs outside DOE—to promote advance-ments in subsurface science and improvements in capabili-ties for addressing DOE’s subsurface contamination prob-lems.

2. Field Sites. The committee recommends that program managersexamine the feasibility of developing field research sites as oneprogram component. Such sites could attract new researchers tothe program, encourage both formal and informal multidiscipli-nary collaborations among the researchers, and facilitate thetransfer of research results into application. These field sitescould include contaminated or uncontaminated areas at majorDOE sites; analog uncontaminated sites that have subsurfacecharacteristics similar to those at contaminated DOE sites; andeven virtual sites comprised of data on historical and contempo-rary contamination problems. These sites could be establishedby the program itself or in cooperation with other research pro-grams.

The establishment of field research sites is potentially expen-sive, especially if the sites are located in contaminated areas.Consequently, the establishment of such sites will require addi-


8

4The third objective on moving science into application, although extremelyimportant, is beyond the statement of task for the present study.



tional budget support beyond that required to fund individualresearch projects, and well beyond the amount of funding avail-able to the program for new starts in fiscal year 1999. Moreover,the use of such sites will have to be evaluated periodically todetermine whether they are adding value to the research effort,particularly given the cost of such sites relative to the total sizeof the program budget.

3. Program Funding. The issue of program funding has received agreat deal of attention from a previous NRC committee (NRC,1997b), which concluded that the “program must be largeenough to support a significant number of ‘new starts’ (i.e., newprojects or competitive renewals) each year if it is to be success-ful in attracting innovative proposals from outstandingresearchers ….” New starts will help establish a cadre of knowl-edgeable and committed investigators—undergraduates, gradu-ates, postdocs, and professionals—who can be called on byDOE in the years ahead for help with its most difficult contami-nation problems. New starts also are needed to maintain conti-nuity in the research effort since the advancement of scientificknowledge is a cumulative effort involving many scientists overlong periods of time. This effort is set back significantly eachtime program funding is interrupted.

It is the committee’s strong impression that the current levelof program funding is not sufficient to support the researchemphases outlined in this report, especially since subsurfaceresearch is just one of many research areas supported by theprogram. The committee has no basis on which to recommend aspecific funding level, and such a recommendation would bewell beyond the committee’s statement of task. The committeebelieves that it is the responsibility of program managers toestimate the amount of funding required to provide adequatesupport for a research program focused on the knowledge gapspresented in Chapter 5. One approach for estimating the annualbudget needed to support the recommended research is to esti-mate the number of projects needed to attain a critical mass ofresearch on each technical challenge area discussed earlier, andthen to multiply that number by the average annual grant size.Such estimates could be used to justify future and possibly largerbudget requests to upper DOE management and Congress, espe-cially if the estimates are reviewed and validated by DOE’sinternal and external advisory committees. Future budgetrequests are likely to be seen in an increasingly more favorablelight as the program becomes more firmly connected to EM’scleanup problems.

S u m m a r y

9

It is the committee’sstrong impression thatthe current level of program funding is not sufficient to sup-port the researchemphases outlined inthis report . . . .



Concluding RemarksThe basic research supported by the EM Science Program and other

relevant federal research programs will have little if any impact on DOEcleanup unless research results are transferred into technology develop-ment programs in EM and to problem holders at DOE sites. Programmanagers have a responsibility to ensure that the handoff from researchto development is timely and effective, both for research results devel-oped in its programs and from other relevant federal programs.

There must be strong scientific, technical, and management leader-ship at all levels, from the EM Science Program up to and including theassistant secretary for environmental management if significant progresson closing knowledge gaps is to be made in the next decade and theresearch results are to be applied effectively to the DOE cleanup pro-gram. The development of this leadership is a continuing challenge—and a significant opportunity—for the EM Science Program and DOE.


10

There must be strongscientific, technical, andmanagement leader-ship at all levels ... if sig-nificant progress onclosing the knowledgegaps is to be made inthe next decade andthe research results areto be applied effective-ly to the DOE cleanupprogram.



1

Introduction and Task

The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Environmental Management(EM) Science Program was created by the 104th Congress1 to bring thenation’s basic science infrastructure to bear on the massive environ-mental cleanup effort now underway in the DOE complex. The objec-tives of the program are to

• provide scientific knowledge that will revolutionize technologiesand cleanup approaches to significantly reduce future costs,schedules, and risks;

• bridge the gap between broad fundamental research and needs-driven applied technology; and

• focus the nation’s science infrastructure on critical DOE environ-mental management problems.

To meet these objectives, the EM Science Program provides three-year awards to investigators in industry, national laboratories, and uni-versities to undertake research on problems relevant to DOE cleanupefforts. Project awards are competitive and are made on the basis ofmerit and relevance reviews managed through a partnership betweenthe DOE Office of Environmental Management, which has the primaryresponsibility for the cleanup mission, and the DOE Office of Science,2

which manages DOE basic research programs. A more detailed descrip-tion of the program is provided in Appendix A.

Since its establishment by Congress, the program has held four pro-posal competitions and has awarded about $225 million in funding,which puts it among the largest environmental research efforts in thefederal government (see Chapter 4). The first two proposal competitions

C h a p t e r 1

11

1Public Law 104-46, 1995.2Formerly the Office of Energy Research.



were completed in fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and resulted in 202awards totaling about $160 million. These awards covered a wide rangeof problems related to cleanup of the defense complex, including sub-surface contamination problems.3 The third proposal competition wascompleted in fiscal year 1998 and resulted in 30 awards totaling about$30 million. These awards provided funding for projects primarily relat-ed to high-level radioactive waste and deactivation and decommission-ing. The fourth proposal competition was completed in fiscal year 1999,while this report was in the end stages of completion, and focused pri-marily on subsurface contamination and low dose radiation.4

Shortly after the program was established, DOE requested advicefrom the National Academies on its structure and management. Inresponse, the National Academies established the Committee onBuilding an Effective Environmental Management Science Program,which operated from May 1996 through March 1997 and producedthree reports.5 One of the primary recommendations made by thiscommittee was that DOE should

develop a science plan for the EMSP [Environmental ManagementScience Program]. This science plan should provide a compre-hensive list of significant cleanup problems in the nation’s nuclearweapons complex that can be addressed through basic researchand a strategy for addressing them. (NRC, 1997b, p. 3)

This committee also recommended a near-term and a long-termprocess for developing this science plan: For the near term, programmanagers should develop a science plan from existing DOE docu-ments. For the longer term, DOE should consult with its problem hold-ers (i.e., site technical staff, managers, and stakeholder advisory groupswho have knowledge of the cleanup issues) about cleanup problemsthat cannot be resolved practically or efficiently with current knowl-edge or technologies.


12

3An analysis of the program’s subsurface science portfolio for fiscal years 1996and 1997 is provided in Chapter 3.

4Thirty-one awards totaling $25 million were made for projects related to sub-surface contamination research, and eight awards totaling about $8 million weremade for low dose radiation research in cooperation with the DOE Office ofScience’s Low Dose Radiation Research Program. The committee did not have anopportunity to review the fiscal year 1999 projects.

5Building an Effective Environmental Management Science Program: InitialAssessment (NRC, 1996a); Letter Report on the Environmental ManagementScience Program (NRC, 1996b); and Building an Effective EnvironmentalManagement Science Program: Final Assessment (NRC, 1997b). All three reportscan be viewed at the National Academy Press Web site (http://books.nap.edu/catalog/5557.html).



In the spring of 1998, Gerald Boyd, the then-acting director (nowdirector) of the Office of Science and Technology, requested that theNational Academies convene another committee of experts to adviseDOE on its first science plan for the EM Science Program, which DOEhad decided would address subsurface contamination. In response, thecurrent committee was formed under the joint auspices of the Board onRadioactive Waste Management and Water Science and TechnologyBoard. This committee has expertise in basic research and researchmanagement in the scientific disciplines relevant to subsurface contam-ination problems at DOE sites.6

The statement of task for this study (see Sidebar 1.1) charged thecommittee to provide recommendations for a science research programfor subsurface contamination problems at DOE sites, and especially toidentify areas of research where the program could make significantcontributions to DOE’s cleanup efforts and add to scientific knowledgegenerally. The committee held six meetings between October 1998 andJuly 1999 to gather information on subsurface contamination and relat-ed problems at six major DOE sites and to develop this report.7 Thecommittee also produced an interim report to advise DOE on the fiscalyear 1999 proposal call. That report is given in Appendix E.

The committee received briefings on subsurface contaminationproblems at the Hanford Site (Washington), Idaho National Engineeringand Environmental Laboratory, Nevada Test Site, Oak Ridge Site

13

C h a p t e r 1

6Biographical sketches of committee members are given in Appendix C.7See Appendix B for a summary of the information-gathering activities.

SIDEBAR 1.1 STATEMENT OF TASK

The objective of this study is to provide recommendations to DOE’s EM Science Program on the formu-

lation of a long-term basic research1 program to address subsurface contamination problems at DOE

sites. These recommendations will take into account significant subsurface contamination problems at

major DOE sites that cannot be addressed with current technologies and science knowledge gaps rele-

vant to these problems. The recommendations also will take into account the research already com-

pleted and currently in progress by other federal and state agencies and will identify areas of research

where the EM Science Program can make significant contributions to address DOE’s subsurface conta-

mination problems and to add scientific knowledge generally.

1Scientific research comprises a spectrum of investigative activities that are frequently classified usingartificial groupings such as basic and applied (e.g., Pielke and Byerly, 1998). In the committee's view, basicresearch is defined as research that creates new generic knowledge and is focused on long-term, rather thanshort-term, problems. See also NRC (1995).



(Tennessee), and Savannah River Site (South Carolina). The committeetoured the Hanford Site and Savannah River Site to make direct obser-vations of the problems and obtain briefings from site personnel, and itreviewed DOE and other documents concerning the subsurface conta-mination problems at these sites and at the Rocky Flats Site inColorado. The committee did not request briefings on the Rocky FlatsSite because of time constraints and because DOE advised that itsplanned cleanup activities of this site would be completed by 2006(e.g., DOE, 1998a).

The committee focused primarily on the scientific issues in keepingwith its collective basic-research expertise. The committee hasreviewed the subsurface contamination problems at major DOE sites(see Chapter 2) and provides recommendations on a research agenda toaddress these problems (see Chapter 5). The committee also consideredthe research being sponsored by other federal programs (see Chapter 4)as well as the projects supported in the current EM Science Programportfolio (see Chapter 3), so that unnecessary duplication of effort canbe minimized.

In Chapter 6, the committee recommends a strategy for implement-ing a research agenda, but it has refrained from making recommenda-tions on program management, which is largely beyond its collectiveexpertise and was covered in detail by a previous National Academiescommittee (NRC, 1997b). The committee also comments on the levelof effort (both in time and funding) that will be required to make signifi-cant progress on the research agenda. The committee believes that thesuccess of the EM Science Program will depend both on the nature ofthe problems addressed and on the effort sustained in solving them.




2

Subsurface Contamination in the DOE Complex

Over the last five decades, the United States has created a massiveindustrial complex to develop, test, manufacture, and maintain nuclearweapons for national security purposes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers, Manhattan Engineering District, started constructing the complexduring the Second World War. The complex was expanded during theensuing Cold War by the Atomic Energy Commission, the EnergyResearch and Development Authority, and starting in 1977, the Depart-ment of Energy (DOE). The DOE complex, as it has come to be known,encompasses 134 distinct geographic sites in 31 states and one territorywith a total area of over two million acres (DOE, 1998a). The individ-ual sites range in size from several hundred square miles to less thanone square mile; these sites host a variety of defense-related activitiesranging from uranium mining and milling to nuclear weapons testing(see Figure 2.1).

The production and testing of nuclear weapons has created a legacyof significant environmental contamination, as described in some detaillater in this chapter. In 1989, Congress created the Office of Environ-mental Management (EM) in DOE to reduce threats to health and safetyposed by the environmental contamination at DOE sites. To meet thisobjective, EM has undertaken a major cleanup effort, which, accordingto DOE, is the largest environmental cleanup in the world. This is cer-tainly true from a cost standpoint: EM is now spending about $5.8 bil-lion per year on its cleanup program and has spent over $50 billionsince 1990. It expects to spend another $147 billion between 1997 and2070 (DOE, 1998a), but this estimate is uncertain because the magni-tude of contamination and the level of cleanup effort required at somesites are still poorly understood.

In this chapter, the committee provides an overview of the subsur-face contamination problems around the DOE complex and shows by

C h a p t e r 2



example how advances in scientific and engineering knowledge canimprove cleanup effectiveness. The chapter is organized into three sec-tions. The first provides an overview of the DOE complex and its mis-sion and describes the legacy of contamination from weapons produc-tion and related activities. The second section illustrates the range ofsubsurface problems that exist across the complex today and what DOEis doing to correct them. The examples are taken from the six largestDOE sites: Hanford, Idaho, Nevada, Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats, andSavannah River (see Sidebar 2.1). In the third section, the committeediscusses how scientific and engineering research can improve theeffectiveness of DOE’s mission to tackle these contamination problems.


16

Hanford

Idaho National Engineeringand Environmental Laboratory

NevadaTest SiteRocky FlatsEnvironmental Technology Site

FIGURE 2.1 Location of DOE

complex sites. The major

sites are labeled by name on

the figure. The locations of

other sites are indicated by

closed circles. SOURCE: DOE.



This discussion will be used to support the recommendations inChapters 5 and 6.

Past Prac t ices and ConsequencesNuclear weapons production during the Cold War was a highly

industrialized enterprise that involved a vast complex of mines andindustrial sites across the United States. The front end of the processwas focused on the production of uranium, which was then used toproduce other weapons materials, particularly plutonium and tritium.

17

C h a p t e r 2

Oak Ridge Reservation

Savannah River Site



The back end was focused on the fabrication and testing of nucleardevices. The major production steps and waste byproducts aredescribed in Sidebar 2.2.

The United States is no longer producing plutonium and tritium1 for


18

SIDEBAR 2.1 THE DOE COMPLEX

Although the DOE complex encompasses over 100 distinct sites, much of the major defense-related

activities were conducted at the six largest DOE sites (see Figure 2.1) described below.

The Hanford Site is located in southeastern Washington state and covers an area of about 1,450 square

kilometers (560 square miles). Production of materials for nuclear weapons took place here from the

1940s until mid-1989. The site contains several production reactors, chemical separations plants, and

solid and liquid waste storage sites.

The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, first established as the Nuclear Reactor

Testing Station and then the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, occupies 2,300 square kilometers

(890 square miles) in a remote desert area along the western edge of the upper Snake River plain. The

site was established as a building, testing, and operating station for various types of nuclear reactors

and propulsion systems, and the site also manages spent fuel from the naval reactor program.

The Nevada Test Site, which occupies about 3,500 square kilometers (1,350 square miles) in southern

Nevada, was the primary location for atmospheric and underground testing of the nation’s nuclear

weapons starting in 1951.

The Oak Ridge Reservation covers an area of approximately 155 square kilometers (60 square miles)

and is located about 10 kilometers (6 miles) west of Knoxville, Tennessee. The reservation has three

major operating facilities: the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Y-12 Plant, and the K-25 Plant. The

laboratory was originally constructed as a research and development facility to support plutonium

production technology. The Y-12 Plant was built to produce highly enriched uranium by electromag-

netic separation; and the K-25 Plant, formerly known as the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, also

was created to produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

The Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site is situated on about 140 hectares (~350 acres) near

Denver, Colorado, and has more than 400 manufacturing, chemical processing, laboratory, and support

facilities that were used to produce nuclear weapons components. Production activities once included

metalworking, fabrication and component assembly, and plutonium recovery and purification.

Operations at the site ceased in 1989.

The Savannah River Site, located near Aiken, South Carolina, covers an area of about 800 square kilo-

meters (300 square miles). The site was established in 1950 to produce special radioactive isotopes

(e.g., plutonium and tritium) for use in the production of nuclear weapons. The site contains produc-

tion reactors, chemical processing plants, and solid and liquid waste storage sites.

1The secretary of energy has announced that DOE may produce tritium in thefuture to replenish current stocks of nuclear weapons.



nuclear weapons, and a large part of the DOE complex has been shutdown or placed on standby. All of DOE’s production reactors havebeen shut down, and only two reprocessing facilities (the F and Hcanyons at Savannah River) continue to operate. These are scheduledto be phased out during the next decade. The weapons design andassembly facilities also continue to operate, but their mission nowincludes the disassembly of surplus nuclear weapons. The Nevada TestSite remains open, but only subcritical nuclear tests have been con-ducted there since 1992.

During the last decade, a large part of the DOE complex, includingsome of the sites discussed in Sidebar 2.1, have taken on a new mis-sion: namely, remediation of the environmental contamination resultingfrom weapons production. This mission is formidable, because itinvolves cleanup of a wide variety of hazardous chemicals and radioac-tive materials introduced into the environment during five decades ofweapons production and testing (see Sidebar 2.3). The contaminantsinclude dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs; see Sidebar 2.4);toxic metals such as lead, chromium, and mercury; and radionuclidessuch as plutonium, cesium, strontium, and tritium (see Table 2.1).

These contaminants were introduced into the environment througha variety of pathways, including intentional disposal into the groundthrough injection wells, disposal pits, and settling ponds; and throughaccidental spills and leaks from storage tanks and waste transfer lines.In some cases, there is little information available on either the timingor magnitude of contaminant releases to the environment, or the fate of

C h a p t e r 2

19

TABLE 2.1 Principal Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL), Metal, andRadionuclide Contaminants in the DOE Complex

DNAPLs Metals Radionuclides

Trichloroethylene Lead Plutonium

Dichloroethylene Chromium (VI) Strontium-90

Tetrachloroethylene Mercury Cesium-137

Perchloroethylene Zinc Uranium (various isotopes)

Chloroform Beryllium Tritium

Dichloromethane Arsenic Thorium

Polychlorinated Biphenyls Cadmium Technetium-99

Copper Radium

Iodine-129

SOURCE: EPA (1977); INEEL (1997); Riley and Zachara (1992).



contaminants in the subsurface after release. Moreover, DOE sites arelocated in a variety of climatic zones and have complex subsurfacecharacteristics (see Table 2.2), which makes it difficult to predict thelocation, transport, and fate of contaminants once they are released intothe environment. As discussed in some detail in other NationalResearch Council reports (NRC, 1997a, 1999), technologies to effec-tively remediate many subsurface DNAPL, metal, and radionuclidecontamination problems are either lacking or are unproven for large-scale site remediation.

Although subsurface contamination is generally acknowledged to be


20

SIDEBAR 2.2 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS PRODUCTION

The production of nuclear

weapons is a technically com-

plex and highly industrialized

process. The major production

steps and waste byproducts

of this process are described

below.

Mining and milling. Uranium ore

was mined at over 400 sites in

the United States and processed

in mills to produce uranium

oxide. These processes produced

large volumes of mine and mill tailings that contained heavy metals and radioactive radium and thori-

um. This waste is being managed through the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act program.

Uranium enrichment. Elaborate chemical processes were used to concentrate the fissile isotope uranium-

235 from the milled ore. Uranium enrichment facilities were built at Oak Ridge (Y-12 and K-25 Plants),

Ohio (Portsmouth Plant), and Kentucky (Paducah Plant). The waste streams from the enrichment process

include depleted uranium (i.e., depleted in U-235 relative to U-238), uranium-contaminated scrap metal,

polychlorinated biphenyl-contaminated waste, and a variety of organic solvents. Separation of lithium

isotopes at the Oak Ridge Y-12 plant also produced large amounts of mercury waste.

Fuel and target fabrication. The enriched uranium was converted to metal at the Fernald Plant in Ohio

and then fabricated into reactor fuel or targets for plutonium production at Hanford and Savannah

River. These processes produced uranium dust and a variety of chemical wastes.

Plutonium production. The United States produced about 100 metric tons of plutonium between 1944

and 1988 at 14 reactors at the Hanford and the Savannah River sites. The reactors at Savannah River

also produced tritium. Thousands of tons of uranium fuel were processed through the reactors during

their four decades of operation. The waste streams from these operations include solid and liquid



a significant problem across the DOE complex, estimates of the magni-tude of the problem vary considerably, as shown in Table 2.3. Accord-ing to recent DOE estimates (DOE, 1998a) there are about 6.4 billioncubic meters (226 billion cubic feet) of contaminated soil, groundwater,

C h a p t e r 2

21

radioactive waste, acids, and solvents. The cooling water from the reactors contained some radionu-

clides, most notably tritium.

Plutonium Separation. Plutonium and other special isotopes were separated from the irradiated fuel by

a variety of chemical processes. Chemical separations plants were located at the Hanford, Savannah

River, and Idaho sites. Operation of the separations plants produced significant volumes of highly

radioactive and hazardous chemical waste and water containing low levels of radionuclides and haz-

ardous chemicals.

Weapons design, fabrication, and assembly. Weapons design was the responsibility of the Los Alamos

and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. Weapons components were produced at several sites

in the United States, and final assembly took place at the Pantex Plant in Texas. The fabrication process

produced several waste streams, including scrap uranium and plutonium metal and solvents.

Weapons testing. The United States has conducted more than a thousand nuclear weapons tests in the

atmosphere, under water, and underground, and most have occurred at the Nevada Test Site. This test-

ing resulted in the contamination of surface and subsurface sites with radioactive materials, including

tritium, plutonium, and fission products.

2The subsurface contamination estimates provided in this chapter are compiledfrom various DOE documents. The committee cannot evaluate the accuracy ofany of these estimates, but believes based on the briefings and documents itreceived during the course of this study that the estimates are likely to have verylarge uncertainties.

Figure Source: DOE



and related environmental media at its sites.2 Most of this contamina-tion is at two sites, the Hanford Site in eastern Washington and theIdaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in south-central Idaho (see Figure 2.1). At these two sites alone, EM cleanup isnot expected to be completed before 2050, and after cleanup is “com-plete” EM does not know how much contamination will remain in theground to be managed through surveillance and containment.

EM’s current cleanup plans, which also are given in the Paths toClosure report (DOE, 1998a), anticipate expenditures on the order of


22

TABLE 2.2 Geologic and Climatologic Variability Across the DOE Weapons Complex

DOE Site Climate Geology and Hydrogeology Surface Waters Depth to Groundwater (m)

Savannah River Humid, subtropical Atlantic Coastal Plain with clay soils. Savannah River 0-38a

Site The strata are deeply dissected by creeks, and most groundwater eventually seeps into and is diluted by the creeks.

Hanford Site Arid, cool; mild Alluvial plain of bedded sediments Columbia River 60-90b

winters and warm with sands and gravels. Groundwater summers; average flows toward the Columbia River.annual rainfall 16 cm (6.3 in.)

Oak Ridge Humid, typical of Valley and ridge province bordering Clinch River 6-37c

Reservation the southern the Cumberland Plateau. Primary Appalachian region; porosity is low, but fracture porosity average annual is present. High clay content.precipitation Shallow water table.138 cm (54.4 in.)

Rocky Flats Temperate, semiarid, Colorado Piedmont section of the Several streams 0-9d

Environmental and continental Plains physiographic province. occur on or near Technology temperatures; average Alluvial deposits cover the site. the facilitySite annual rainfall just

under 40 cm (15 in.)

Idaho National Semiarid with Near the northern margin of the Big Lost River and 60-240Engineering and sagebrush-steppe Eastern Snake River plain, a low-lying other ephemeral Environmental characteristics located area of late Tertiary and Quaternary streamsLaboratory in a belt of prevailing volcanism and sedimentation.

western winds; Basalt covers three-quarters of its average annual rainfall surface.22 cm (8.5 in.)

aMichelle Ewart, SRS, personal communication, 2000.bGephart and Lundgren (1998).cGrover Chamberlain, DOE-HQ, personal communication, 2000.dChristine Gelles, DOE-HQ, personal communication, 2000.

SOURCE: Adapted from Sandia National Laboratories (1996), except where noted.



$57 billion between 1997 and 2006 to complete cleanup at all but 10of its sites, including the major sites shown in Table 2.3. DOE expectsan additional expenditure of $79 billion to clean up those remaining 10

C h a p t e r 2

23

SIDEBAR 2.3 A PRIMER ON RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Radioactive wastes are the unwanted byproducts of the nuclear fuel cycle (see Sidebar 2.2) and may

contain both radioactive isotopes and hazardous chemicals. In the United States, radioactive waste is

classified and managed by its source of production rather than by its physical, chemical, or radioactive

properties. Consequently, different classes of waste can contain many of the same radioactive isotopes,

and even “low-level” waste can contain certain long-lived radioactive isotopes.

In general, nuclear fuel cycle wastes are grouped into the following broad classes for purposes of man-

agement and disposal:

• Mill tailings are wastes resulting from the processing of ore to extract uranium and thorium.

• Spent nuclear fuel is fuel that has been irradiated in a nuclear reactor, and for the purposes of dis-

posal may include cladding and other structural components.

• High-level waste is the primary waste produced from chemical processing of spent nuclear fuel. This

waste is usually liquid in form and contains a wide range of radioactive and chemical constituents.

Spent nuclear fuel is often referred to as high-level waste in nuclear waste management terminolo-

gy although it is defined differently in the regulations.

• Transuranic waste excludes high-level waste as defined above and includes waste that contains

alpha-emitting transuranium (i.e., atomic number greater than 92) isotopes with half lives greater

than 20 years and concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries per gram. DOE also includes U-233

in its definition of transuranic waste. This waste usually consists of contaminated materials like

clothing and tools resulting from the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

• Low-level waste is radioactive waste that does not meet one of the definitions given previously.

There are two other classes of materials that DOE sometimes manages as waste:

• Nuclear materials, such as plutonium and special-use isotopes, that may be declared as surplus and

disposed of as waste.

• Contaminated environmental media, such as contaminated soil and groundwater, that may fall

under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act. The cleanup of this contamination may generate additional

radioactive and chemical waste streams that must be treated and managed.

In the United States, the federal government regulates the management and disposal of most types of

radioactive waste. Federal regulations seek to reduce to reasonably achievable levels the exposure of

workers and other members of the public to this waste. The guiding philosophy for waste management

is sequestration, that is, to isolate the waste from human populations and the environment, either

through long-term storage or disposal in an underground facility until it no longer poses a hazard.



sites between 2007 and 2070. About $14 billion will be incurred forremedial action, which is defined by DOE as the characterization andcleanup of sites where contaminants or contaminated materials werereleased into the environment. The cleanup of these sites will involvethe recovery and treatment of abandoned materials; remediation of soil,groundwater and surface water; and monitoring where contaminationcannot be cleaned up to unrestricted release standards.

According to EM, site cleanup will be considered “complete” when,among other things, releases to the environment have been cleaned up


24

TABLE 2.3 Projected Magnitude, Timing, and Cost of DOE Cleanup Activities

DOE Site Projected Completion Soil, Pre-2006 Post-2006 Residual Residual End State(s)a Date of Groundwater, Life-Cycle Life-Cycle Conta- Conta-

Planned and Other Costs Costs minants minants Cleanup Media Requiring (1998 $B) (1998 $B)b in Soil in WaterProjects Remedial Action

(106 m3)

Hanford IM, other TBD 2046 1,400 13 37.4 � � � � �

Idaho UR, RR, IM 2050 4,700 5.1 11.3 � � � � � �

Nevada RR, IM, 2014 3.1d 0.92 1.3 � � �

Test Site other TBD& Other Associated Sitesc

Oak Ridge & UR, RR, IM 2013 31 5.4 7.7 � � � � � �

Associated Sitese

Rocky Flats UR, RR, IM 2006-2010 0.79 5.3 0.96 � � � � �

Savannah IM, other TBD 2038 172 12 17.7 � � � � � �

River

Other Sites UR, RR, IM, 1999-2038 120 7.8 2.8 � � � � � �

other TBD

Totals 6,400 50 79

aUR = unrestricted release; RR = restricted release; IM = long-term institutional management; TBD = to be determined.bPost-2006 cost estimates include some but not all costs for long-term institutional management.cIncludes the Nevada Test Site and eight off-site locations in five states (Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, Nevada, and New Mexico) where under-

ground nuclear tests were conducted.dEstimate does not include groundwater contaminated by nuclear testing.eIncludes the Oak Ridge Reservation, the Paducah and Portsmith Gaseous Diffusion Plants in Kentucky and Ohio, respectively, and the Weldon

Spring Site in Missouri.

SOURCE: Compiled from DOE (1998a, 1999).

Met

als

Rad

s

Org

anic

s

Met

als

Rad

s

Org

anic

s



in accordance with agreed standards and groundwater contaminationhas been contained or long-term treatment or monitoring has been putin place (DOE, 1998a, p. 1-7). In other words, even after EM has com-pleted its cleanup projects there will still be contaminants left in thesubsurface and in surface land-disposal facilities that will require long-term management and possibly future actions to prevent furtherspread.

Examples of Subsur face Contaminat ionProblems at Major DOE S i tes

The committee received several briefings on soil and groundwater

C h a p t e r 2

25

SIDEBAR 2.4 NON-AQUEOUS PHASE LIQUIDS IN HETEROGENEOUS FORMATIONS

Non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) are a common class of subsurface contaminants at many DOE

sites. Dense non-aqueous phase liquids (or DNAPLs) are organic chemicals such as trichloroethylene,

tetrachloroethylene, and polychlorinated biphenyls that have densities greater than water (i.e., > 1.0

gram per cubic centimeter) at standard temperature and pressure and have low solubilities. Their rela-

tively high density causes them to migrate downward through soils and groundwater under the influ-

ence of gravity. When they encounter a low-permeability layer, they may pool or move laterally.

Because of their low solubilities, NAPLs remain as a separate phase and may provide a long-term

source of groundwater contamination.

The detection, characterization, and remediation of DNAPL contamination is generally difficult for a

number of reasons, including geological heterogeneity; complex physical, chemical, and biological

interactions; lack of efficient and cost effective field characterization techniques; and limitations and

unavailability of properly validated modeling tools for the design and evaluation of remediation tech-

niques. Experimental studies (e.g., Schwille, 1988; Kueper and Frind, 1991; Illangasekare and others,

1995) have shown that geologic heterogeneity can cause lateral spreading, preferential flow, and

DNAPL pooling. In fact, such heterogeneities may be the major factor in controlling the entrapment

distribution of DNAPLs in the subsurface. The DNAPL may exist as discontinuous, stable pore-scale

masses trapped in soils under capillary forces, but it may also exist as an immobile continuous phase

trapped by various heterogeneity features.

Researchers (e.g., Pfannkuch, 1984; Schwille, 1988) have identified two geometries associated with

subsurface DNAPL contamination: (1) cylinders or fingers, and (2) pools on impermeable layers or

bedrock. The experimental work by Illangasekare and others (1995) and the conceptual studies by

Hunt and others (1986a,b) demonstrate that other geometries are possible as well, including zones of

high saturation trapped in coarse lenses below the water table; thin pools trapped in coarse sand lay-

ers; and suspended pools trapped on top of fine sand or clay layers.



contamination problems and remediation activities at five of the sixmajor DOE sites (see Sidebar 2.1): Idaho, Hanford, Nevada, Oak Ridge,and Savannah River.3 These sites are in different parts of the country(see Figure 2.1), are characterized by a wide range of geological andclimatic conditions (see Table 2.2), and have a wide range of contami-nation histories.

In this section, the committee presents a snapshot of some of thesites’ subsurface contamination problems to illustrate both the range ofcontamination problems and the remediation challenges. These exam-ples are illustrative and do not necessarily represent the only significantcontamination problems at the sites or across the DOE complex.Readers who wish additional information should consult the referencescited in this section as well as the references given in Appendix D.

As will be shown in the following discussion, there are many simi-larities among the contamination problems at the major DOE sites. Tohighlight this fact, the committee has organized the discussion arounddifferent contaminant settings: waste burial ground contamination, soilcontamination, unsaturated zone contamination, and saturated zonecontamination. These are illustrated schematically in Figure 2.2.

Waste Burial Grounds“Waste burial ground” is applied rather loosely to a wide array of


26

FIGURE 2.2 Schematic illus-

tration of historical waste

management practices in

the DOE complex and con-

taminant pathways to the

environment. SOURCE: DOE.

3As noted in Chapter 1, the committee did not obtain a briefing on the RockyFlats site because of time constraints and because of DOE’s plans to complete sitecleanup by 2006. However, one of the committee members was familiar with thesite, and the committee was able to obtain additional written information todevelop the example used in this chapter.



disposal sites around the complex, ranging from auger holes to disposalpits and trenches. Waste burial grounds were used at all the major DOEsites to dispose of solid and liquid wastes, with many disposal practicesnow considered unacceptable by today’s standards (see Sidebar 2.5):pits and trenches were unlined and frequently unmarked after closureand little thought was given to the stability or durability of waste thatwent into them. Consequently, there has been significant leakage frommany waste burial grounds in the DOE complex, contaminatinggroundwater and surface water with metals, radionuclides, and haz-ardous chemicals. Efforts are now being made at some sites to excavateand remove the contaminants from these burial grounds or to coverthem with low-permeability barriers to inhibit the further spread of con-tamination.

Burial Ground Complex at Savannah RiverThe Burial Ground Complex covers an area of about 80 hectares

(195 acres) in the central part of the Savannah River Site and was usedbetween 1952 and 1995 to dispose of low-level radioactive waste,mixed waste (i.e., radioactive and chemical waste), and intermediate-level radioactive wastes (see Plate 1). Contamination from these burialgrounds has leaked to the underlying groundwater, producing fourplumes consisting of various chemicals, metals, and radionuclides. TheBurial Ground Complex represents one of the Savannah River Site’shighest long-term risks to human health and environment and has beenidentified by the site’s restoration division as its highest cleanup priority(Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 1998).

Plans to remediate this site have not been finalized but they willprobably include several actions, including the removal or stabilizationof highly contaminated zones in the southern part of the burial ground;installation of a multilayer surface barrier or cap consisting of naturaland synthetic materials to impede water infiltration (see Plate 1); andlong-term surveillance. DOE has relatively little experience with long-term caps, covers, and monitoring, but these containment approaches,if successful, are likely to find wide application for stabilization ofwaste burial grounds around the complex.

Radioactive Waste Management Complex at IdahoThe Radioactive Waste Management Complex was established in

1952 for disposal of solid low-level radioactive waste generated on site.Waste from other DOE sites was also buried here, including transuranicwaste from Rocky Flats. After 1970, shallow land disposal of transuran-ic waste was discontinued, and above-ground storage on asphalt padsbegan to be used. Wastes were disposed in pits, trenches, soil vaults, anabove-ground disposal pad, a transuranic storage area release site, andthree septic tanks (DOE, 1996).

C h a p t e r 2



The Idaho site is located in a semiarid environment and is underlainby a thick unsaturated zone (see Table 2.2), which was thought to pro-vide a barrier to contaminant migration to the underlying groundwater.However, low levels of plutonium have been found in groundwaterbeneath the Radioactive Waste Management Complex, and recentmodeling work suggests that contaminant travel times to groundwaterare only on the order of a few decades (see Sidebar 2.6), much shorterthan anticipated when the complex was established in the 1950s.

One of the trenches contained in the complex is Pit 9, a one-acresite that was used for waste disposal primarily from Rocky Flatsbetween 1967 and 1969. DOE estimates that Pit 9 contains about7,100 cubic meters (250,000 cubic feet) of sludge and solids contami-nated with plutonium and americium. Pit 9 was to serve as a demon-stration for cleanup technologies that could be applied elsewhere onthe site. However, the project has been plagued by significant delays


28

SIDEBAR 2.5 HISTORICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE DOE COMPLEX

The Manhattan Project to develop nuclear weapons was a first-of-a-kind engineering effort that pro-duced a variety of “exotic” (by the standards of the day) radioactive and chemical wastes, frequently invery large volumes. During the ensuing Cold War, U.S. (and Soviet) defense efforts were focused on theproduction of nuclear warheads, and less attention was given to the management and disposal ofassociated radioactive and chemical wastes, resulting in significant environmental contamination asillustrated by the examples in this chapter.

This April 1962 photograph

was taken a few days after

rapid melting and rain

caused flooding of a pit in

what is now the Radioactive

Waste Management

Complex at the Idaho site.

Barrels and boxes contain-

ing mixed (radioactive and

hazardous) waste can be

seen floating in the pit.

Source: Idaho National

Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory.



and cost overruns and recent concerns that drilling to retrieve wastesamples could cause an explosion or fire. Remediation efforts currentlyare on hold awaiting a safety assessment by a team of independentexperts.

The remediation of buried waste grounds like the Radioactive WasteManagement Complex presents several challenges to DOE and its con-tractors, including locating and characterizing the buried waste, deter-mining the amount of surrounding contamination, and treating thewaste either by in situ or extractive technologies. The problems at thispit provides perhaps a worst-case illustration of the kinds of problemsthat DOE is likely to face as it tackles other waste burial groundsaround the complex.

Burial Grounds at Oak Ridge National LaboratoryThe original mission of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory was to

produce and chemically separate plutonium, and later to produce iso-

C h a p t e r 2

29

The reprocessing of spent fuel to recover uranium and plutonium for warheads produced very large

volumes of highly radioactive liquid wastes at the Hanford, Savannah River, and Idaho sites, ranging

from radioactive or chemically contaminated reactor effluent discharges into groundwater or surface

water and soil to high-level waste discharges into the subsurface. The Hanford Site, for example, could

not build enough tanks to hold all the waste from reprocessing operations. Consequently, during the

1940s some high-level waste was discharged directly into the ground; and until the 1970s millions of

liters of high-level waste supernatant liquids were discharged into the ground through drainage

basins and cribs.

One of the guiding philosophies of waste management throughout the DOE complex, especially prior

to the 1980s, can perhaps best be characterized as “out of sight, out of mind.” Such radioactive and

chemical wastes as tritium, chromium, mercury, lubricating oils, solvents, and raw sewage were dis-

charged directly into surface waters, surface drainage basins, or directly into aquifers through injec-

tion wells. Solid and liquid radioactive and chemical wastes were also buried in shallow pits and

trenches, which are now known by the somewhat euphemistic term “burial grounds.” Some of these

trenches filled with water during periods of high rainfall, which promoted migration of chemicals and

radionuclides into the subsurface.

Many of these waste management practices seem reckless by today’s standards, but it is important to

recognize that DOE’s (and its predecessor agencies) practices were not substantially different from

those employed elsewhere in the public and private sectors. In some cases, waste management deci-

sions were made with an incomplete understanding of their consequences. In other cases, waste man-

agement practices judged to be appropriate by the standards of the day are now understood to be

inadequate in light of our improved understanding of natural processes and our greater sensitivity to

environmental quality. Such practices have resulted in a significant legacy of environmental contami-

nation that will take decades and tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to correct.



topes and undertake research on radioactive and hazardous materials.Much of the radioactive and hazardous wastes from these activities isburied at the site in the Melton Valley Area (DOE, 1996). For example,


30

SIDEBAR 2.6 CONTAMINANT TRAVEL TIMES AT THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPLEX

Low levels of plutonium

and other contaminants

were detected recently in

groundwater monitoring

wells near the Radioactive

Waste Management

Complex at the Idaho Site,

indicating that contami-

nants had traveled from the

complex, through the

unsaturated zone, and into

the Snake River plain

aquifer. This discovery was

unexpected by DOE, since

its conceptual models treat-

ed the unsaturated zone as

a barrier to contaminant

migration, and numerical

models based on conventional flow and transport theory did not predict this degree of migration.

Travel time from the complex to the underlying Snake River plain aquifer has been the subject of

intense debate spanning several decades. Because of site aridity, it was initially assumed that the thick

unsaturated zone beneath the complex afforded a high degree of contaminant retardation, but even

40 years ago concerns were raised about the assumption of a long travel time. A National Research

Council committee visited the Idaho Site (then the National Reactor Testing Station) and the Hanford

Site in the 1960s and prepared a report to the Atomic Energy Commission (NRC, 1966). That committee

made the following statement in its report (p. 5):

The protection afforded by aridity can lead to overconfidence: at both sites it seemed to be

assumed that no water from surface precipitation percolates downward to the water table,

whereas there appears to be as yet no conclusive evidence that this is the case, especially dur-

ing periods of low evapotranspiration and heavier-than-average precipitation, as when winter

snows are melted.

Travel time estimates developed over the last several decades have borne out that committee’s con-

cerns. As shown in the figure, travel time estimates have decreased from tens of thousands to a few

tens of years. The uncertainty of these estimates is attributed to several factors, including incorrect

conceptualizations of the hydrogeologic system, improper simplifying assumptions, incorrect trans-

port parameters, and overlooked transport phenomena.

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 20001

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

Est

imat

e of

Tra

vel T

ime

to G

roun

dwat

er T

able

, in

year

sTime to aquifer

Year

Source: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.



the Waste Area Grouping 4, which is located about one-half milesouthwest of the main plant, is contaminated with strontium-90, tritium,cesium-137, and a small amount of cobalt-60. Significant amounts oftritium have migrated into White Oak Creek, which drains the site(DOE, 1996). About 70 percent of the strontium-90 discharge from thiswaste area group has been attributed to seepage during waste trenchflooding.

There are no cost-effective methods for locating and characterizingthese highly concentrated zones of contaminants (known as “hotspots”) prior to extraction and treatment. Since waste that must beexcavated and moved poses added hazards to workers, most of theburied waste will remain in its current location until more effectivetechnologies become available. Caps and other types of barriers will beused for short-term stabilization and containment, with long-term moni-toring to validate the effectiveness of the containment systems. Thelong-term performance of these containment systems and methods forvalidating their long-term effectiveness are not well understood.

Soil4 ContaminationContamination of surface and near-surface environments is a perva-

sive problem at all of the major DOE sites. This contamination includesmetals, radionuclides, and hazardous chemicals and is the result ofpoor waste management practices, such as those illustrated below.

Plutonium Contamination at Rocky FlatsAs discussed in Sidebar 2.1, the Rocky Flats Environmental

Technology Site was responsible for fabrication and component assem-bly for nuclear weapons. Materials used in these activities includedboth plutonium and enriched uranium metals and oxides. At present,the Rocky Flats site contains approximately 12.9 metric tons of plutoni-um and 6.7 metric tons of highly enriched uranium in nuclear weaponsparts, materials, process residues, and wastes. Much of the material hasbeen stored in temporary packaging, and about 30,000 liters (~8,000gallons) of plutonium solutions and 2,700 liters (~710 gallons) of highlyenriched uranium acid solutions are being held in tanks that were notdesigned for long-term storage (DOE, 1996).

Poor storage and disposal practices have resulted in extensive sur-face and groundwater contamination at the site and on an adjoiningproperty (see Plate 2). The principal types of soil contaminants includeamericium, plutonium, and uranium. DOE plans several environmental

C h a p t e r 2

31

4The term “soil” is used here in the engineering sense to include unconsolidat-ed materials in near-surface environments, typically several meters to 10 or someters in thickness in both saturated and unsaturated states.



cleanup activities at the site, including removal of contaminant sources,where possible; stabilization, including installation of caps and barriers,where contamination cannot be removed; and continuous environmen-tal monitoring. DOE has announced plans to complete cleanup of thesite by 2006, but even after cleanup is completed there will be a con-tinuing surveillance mission to monitor the remaining contamination(DOE, 1998a).

Mercury and Cesium Contamination at Oak Ridge Because of poor operational and waste management practices, the

streams and rivers on part of the Oak Ridge site have been extensivelycontaminated with mercury and radioactive cesium. The mercury con-tamination is from the Y-12 plant, where mercury was used to separatelithium isotopes. DOE estimates that between 108,000 and 212,000kilograms (~240,000 to 470,000 pounds) of mercury were released intoEast Fork Poplar Creek between 1953 and 1983 (DOE, 1996). Minoramounts of mercury continue to be released into the creek from sec-ondary sources. The cesium contamination is the result of seepage intostreams from old waste storage pits and trenches. These streams draininto the Clinch River, which in turn drains into the Watts Bar Reservoir


32

Oak Ridge ReservationTennessee

Watts Bar Lake

Clinch

Rive

r

FIGURE 2.3 Plan view of

Oak Ridge site and adjacent

waterways to Watts Bar

Reservoir showing major

areas of mercury and

cesium contamination.

SOURCE: Oak Ridge

National Laboratory.



downstream of the site. The Clinch River and Watts Bar Reservoir com-prise about 120 river miles (193 kilometers) and 18,000 hectares(44,000 acres) and are used for municipal and industrial water supplies,recreation, and residential development (see Figure 2.3 and Plate 5).

Studies by Olsen and others (1992) suggest that about 335 curies ofcesium-137 were released into the river system between 1949 and1986 and that over 300 curies of cesium now reside in the Clinch Riverand Watts Bar Reservoir sediments. It has been estimated that about 76metric tons of mercury have accumulated in the sediments of the WattsBar Reservoir system. Other contaminants found in the river and reser-voir system include metals (lead, arsenic, selenium, and chromium),organics (polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxin) and radionuclides(cobalt-60, tritium, and strontium-90).

DOE plans to excavate and dispose of some of the contaminatedsoils at the Y-12 site. However, there are no plans at present to remedi-ate the river or reservoir, in large part because the contamination is dif-ficult to locate and remediation would be expensive and potentiallyhazardous to workers, the public, and the environment.

Surface Contamination at Nevada Test SiteThere is a significant amount of surface and shallow surface soil

contamination that resulted from above-ground and near-surfacenuclear detonations, safety shot tests, rocket engine development, andunderground nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site. The primary conta-minants include americium, plutonium, depleted uranium, and metalssuch as lead. The contamination is found on parts of the test site, theTonopoh Test Range, and the Nellis Air Force Range (see Figure 2.4).The safety shot tests resulted in dispersion of contaminants in excess of40 picocuries per gram over more than 1,200 hectares (3,000 acres).This contaminated acreage increases to 11,000 hectares (27,000 acres)when atmospheric and near-surface tests are included (DOE, 1996).

When warranted, cleanup of the Soils Sites Area will consist ofexcavation and disposal elsewhere on the site. Few of these sites havebeen characterized because of funding constraints.

Contamination in the Unsaturated ZoneThe unsaturated zone is that part of the subsurface above the water

table. It contains liquid water under less than atmospheric pressures(e.g., water held by capillary and adsorptive forces), but most of thepore spaces in the rock or soil are filled with air. The unsaturated zoneexists at all of the major DOE sites, but as shown in Table 2.2 its thick-ness varies significantly among sites. The unsaturated zone tends to bethe thickest at the arid western sites—at Hanford, for example, theunsaturated zone is up to about 90 meters (~300 feet) thick—and

C h a p t e r 2



thinnest at the more humid eastern sites.

Radionuclide Contamination in the 200 Area at HanfordThe 200 Area is located on what is known as the central plateau of

the Hanford Site and covers about 2,400 hectares (6,000 acres; seePlate 3). This area contains chemical processing facilities for extractinguranium and plutonium from irradiated reactor fuel and associatedwaste storage and facilities. The waste disposal facilities include surfacesettling basins and underground drainage cribs constructed for disposalof low-activity liquid wastes, as well as solid waste burial pits andtrenches. The waste storage facilities include 18 tank farms that contain177 underground storage tanks containing about 200 million liters (54million gallons) and about 200 million curies of high-level waste fromthe separations process. The tanks range in size from about 210,000


34

Clean SlatesI, II, IIIDouble

Tracks

Tonopah TestRange

Nellis Air Force Range

Area 13Cabriolet

EventLittle

FellersYuccaFlat

Buggy Event

FrenchmanFlat

NevadaTest Site

GMX Event

PlutoniumValley

SmallBoy

Danny Boy Event

SchoonerEvent

0

0

23 miles

37 kilometers

N

NevadaTest Site

Nevada


Nevada Test Site show-

ing areas of surface

contamination from

nuclear testing.

SOURCE: Nevada

Operations Office.



liters (55,000 gallons) to about 4.5 million liters (1.2 million gallons)and consist of one or two carbon steel liners surrounded by reinforcedconcrete (DOE, 1996).

DOE estimates that about 1.3 trillion liters (346 billion gallons) ofwater contaminated with radionuclides were intentionally dischargedinto the ground through settling ponds and other subsurface drainagestructures from chemical processing operations (DOE, 1997a).Additionally, DOE estimates that 67 of the underground storage tankshave leaked at least 3.8 million liters (1 million gallons) of high-levelwaste into the subsurface. Recent work by Agnew and others (1997),however, suggest that these estimates may be low.

Most of the discharged wastes were supernatant liquids that wereproduced by gravity-induced settling by allowing the high-level wasteto cascade through a series of tanks. These liquids contain such fissionproducts as cesium, strontium, and technetium, as well as short-livedradionuclides like tritium. Later, tank waste evaporators were installedto further reduce waste volumes, and the radionuclide-bearing evapora-tor sediments were discharged into the soil.

The decisions to dispose of this waste to the soil were based in parton assumptions about the capacity of the unsaturated zone to trap andhold radionuclides through physical and geochemical processes. Theunsaturated zone beneath the 200 Area is thick (60 to 90 meters, or200-300 feet) and contains sand, silt, and gravel above a layer of vol-canic rock that was thought to be highly sorptive of radionuclides.Given the small amount of precipitation and high evaporation rates, itwas assumed that it would take a long period of time for the contami-nants to migrate through the unsaturated zone and into the groundwa-ter (DOE, 1998b).

Technetium-99 well in excess of drinking water standards has beendetected in the groundwater beneath the 200 Area, and boreholes havedetected possible cesium and strontium at depth beneath several tankfarms, most prominently the SX Tank Farm (see Plate 4). This discoverycame as a surprise to DOE, because cesium and strontium wereassumed to be immobile in the unsaturated zone, and DOE’s models ofthe unsaturated zone predicted that these radionuclides would notmigrate significantly. This finding has prompted a reorganization of the

C h a p t e r 2

35

5As a result of this discovery and at the prompting of Congress, DOE created anew organization (Office of River Protection) and the Groundwater/Vadose ZoneIntegration Project to coordinate the cleanup activities at the Hanford Site. Theproject will take an integrated approach to solving the groundwater and vadosezone contamination problems to provide a scientific basis for site decisions (DOE, 1998b).



cleanup work and a greater effort to integrate science into cleanupactivities at Hanford.5

Significant uncertainties in understanding of the inventory, distribu-tion, and movement of contaminants in the unsaturated zone exist atHanford. Further, attempts to model contaminant fate and transportthere have met with mixed success. Inaccurate models can have disas-trous consequences when they mislead treatment or containment strate-gies. Therefore, improved models for predicting contaminant migrationare needed to evaluate the impact of such releases into the environ-ment. These models must be based on a good understanding of the


36

SIDEBAR 2.7 EFFECTS OF SUBSURFACE HETEROGENEITY ON FATE AND TRANSPORT MODELING ANDREMEDIATION

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a DOE facility in California, overlies groundwater contami-

nated with volatile organic chemicals originating from land disposal of chemicals when the site was

used as a naval airfield in the 1940s. There are multiple contamination zones corresponding to differ-

ent disposal locations, consisting primarily of dissolved trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene

groundwater contaminant plumes. The western-most plume stretches for over a mile and is of concern

because it is migrating slowly toward municipal water supply wells in the city of Livermore. For over 10

years the site has been subject to intensive hydrogeologic investigation and remedial action (Thorpe

and others, 1990). As a result, hundreds of monitoring wells have been installed to provide for geologic

characterization of the site, monitor the composition and flow of groundwater, and support the design

and implementation of remediation technologies.

To more clearly understand the role and effects of geologic heterogeneity on remediation, Tompson

and others (1998) used hydraulic conductivity data from 240 of these monitoring wells to construct a

statistical distribution depicting the heterogeneous aquifer beneath the site. For a given realization of

this distribution, together with various boundary conditions used to reflect remedial (associated with

a remedial pumping well) or ambient conditions, groundwater flow paths can be produced using a

finite difference flow model.

To illustrate the effects of the fine-scale heterogeneity on contaminant transport and remedial recov-

ery, hypothetical contaminant pulses were released in each model realization to evaluate plausible

migration scenarios over 40 years of ambient conditions and then over 200 additional years of remedi-

al pumping from a well located 1,000 meters from the original source. Model runs indicated a wide

range of possible outcomes from one realization to the next. When the total pumping time was

allowed to run for 200 years, in some cases most of the contaminant mass was recovered from the

model domain, whereas in other realizations as little as one-third of the input mass was recovered. This

indicates the drastic effect that spatial variability of aquifer materials—the exact distribution of which

is never known in precise detail—can have on predictions of contaminant transport. The variation in

the results is indicative of the real uncertainty that would be expected for the behavior of a natural

system.



subsurface features that control contaminant fate and transport (e.g., seeSidebar 2.7), as well as important transport processes.

Metal and Radionuclide Contamination at IdahoAn important mission at the Idaho site was chemical processing of

spent fuel from research and naval reactor programs. After chemicalprocessing, the high-level liquid waste was stored in undergroundtanks. Idaho managers recognized early on that tank storage spacewould be insufficient, so the site developed a facility to convert thewaste into a powdered ceramic, or calcine, that could be more safelyhandled and stored. Consequently, Idaho was able to avoid the inten-tional discharge of high-level liquid wastes into the subsurface.

There have nevertheless been several releases of radionuclides andmetals from the single tank farm that supported the site’s chemical pro-cessing facility. An underground waste transfer line was accidentallyruptured by drilling, and up to 13,700 liters (~3,600 gallons) of high-level waste with a total activity of over 32,000 curies was released intothe unsaturated zone between 1956 and 1974. In 1972, another leak inthe tank farm released about 52,900 liters (~14,000 gallons) with a totalactivity of about 28,000 curies. The major contaminants includechromium, mercury, cesium, strontium, plutonium, and iodine. Some ofthis waste is located in a perched water zone beneath the tank farm,but the extent of waste migration is poorly known.

The Idaho site is characterized by a thick unsaturated zone (seeTable 2.2), but this zone overlies one of the largest aquifers in the west-ern United States, the Snake River aquifer, which covers an area ofabout 26,000 square kilometers (10,000 square miles). This aquifer sup-plies water to most of central Idaho and provides a major source ofrecharge to the Snake River. Protection of the aquifer and the river is ahigh priority at the Idaho site and is driving many of the site’s remedia-tion decisions. Decisions about remediation of the radionuclide conta-mination beneath the tank farms is hampered by a lack of informationabout the distribution of contamination, as well as the physical andchemical characteristics of the unsaturated zone.6

Contamination in the Saturated ZoneThe saturated zone is defined as that part of the subsurface where

pore spaces are filled with water. In unconfined aquifers, the top of thesaturated zone defines the groundwater table. The principal saturated

C h a p t e r 2

37

6The committee was told that the least expensive remediation alternativewould cost about $600 million and would involve removal of the perched waterzone and pump-and-treat remediation of the underlying aquifer.



zone contamination problem across the DOE complex are contaminatedgroundwater plumes (i.e., large volumes of groundwater contaminatedwith dissolved and complexed chemicals, metals, and radionuclides).These plumes have been formed by the injection or migration of wasteinto moving groundwater and have length scales on the order of kilo-meters to tens of kilometers, depending on the nature of the source andthe rate and direction of groundwater movement.

All of the major DOE sites contain contaminated groundwaterplumes, and in some cases these plumes have migrated off site or aredischarging into surface waters. The following examples from theSavannah River, Nevada, Hanford, and Idaho sites are illustrative ofplume-related problems across the DOE complex.

DNAPL Plumes at Savannah RiverThe Savannah River Site contains dozens of groundwater plumes

containing DNAPLs, metals, and radionuclides, but the DNAPL plumein the Administrative and Materials Manufacturing Area is perhaps mostinteresting because of its size and location. That area comprises about140 hectares (350 acres) in the northern portion of the Savannah RiverSite and is located less than a mile from the site boundary. Currently aresearch and development center, the area was first established for themanufacture of production reactor components, including target assem-blies and fuel rods (Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 1995).

From the 1950s through the early 1980s, contaminated wastewaterfrom fuel and target manufacturing was pumped through an under-ground line into a settling basin, which had a capacity of about 30 mil-lion liters (8 million gallons). The basin overflowed periodically into anatural seepage area and a shallow depression known as Lost Lake andreleased approximately 1.6 million kilograms (3.5 million pounds) ofsolvents (principally trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene) andheavy metals to the environment. DOE believes that most of the heavymetals were trapped in the soil and about half of the solvents evaporat-ed, while the remainder migrated downward from the seepage areasinto the groundwater (Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 1995). In thispart of the site the groundwater moves at rates ranging from a few cen-timeters to about 90 meters per year.

DOE has installed some 400 monitoring wells since 1981 to trackthe spread of contamination, and based on these monitoring data andmodeling studies, scientists at the Savannah River Technology Centerhave created a three-dimensional representation of the plume. DOE hasinstalled a pump-and-treat system at the downstream toe of the plumeto halt its further spread. DOE has been unable to locate or remove theDNAPL sources that are feeding this plume or to apply effective reme-




diation technologies to the plume itself; it therefore faces the prospectof long-term institutional management of this contamination, includingpump-and-treat remediation.

Radionuclide Contamination at the Nevada Test SiteOver 925 nuclear tests were conducted at the Nevada Test Site

between 1951 and 1992 and resulted in the emplacement into the sub-surface of several hundred million curies of radioactivity, including significant quantities of tritium, plutonium, and fission products (seeTable 2.4). Many of these tests were conducted at or below the ground-water table. Nevada officials contend that the site contains more conta-minated media than any other site in the DOE complex (Walker andLiebendorfer, 1998). DOE notes in Paths to Closure (DOE, 1998a,

C h a p t e r 2

39

TABLE 2.4 Isotope Inventories from Underground Testing at the Nevada Test Site

Location Isotope Inventory (106 curies)(Numbers are rounded)

Pahute Mesaa Tritium 69.9Cesium-137 1.95Strontium-90 1.56Krypton-85 0.13Plutonium-241 0.09Samarium-151 0.07Europium-152 0.03Plutonium-239 0.02Europium-154 0.02Others (34 isotopes) 0.05

Total Pahute Mesa 73.8

Non-Pahute Mesa Tritium 30.7Potassium-40 24.7Cesium-137 1.48Strontium-90 1.19Plutonium-241 0.10Krypton-85 0.09Europium-152 0.06Samarium-151 0.05Europium-154 0.05Plutonium-238 0.03Plutonium-239 0.01Others (32 isotopes) 0.04

Total Non-Pahute Mesa 58.5

aSee Figure 2.5 for locations.

SOURCE: Presentation to the committee by Robert Bangerter, DOE-Nevada Operations Office,December 15, 1998.



p. E-56) that it has no plans to remediate the subsurface in and aroundthe underground tests because “cost-effective remediation technologieshave not yet been demonstrated.”

Tritium is very mobile in groundwater, and large plumes of tritiumhave been detected from many of the underground tests. It has longbeen argued that most other radionuclides, and especially plutonium,are relatively immobile due to their low solubilities in groundwater andstrong sorption onto mineral surfaces. As discussed in Sidebar 2.8,however, recently published work challenges this conventional view.

Mixed Contaminant Plumes at Test Area NorthTest Area North at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory covers about 50 hectares (125 acres) in the northern part ofthe site and was used to support the Aircraft Nuclear PropulsionProgram between 1954 and 1961. From 1960 through the 1970s, thearea housed the Loss-of-Fluid Test Facility, which was used for reactorsafety testing and behavior studies. The primary source of the contami-nated groundwater plume is the Technical Support Facility injection


40

SIDEBAR 2.8 PLUTONIUM MIGRATION AT NEVADA TEST SITE?

A potentially significant example of the deficiency in understanding subsurface radionuclide transport

processes was provided by Karsting and others (1999), who reported that they had detected plutoni-

um in groundwater at the Nevada Test Site. The plutonium was detected in water collected from moni-

toring wells on Pahute Mesa, near the northwestern border of the test site (Figure 2.5). The plutonium

was apparently being carried on colloids. The origin of the colloids and the plutonium geochemistry is

still uncertain.

Karsting and others were able to trace the plutonium to the Benham Test, which was detonated in 1968

in zeolitized bedded tuff at a depth below the surface of about 1,400 meters. This test is located about

1.3 km laterally and up to 600 meters below the monitoring wells. The origin of the plutonium was

identified from its 240Pu/239Pu isotopic ratio, which is distinctive for each underground test. The pluto-

nium ratio is recorded in the melt-glass collected from the underground test cavities. No evidence was

found for migration of plutonium from other nearby tests.

The suggested transport of plutonium at the test site has potentially significant implications for DOE’s

plans to passively manage contaminants there, especially if plutonium transport proves to be more

pervasive than is currently recognized. This discovery also has potentially significant implications for

the underground disposal of nuclear waste. Conventional wisdom suggests that plutonium is relatively

immobile in oxidizing subsurface environments like at the test site and has strong sorbing tendencies.

Indeed, underground tests at the test site were believed to demonstrate the effective fixation of pluto-

nium in subsurface environments. The work by Karsting and others has demonstrated that the concep-

tual models for plutonium migration are incomplete; it also suggests that additional basic research on

the geochemical behavior of plutonium is required.



well, which was used from 1953 to 1972 to inject liquid wastes directlyinto the Snake River plain aquifer. The contaminants included rawsewage, trichloroethylene, tritium, strontium-90, and cesium-137.

Although the source area for this plume—the injection well—isknown, the source term is not. Moreover, the subsurface in this regionconsists of highly fractured rock, which makes it difficult to locate andcharacterize the contamination. Characterization of the extent of conta-mination began in 1988, and recent data suggest that most of the con-tamination probably occurred as entrained sludge in two major fracturezones (see Figure 2.6).

Contaminant Plumes at the Hanford SiteDOE estimates that groundwater under more than 220 square kilo-

meters (85 square miles) of the Hanford Site is contaminated above cur-rent standards, mostly from operations in the 100 and 200 Areas (Plate3). The 100 Area is located on about 6,900 hectares (17,000 acres) inthe northern section of the Hanford site and contains nine productionreactors and several waste burial sites (DOE, 1996). The main sourcesof subsurface contamination in the 100 Area are from radionuclide(mainly tritium) contaminated reactor cooling water and metal andDNAPL contaminants from operations and disposal. Contamination inthe 200 Area was discussed in the section on the unsaturated zone ear-lier in this chapter.

Disposal of supernatant liquids into the ground and leaks from thehigh-level waste tanks have produced significant contamination of thesaturated zone in the 200 Area (Gephart and Lundgren, 1998).Groundwater plumes of the following contaminants exist at levelsexceeding current drinking water standards at the 200 Area: tritium,

C h a p t e r 2

41


Pahute Mesa with location

of the Benham Test and

groundwater collection well

cluster ER-20-5. SOURCE:

Karsting and others (1999).



strontium-90, technetium-99, iodine-129, carbon tetrachloride, chromi-um, and uranium. The plumes are flowing northeast toward theColumbia River at several tens of meters per year (see Figure 2.7).

DOE has established an extensive network of monitoring wells totrack the movement of the groundwater plumes, but very little remedia-tion work is being done at present. DOE has established a groundwaterextraction well network to intercept a chromium plume in the 100Area. The chromium is extracted using ion exchange and the treatedwater is returned to the aquifer. Pump-and-treat systems also have beenestablished in the 200 Area to contain the highest concentrations of auranium and technetium-99 plume and a carbon tetrachloride plume(DOE, 1998b).

DOE has a very poor understanding of the source areas, amounts,and timing of contaminant discharges into the subsurface at Hanford.DOE is beginning to support “forensic” investigations of past wastereleases to the subsurface (e.g., Agnew and others, 1997), but addition-al work will be needed to improve the knowledge of the extent andmagnitude of subsurface contamination at the Hanford site. Improve-ments in understanding and modeling fate and transport processes inthe subsurface is also needed to provide long-term predictive capabili-


42

FIGURE 2.6 Conceptual

model for subsurface conta-

mination at Test Area North

at the Idaho Site. Dense

non-aqueous phase liquids

(DNAPLs) may be entrained

in fractures and perched on

dense basalt flows and sedi-

mentary interbeds. SOURCE:

Idaho Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory.



ties.

C h a p t e r 2

43

FIGURE 2.7 Plan view show-

ing the fast spread of tritium

plumes from the 200 East

Area at the Hanford Site to

the Columbia River. SOURCE:

Richland Operations Office.



Conclus ionsThe examples provided in this chapter illustrate that subsurface con-


44

SIDEBAR 2.9 BASIC SCIENCE CAN IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Basic scientific research can provide several benefits to waste management efforts if it is properly

focused on difficult cleanup problems (see Chapter 6). Basic research can produce new scientific knowl-

edge and engineering tools to improve the effectiveness of cleanup efforts, lower cleanup costs,

reduce risks to worker and public health, and improve environmental quality. Equally important, basic

research can help improve current waste management practices and thereby reduce the likelihood of

future environmental insults. Scientific studies in the 200 Area at Hanford provide a simple yet com-

pelling illustration of the potential benefits for environmental management.

The 200 Area is comprised of two major operating zones (200 East and 200 West) that contain a variety

of waste disposal and waste storage facilities (see Plate 3). These facilities, which include drainage

cribs, settling basins, and underground tanks, are major contributors to the site’s groundwater contam-

ination. As discussed elsewhere in this chapter, groundwater contaminant plumes have formed

beneath both areas, but the plumes originating from the 200 East Area are significantly larger in size,

extending some 15 kilometers (9 miles) to the Columbia River (see Figure 2.7).

Basic geological research conducted at Hanford (see Reidel and others [1992] and DOE [1998b] for a

summary of the Hanford geology) suggests that plume size is controlled to a large extent by the physi-

cal and chemical properties of the geological formations underlying the 200 Area. The 200 East Area is

underlain by the Hanford Formation, which is comprised of permeable sands and gravels that provide

relatively direct pathways to the groundwater some 100 meters below the surface. The 200 West Area,

on the other hand, is underlain by the Ringold Formation, which consists of less permeable sands, grav-

els, and clays that provide a barrier to widespread contaminant migration.

These findings provide a compelling demonstration that “geology counts” in waste management and

site remediation, and that locating disposal facilities must take account of subsurface properties as

part of a defense-in-depth waste containment strategy.1 DOE is constructing and operating several

facilities in the 200 Area to dispose of a variety of cleanup and defense wastes. It recently sited a large

land disposal facility (the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility) in 200 West to manage certain

types of chemically and radioactively hazardous cleanup wastes from other parts of the Hanford Site.

At least two other disposal facilities have been constructed or are planned for the 200 East Area: the

Naval Reactor Disposal Facility, which contains nuclear reactors from decommissioned U.S. Navy sub-

marines, and the planned Immobilized Low-Activity Waste Disposal Facility, which will take low-activity

waste generated during processing of high-level waste from the Hanford tanks. If the past is a guide to

the future, the disposal facilities in the 200 East Area may create new site contamination problems that

will require additional remediation efforts.

1A defense-in-depth waste containment strategy uses multiple artificial or natural barriers to improve thelong-term performance of the containment system.



tamination is an enormously difficult cleanup problem as well as a sig-nificant challenge to science. Much of the subsurface contamination atDOE sites is poorly characterized and widely dispersed in the environ-ment, making it very expensive or technically impractical to treat effec-tively with current technologies. Moreover, the contamination that can-not be removed or effectively isolated from the environment willrequire long-term management, which represents a potentially largefuture mortgage for the nation.

The committee believes that this future mortgage could be reducedsignificantly through the development of new and improved technolo-gies to locate, remove or contain, and monitor subsurface contamina-tion at DOE sites. However, the development of such technologies willrequire advances in basic understanding of the complex natural systemsat DOE sites and also in understanding the nature of contaminant“insults” to those systems. The report of the NRC Committee onBuilding an Effective Environmental Management Science Program(NRC, 1997b, p. 22) concluded that “new technologies are required todeal with EM’s most difficult problems, and new technologies requirenew science.” The present committee agrees with this statement andnotes that, given the long-term nature of the cleanup mission and itsprojected cost (see Chapter 1), DOE has necessary cause and time todo the required basic research to support the development of theseneeded technologies (see Sidebar 2.9).

C h a p t e r 2



3

Assessment of the EM Science Program Portfolio

The Environmental Management (EM) Science Program1 has been in existence for about four years and has completed four proposal com-petitions.2 The program has supported research projects relevant tomany aspects of DOE’s cleanup program, for example, research onsubsurface contamination, high-level waste, and deactivation anddecommissioning. In its 1998 report to Congress (DOE, 1998g), DOEidentified 82 EM Science Program projects with a total investment ofapproximately $70 million3 that address the remedial action problemarea, which focuses on the cleanup of soil, surface water, and ground-water at sites where contaminants or contaminated materials have beenspilled, dumped, disposed, or abandoned (DOE, 1998a, p. 2-9).

The first two proposal calls did not provide detailed descriptions ofDOE’s cleanup problems, and the proposal review process (seeAppendix A) focused first and foremost on identifying scientifically mer-itorious projects for funding. Relevance to DOE’s problems was consid-ered only for those projects that were deemed to be of high scientificquality. Thus, as this committee began to address its task statement toprovide advice on a subsurface research agenda (see Chapter 1), itasked itself the following two questions, which provide a focus for thecurrent chapter of this report:

C h a p t e r 3

47

1As discussed in Chapter 1, the current program was established by Congressin fiscal year 1996. Previously, the Office of Science and the Office ofEnvironmental Management (EM) jointly managed a one-year pilot project thatawarded about $5 million in 3-year grants for research on EM-related projects.

2The four completed competitions were held in fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998,and 1999. The 1999 competition was completed while this report was in review.

3Many of the awards are being funded over multiple years and are thereforesubject to future congressional appropriations.



1. To what extent does the EM Science Program research portfoliofor fiscal years 1996 and 1997 address DOE’s significant subsur-face contamination problems?

2. In light of these current investments, are there any particular sub-surface problems that should be emphasized in future proposalcalls?

The committee reviewed all projects awarded funding during thefirst two proposal competitions (in fiscal years 1996 and 1997) andattempted to assess the extent to which these projects addressed thecleanup problems identified in Chapter 2. The word “attempted” isused advisedly, because these projects were still in progress at the timeof the committee’s review and therefore the research results wereincomplete. Moreover, the committee did not review research resultsfor scientific merit in the way that one would review papers submittedto refereed journals, so it cannot comment on the quality of the workresulting from these projects. The committee’s assessment is based on areview of project titles, principal investigator experience and affilia-tions, project abstracts as provided in DOE’s 1998 report to Congress(DOE, 1998g), and on a review of progress reports provided by theprincipal investigators, which were published in the proceedings vol-ume of the Environmental Management Science Program Workshop


48

TABLE 3.1 Summary of the EM Science Program Portfolio for Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997 and Pilot Projects Fundedin Fiscal Year 1995

Category Projects Research Focus Methodology Number of Fundeda Multiple

Investigator Projects

Identify 30 1 12 3 16 23 12 19 21

Contain 6 3 1 4 NA 1 4 2 3

Remediate 37 14 24 10 NA 5 35 6 17

Remove 7 6 1 0 NA 1 7 0 1

Validate 9 1 4 2 3 4 5 3 5

Other 16 6 8 7 NA 4 13 2 6

aThis column sums to 105 projects, because some projects were included in more than one category.There are 91 separate projects represented

by the data in this table.bProjects that focused on characterization of the site rather than on specific contaminants.

SOURCE: DOE (1998c,g).

Met

als

Org

anic

s

Rad

ionu

clid

es

Site

b

Fiel

d

Lab

orat

ory

Mod

elin

g/T

heor

y



(DOE, 1998c). This workshop was held in Chicago, Illinois on July 27-30, 1998. These analyses are summarized in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1.

The committee spent a considerable amount of time during its firsttwo meetings discussing the merits of various organizing schemes forthis assessment and eventually adopted a slightly modified form of anapproach that is used by DOE’s Subsurface Contaminants Focus Area4

to organize its technology development programs (see Figure 3.2). Thisorganizational scheme comprises a five-point technical strategy that isbased on what the focus area refers to as “the accepted process for theremediation of contaminated sites” (DOE, 1997b). This scheme consid-ers the generic processes that must be employed to remediate a site(e.g., locate the waste, treat the waste, validate the treatment process)without reference to the specific technologies that will be employed toaccomplish these processes. The committee adopted the focus area’s

49

C h a p t e r 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Contain Remove Validate Other Identify Remediate

6

79

16

30

37

Num

ber

of P

roje

cts

Fun

ded

FIGURE 3.1 Distribution of

subsurface research projects

in the EM Science Program

portfolio for fiscal years

1996 and 1997. The num-

bers in the graph are the

number of projects funded

in each topical area.

FIGURE 3.2. Flow chart

for remediation of subsur-

face contamination (DOE,

1998d, p. 4).

4The Subsurface Contaminants Focus Area is part of the Office of Science andTechnology, which is responsible for developing technologies for cleanup of theDOE complex. The EM Science Program is also part of this office.

Contain

RemediateIdentify Validate

Remove



function names, slightly modified some of the function descriptions,and added an additional category (“Other”) to its analysis to containthose projects that do not fit readily into one of the focus area’s categories.

The resulting organizing scheme used for the committee’s assess-ment is shown below:

• Identify—Locate and quantify suburface contamination. • Contain—Contain or stabilize mobile contaminants and locally

elevated contaminant concentrations (i.e., contaminant hotspots) in situ.

• Remediate—Treat to reduce mobility or destroy mobile contami-nants in situ.

• Remove—Extract contaminant hot spots that are not amenable toin situ treatment.

• Validate—Verify conceptual models and the performance ofremediation processes or strategies.

• Other—Projects that address subsurface contamination prob-lems, but do not fit into one of the preceding categories.

The committee adopted this scheme for organizing its assessmentmainly for convenience, but also because this scheme could provide adirect linkage between basic research in the EM Science Program andapplied technology development in the Subsurface Contaminants FocusArea. As will be discussed in Chapter 6, moving the results of basicresearch from the EM Science Program into application at the sites is amajor challenge confronting DOE. The committee hopes this organiz-ing scheme will provide a useful mechanism for identifying potentiallyfruitful application paths for EM Science Program-sponsored research.

A summary of the committee’s assessment of the current programportfolio is provided in the following sections. A concluding sectionprovides a brief discussion of the two questions posed at the beginningof this chapter.

Ident i fyThe radioactive and hazardous subsurface contaminants of concern

at DOE sites (see Chapter 2) have entered the soil and groundwaterthrough accidental spills, poor waste management practices, and failureof storage and containment systems. Even in cases where the points ofcontaminant entry into the subsurface are known, information on tim-ing of entry and contaminant quantities may be lacking. Once intro-




duced into the subsurface, the contaminants are subject to a number of physical and chemical processes or biological degradation. Sub-surface heterogeneities may make it difficult to predict contaminantmovement away from release sites. Successful remediation of contami-nated subsurface sites depends first and foremost on the ability tolocate and quantify the nature and extent of contamination, the focus of this category.

The committee found 30 projects relevant to the “Identify” categoryin the portfolio (see Table 3.1). These projects encompass a wide rangeof topics and approaches, but in general focus on the following: (1)location and spatial distribution of contaminants in saturated and unsat-urated environments; (2) methods to estimate quantitatively the extentof such contamination; and (3) methods to monitor the movement ofsubsurface contaminants.

The projects in this portfolio address a wide range of contaminanttypes and site characterization problems. Organic contaminants (espe-cially non-aqueous phase liquids) are the subject of 12 projects, com-pared to three for radionuclides and one for metals; 16 projects focuson site characterization without regard to contaminant type. A majority(23 projects) involve field investigations at contaminated sites. In termsof project objectives, three focus on elucidating contaminant properties,four on elucidating subsurface properties, 13 on the development ofinvasive characterization techniques, and 12 on the development ofnoninvasive techniques.

The projects in this portfolio address many of the subsurface prob-lems described in Chapter 2, including aspects of the following topicalareas:

• development and testing of noninvasive techniques to identifythe distribution of non-aqueous phase liquids in the subsurface;

• development and validation of analytical and modeling tools to be used in subsurface process representation and characteri-zation;

• development of techniques and instruments to determine subsur-face parameters that describe flow of water and contaminanttransport in the subsurface; and

• noninvasive geophysical techniques and associated analyticaltechniques to determine subsurface physical parameters.

The portfolio is heavily weighted toward organic contaminants, andthere are relatively few projects on metals and radionuclides, which aresignificant problems at most of the large DOE sites. There are also veryfew projects that deal with the behavior and transport of contaminants

C h a p t e r 3



in fractured systems, primarily under unsaturated conditions, or thebehavior and transport of contaminants under near-surface conditions(e.g., in near-surface release sites).

Contain The removal and treatment of contaminants from waste burial

grounds is technically difficult, expensive, and could expose workers toradiation and hazardous chemicals. For these reasons, DOE does notplan to fully remediate subsurface contamination at some of its sites.Instead, DOE plans to contain the waste at such sites with surface capsand subsurface barriers to minimize water infiltration and contaminantmovement. Remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater at manyDOE sites is technically impracticable with current technologies, soDOE plans to monitor this contamination and treat it where necessary,using technologies such as pump-and-treat systems to prevent its furtherspread.5 Thus, the availability of robust containment and stabilizationtechnologies will be a key factor in the success of DOE’s strategy tomanage subsurface contamination.

Given the importance of containment and stabilization technologiesto contamination management strategy, the committee would haveexpected to see a large number of projects on this topic; however, thecommittee was able to identify only six relevant projects in the portfo-lio (see Table 3.1). In general, these projects are concerned largely withmetals and radionuclides and the kinetics and mechanisms of contami-nant retention and release through various processes. Five of the sixprojects focus on chemical stabilization, one on biological stabilization,and one on physical stabilization.6 Only one of the six projects has asignificant field component.

The committee concluded that there are significant research gaps inthe portfolio in this category. These gaps7 include basic research on the


52

5Pump-and-treat systems are used frequently to remediate contaminatedgroundwater. It involves pumping the contaminated water to the surface for treat-ment and then reinjecting it. See NRC (1994) for a discussion of this technology.

6The current portfolio supports several projects on phytoremediation. These arediscussed under the "Remove" category elsewhere in this chapter.

7In the context of this analysis, the committee defines a research gap as a defi-ciency in the number or scope of research projects that address the difficult DOEcleanup problems identified in Chapter 2. The identification of gaps involves asignificant element of judgment, especially in interpreting the significance of thesubsurface contamination problems now at DOE sites. These cleanup problemsand associated knowledge gaps are discussed more fully in Chapter 5.



design, performance, or effectiveness of engineered surface or subsur-face barriers, including capillary or resistive barriers, reactive barriers,or hybrid barriers that incorporate biological materials; and research onsubsurface processes that address the potential effectiveness of naturalbarriers in contaminated areas, particularly in the vadose zone.

RemediateTechnologies for in situ treatment and destruction involve the use of

engineered or artificially manipulated natural processes to promote theconversion of subsurface contaminants to nonhazardous or less haz-ardous forms. The committee identified 37 projects in the portfolio (seeTable 3.1) that address a wide range of chemical, physical, and biologi-cal treatment and destruction processes, including the following:

• bioremediation,8 including biological interactions, genetic engi-neering studies, and toxicity studies;

• in situ physical and chemical treatment, including electrochemi-cal processes; filtration; sorption; and reactive subsurface barri-ers such as metal (Fe, Mn) oxide barriers, including passive orlow-maintenance barriers;

• coupled chemical, physical, and biological treatment processesused in parallel or series; and

• elucidation of fundamental subsurface processes that govern theeffectiveness of in situ treatment or destruction (e.g., evaluationof the effect of soil heterogeneities on treatment processes).

Projects on organic contaminants comprise the majority of the port-folio (24 of 37 projects), whereas only 10 projects address treatment ofradionuclides and 14 address treatment of metals.9 The committee wasable to group the projects into one or more of the following five the-matic areas: (1) development of new genetic materials to degrade oralter the chemical composition of DOE’s most problematic wastes,including mixed wastes containing radionuclides, heavy metals, and

C h a p t e r 3

53

8Bioremediation generally refers to the removal of contaminants from soil orwater through the metabolic action of living organisms, and the term is commonlyused to indicate situations in which humans have interceded to bring about orhasten the biodegradation of contaminant compounds. Although bioremediationcan be carried out by any living organisms (e.g., as in phytoremediation), it is usu-ally considered to be a product of the metabolism of microorganisms such as bac-teria or fungi.

9Some projects address more than one contaminant type.



solvents; (2) elucidation of molecular-level biochemical, geochemical,and biogeochemical processes to degrade or transform selected wastecomponents; (3) taking basic science results to the technology imple-mentation level to develop in situ engineered systems; (4) developmentof improved analytical methods to allow evaluation of the effectivenessof in situ treatment or destruction; and (5) development of improvedunderstanding of transport processes at all scales in heterogeneous sys-tems that affect the movement of contaminants in the subsurface.

The portfolio defines a fairly coherent research program on in situtreatment and destruction, but there are a number of significant gaps asoutlined below, and for some research topics there appears to be dupli-cation of effort. The following observations are, in the committee’sview, most significant:

• There is a predominance of projects that address bioremediationrelative to projects that address chemical and physical processes.

• Research on treatment and destruction in the vadose zone isunderrepresented.

• Research on sensors is bio-oriented and much of it is aimed attracking the biological “health” of subsurface systems.

• In the bioremediation area, there is an absence of projects cover-ing (1) alternate electron acceptors, including iron and nitrate,and aerobes (the issue of aerobic degradation is important forvadose zone applications); (2) toxicity of some chemical conta-minants found at DOE sites to bacteria that could potentiallydegrade other contaminants; and (3) cellular mechanisms andprocesses important to the bioremediation of radionuclide andorganic contaminants, including the byproducts of microbialdegradation activity.

• Understanding what controls the availability of many contami-nants to degrading organisms or to reacting chemicals is needed.

RemoveDOE uses the term “hot spot” to refer to significant contaminant

source terms in the subsurface that cannot be treated by in situ methods(DOE, 1998d). In lay terms, a hot spot is a distinct high-concentrationcontaminant anomaly in the subsurface (e.g., a pool of non-aqueousphase liquids trapped in a waste burial ground or a buried 55-gallondrum filled with plutonium-bearing scrap metal). Removal of hot spotsinvolves the physical extraction of the contaminant from the subsurfacefor ex situ treatment or disposal.




None of the projects in the EM Science Program portfolio have aspecific focus on hot spots, however there are seven projects (see Table3.1) on phytoremediation, an intensely pursued approach to soilcleanup and extractive technology for treatment of hot spots. Researchprojects include the study of genetic factors controlling the uptake ofheavy metals by plants, transport of heavy metals across plant cells,and the ability of plants (poplar trees) to take up and degrade chlorinat-ed hydrocarbons.

Moreover, many of the projects are relevant to improved decisionmaking about whether to contain, stabilize in situ, or extract hot spotsfor above-ground treatment. For example, some of the projects in the“Other” category discussed later in this chapter are relevant in thisregard. Some of the studies in the portfolio on removal and neutraliza-tion of contaminants in tank wastes may lead to results useful for treat-ment of extracted hot spot materials.

Similarly, research projects on locating and quantifying contamina-tion, which were discussed earlier, could make the location and defini-tion of hot spots easier, faster, more accurate, and more economical.Moreover, there are projects in the portfolio that address reactive barri-ers, bioremediation, in situ vitrification, waste treatment and extractionusing electrokinetics, non-aqueous phase liquid migration and pooling,surfactants, adsorption-desorption reactions, and contaminant transport.Many of these projects fall into the “Other” category discussed later inthis chapter. The challenge to DOE is to understand and apply theresults of this research in dealing with hot spots in reliable and cost-effective ways.

Val idateThe Subsurface Contaminants Focus Area defines “Validate” as “val-

idate and verify system performance for regulators and stakeholders”(DOE, 1998d, p. 4). The committee has adopted a somewhat moreexpansive description that includes confirmation of the effectiveness ofremediation processes or strategies. The committee also includes in itsdefinition the validation of conceptual models and the performance ofquantitative models of contaminant fate and transport. Under the com-mittee’s expanded definition, performance validation is a major factorin regulatory acceptance. It underpins all of DOE’s site remediationactivities and provides tools and methods to assess the effectiveness ofcleanup efforts.

The committee identified nine projects that address the problems inthis category (see Table 3.1). Two of these projects address validation of

C h a p t e r 3



contaminant detection and characterization, three address the valida-tion of fate and transport (i.e., performance of models for fluid flow),and four address remediation effectiveness (i.e., validation of in situbiodegradation or immobilization efforts). The portfolio does not, how-ever, represent a coherent research program in the validate perfor-mance area. Notably absent are projects to validate long-term perfor-mance of containment systems, including containment barriers. Alsomissing from the portfolio are projects to develop protocols for valida-tion of conceptual and numerical models of contaminants in the sub-surface. The committee believes that validation is a key area for futurework by the EM Science Program, as explained in Chapter 5.

O therThe portfolio includes several projects that have indirect but poten-

tially very significant applications to DOE’s subsurface contaminationproblems. In particular, the program is supporting several projects onthe biological effects of radiation and hazardous chemicals, includingimpacts on health and risk (see Table 3.1).10 Relevant projects fall intothe following four thematic areas:

1. effects of radiation and hazardous chemicals on human healthand risk (seven projects);

2. effects of contaminants on ecology and ecological risk (threeprojects);

3. genetic or molecular basis for contaminant effects (four projects);and

4. assessment of monitoring techniques for environmental contami-nants (two projects).

None of these projects addresses explicitly the remediation of sub-surface contamination, but they are nevertheless relevant to subsurfacecleanup efforts because they contribute to the body of science that reg-ulatory agencies use to set cleanup standards and levels.

These projects do not define a coherent research program on bio-logical effects and, in fact, the portfolio of projects could be character-ized as meager, given the potential significance of this area on DOE’scleanup efforts.


56

10As noted in Chapter 1, the EM Science Program awarded funds for researchon low dose radiation in fiscal year 1999.



Discuss ion And Conclus ionsThe EM Science Program is by design a “bottoms-up” program in

which investigators are encouraged to submit their research ideas toaddress cleanup problems. In this respect, the program is not unlikeother basic research programs operated in DOE’s Office of Science andother federal agencies, like the National Science Foundation. Fundingdecisions are based on the scientific merit of the research proposal andits relevance to DOE problems (see Appendix A). The selection processhas resulted in many scientifically meritorious and relevant projects,but there has been a limited opportunity to build coherence. The com-mittee discusses ways to increase coherence in Chapter 5.

The EM Science Program is nevertheless supporting 91 projectsfocused on subsurface contamination problems11 and on health andrisk effects that are potentially relevant to these problems. It is notunreasonable to expect that the program will attain a critical mass ofprojects in some problem areas. The purpose of the assessment in thischapter is to determine where these critical masses are present and toidentify important gaps in the portfolio that DOE should fill in futurecompetitions. Of course, the committee recognizes that some of thegaps identified may in fact be addressed in other federal research pro-grams and in more recent EM Science Program proposal awards. A dis-cussion of other federal programs is provided in Chapter 4.

The program portfolio in subsurface research has some significantareas of strength. For example, the portfolio has a good selection ofprojects that address organic contamination problems (50 projects) andthat use field-based approaches or a combination, of field-, laboratory-,and modeling-based approaches (38 projects). There appears to be acritical mass of projects in the “Remediation” category, especially fortreatment and destruction of organic contaminants through physical,chemical, and biological processes. The committee did observe gaps inthe portfolio in this problem area, as noted previously, but these areminor in comparison to gaps in other categories.

The most notable gaps in the portfolio are in the “Contain” and“Validate” categories, two of the most significant problem areas forDOE given its plans to manage much of its subsurface contamination inplace. In the “Contain” category the gaps include research on thedesign, performance, or effectiveness of engineered surface or subsur-face barriers. The portfolio in the “Validate” category (9 projects) is lim-

C h a p t e r 3

57

11There are 105 projects listed as funded in Table 3.1, but some projects werecounted in more than one category. There are 91 separate projects represented bythe data in that table.



ited both in terms of depth and breadth of topical coverage. The mostnotable gaps include research to validate long-term performance ofcontainment systems, including reactive barriers and cover perfor-mance, and research to address the validation of conceptual andnumerical models of the subsurface and contaminant fate and transport.As noted elsewhere in this report, these are key problems for DOEbecause they underpin efforts to confirm the effectiveness of and obtainregulatory acceptance for its remediation actions.

There also appears to be a gap in the number of research projectscovering radionuclide and metal contamination problems (26 and 31projects, respectively). As noted in Chapter 2, radionuclide, especiallytransuranic, contamination is a significant problem, and transuraniccontamination is almost exclusively a DOE-owned problem. As willbecome apparent in the following chapter, these contaminants arereceiving relatively little attention in other federal research programsand therefore deserve to be emphasized in future EM Science Programcompetitions.




4

Research Programs in Other Agencies of Government

As part of its task to formulate recommendations for a long-termresearch program to address the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s)subsurface contamination problems, the committee was asked to con-sider research already completed or in progress by other federal andstate agencies and to identify areas where the Environmental Manage-ment (EM) Science Program could make significant contributions (seeSidebar 1.1). The committee partially addressed this task in Chapter 3by reviewing research that was completed or underway in the programitself. In this chapter, this task is completed by examining research pro-grams in other agencies of government.1

The committee gathered information for this review from a varietyof sources. The committee received briefings on research programs infive federal agencies at its fourth information-gathering meeting (seeAppendix B): Department of Defense (DOD), DOE, EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), National Science Foundation (NSF), and theU.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The purpose of these briefings was toprovide an overview of the research programs and to give the commit-tee an opportunity to assess how well these programs were being coor-dinated. The committee then conducted additional research on theseand other programs through electronic searches,2 followed by contactswith selected program managers.

The committee’s initial plan was to summarize the information onother research programs using the organizing scheme shown in Figure

C h a p t e r 4

59

1Although the statement of task explicitly directs the committee to examineresearch in "other federal" agencies, the committee has interpreted its mandate toinclude research in other parts of DOE, especially the Office of Science.

2Searches were conducted using the Internet, specifically research databasessuch as the Federal Information Exchange at http://web.fie.com/fedix/.



3.2, which depicts the Subsurface Contaminants Focus Area’s approachto organizing its technology development programs. However, it quick-ly became clear that such an approach was impractical. In general, thecommittee found that most other research programs could not neatly becategorized into one or two of the boxes shown in Figure 3.2. In fact,many of the research programs were quite broad in scope, and it wasnot possible to obtain an accurate picture of the research being spon-sored without a detailed review of project portfolios, much like thecommittee provided in Chapter 3 for the EM Science Program. Theresimply was not enough time available in this study to do that kind ofreview for all of the programs discussed in this chapter.

The committee was surprised by the large number of programs thatdeal either directly or indirectly with subsurface contaminationresearch. Indeed, the committee identified almost 50 programs thatcould be related at least indirectly to the work of the EM ScienceProgram, not including the programs on health and health effects spon-sored by the National Institutes of Health.3 Thus, to address its taskstatement, the committee decided to summarize the scope and objec-tives of these related research programs and to use these descriptions toformulate recommendations for the EM Science Program.

The description of these related research programs is provided inTable 4.1 (located at the end of this chapter), which groups them byagency, and then by program within each agency. The table provides ashort description of program scope and objectives;4 recent funding levelsif available;5 a notation showing whether the program provides intra-mural or extramural funding;6 and a web address (if available) whereadditional information can be obtained. The programs in Table 4.1 are


60

3The committee decided to exclude health-related research programs mainlybecause health research has not been an important component of the EM ScienceProgram. However, the program did focus part of its fiscal year 1999 program com-petition on low-dose radiation, in cooperation with the DOE-Office of Science’sLow Dose Radiation Research Program. This competition was completed while thecommittee’s report was in review. The results from these and other related researchprograms may have a significant impact on DOE’s cleanup program, specifically inestablishing the adequacy of DOE’s cleanup and containment efforts.

4Program information was derived from descriptions provided by the agenciesin their program announcements or at their web sites.

5Funding amounts are for the entire research programs; only a fraction of theamount listed may be for support of subsurface contamination projects. In mostcases it was not possible to separate the subsurface research component.

6That is, funding for research conducted within the agency by agency investi-gators (intramural funding), or funding for research conducted outside of theagency (extramural funding). Extramural funding is typically provided to investiga-tors in academia, national laboratories, industry, or other federal agencies throughgrants, contracts, and cooperative agreements.



for federal agencies only; the committee was unable to find any signifi-cant state-funded basic research programs.7

The remainder of this chapter consists of three sections. In the firstsection, the committee provides a brief review of those research pro-grams that appear to be closely related in terms of scope and objectivesto the EM Science Program. The second section provides a short discus-sion of other programs, and the final section provides some concludingobservations.

Closely Related Research ProgramsThe committee’s selection of a research program as closely related

to the EM Science Program is based on two somewhat qualitative crite-ria: (1) the degree to which the program sponsors basic research, ascompared to other activities like technology development; and (2) thedegree to which the program sponsors research that addresses the top-ics shown in Figure 3.2. The committee included those programs that itjudged had a good match with both criteria.

Of the programs shown in Table 4.1, the committee judges that thefollowing 18 programs in eight federal agencies are closely related interms of scope and objectives to the EM Science Program:

• U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Environmental ChemistryLaboratory sponsors intramural and cooperative research onphytoremediation and accelerated microbial degradation of organic compounds and has an annual budget of about $2 million.8

• U.S. Department of Defense. The Army’s Terrestrial ScienceProgram sponsors extramural research on experimental, theoreti-cal, and numerical studies on fluid flow and contaminant trans-port processes in heterogeneous porous media. It has an annualbudget of about $1 million.

The Naval Research Laboratory sponsors research on in situremediation, microbial degradation processes, and environmen-tal monitoring.

The Strategic Environmental Research and Development

61

C h a p t e r 4

7The committee recognizes that individual states may provide research fundingto state agencies and universities for environmental-related basic research, but thecommittee was unable to identify any state programs that provide state taxpayerdollars at the levels commensurate with the federal agencies listed in Table 4.1.

8Unless otherwise noted, the budget numbers given in this chapter are for fiscalyear 1999.



Program sponsors extramural research on cleanup, compliance,conservation, and pollution prevention. The program is managedin cooperation with DOE and the EPA and has an annual budgetof $59.4 million. About $18.4 million of this budget is directedto cleanup-related research.

• U.S. Department of Energy. In DOE’s Office of Science, there areseveral programs in basic energy sciences that sponsor extramur-al research to understand fundamental physical, chemical, bio-logical, and geological processes (see Table 4.1). Some researchsponsored by these programs is relevant to environmentalcleanup, but none is focused explicitly on the topical areasshown in Figure 3.2. There appear, however, to be at least twoprograms in the Office of Science that are directly relevant to theEM Science Program. The Office of Biological andEnvironmental Research’s Natural and AcceleratedBioremediation Program sponsors extramural research to under-stand and apply natural processes to accelerate the biologicallyenhanced immobilization or degradation of contaminated soiland groundwater.

In DOE’s Office of Environmental Management, the Office ofScience and Technology supports a number of applied research,technology development, and technology deployment programs.The overall objective of these programs is to bring new andimproved technologies to bear on cleanup of the DOE complex.

DOE also supports numerous user facilities at several nationallaboratories (see Table 4.2). Many of these support environmen-tal-related research funded by DOE and other research programs.

• U.S. Department of Interior. The U.S. Geological Survey’s ToxicSubstances Hydrology Program funds intramural research onpoint source contamination in the environment. This programhas sponsored 10 field sites around the country (see Sidebar 4.1)to encourage collaborative research among USGS and outsidescientists on problems ranging from landfill leachates to minetailings waste. The use of field sites encourages research collabo-rations and spreads the costs of expensive monitoring and otherobservational facilities. The program has an annual budget ofabout $10 million, and the field sites themselves are made avail-able at no cost to scientists outside the USGS. These scientistsmust obtain additional funding from their organizations or fromother research programs to support the costs of their researchprojects.

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Office of Researchand Development finances a large number of research programsthat are directly relevant to the EM Science Program. Almost all




C h a p t e r 4

63

Table 4.2 U.S. Department of Energy User Facilities

Maintained by Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences

Advanced Light Source, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory

Intense Pulsed Neutron Source, Argonne National Laboratory

National Synchrotron Light Source, Brookhaven National Laboratory

Los Alamos Neutron Scattering Center

High Flux Isotope Reactor, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

High Flux Beam Reactor, Brookhaven National Laboratory

Materials Preparation Center, Ames Laboratory

Electron Microscopy Center, Argonne National Laboratory

Center for Microanalysis, University of Illinois

National Center for Electron Microscopy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Shared Research Equipment Program, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Surface Modification and Characterization Research Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Combustion Research Facility, Sandia National Laboratory, Livermore, California

Maintained by Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Chemical Sciences

National Synchrotron Light Source, Brookhaven National Laboratory

High Flux Isotope Reactor, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Radiochemical Engineering Development Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Combustion Research Facility, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California

Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory, Stanford University

Maintained by the Office of Biological and Environmental Research

The Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Observation Sites (Southern Great Plains, TropicalWestern Pacific, and the North Slope of Alaska)

Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Production Sequencing Facility, Joint Genome Institute, University of California

Mouse Genetics Research Facility, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Office of Biological and Environmental Research conducts research at the followinguser facilities

Advanced Light Source, Protein Crystallography Program, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Advanced Light Source, Soft X-ray Spectroscopy Program, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Brookhaven High Flux Beam Reactor (neutron crystallography and scattering), BrookhavenNational Laboratory

Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (protein crystallography with neutrons), Los AlamosNational Laboratory

National Synchrotron Light Source (X-ray crystallography of biological macromolecules and UV spectroscopy), Brookhaven National Laboratory

Oak Ridge High Flux Isotope Reactor (neutron crystallography), Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (crystallography, spectroscopy, and small-anglescattering of biological molecules), Stanford University

Structural Biology Center (crystallography of biological macromolecules), Argonne NationalLaboratory



these programs are addressing problems of hazardous wastemanagement and cleanup in the nation’s civilian sector. TheNational Exposure Research Laboratory, in Research TrianglePark, North Carolina, sponsors research to improve capabilitiesto locate, characterize, and remediate volatile organic com-pounds, including dense non-aqueous phase liquids, in subsur-face environments. The annual budget is about $3.8 million.

The National Risk Management Research Laboratory, inCincinnati, Ohio, sponsors intramural research on contaminatedgroundwater and soil and on containment systems. The ground-water research program focuses on source characterization,remediation, and modeling of organic compounds and such met-als as arsenic. The annual budget is about $4.2 million. The soilresearch program covers in situ remediation, including biotreat-ment, of persistent organic and metal (lead and cadmium) conta-minants in soils, sediments, and unsaturated subsurface environ-


64

SIDEBAR 4.1 LONG-TERM RESEARCH SITES

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a number of long-term research sites for the study of

point source contaminants in the environment. The sites serve as natural laboratories at which scien-

tists conduct experiments and long-term observation. They have proven to be ideal settings for the

development of scientific knowledge about the fate and transport of contaminants.

Examples of sites and contaminants studied include tritium from a low-level radioactive waste disposal

site in Nevada; sewage effluent from ponds in Massachusetts; oil from a petroleum pipeline break in

Minnesota; oxygenated gasoline from buried tanks in South Carolina; creosote effluent from a cre-

osote facility in Florida; mining tailings pond leachate in Arizona; leachate from a landfill in Oklahoma;

and organic contaminants from an arsenal in New Jersey. An uncontaminated site in New Hampshire

was established to study fracture flow. Some of these sites have been in existence for over a decade.

Work at several of the sites was curtailed when scientific interest was satisfied.

Each site is managed by a USGS field scientist who lives and works nearby. This person is responsible

for maintaining a stable research site by maintaining good working relations with the land owner,

scheduling field research, facilitating the research by helping to provide the technical infrastructure,

ensuring that research projects do not interfere with one another, and maintaining the site data base.

A USGS research coordinator is assigned to work with the site manager and to serve as the link

between the site and the research community. Knowledgeable about the site environment and the par-

ticular contaminant, the coordinator is responsible for making the existence of the site known in the

appropriate research communities and to assist the site manager in coordinating science at the site.

The sites have provided fertile environments for scientific study. The prospects of a long-term site with

stable scientific management, field assistance, and a long-term database have attracted top scientists

in multiple disciplines from academia, government, and the private sector.



ments. The annual program budget is about $5.6 million. Thecontainment research program aims to develop new materialsand methods for containment of contaminated groundwater andsoil; the annual budget is about $1.9 million.

The National Center for Environmental Research andQuality Assurance in Washington, D.C., sponsors five hazardoussubstance research centers in cooperation with universitiesacross the United States. These centers were established underthe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act (the Superfund Act), and their primary fundingcomes from the EPA (about $8.9 million in fiscal year 1999),with additional funding from other federal agencies, universities,state agencies, and the private sector. These centers haveresearch foci that are related directly to the EM Science Program:

1. The Great Lakes/Mid-Atlantic Center sponsors research onremediation of hazardous organic compounds found in soilsand groundwater. The University of Michigan leads the three-institution consortium.

2. The Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Center sponsors researchon soils and mining wastes contaminated with organic chem-icals and heavy metals. Kansas State University leads a four-teen-institution consortium.

3. The South/Southwest Center sponsors research on in situdetection, mobilization, and remediation of contaminatedsediments. Louisiana State University leads the three-institu-tion consortium.

4. The Western Center sponsors research on groundwatercleanup and site remediation for organic solvents, hydrocar-bons and derivatives, and heavy metals. The center is acooperative activity involving Oregon State University andStanford University.

5. The Gulf Coast Center sponsors research on hazardous sub-stance response and waste management. The center is acooperative activity involving eight universities.

The National Center for Environmental Research and QualityAssurance, in collaboration with DOE, the Office of NavalResearch, and NSF, also sponsors a program in bioremediationthat seeks to understand the chemical, physical, and biologicalprocesses that influence the bioavailability and release of chemi-cals in soil, sediments, and groundwater. The annual funding forthis program is about $1 million.

C h a p t e r 4



• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The NationalInstitute of Environmental Health Sciences sponsors a joint pro-gram with the EPA on the Superfund Hazardous SubstancesBasic Research Program, which has an annual budget of about$37 million. This program supports research to understand haz-ardous waste exposure risks and to support the development ofsite remediation technologies.

• National Science Foundation. Like DOE’s Office of Science, theNSF sponsors several extramural research programs to under-stand fundamental physical, chemical, biological, and geologicalprocesses (see Table 4.1). Some of these programs sponsorresearch that is directly relevant to environmental cleanup, butnone is focused explicitly on the topical areas shown in Figure3.2. There are at least two programs in the NSF that appear to bedirectly relevant to the EM Science Program. The Civil andMechanical Systems Program sponsors basic engineeringresearch, including geotechnical research on materials, contain-ment systems, remediation, and modeling. The annual fundingfor this program is about $59.5 million.9 The NSF also sponsorsa cross-directorate program on Environmental Geochemistry andBiogeochemistry, whose goal is to improve fundamental knowl-edge of chemical processes that control the behavior and distrib-ution of inorganic and organic materials in the environment. Theannual funding for this program is about $4.8 million.

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This agency is chargedwith regulating the production, use, and disposal of radioactivebyproduct materials; it sponsors research through the Center forNuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis in San Antonio, Texas. TheGeohydrology and Geochemistry Section in this center sponsorsresearch on surface and subsurface hydrology related to thetransport and fate of contaminants.

O ther Research ProgramsTable 4.1 lists a number of other programs that sponsor research that

is less directly relevant to the EM Science Program; nevertheless, theseprograms support research that may in the long term support the DOEcleanup effort. The basic research programs in DOE’s Office of Scienceand the National Science Foundation, which were mentioned in the


66

9Only a portion of this total is for geotechnology-related research.



last section, are good examples. They sponsor research that willincrease the basic knowledge pool that can be accessed by the EMScience Program and its researchers. Many of the researchers whoreceive EM Science Program funding are also being or have been sup-ported by one or more basic research programs in DOE and NSF.

There is another group of programs in Table 4.1 that has some rele-vance for the EM Science Program and DOE’s overall cleanup efforts,namely, the programs that support risk analysis and risk assessmentresearch. Risk assessment is an important step in the remediationprocess, as will be shown in Chapter 5, and the EM Science Program isnow supporting several projects that address risk-related topics (seeChapter 3). There are several research programs in Table 4.1 thataddress various aspects of hazard and risk assessment:

• The EPA’s National Center for Environmental Assessment spon-sors two research programs in this area, one on Superfundhealth risk assessment, with an annual budget of $2.1 million,and a second on Superfund ecological risk assessment, whichhas an annual budget of $1.0 million.

• The EPA’s National Center for Environmental Research andQuality Assurance, in cooperation with the National Institute ofEnvironmental Health Sciences, sponsors a program on complexmixtures that focuses on the mechanistic basis for chemicalinteractions on biological systems. The annual budget is about$2.7 million.

• As mentioned in the last section, the National Institute ofEnvironmental Health Sciences sponsors a joint program withEPA on the Superfund hazardous basic research. One of theobjectives of this program is to understand hazardous wasteexposure risks.

Discuss ionIn responding to its statement of task, the committee attempted to

survey research completed or underway in other federal or state agen-cies that it could use in formulating a long-term research agenda for theEM Science Program. The committee attempted to identify thoseresearch programs that seemed to be most closely related to the EMScience Program and to gain a general understanding of researchobjectives. The committee believes that this review has providedenough information to make the following five observations that will beused to formulate recommendations for the long-term research agendapresented in Chapter 6.

C h a p t e r 4



1. The federal government is a major sponsor of basic research relat-ed either directly or indirectly to environmental problems. Thecommittee identified almost 50 research programs in its survey(see Table 4.1). If health-related research programs were includedin the committee’s survey, the number would be much higher.

2. There are a large number and variety of programs across the fed-eral government that support research of direct relevance to theEM Science Program and DOE’s cleanup problems. The commit-tee identified 18 such research programs.

3. There appears to be significant overlap in scope among some ofthe programs identified in this analysis, judging from the pro-gram descriptions given in Table 4.1. Overlap is not necessarilyundesirable, but it is not clear whether there is an effectivemechanism to coordinate these programs. There are somenotable exceptions to this generalization, especially for thoseprograms listed in Table 4.1 that are jointly managed by severalagencies (e.g., the Strategic Environmental Research andDevelopment Program, which is managed by the DOD in coop-eration with DOE and the EPA.).

4. Many of the 18 directly relevant programs identified in point 2above focus on hazardous chemicals, and to a lesser extent onheavy metals. There appear to be few programs that addressradionuclide contamination outside DOE.

5. Many of the 18 directly relevant programs also focus on remedi-ation, and especially bioremediation. Other remediationapproaches and other important research topics related to envi-ronmental cleanup (e.g., contaminant location and characteriza-tion in the subsurface) appear to be receiving less attention.

The committee believes there would be value added to the federalgovernment’s basic research on environmental problems if there wasbetter coordination among its research programs, especially the mis-sion-directed programs. The committee sees an opportunity for EMScience Program managers to promote and foster such coordination.

There are many good coordinating mechanisms that have been usedelsewhere in the federal government that could be adapted to coordi-nate these mission-directed environmental research programs. Theserange from formal coordinating mechanisms like the Federal Remedi-


68

10The Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable is an interagency coordi-nating group comprising representatives of federal agencies with hazardous wastecleanup responsibilities. The roundtable provides a forum for information



ation Technologies Roundtable10 to more informal mechanisms likeperiodic meetings of interested program managers, or even joint spon-sorship of field research sites to address specific contamination prob-lems. Regardless of the mechanisms, however, the objective should beto improve communication among federal program managers, reduceunnecessary duplication and overlap among programs, and help pro-gram managers focus their resources on those problems that providethe greatest challenges to the nation’s environmental cleanup efforts.

C h a p t e r 4

69

exchange and joint action concerning the development and demonstration ofinnovative technologies for hazardous waste remediation. Additional informationis available at http://www.frtr.gov.




70

TABL

E 4.

1 R

eleva

nt R

esea

rch in

Fede

ral A

genc

ies

(Not

e:Fu

ndin

g in

form

atio

n is

for f

isca

l yea

r 199

9 un

less

oth

erw

ise

note

d.Th

e fu

ndin

g le

vels

are

for c

omp

aris

on p

urp

oses

onl

y an

d a

re a

pp

roxi

mat

e fig

ures

bas

ed o

n th

e b

est

avai

lab

le d

ata.

In s

ome

case

s re

liab

le d

ata

coul

d n

ot b

e ac

qui

red.

This

list

is n

ot c

omp

rehe

nsiv

e.)

Sect

ion,

Prog

ram

Sub

-pro

gra

mFu

ndin

g L

evel

Intr

a- o

r W

eb S

ite fo

r D

epar

tmen

t,Ex

tram

ural

Sour

ce a

nd

or D

ivis

ion

Mor

e In

form

atio

n

U.S

.DEP

AR

TMEN

T O

F A

GR

ICU

LTU

RE

Ag

ricul

tura

l N

atio

nal P

rog

ram

on

Wat

er Q

ualit

y an

d

All

soil

and

wat

er w

ithin

ARS

:In

tra

http

://w

ww

.np

s.ar

s.us

da.

gov

/Re

sear

ch S

ervi

ceN

atur

al R

esou

rces

and

W

ater

Man

agem

ent

FY 9

9:$8

6M F

Y 98

:$86

M

pro

gra

ms/

201b

.htm

Sust

aina

ble

Ag

ricul

ture

The

prim

ary

mis

sion

of t

his

natio

nal p

rog

ram

is t

wof

old

:to

dev

elop

inno

vativ

e co

ncep

ts fo

r det

erm

inin

g t

he m

ovem

ent

of w

ater

and

its

asso

ciat

ed c

onst

ituen

ts in

ag

ricul

tura

lla

ndsc

apes

and

wat

ersh

eds,

and

to

dev

elop

new

and

imp

rove

d p

ract

ices

,tec

hnol

ogie

s,an

d s

trat

egie

s fo

r man

agin

g t

he n

atio

n’s

agric

ultu

ral w

ater

reso

urce

s.Th

ese

adva

nces

will

pro

vid

e fo

od a

nd fi

ber

pro

duc

ers,

loca

l com

mun

ities

,and

reso

urce

man

agem

ent

agen

cies

with

too

ls t

o im

pro

ve w

ater

con

serv

atio

n an

d w

ater

use

effi

cien

cy in

irrig

ated

and

dry

land

ag

ricul

ture

,enh

ance

wat

er q

ualit

y,p

rote

ct ru

ral c

omm

uniti

es fr

om t

he ra

vag

es o

f flo

ods

and

dro

ught

s,an

d p

reve

nt t

he d

egra

dat

ion

of la

ndsc

apes

,aq

uatic

eco

syst

ems,

and

str

eam

cor

ridor

s.

Ag

ricul

tura

l So

il,W

ater

,and

Air

Coo

per

ativ

e $2

MBo

th

http

://hy

dro

lab.

arsu

sda.

gov

/Re

sear

ch S

ervi

ceQ

ualit

y/ E

nviro

nmen

tal

Rese

arch

:met

als

in

ecl/

CRI

S%20

Rep

orts

/met

alsi

n1.h

tmC

hem

istr

y La

bor

ator

yso

il;m

etal

s/p

lant

up

take

This

pro

gra

m t

arg

ets

toxi

c tr

ace

elem

ents

,org

anic

ag

roch

emic

als,

and

rad

ionu

clid

es.T

he m

ain

app

roac

hes

incl

ude:

a) u

se o

f sp

ecia

lly d

esig

ned

bio

solid

com

pos

t to

red

uce

the

bio

avai

lab

ility

of t

oxic

tra

ce e

lem

ents

,b) p

hyto

rem

edia

tion

usin

g h

yper

accu

mul

ator

pla

nts

or p

lant

s th

at c

onve

rt t

oxic

ele

men

ts t

o no

ntox

ic fo

rms,

and

c) a

ccel

erat

ed m

icro

bia

ld

egra

dat

ion

of o

rgan

ic c

omp

ound

s.Fu

ndin

g fo

r thi

s p

rog

ram

is a

pp

roxi

mat

ely

$1.5

M o

f ag

ency

fund

ing

and

ap

pro

xim

atel

y $0

.5M

in g

rant

fund

ing

per

yea

r.

U.S

.DEP

AR

TMEN

T O

F C

OM

MER

CE

Nat

iona

l Ins

titut

e C

hem

ical

Sci

ence

and

D

ivis

ions

FY

98:

Intr

aht

tp://

ww

w.n

ist.g

ov/

of S

tand

ard

s an

d

Tech

nolo

gy

Lab

orat

ory

(ap

pro

xim

ate

Ap

pro

xim

atel

y $5

8Mp

ublic

_affa

irs/g

uid

e/cs

tpag

e.ht

mTe

chno

log

y fu

ndin

g le

vels

b

ased

on

FY98

p

roje

ctio

ns):

Biot

echn

olog

y (~

$10.

3M)



C h a p t e r 4

71

Proc

ess

Mea

sure

men

ts

(~$1

0.6M

)

Surf

ace

and

M

icro

anal

ysis

Sc

ienc

e (~

$8.4

M)

Phys

ical

and

C

hem

ical

Pro

per

ties

(~$1

3.3M

)

Ana

lytic

al C

hem

istr

y (~

$13.

9M)

The

Che

mic

al S

cien

ce a

nd T

echn

olog

y La

bor

ator

y p

erfo

rms

cutt

ing

-ed

ge

rese

arch

in m

easu

rem

ent

scie

nce;

dev

elop

s an

d m

aint

ains

mea

sure

men

t m

etho

ds,

stan

dar

ds,

and

ref-

eren

ce d

ata;

and

dev

elop

s m

odel

s fo

r che

mic

al,b

ioch

emic

al,a

nd p

hysi

cal p

rop

ertie

s an

d p

roce

sses

.The

lab

pro

vid

es t

hese

cap

abili

ties

to e

nhan

ce U

.S.i

ndus

try'

s p

rod

uctiv

ityan

d c

omp

etiti

vene

ss;e

nsur

e eq

uity

in t

rad

e;an

d im

pro

ve p

ublic

hea

lth,s

afet

y,an

d e

nviro

nmen

tal q

ualit

y.

Nat

iona

l Ins

titut

e M

ater

ials

Sci

ence

and

D

ivis

ions

FY

98:

Both

http

://w

ww

.mse

l.nis

t.gov

/of

Sta

ndar

ds

and

En

gin

eerin

g L

abor

ator

y (a

pp

roxi

mat

e A

pp

roxi

mat

ely

$50M

Tech

nolo

gy

fund

ing

leve

ls

bas

ed o

n FY

98

pro

ject

ions

):

Mat

eria

ls (~

$5.7

M)

Met

allu

rgy

(~$1

0.9M

)

Poly

mer

s (~

$8.9

M)

Cer

amic

s (~

$11.

9M)

NIS

T C

ente

r for

N

eutr

on R

esea

rch

(~$1

4.9M

)

The

Mat

eria

ls S

cien

ce a

nd E

ngin

eerin

g L

abor

ator

y p

rovi

des

tec

hnic

al le

ader

ship

and

par

ticip

ates

in d

evel

opin

g t

he m

easu

rem

ent

and

sta

ndar

ds

infr

astr

uctu

re re

late

d t

o m

ater

i-al

s cr

itica

l to

U.S

.ind

ustr

y,ac

adem

ia,g

over

nmen

t,an

d t

he p

ublic

.Mat

eria

ls s

cien

ce a

nd e

ngin

eerin

g p

rog

ram

s co

ver a

full

rang

e of

mat

eria

ls is

sues

from

des

ign

to p

roce

ssin

g t

op

erfo

rman

ce.A

uni

fyin

g a

im is

to

acq

uire

the

kno

wle

dg

e an

d t

ools

nee

ded

for i

ntel

ligen

t m

anuf

actu

ring

met

hod

s w

ith re

al-t

ime

auto

mat

ed p

roce

ss c

ontr

ols.

Sep

arat

e re

sear

chin

itiat

ives

ad

dre

ss c

eram

ics,

met

als,

pol

ymer

s,co

mp

osite

s,an

d s

uper

cond

ucto

rs.T

his

rese

arch

sup

por

ts e

ffort

s of

U.S

.ind

ustr

y to

dev

elop

relia

ble

,low

-cos

t m

anuf

actu

ring

met

h-od

s fo

r tai

lor-

mad

e m

ater

ials

and

pro

duc

ts w

ith s

uper

ior p

rop

ertie

s.



Nat

iona

l Ins

titut

ePh

ysic

s La

bor

ator

yD

ivis

ions

FY

98:

Both

http

://p

hysi

cs.n

ist.g

ov/

of S

tand

ard

s an

d

(fund

ing

leve

ls a

re

Ap

pro

xim

atel

y $4

8.3M

Tech

nolo

gy

app

roxi

mat

e b

ased

on

pro

ject

ions

fo

r FY9

8:

Elec

tron

& O

ptic

al

Phys

ics

(~$5

.8M

)

Ato

mic

Phy

sics

(~

$8.1

M)

Op

tical

Tec

hnol

ogy

(~$1

1.1M

)

Ioni

zing

Rad

iatio

n (~

$6.8

M)

Tim

e an

d F

req

uenc

y (~

$8.4

M)

Qua

ntum

Phy

sics

(~

$5.8

)

The

Phys

ics

Lab

orat

ory

is o

ne o

f the

maj

or o

per

atin

g u

nits

of t

he N

atio

nal I

nstit

ute

of S

tand

ard

s an

d T

echn

olog

y.It

s m

issi

on is

to

sup

por

t U

.S.i

ndus

try

by

pro

vid

ing

mea

sure

-m

ent

serv

ices

and

rese

arch

for e

lect

roni

c,op

tical

,and

rad

iatio

n te

chno

log

ies.

The

lab

orat

ory

pur

sues

dire

cted

rese

arch

in t

he p

hysi

cal s

cien

ces;

dev

elop

s ne

w p

hysi

cal s

tand

ard

s,m

easu

rem

ent

met

hod

s,an

d d

ata;

cond

ucts

an

agg

ress

ive

dis

sem

inat

ion

pro

gra

m;a

nd c

olla

bor

ates

with

ind

ustr

y to

com

mer

cial

ize

inve

ntio

ns a

nd d

isco

verie

s.Pr

ogra

ms

span

the

full

rang

e fr

om t

ests

of f

und

amen

tal p

ostu

late

s of

phy

sics

thr

oug

h g

ener

ic t

echn

olog

y to

the

mor

e im

med

iate

nee

ds

of in

dus

try

and

com

mer

ce.I

ts c

onst

ituen

cy is

bro

adly

dis

trib

uted

thr

oug

hout

aca

dem

ia,g

over

nmen

t,an

d in

dus

try.


72

TABL

E 4.

1 Co

ntin

ued

(Not

e:Fu

ndin

g in

form

atio

n is

for f

isca

l yea

r 199

9 un

less

oth

erw

ise

note

d.Th

e fu

ndin

g le

vels

are

for c

omp

aris

on p

urp

oses

onl

y an

d a

re a

pp

roxi

mat

e fig

ures

bas

ed o

n th

e b

est

avai

lab

le d

ata.

In s

ome

case

s re

liab

le d

ata

coul

d n

ot b

e ac

qui

red.

This

list

is n

ot c

omp

rehe

nsiv

e.)

Sect

ion,

Prog

ram

Sub

-pro

gra

mFu

ndin

g L

evel

Intr

a- o

r W

eb S

ite fo

r D

epar

tmen

t,Ex

tram

ural

Sour

ce a

nd

or D

ivis

ion

Mor

e In

form

atio

n



U.S

.DEP

AR

TMEN

T O

F D

EFEN

SE

Air

Forc

eA

ir Fo

rce

Mat

erie

l C

hem

istr

y an

d L

ife

Ap

pro

xim

atel

y $5

M

Both

http

://w

eb.fi

e.co

m/

Com

man

d/A

ir Fo

rce

Scie

nces

:Bio

-an

nual

ly ($

2M in

tra/

ht

doc

/fed

/afr

/afo

/any

/tex

t/O

ffice

of S

cien

tific

en

viro

nmen

tal

$3M

ext

ra)

any/

rib99

-1.h

tm#6

Rese

arch

/Air

Forc

e Sc

ienc

eRe

sear

ch L

abor

ator

y

The

Bioe

nviro

nmen

tal S

cien

ce P

rog

ram

sup

por

ts t

oxic

olog

y-re

late

d re

sear

ch t

hat

inve

stig

ates

the

inte

ract

ions

of b

iolo

gic

al s

yste

ms

with

non

-ioni

zing

rad

iatio

n an

d c

hem

ical

s of

inte

rest

to

the

Air

Forc

e.A

ir Fo

rce

oper

atio

ns u

se p

hysi

cal a

nd c

hem

ical

ag

ents

suc

h as

non

-ioni

zing

rad

iant

ene

rgie

s (r

adio

freq

uenc

y ra

dia

tion,

mic

row

aves

,and

lase

r lig

ht),

heav

y m

etal

s (c

hrom

ium

and

cad

miu

m),

and

var

ious

che

mic

als

that

con

stitu

te fu

els,

pro

pel

lant

s,an

d lu

bric

ants

of i

nter

est

to t

he A

ir Fo

rce

that

can

be

pot

entia

lly h

arm

ful t

o m

ili-

tary

and

civ

ilian

per

sonn

el,t

o th

e su

rrou

ndin

g p

opul

ace,

or t

o th

e en

viro

nmen

t.Ex

pos

ure

to t

hese

ag

ents

may

be

a d

irect

resu

lt of

the

ir us

e d

urin

g A

ir Fo

rce

oper

atio

ns a

ndm

aint

enan

ce a

nd,i

n th

e ca

se o

f che

mic

als,

may

als

o oc

cur i

ndire

ctly

as

a re

sult

of le

aky

stor

age

cont

aine

rs t

hat

cont

amin

ate

was

te s

trea

ms,

gro

und

wat

er,a

nd s

oil.T

he A

ir Fo

rce

sup

por

ts b

asic

rese

arch

to

und

erst

and

the

bio

log

ical

effe

cts

of t

hese

ag

ents

,the

ir m

echa

nism

s of

tox

icity

,and

the

use

of e

xper

imen

tal a

nd c

omp

utat

iona

l mod

elin

g in

ass

essi

ngth

eir p

oten

tial h

ealth

ris

ks.

Air

Forc

eA

ir Fo

rce

Mat

erie

l M

ater

ials

and

A

pp

roxi

mat

ely

Intr

aht

tp://

ww

w.m

l.afr

l.af.m

il/C

omm

and

/Air

Forc

e M

anuf

actu

ring

$3

00,0

00 a

nnua

llyd

ivis

ions

/mlq

/wud

_bt.h

tml

Offi

ce o

f Sci

entif

ic

Dire

ctor

ate/

Rese

arch

/Air

Forc

e Bi

otec

hnol

ogy

Rese

arch

Lab

orat

ory

The

Biot

echn

olog

y D

ivis

ion

cond

ucts

in-h

ouse

rese

arch

in b

iod

egra

dat

ion,

spec

ifica

lly s

trat

egie

s to

pre

dic

t,en

hanc

e,or

pre

vent

mic

rob

ial a

ttac

k on

mat

eria

ls a

nd in

bio

cata

lysi

sto

dis

cove

r and

enh

ance

nov

el m

etab

olic

pro

cess

es fo

r use

in s

ynth

esis

of m

ater

ials

.Thi

s p

rog

ram

focu

ses

on m

itig

atin

g t

he A

ir Fo

rce'

s in

dus

tria

l haz

ard

ous

was

te s

trea

ms,

and

red

ucin

g o

r pre

vent

ing

env

ironm

enta

l con

tam

inat

ion

at A

ir Fo

rce

and

oth

er D

epar

tmen

t of

Def

ense

site

s.Th

is w

ill m

inim

ize

the

hig

h co

sts

and

tox

ic b

ypro

duc

ts o

f con

vent

ion-

al c

hem

istr

y fo

r mat

eria

ls p

rod

uctio

n.

Arm

yA

rmy

Mat

erie

l M

echa

nica

l and

$4

.6M

aEx

tra

http

://w

ww

.aro

.arm

y.m

il/C

omm

and

/Arm

y En

viro

nmen

tal

rese

arch

/baa

99-1

/baa

99.h

tm#e

sRe

sear

ch L

abor

ator

y/Sc

ienc

es D

ivis

ion:

Arm

y Re

sear

ch O

ffice

Terr

estr

ial S

cien

ces

Prog

ram

The

Terr

estr

ial S

cien

ces

Prog

ram

is c

once

rned

with

the

imp

act

of E

arth

's s

urfic

ial e

nviro

nmen

t on

Arm

y ac

tiviti

es.P

rog

ram

inte

rest

s co

ver a

bro

ad s

pec

trum

,ran

gin

g fr

om t

erra

inch

arac

teriz

atio

n an

d a

naly

sis,

to m

ilita

ry e

ngin

eerin

g a

nd m

obili

ty c

onsi

der

atio

ns u

nder

com

bat

con

diti

ons,

to e

nviro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t an

d s

tew

ard

ship

.Prim

ary

emp

hasi

sis

dire

cted

tow

ard

und

erst

and

ing

the

beh

avio

r of t

he la

nd s

urfa

ce a

nd t

he n

ear-

surf

ace

envi

ronm

ents

,und

erst

and

ing

the

nat

ural

pro

cess

es o

per

atin

g o

n an

d in

the

se d

omai

ns,

and

mod

elin

g t

hese

env

ironm

ents

for p

red

ictiv

e an

d s

imul

atio

n p

urp

oses

.Sp

ecia

l em

pha

sis

is g

iven

to

the

need

to

bet

ter u

nder

stan

d,m

odel

,and

pre

dic

t th

ose

cond

ition

s th

atar

e m

ost

extr

eme,

dyn

amic

,or r

estr

ictiv

e to

sys

tem

s p

erfo

rman

ce o

r mili

tary

op

erat

ions

.The

thr

ee a

reas

of c

urre

nt in

tere

st t

o th

e p

rog

ram

are

ter

rain

pro

per

ties

and

cha

ract

eri-

zatio

n,te

rres

tria

l pro

cess

es a

nd la

ndsc

ape

dyn

amic

s,an

d t

erre

stria

l sys

tem

mod

elin

g a

nd m

odel

inte

gra

tion.

In a

ll ca

ses,

the

emp

hasi

s is

on

bas

ic re

sear

ch.

C h a p t e r 4



Arm

y M

ater

iel

Mec

hani

cal a

nd

Spec

ial P

rog

ram

s:A

pp

roxi

mat

ely

Extr

abht

tp://

ww

w.a

ro.a

rmy.

mil/

Com

man

d/

Envi

ronm

enta

l C

ente

r for

Mul

tipha

se

$1M

ann

ually

aror

ev/e

nviro

ma.

htm

Arm

y Re

sear

ch

Scie

nces

Div

isio

n:Fl

uid

Flo

w a

nd

Lab

orat

ory/

Arm

y Te

rres

tria

l Sc

ienc

es

Con

tam

inan

t ht

tp://

cmr.s

ph.

unc.

edu/

CM

R/Re

sear

ch O

ffice

Prog

ram

Tran

spor

tht

tp://

cmr.s

ph.

unc.

edu/

CM

R/

The

rese

arch

tea

m is

eng

aged

in a

var

iety

of e

xper

imen

tal,

theo

retic

al,a

nd n

umer

ical

stu

die

s d

irect

ed t

owar

d u

nder

stan

din

g t

he fu

ndam

enta

ls o

f flu

id fl

ow a

nd c

onta

min

ant

tran

spor

t p

roce

sses

in h

eter

ogen

eous

,mul

tipha

se p

orou

s m

edia

sys

tem

s.Th

e ob

ject

ives

are

:(1)

to

obse

rve

fluid

flow

and

con

tam

inan

t tr

ansp

ort

thro

ugh

cont

rolle

d la

bor

ator

yex

per

imen

ts a

t a

varie

ty o

f sca

les;

(2) t

o d

evel

op a

nd a

pp

ly n

umer

ical

mod

els

to s

imul

ate

flow

and

tra

nsp

ort;

and

(3) t

o th

eore

tical

ly e

valu

ate

the

pra

ctic

al c

onse

que

nces

and

effe

cts

of fl

ow a

nd t

rans

por

t p

heno

men

a in

the

con

text

of t

he d

ual g

oals

of i

mp

rove

d m

odel

ing

cap

abili

ties

and

pra

ctic

al p

roce

dure

s fo

r and

effi

cien

cy in

env

ironm

enta

lre

stor

atio

n.Th

e ce

nter

is a

t th

e U

nive

rsity

of N

orth

Car

olin

a an

d s

upp

orte

d b

y m

ultip

le o

rgan

izat

ions

(Cra

y Re

sear

ch,I

nc.;G

erm

an A

cad

emic

Exc

hang

e Se

rvic

e;Su

per

fund

Bas

icRe

sear

ch P

rog

ram

;Nor

th C

arol

ina

Sup

erco

mp

utin

g C

ente

r;U

.S.A

rmy

Rese

arch

Offi

ce;U

.S.A

rmy

Wat

erw

ays

Exp

erim

ent

Stat

ion;

and

U.S

.Dep

artm

ent

of E

nerg

y).

Rese

arch

und

er-

take

n b

y th

e U

nive

rsity

of N

orth

Car

olin

a,C

hap

el H

ill t

eam

has

bee

n co

ord

inat

ed a

nd s

hare

d w

ith A

rmy

rese

arch

ers

at t

he U

.S.A

rmy

Cor

ps

of E

ngin

eers

Wat

erw

ays

Exp

erim

ent

Stat

ion.

Thes

e ef

fort

s ha

ve re

sulte

d in

ap

pro

ache

s an

d c

omp

uter

cod

es t

hat

are

read

ily a

pp

licab

le t

o fie

ld a

pp

licat

ions

,and

hav

e b

een

mad

e av

aila

ble

to

the

Dep

artm

ent

ofD

efen

se G

roun

d w

ater

Mod

el S

yste

m P

rog

ram

.

Arm

yU

.S.A

rmy

Cor

ps

of

Envi

ronm

enta

l A

pp

roxi

mat

ely

Intr

acht

tp://

ww

w.w

es.a

rmy.

mil/

Eng

inee

rs/W

ater

way

s La

bor

ator

y/Fa

te a

nd

$4M

ann

ually

el

/env

rest

.htm

lEx

per

imen

t St

atio

nEf

fect

s Re

sear

ch

Vick

sbur

g,M

issi

ssip

pi

Fate

and

effe

cts

rese

arch

beg

an in

the

ear

ly 1

970s

to

sup

por

t th

e C

orp

s d

red

gin

g p

rog

ram

s,w

hich

incl

uded

dev

elop

men

t of

tes

ting

man

uals

for s

edim

ent

cont

amin

ants

.Thi

sw

as q

uick

ly e

xpan

ded

to

was

te c

hara

cter

izat

ion,

envi

ronm

enta

l mon

itorin

g,nu

mer

ical

mod

elin

g,an

d p

hysi

cal a

nd b

iolo

gic

al p

roce

sses

.Res

ults

of t

his

rese

arch

wer

e us

ed t

oas

sist

with

was

te d

isp

osal

pra

ctic

es a

nd g

roun

d w

ater

mon

itorin

g a

t su

ch fa

cilit

ies

as A

ber

dee

n Pr

ovin

g G

roun

ds,

Rock

y M

ount

ain

Ars

enal

,and

Pin

e Bl

uff A

rsen

al.E

nviro

nmen

tal

fate

and

effe

cts

rese

arch

at

the

stat

ion

enco

mp

asse

s a

varie

ty o

f pro

gra

ms

in s

upp

ort

of D

epar

tmen

t of

Def

ense

ag

enci

es,o

ther

fed

eral

ag

enci

es,a

nd v

ario

us s

tate

ag

enci

es.T

his

envi

ronm

enta

l R&

D w

as d

evel

oped

from

Cor

ps

civi

l wor

ks p

rog

ram

s w

ith m

ajor

reim

bur

sab

le w

ork

from

mili

tary

and

civ

ilian

sp

onso

rs.R

&D

has

freq

uent

ly b

een

imp

lem

ente

d in

a co

oper

ativ

e en

viro

nmen

t w

ith o

ther

fed

eral

ag

enci

es (s

uch

as t

he U

.S.E

PA) t

o p

rovi

de

unifo

rm g

uid

ance

to

spon

sors

.


74

TABL

E 4.

1 Co

ntin

ued

(Not

e:Fu

ndin

g in

form

atio

n is

for f

isca

l yea

r 199

9 un

less

oth

erw

ise

note

d.Th

e fu

ndin

g le

vels

are

for c

omp

aris

on p

urp

oses

onl

y an

d a

re a

pp

roxi

mat

e fig

ures

bas

ed o

n th

e b

est

avai

lab

le d

ata.

In s

ome

case

s re

liab

le d

ata

coul

d n

ot b

e ac

qui

red.

This

list

is n

ot c

omp

rehe

nsiv

e.)

Sect

ion,

Prog

ram

Sub

-pro

gra

mFu

ndin

g L

evel

Intr

a- o

r W

eb S

ite fo

r D

epar

tmen

t,Ex

tram

ural

Sour

ce a

nd

or D

ivis

ion

Mor

e In

form

atio

n



Arm

yU

.S.A

rmy

Cor

ps

of

Envi

ronm

enta

l N

ot A

vaila

ble

Intr

aht

tp://

ww

w.w

es.a

rmy.

mil/

Eng

inee

rs /

Wat

erw

ays

Lab

orat

ory/

Dre

dg

ing

el

/dot

s/d

oer/

cs.h

tml

Exp

erim

ent

Stat

ion

Op

erat

ions

and

En

viro

nmen

tal

Rese

arch

/Con

tam

i-na

nt S

edim

ents

Foc

us

This

pro

gra

m e

xam

ines

the

mos

t co

mm

only

con

sid

ered

alte

rnat

ives

for c

onta

min

ated

sed

imen

ts,w

hich

are

pla

cem

ent

in c

onfin

ed d

ispo

sal f

acili

ties

(CD

Fs) a

nd c

app

ing,

anop

tion

for c

onta

inm

ent

in s

ubaq

ueou

s si

tes.

CD

Fs a

re lo

cate

d o

n la

nd o

r in

area

s of

rela

tivel

y sh

elte

red

wat

er.M

any

CD

Fs a

re n

ear c

losu

re,a

nd fu

ture

loca

tions

may

incl

ude

non-

trad

ition

al a

reas

suc

h as

offs

hore

.Tre

atm

ent

to re

clai

m C

DF

cap

acity

may

be

pro

mis

ing

for c

erta

in s

ites.

Cap

pin

g h

as s

igni

fican

t pot

entia

l as

a d

isp

osal

alte

rnat

ive,

but

issu

esre

late

d t

o its

long

-ter

m e

ffect

iven

ess

and

pot

entia

l ap

plic

atio

n to

dee

per

wat

ers

or h

igh-

ener

gy

envi

ronm

ents

req

uire

ad

diti

onal

env

ironm

enta

l inv

estig

atio

n.Th

is p

rog

ram

will

add

ress

hig

h p

riorit

y re

sear

ch n

eed

s ai

med

at

red

ucin

g c

osts

ass

ocia

ted

with

scr

eeni

ng a

nd a

sses

sing

pot

entia

l im

pac

ts o

f con

tam

inan

ts a

nd in

crea

sing

the

relia

bili

ty a

ndac

cep

tab

ility

of C

DF

and

cap

pin

g o

ptio

ns fo

r man

agem

ent

of c

onta

min

ated

sed

imen

ts.

Def

ense

Ad

vanc

ed

Def

ense

Sci

ence

s C

hem

ical

Plu

me

Ap

pro

xim

atel

y Ex

tra

http

://w

ww

.dar

pa.

mil/

Rese

arch

Pro

ject

s O

ffice

Trac

ing

$15M

DSO

/sol

icita

tions

/RA

98-0

9/A

gen

cy (D

ARP

A)

(Joi

nt p

rog

ram

S/

add

ition

al.h

tml

with

the

Offi

ce

of N

aval

Res

earc

h)ht

tp://

ww

w.d

arp

a.m

il/D

SO/s

olic

itatio

ns/R

A98

-09/

S/cb

d.ht

ml

Man

y an

imal

s (e

.g.,l

obst

ers,

mot

hs,a

nd d

ogs)

are

cap

able

of t

rack

ing

che

mic

al p

lum

es t

o th

eir s

ourc

e.It

is b

elie

ved

tha

t a

care

ful u

nder

stan

din

g o

f how

ani

mal

s ac

com

plis

h th

ista

sk w

ill le

ad t

o th

e d

evel

opm

ent

of a

rtifi

cial

plu

me

trac

ing

sys

tem

s th

at c

an b

e em

plo

yed

to

loca

te t

he s

ourc

e of

che

mic

al p

lum

es fo

r a v

arie

ty o

f ap

plic

atio

ns,i

nclu

din

g t

helo

catio

n of

land

min

es (u

sing

plu

mes

in a

ir) a

nd u

nder

wat

er u

nexp

lod

ed o

rdna

nce

(usi

ng p

lum

es in

wat

er).

Def

ense

Ad

vanc

ed

Def

ense

Sci

ence

s C

ontr

olle

d

Not

ava

ilab

leEx

tra

http

://w

ww

.dar

pa.

mil/

Rese

arch

Pro

ject

s O

ffice

Biol

ogic

al S

yste

ms

DSO

/sol

icita

tions

/A

gen

cy (D

ARP

A)

BAA

98-0

7/S/

cbd.

htm

The

prin

cip

al o

bje

ctiv

e of

thi

s p

rog

ram

is t

o co

ntro

l,in

fluen

ce,a

nd m

onito

r dis

trib

uted

bio

log

ical

sys

tem

s.A

pp

licat

ions

of i

nter

est

incl

ude

cont

rolli

ng t

he d

istr

ibut

ion

of b

iolo

gi-

cal s

yste

ms

for r

eal-t

ime

mon

itorin

g o

f ind

ivid

uals

or p

opul

atio

ns o

f org

anis

ms

(e.g

.,sw

arm

s,hi

ves,

den

s,sc

hool

s) t

o se

ek o

ut a

nd c

olle

ct in

form

atio

n in

the

env

ironm

ent

(air,

land

,or w

ater

) ab

out

agen

ts o

f har

m,i

nclu

din

g c

hem

ical

or b

iolo

gic

al w

eap

ons

and

une

xplo

ded

ord

nanc

e.Th

e p

rog

ram

will

exp

lore

the

con

trol

of b

iolo

gic

al s

yste

ms

as fi

rst

war

ning

sys

tem

s fo

r pre

dic

ting

hum

an h

ealth

ris

k.A

pp

licat

ion

of c

ontr

olle

d b

iolo

gic

al s

yste

ms

coul

d in

clud

e m

app

ing

ag

ent

conc

entr

atio

n an

d d

istr

ibut

ion

in p

oten

tially

con

ta-

min

ated

air,

land

,and

wat

er,a

nd c

ount

erm

easu

re d

eliv

ery

or in

telli

gen

ce in

form

atio

n g

athe

ring

in h

ostil

e or

inac

cess

ible

env

ironm

ents

.All

pro

gra

m a

spec

ts a

re fo

r def

ensi

vep

urp

oses

onl

y.O

ther

ap

plic

atio

ns c

ould

invo

lve

cont

rolli

ng t

he d

istr

ibut

ion

of p

est

org

anis

ms

to im

pro

ve o

per

atio

nal e

nviro

nmen

ts fo

r tro

ops.

To a

ccom

plis

h th

is o

bje

ctiv

e th

ep

rog

ram

will

see

k to

mon

itor a

nd u

se t

he s

enso

ry s

igna

ls (e

.g.,c

hem

ical

,vis

ual,

ther

mal

,aco

ustic

,oth

er) e

mp

loye

d b

y b

iolo

gic

al o

rgan

ism

s to

fora

ge

and

rep

rod

uce

in t

heir

envi

-ro

nmen

t.Re

sear

cher

s al

so s

eek

to d

evel

op re

volu

tiona

ry m

etho

ds

to in

terf

ace

with

ind

ivid

uals

or p

opul

atio

ns o

f bio

log

ical

sys

tem

s as

the

y d

istr

ibut

e in

the

env

ironm

ent.

The

Con

trol

led

Bio

log

ical

Sys

tem

s Pr

ogra

m s

eeks

maj

or t

echn

olog

y in

nova

tion

in n

ew c

once

pts

for "

plu

gg

ing

into

" th

e si

gna

ls u

sed

by

bio

log

ical

org

anis

ms

and

usi

ng t

hem

to

dire

ct d

istr

ibut

ion

of b

iolo

gic

al s

yste

ms

and

to

colle

ct e

nviro

nmen

tal i

nfor

mat

ion.

C h a p t e r 4



Nav

yO

ffice

of N

aval

M

ater

ials

Sci

ence

N

ot a

vaila

ble

dBo

thht

tp://

cbm

sew

s1.n

rl.na

vy.m

il/Re

sear

ch/

and

Com

pon

ent

Tech

nolo

gy

http

://he

ron.

nrl.n

avy.

mil/

Nav

al R

esea

rch

Dire

ctor

ate/

cont

ract

s/99

baa

/951

.htm

Lab

orat

ory

Cen

ter f

or B

io-

http

://he

ron.

nrl.n

avy.

mil/

Mol

ecul

ar S

cien

ce

cont

ract

s/99

baa

/924

.htm

and

Eng

inee

ring

The

Cen

ter f

or B

io-M

olec

ular

Sci

ence

and

Eng

inee

ring

con

duc

ts m

ultid

isci

plin

ary

rese

arch

in b

iote

chno

log

y,us

ing

the

tec

hniq

ues

of m

oder

n m

olec

ular

bio

log

y,b

iop

hysi

cs,

chem

istr

y,m

icro

elec

tron

ics,

and

eng

inee

ring

to

fab

ricat

e b

iose

nsor

s,b

iom

ater

ials

,and

ad

vanc

ed s

yste

ms.

Cur

rent

rese

arch

are

as in

clud

e (1

) bio

phy

sica

l che

mis

try

of m

emb

rane

s;(2

) res

earc

h in

to b

iose

nsor

s,in

clud

ing

con

stru

ctio

n of

nov

el d

evic

es,a

cces

sorie

s fo

r aut

omat

ed re

agen

t d

eliv

ery,

pro

duc

tion

of b

iom

olec

ular

reco

gni

tion

elem

ents

,or c

onfig

ura-

tion

of b

ioas

says

for i

nteg

ratio

n in

to t

he s

enso

r (ta

rget

s of

det

ectio

n in

clud

e ex

plo

sive

s,p

ollu

tant

s,p

atho

gen

s,to

xic

agen

ts,a

nd h

azar

dou

s ch

emic

als)

;(3)

gen

etic

eng

inee

ring

of

bio

mat

eria

ls;(

4) s

elf-

asse

mb

led

film

s an

d p

atte

rns

for a

dva

nced

mat

eria

l dev

elop

men

t;(5

) lip

osom

al d

eliv

ery

of v

acci

nes

and

pha

rmac

eutic

als;

and

(6) p

hysi

cal c

hara

cter

izat

ion

of t

hin

film

s an

d s

urfa

ces.

Nav

yO

ffice

of N

aval

C

hem

istr

y D

ivis

ion

Ap

pro

xim

atel

y In

tra

http

://ch

emd

iv-w

ww

.nrl.

navy

.mil/

Rese

arch

/En

viro

nmen

t an

d

$100

M a

nnua

llyin

dex

.htm

lBi

otec

hnol

ogy

Nav

al R

esea

rch

Bran

ch

Lab

orat

ory

This

Env

ironm

ent

and

Bio

tech

nolo

gy

Bran

ch h

as b

road

man

agem

ent

resp

onsi

bili

ty fo

r bio

tech

nolo

gy

pro

gra

ms

with

in t

he N

RL a

nd t

he D

OD

.The

pro

gra

m m

anag

er s

erve

s as

exp

ert

cons

ulta

nt a

nd a

dvi

sor i

n b

iote

chno

log

y to

the

Cen

ter f

or B

iom

olec

ular

Sci

ence

and

Eng

inee

ring,

the

div

isio

n su

per

inte

nden

t,to

the

ass

ocia

te d

irect

or o

f res

earc

h fo

rm

ater

ials

sci

ence

and

com

pon

ent

tech

nolo

gy,

and

to

the

dire

ctor

of d

efen

se re

sear

ch a

nd e

ngin

eerin

g in

the

Offi

ce o

f the

Und

er S

ecre

tary

of D

efen

se.A

dd

ition

ally

,the

pro

gra

mm

anag

er s

erve

s as

a N

avy/

DO

D re

pre

sent

ativ

e or

liai

son

to n

umer

ous

inte

rag

ency

com

mitt

ees.

The

pro

gra

m is

div

ided

into

med

ical

and

non

med

ical

(or m

ater

ials

) bio

tech

nolo

-g

y.Th

is t

echn

olog

y ha

s th

e p

oten

tial t

o p

rod

uce

new

vac

cine

s an

d t

hera

pie

s,ne

w s

truc

tura

l mat

eria

ls,a

nd p

ract

ical

sol

utio

ns t

o w

aste

site

rem

edia

tion.

Thru

st a

reas

are

bio

sen-

sors

,bio

pro

cess

ing,

mat

eria

ls,b

iom

icro

elec

tron

ics,

and

bio

rem

edia

tion.

This

pro

gra

m is

a D

OD

crit

ical

tec

hnol

ogy

and

is c

onsi

der

ed a

gro

wth

are

a.


76

TABL

E 4.

1 Co

ntin

ued

(Not

e:Fu

ndin

g in

form

atio

n is

for f

isca

l yea

r 199

9 un

less

oth

erw

ise

note

d.Th

e fu

ndin

g le

vels

are

for c

omp

aris

on p

urp

oses

onl

y an

d a

re a

pp

roxi

mat

e fig

ures

bas

ed o

n th

e b

est

avai

lab

le d

ata.

In s

ome

case

s re

liab

le d

ata

coul

d n

ot b

e ac

qui

red.

This

list

is n

ot c

omp

rehe

nsiv

e.)

Sect

ion,

Prog

ram

Sub

-pro

gra

mFu

ndin

g L

evel

Intr

a- o

r W

eb S

ite fo

r D

epar

tmen

t,Ex

tram

ural

Sour

ce a

nd

or D

ivis

ion

Mor

e In

form

atio

n



Nav

yO

ffice

of N

aval

C

hem

istr

y D

ivis

ion

Not

ava

ilab

leIn

tra

http

://p

ony.

nrl.n

avy.

mil/

eqsh

ome.

htm

lRe

sear

ch/

http

://ch

emd

iv-w

ww

.nrl.

navy

.mil/

Nav

al R

esea

rch

Che

mic

al D

ynam

ics

ind

ex.h

tml

Lab

orat

ory

and

Dia

gno

stic

s Br

anch

Envi

ronm

enta

l Q

ualit

y Sc

ienc

e Se

ctio

n

The

Envi

ronm

enta

l Qua

lity

Scie

nces

Sec

tion

cond

ucts

bas

ic a

nd a

pp

lied

rese

arch

in (1

) the

dev

elop

men

t an

d im

ple

men

tatio

n of

in s

itu re

med

iatio

n tr

eatm

ent

stra

teg

ies

for

cont

amin

ated

soi

l,se

dim

ent,

and

gro

und

wat

er,u

sing

a c

omb

inat

ion

of la

bor

ator

y,m

esoc

osm

,and

fiel

d-s

cale

stu

die

s;(2

) the

use

of m

icro

bia

l pro

cess

es,s

uch

as b

iod

egra

dat

ion,

bio

emul

sific

atio

n,an

d m

iner

al c

yclin

g t

o re

duc

e co

ntam

inan

ts in

was

te s

trea

ms

and

env

ironm

enta

l con

tam

inat

ion

of s

ite m

ater

ials

;(3)

the

cha

ract

eriz

atio

n an

d m

onito

ring

of

ecol

ogic

al p

aram

eter

s in

volv

ing

nut

rient

cyc

ling,

food

web

dyn

amic

s,ec

osys

tem

cha

ract

eriz

atio

n,an

d re

sour

ce m

anag

emen

t to

enh

ance

pol

lutio

n co

ntro

l and

op

timiz

e en

vi-

ronm

enta

l rec

over

y an

d re

stor

atio

n;(4

) bio

log

ical

-bas

ed s

enso

rs fo

r che

mic

al,b

iolo

gic

al,a

nd e

nviro

nmen

tal q

ualit

y m

onito

ring

;(5)

the

use

of m

ass

spec

trom

etry

and

rela

ted

tech

niq

ues

to d

evel

op in

stru

men

tatio

n fo

r rea

l-tim

e en

viro

nmen

tal a

naly

sis,

and

to

det

ect,

iden

tify,

and

str

uctu

rally

cha

ract

eriz

e b

iom

olec

ules

,met

al-b

iom

olec

ule

com

ple

xes,

and

oth

er m

ater

ials

;and

(6) s

tud

y th

e fu

ndam

enta

l pro

cess

es d

esor

ptio

n,io

niza

tion,

frag

men

tatio

n,an

d g

as-p

hase

reac

tions

of l

arge

ions

.

Offi

ce o

f the

St

rate

gic

Env

ironm

enta

l St

rate

gic

FY

99:

$59.

4MEx

tra

http

://w

ww

.ser

dp.

gov

Secr

etar

y of

Re

sear

ch a

nd

Envi

ronm

enta

l (3

1% fo

r cle

anup

D

efen

seD

evel

opm

ent

Prog

ram

Re

sear

ch a

nd

rese

arch

)ht

tp://

ww

w.s

erd

p.g

ov/

Dev

elop

men

t fu

ndin

g/F

und

ing

_Pro

cess

.htm

Prog

ram

The

Stra

teg

ic E

nviro

nmen

tal R

esea

rch

and

Dev

elop

men

t Pr

ogra

m is

the

Dep

artm

ent

of D

efen

se’s

corp

orat

e en

viro

nmen

tal r

esea

rch

and

dev

elop

men

t p

rog

ram

,pla

nned

and

exec

uted

in fu

ll p

artn

ersh

ip w

ith t

he D

epar

tmen

t of

Ene

rgy

and

the

Env

ironm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Ag

ency

,with

par

ticip

atio

n b

y nu

mer

ous

othe

r fed

eral

and

non

-fed

eral

org

aniz

a-tio

ns.

With

in it

s b

road

are

as o

f int

eres

t,th

e p

rog

ram

focu

ses

on c

lean

up,c

omp

lianc

e,co

nser

vatio

n,an

d p

ollu

tion

pre

vent

ion

tech

nolo

gie

s.

U.S

.DEP

AR

TMEN

T O

F EN

ERG

Y

Offi

ce o

f En

viro

nmen

tal

$47M

Extr

aht

tp://

ww

w.e

m.d

oe.g

ov/s

cien

ce/

Envi

ronm

enta

l M

anag

emen

t M

anag

emen

t &

Sc

ienc

e Pr

ogra

m

Offi

ce o

f Sci

ence

The

Envi

ronm

enta

l Man

agem

ent

Scie

nce

Prog

ram

is a

col

lab

orat

ive

pro

gra

m o

f the

DO

E's

Offi

ce o

f Env

ironm

enta

l Man

agem

ent

and

Offi

ce o

f Sci

ence

(for

mer

ly t

he O

ffice

of

Ener

gy

Rese

arch

) tha

t id

entif

ies

long

-ter

m b

asic

sci

ence

rese

arch

nee

ds

and

tar

get

s th

e re

sear

ch a

nd d

evel

opm

ent

to E

M's

pro

ble

ms

as a

key

to

dev

elop

ing

inno

vativ

e an

dco

st-e

ffect

ive

clea

nup

met

hod

s.Th

e Su

bsu

rfac

e C

onta

min

ants

Foc

us A

rea

relie

s on

the

Offi

ce o

f Sci

ence

and

the

Env

ironm

enta

l Man

agem

ent

Scie

nce

Prog

ram

to

answ

er b

asic

scie

nce

que

stio

ns re

gar

din

g c

onta

min

ant

tran

spor

t,so

il in

tera

ctio

n,an

d s

orp

tion

to u

nder

gro

und

sub

stra

tes.

C h a p t e r 4



Offi

ce o

f O

ffice

of S

cien

ce

Tech

nolo

gy

FY 9

9:$1

87.2

MEx

tra

http

://os

t.em

.doe

.gov

/En

viro

nmen

tal

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

dev

elop

men

t ifd

/ost

/pro

gra

ms.

htm

Man

agem

ent

and

dep

loym

ent

http

://w

ww

.cfo

.doe

.gov

/b

udg

et/0

0bud

get

/hig

hlite

/hig

hlite

.pd

f

The

Offi

ce o

f Sci

ence

and

Tec

hnol

ogy

sup

por

ts a

full

rang

e of

tec

hnol

ogy

rese

arch

,dev

elop

men

t,an

d d

eplo

ymen

t ac

tiviti

es fo

cuse

d on

DO

E cl

eanu

p.Th

e p

rog

ram

s ar

e st

ruc-

ture

d a

roun

d p

rob

lem

"fo

cus

area

s" (d

eact

ivat

ion

and

dec

omm

issi

onin

g;m

ixed

was

tes;

sub

surf

ace

cont

amin

ants

;and

tan

ks) a

nd c

ross

cutt

ing

issu

es (c

hara

cter

izat

ion,

mon

itor-

ing

and

sen

sor t

echn

olog

y;ef

ficie

nt s

epar

atio

ns;i

ndus

try

pro

gra

ms;

rob

otic

s;an

d in

teg

rate

d p

roce

ss a

naly

sis)

.

Offi

ce o

f Sci

ence

Basi

c En

erg

y Sc

ienc

esC

hem

ical

Sci

ence

sFY

98:

$196

M

Extr

aht

tp://

ww

w.e

r.doe

.gov

/p

rod

uctio

n/b

es/

Div

isio

n.ht

m#c

hem

ical

The

Div

isio

n of

Che

mic

al S

cien

ces

sup

por

ts b

asic

rese

arch

at

univ

ersi

ties,

DO

E na

tiona

l lab

orat

orie

s,an

d o

ther

ap

pro

pria

te o

rgan

izat

ions

for t

he p

urp

ose

of p

rovi

din

g t

he k

now

l-ed

ge

req

uire

d t

o d

evel

op e

nerg

y te

chno

log

ies

to m

eet

natio

nal g

oals

of e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy,

pub

lic h

ealth

and

saf

ety,

envi

ronm

enta

l pro

tect

ion

and

rest

orat

ion,

and

con

serv

atio

nof

nat

ural

reso

urce

s.Pr

ojec

ts s

upp

orte

d a

re s

elec

ted

for r

elev

ance

to

thes

e g

oals

and

for s

cien

tific

exc

elle

nce

as ju

dg

ed b

y p

eer r

evie

w.

Offi

ce o

f Sci

ence

Basi

c En

erg

y Sc

ienc

esEn

gin

eerin

g &

FY

98:

$40M

Bo

thht

tp://

ww

w.e

r.doe

.gov

/G

eosc

ienc

esFY

99:

$42M

ep

rod

uctio

n/b

es/D

ivis

ion.

htm

#Eng

Geo

The

Div

isio

n of

Eng

inee

ring

and

Geo

scie

nces

con

duc

ts re

sear

ch in

tw

o d

isci

plin

ary

area

s:en

gin

eerin

g a

nd g

eosc

ienc

es.I

n en

gin

eerin

g re

sear

ch,t

he g

oals

are

to

exte

nd t

heb

ody

of k

now

led

ge

und

erly

ing

cur

rent

eng

inee

ring

pra

ctic

e to

cre

ate

new

op

tions

for i

mp

rovi

ng e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

and

to

bro

aden

the

tech

nica

l and

con

cep

tual

kno

wle

dg

eb

ase

for s

olvi

ng t

he e

ngin

eerin

g p

rob

lem

s of

ene

rgy

tech

nolo

gie

s.In

geo

scie

nces

rese

arch

,the

em

pha

sis

is o

n fu

ndam

enta

l kno

wle

dge

of t

he p

roce

sses

tha

t tr

ansp

ort,

conc

en-

trat

e,em

pla

ce,a

nd m

odify

the

ene

rgy

and

min

eral

reso

urce

s an

d t

he b

ypro

duc

ts o

f ene

rgy

pro

duc

tion.

The

rese

arch

sup

por

ts e

xist

ing

ene

rgy

tech

nolo

gie

s an

d s

tren

gth

ens

the

foun

dat

ion

for t

he d

evel

opm

ent

of fu

ture

ene

rgy

tech

nolo

gie

s.U

ltim

atel

y th

e re

sear

ch im

pac

ts c

ontr

ol o

f ind

ustr

ial p

roce

sses

to

imp

rove

effi

cien

cy a

nd re

duc

e p

ollu

tion,

toin

crea

se e

nerg

y su

pp

lies,

and

to

low

er c

ost

and

incr

ease

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

env

ironm

enta

l rem

edia

tion

of p

ollu

ted

site

s.


78

TABL

E 4.

1 Co

ntin

ued

(Not

e:Fu

ndin

g in

form

atio

n is

for f

isca

l yea

r 199

9 un

less

oth

erw

ise

note

d.Th

e fu

ndin

g le

vels

are

for c

omp

aris

on p

urp

oses

onl

y an

d a

re a

pp

roxi

mat

e fig

ures

bas

ed o

n th

e b

est

avai

lab

le d

ata.

In s

ome

case

s re

liab

le d

ata

coul

d n

ot b

e ac

qui

red.

This

list

is n

ot c

omp

rehe

nsiv

e.)

Sect

ion,

Prog

ram

Sub

-pro

gra

mFu

ndin

g L

evel

Intr

a- o

r W

eb S

ite fo

r D

epar

tmen

t,Ex

tram

ural

Sour

ce a

nd

or D

ivis

ion

Mor

e In

form

atio

n



Offi

ce o

f Sci

ence

Basi

c En

erg

y Sc

ienc

esEn

erg

y Bi

osci

ence

sFY

98:

$26.

7M

Both

ht

tp://

ww

w.e

r.doe

.gov

/FY

99:

$29.

8M

pro

duc

tion/

bes

/D

ivis

ion.

htm

#bio

scie

nces

The

Div

isio

n of

Ene

rgy

Bios

cien

ces

sup

por

ts re

sear

ch t

o p

rovi

de

a b

asic

und

erst

and

ing

of t

he b

iolo

gic

al p

heno

men

a as

soci

ated

with

the

cap

ture

,tra

nsfo

rmat

ion,

stor

age,

and

use

of e

nerg

y.Re

sear

ch o

n p

lant

s an

d n

onm

edic

al m

icro

org

anis

ms

focu

ses

on a

rang

e of

bio

log

ical

pro

cess

es,i

nclu

din

g p

hoto

synt

hesi

s,b

ioen

erg

etic

s,p

rimar

y an

d s

econ

dar

ym

etab

olis

m,t

he s

ynth

esis

and

deg

rad

atio

n of

bio

pol

ymer

s su

ch a

s lig

nin

and

cel

lulo

se,a

naer

obic

ferm

enta

tions

,gen

etic

reg

ulat

ion

of g

row

th a

nd d

evel

opm

ent,

ther

mop

hily

(e.g

.,bac

teria

l gro

wth

und

er h

igh

tem

per

atur

e),a

nd o

ther

phe

nom

ena

with

the

pot

entia

l to

imp

act

bio

log

ical

ene

rgy

pro

duc

tion

and

con

vers

ion.

The

rese

arch

is fu

ndam

enta

lan

d is

sel

ecte

d t

o b

road

ly s

upp

ort

DO

E g

oals

and

ob

ject

ives

in e

nerg

y p

rod

uctio

n,en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t,an

d e

nerg

y co

nser

vatio

n.

Offi

ce o

f Sci

ence

Basi

c En

erg

y Sc

ienc

esM

ater

ials

Sci

ence

sFY

98:

$381

M

Both

http

://w

ww

.er.d

oe.g

ov/

FY 9

9:$4

14M

fp

rod

uctio

n/b

es/

Div

isio

n.ht

m#m

ater

ials

The

Div

isio

n of

Mat

eria

ls S

cien

ces

sup

por

ts b

asic

rese

arch

in c

ond

ense

d m

atte

r phy

sics

,met

als

and

cer

amic

s sc

ienc

es,a

nd m

ater

ials

che

mis

try.

This

rese

arch

see

ks t

o un

der

stan

dth

e at

omis

tic b

asis

of m

ater

ials

pro

per

ties

and

beh

avio

r and

how

to

mak

e m

ater

ials

per

form

bet

ter a

t ac

cep

tab

le c

ost

thro

ugh

new

met

hod

s of

syn

thes

is a

nd p

roce

ssin

g.Re

sear

ch is

sup

por

ted

in c

orro

sion

,met

als,

cera

mic

s,al

loys

,sem

icon

duc

tors

,sup

erco

nduc

tors

,pol

ymer

s,m

etal

lic g

lass

es,c

eram

ic m

atrix

com

pos

ites,

non-

des

truc

tive

eval

uatio

n,m

agne

tic m

ater

ials

,sur

face

sci

ence

,neu

tron

and

X-r

ay s

catt

erin

g,ch

emic

al a

nd p

hysi

cal p

rop

ertie

s,an

d n

ew in

stru

men

tatio

n.U

ltim

atel

y th

e re

sear

ch le

ads

to t

he d

evel

opm

ent

of m

ater

ials

tha

t im

pro

ve t

he e

ffici

ency

,eco

nom

y,en

viro

nmen

tal a

ccep

tab

ility

,and

saf

ety

in e

nerg

y g

ener

atio

n,co

nver

sion

,tra

nsm

issi

on,a

nd u

se.T

hese

mat

eria

l stu

die

s af

fect

dev

elop

men

ts in

num

erou

s ar

eas

such

as

sola

r ene

rgy

conv

ersi

on,t

rans

por

tatio

n,el

ectr

ic p

ower

pro

duc

tion,

and

pet

role

um re

finin

g.

Offi

ce o

f Sci

ence

Basi

c En

erg

y Sc

ienc

esN

atio

nal U

ser

Both

http

://w

ww

.er.d

oe.g

ov/p

rod

uctio

n/b

es/B

ESfa

cilit

ies.

htm

Faci

litie

sht

tp://

ww

w.e

r.doe

.gov

/pro

duc

tion/

ober

/fac

ilitie

s.ht

ml

The

Offi

ce o

f Bas

ic E

nerg

y Sc

ienc

es p

lans

,con

stru

cts,

and

op

erat

es 1

8 m

ajor

sci

entif

ic u

ser f

acili

ties

to s

erve

rese

arch

ers

at u

nive

rsiti

es,n

atio

nal l

abor

ator

ies,

and

ind

ustr

y.Th

ese

faci

litie

s en

able

the

acq

uisi

tion

of n

ew k

now

led

ge

that

oft

en c

anno

t ot

herw

ise

be

obta

ined

.Ea

ch y

ear,

thou

sand

s of

sci

entis

ts c

ond

uct

exp

erim

ents

at

the

user

faci

litie

s.O

ther

rese

arch

ers

colla

bor

ate

with

the

se u

sers

and

ana

lyze

the

dat

a fr

om t

he e

xper

imen

ts t

o p

ublis

h ne

w s

cien

tific

find

ing

s in

pee

r-re

view

ed jo

urna

ls.S

ee T

able

4.2

for a

list

of t

hese

faci

litie

s.

C h a p t e r 4



Offi

ce o

f Sci

ence

Biol

ogic

al a

nd

Envi

ronm

enta

lFY

98:

$54M

Bo

thht

tp://

ww

w.e

r.doe

.gov

/En

viro

nmen

tal

Scie

nces

/FY

99:

$56M

pro

duc

tion/

ober

/ESD

_top

.htm

lRe

sear

chEn

viro

nmen

tal

Rem

edia

tion

http

://w

ww

.er.d

oe.g

ov/

Rese

arch

/p

rod

uctio

n/ob

er/E

PR/n

abir.

htm

l N

ABI

R &

EM

SLg

http

://w

ww

.lbl.g

ov/N

ABI

R/

http

://w

ww

.em

sl.p

nl.g

ov:2

080/

http

://w

ww

.er.d

oe.g

ov/

pro

duc

tion/

ober

/fac

ilitie

s.ht

ml

The

envi

ronm

enta

l rem

edia

tion

rese

arch

por

tfol

io is

focu

sed

on

dev

elop

ing

an

und

erst

and

ing

of t

he fu

ndam

enta

l phy

sica

l,ch

emic

al,g

eolo

gic

al,a

nd b

iolo

gic

al p

roce

sses

tha

tm

ust

be

mar

shal

ed fo

r the

dev

elop

men

t an

d a

dva

ncem

ent

of n

ew,e

ffect

ive,

and

effi

cien

t p

roce

sses

for t

he re

med

iatio

n an

d re

stor

atio

n of

the

nat

ion’

s nu

clea

r wea

pon

sp

rod

uctio

n si

tes.

A p

rimar

y ef

fort

is t

he N

atur

al a

nd A

ccel

erat

ed B

iore

med

iatio

n Re

sear

ch (N

ABI

R) p

rog

ram

,whi

ch is

a b

asic

rese

arch

pro

gra

m t

hat

seek

s to

pro

vid

e th

e sc

ient

ific

und

erst

and

ing

nee

ded

to

mak

e us

e of

nat

ural

pro

cess

es a

nd t

o d

evel

op m

etho

ds

to a

ccel

erat

e th

ese

pro

cess

es fo

r bio

rem

edia

tion

of c

onta

min

ated

sub

surf

ace

sed

imen

ts a

ndg

roun

d w

ater

at

DO

E fa

cilit

ies.

Fund

ing

for t

he o

per

atio

n of

the

Env

ironm

enta

l Mol

ecul

ar S

cien

ces

Lab

orat

ory

(EM

SL),

the

only

nat

iona

l sci

entif

ic u

ser f

acili

ty fo

cuse

d o

n D

OE'

sen

viro

nmen

tal m

issi

ons,

is a

key

par

t of

the

com

mitm

ent

to e

nviro

nmen

tal r

emed

iatio

n.

Offi

ce o

f Sci

ence

Offi

ce o

f Bio

log

ical

and

Li

fe S

cien

ces/

Bo

thht

tp://

ww

w.e

r.doe

.gov

/En

viro

nmen

tal R

esea

rch

Mic

rob

ial G

enom

e p

rod

uctio

n/ob

er/m

icro

bia

l.htm

lPr

ogra

m

The

focu

s of

the

Mic

rob

ial G

enom

e Pr

ogra

m is

to

dev

elop

the

ab

ility

to

seq

uenc

e th

e g

enet

ic m

ater

ial o

f mic

rob

ial o

rgan

ism

s.Th

is w

ill p

rovi

de

det

aile

d g

enet

ic in

form

atio

n on

mic

roor

gan

ism

s w

ith im

por

tanc

e to

the

env

ironm

ent,

ener

gy

pro

duc

tion,

and

oth

er im

por

tant

ap

plic

atio

ns.T

he p

rog

ram

,sp

un-o

ff fr

om th

e H

uman

Gen

ome

Prog

ram

in 1

994,

isal

read

y p

rovi

din

g c

omp

lete

seq

uenc

e in

form

atio

n on

key

mic

roor

gan

ism

s.Th

is e

ffort

will

ena

ble

the

sci

entif

ic c

omm

unity

to

mak

e un

ique

sid

e-b

y-si

de

com

par

ison

s of

com

-p

lete

gen

etic

info

rmat

ion

from

mic

roor

gan

ism

s w

ith s

imila

r att

ribut

es.


80

TABL

E 4.

1 Co

ntin

ued

(Not

e:Fu

ndin

g in

form

atio

n is

for f

isca

l yea

r 199

9 un

less

oth

erw

ise

note

d.Th

e fu

ndin

g le

vels

are

for c

omp

aris

on p

urp

oses

onl

y an

d a

re a

pp

roxi

mat

e fig

ures

bas

ed o

n th

e b

est

avai

lab

le d

ata.

In s

ome

case

s re

liab

le d

ata

coul

d n

ot b

e ac

qui

red.

This

list

is n

ot c

omp

rehe

nsiv

e.)

Sect

ion,

Prog

ram

Sub

-pro

gra

mFu

ndin

g L

evel

Intr

a- o

r W

eb S

ite fo

r D

epar

tmen

t,Ex

tram

ural

Sour

ce a

nd

or D

ivis

ion

Mor

e In

form

atio

n



U.S

.DEP

AR

TMEN

T O

F TH

E IN

TER

IOR

U.S

.Geo

log

ical

W

ater

Res

ourc

esN

atio

nal R

esea

rch

Intr

aht

tp://

wat

er.u

sgs.

gov

/Su

rvey

Prog

ram

(sev

eral

nr

p/i

ndex

-are

as.h

tml

rela

ted

cur

rent

re

sear

ch t

opic

s)

The

Nat

iona

l Res

earc

h Pr

ogra

m c

ond

ucts

bas

ic a

nd p

rob

lem

-orie

nted

hyd

rolo

gic

rese

arch

in s

upp

ort

of t

he m

issi

on o

f the

U.S

.Geo

log

ical

Sur

vey.

Rele

vant

hyd

rolo

gic

info

rma-

tion

is a

vaila

ble

tod

ay t

o as

sist

the

nat

ion

in s

olvi

ng it

s w

ater

pro

ble

ms

bec

ause

of a

con

scio

us d

ecis

ion

mad

e in

yea

rs p

ast

to in

vest

in re

sear

ch.T

he p

rog

ram

has

bee

n d

esig

ned

to e

ncou

rag

e p

ursu

it of

a d

iver

se a

gen

da

of re

sear

ch t

opic

s ai

med

at

pro

vid

ing

new

kno

wle

dg

e an

d in

sig

hts

into

var

ied

and

com

ple

x hy

dro

log

ic p

roce

sses

tha

t ar

e no

t w

ell

und

erst

ood.

The

rese

arch

em

pha

sis

chan

ges

thr

oug

h tim

e,re

flect

ing

the

em

erg

ence

of p

rom

isin

g n

ew a

reas

of i

nqui

ry a

nd t

he d

eman

d fo

r new

too

ls a

nd t

echn

ique

s w

ithw

hich

to

add

ress

wat

er re

sour

ces

issu

es.

U.S

.Geo

log

ical

Sur

vey

Wat

er R

esou

rces

Toxi

c Su

bst

ance

s $1

0MIn

tra

http

://to

xics

.usg

s.g

ov/t

oxic

s/H

ydro

log

y (T

oxic

s)

Prog

ram

This

pro

gra

m's

goa

l is

to p

rovi

de

scie

ntifi

c in

form

atio

n on

tox

ic s

ubst

ance

s in

sub

surf

ace

and

gro

und

wat

ers

for u

se in

avo

idin

g h

uman

exp

osur

e,d

evel

opin

g e

ffect

ive

rem

edia

lst

rate

gie

s,an

d p

reve

ntin

g fu

rthe

r con

tam

inat

ion.

Fund

ed re

sear

ch c

ateg

orie

s ar

e p

oint

-sou

rce

gro

und

wat

er c

onta

min

atio

n;no

npoi

nt s

ourc

e co

ntam

inat

ion;

and

har

dro

ck m

in-

ing

con

tam

inat

ion

U.S

.Geo

log

ical

Bi

olog

ical

Res

ourc

es

Nat

iona

l Pro

gra

ms:

$2.1

MIn

tra

http

://w

ww

.bes

t.usg

s.g

ov/

Surv

eyD

ivis

ion

Biom

onito

ring

of

Envi

ronm

enta

l Sta

tus

and

Tre

nds

(BES

T)

The

Biom

onito

ring

of E

nviro

nmen

tal S

tatu

s an

d T

rend

s Pr

ogra

m h

as b

een

des

igne

d t

o id

entif

y an

d u

nder

stan

d t

he e

ffect

s of

env

ironm

enta

l con

tam

inan

ts o

n b

iolo

gic

alre

sour

ces,

par

ticul

arly

tho

se re

sour

ces

und

er t

he s

tew

ard

ship

of t

he D

epar

tmen

t of

the

Inte

rior.T

he p

rog

ram

pro

vid

es s

ound

sci

entif

ic in

form

atio

n to

be

used

pro

activ

ely

to p

re-

vent

or l

imit

cont

amin

ant-

rela

ted

effe

cts

on b

iolo

gic

al re

sour

ces.

Prim

ary

goa

ls o

f the

pro

gra

m a

re t

o (1

) det

erm

ine

the

stat

us a

nd t

rend

s of

env

ironm

enta

l con

tam

inan

ts a

ndth

eir e

ffect

s on

bio

log

ical

reso

urce

s;(2

) id

entif

y,as

sess

,and

pre

dic

t th

e ef

fect

s of

con

tam

inan

ts o

n ec

osys

tem

s an

d b

iolo

gic

al p

opul

atio

ns;a

nd (3

) pro

vid

e su

mm

ary

info

rmat

ion

ina

timel

y m

anne

r to

man

ager

s an

d t

he p

ublic

for g

uid

ing

con

serv

atio

n ef

fort

s.Th

e p

rog

ram

use

s d

iffer

ent

app

roac

hes

to g

oal a

chie

vem

ent,

incl

udin

g a

com

bin

atio

n of

fiel

d b

io-

mon

itorin

g m

etho

ds

and

info

rmat

ion

asse

ssm

ent

tool

s to

exa

min

e co

ntam

inan

t is

sues

at

natio

nal,

reg

iona

l,an

d lo

cal l

evel

s.Bi

olog

ical

rese

arch

is e

ssen

tial f

or s

upp

ort

of t

hese

pro

gra

m c

omp

onen

ts,i

nclu

din

g d

evel

opm

ent

of b

iom

onito

ring

too

ls a

nd e

stab

lishm

ent

of li

nks

bet

wee

n b

iolo

gic

al re

spon

ses

and

exp

osur

e to

con

tam

inan

ts.R

esea

rch

cond

uct-

ed a

t th

e En

viro

nmen

tal a

nd C

onta

min

ants

Res

earc

h C

ente

r and

Pat

uxen

t Wild

life

Rese

arch

Cen

ter h

as c

ontr

ibut

ed e

ssen

tial t

ools

to t

he p

rog

ram

.In a

dd

ition

,dat

a m

anag

emen

t,g

eog

rap

hica

l inf

orm

atio

n sy

stem

s,an

d In

tern

et c

apab

ilitie

s d

evel

oped

at

the

Mid

cont

inen

t Ec

olog

ical

Sci

ence

Cen

ter h

ave

bee

n cr

itica

l to

pro

gra

m im

ple

men

tatio

n.

C h a p t e r 4



U.S

.EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

PR

OTE

CTI

ON

AG

ENC

Y

Offi

ce o

f Res

earc

h N

atio

nal E

xpos

ure

Surf

ace/

$3.8

MIn

tra

http

://w

ww

.ep

a.g

ov/c

rdlv

web

/an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Rese

arch

Lab

orat

ory

Sub

surf

ace

(Res

earc

h Tr

iang

le

Cha

ract

eriz

atio

n Pa

rk,N

.C.)

and

Sam

plin

g

Inad

equa

te s

ite c

hara

cter

izat

ions

and

a la

ck o

f kno

wle

dg

e of

sur

face

and

sub

surf

ace

cont

amin

ant

dis

trib

utio

ns (p

artic

ular

ly v

olat

ile o

rgan

ic c

omp

ound

s an

d N

APL

s) h

ind

er o

urab

ility

to

mak

e g

ood

dec

isio

ns o

n re

med

iatio

n op

tions

and

con

duc

t ad

equa

te c

lean

up e

ffort

s.N

onin

vasi

ve g

eop

hysi

cal t

echn

ique

s ca

n p

rovi

de

met

hod

s fo

r sub

surf

ace

site

char

acte

rizat

ion.

Futu

re e

ffort

is b

eing

dire

cted

tow

ard

exp

erim

ents

at

the

uniq

ue fi

eld

tes

t fa

cilit

y fo

r eva

luat

ing

the

se g

eop

hysi

cal t

echn

olog

ies

und

er c

ontr

olle

d D

NA

PL s

pill

cond

ition

s.Th

is la

b w

ill a

lso

be

used

to

eval

uate

oth

er g

roun

d w

ater

sam

plin

g m

etho

ds

and

des

igns

.Res

earc

h is

bei

ng c

ond

ucte

d to

dev

elop

and

imp

lem

ent

stat

e-of

-the

-sci

-en

ce a

pp

roac

hes

to im

pro

ved

soi

l sam

plin

g t

echn

ique

s,m

easu

rem

ent

des

ign

and

geo

stat

istic

s,an

d d

ata

anal

ysis

thr

oug

h ch

emom

etric

and

rob

ust

stat

istic

al t

echn

ique

s.Im

pro

vem

ents

in a

ll as

pec

ts o

f soi

l sam

plin

g a

re b

eing

inve

stig

ated

to

qua

ntify

and

red

uce

or e

limin

ate

pos

sib

le e

rror

s th

at c

omm

only

occ

ur d

urin

g s

amp

le c

olle

ctio

n,ha

ndlin

g,p

rese

rvat

ion,

and

sto

rag

e.C

urre

nt re

sear

ch fo

cuse

s on

imp

rovi

ng t

he c

olle

ctio

n of

soi

ls c

onta

min

ated

with

vol

atile

org

anic

com

pou

nds

incl

udin

g a

n ex

amin

atio

n of

the

influ

-en

ce o

f sam

ple

siz

e on

"re

pre

sent

ativ

enes

s" o

f VO

C re

sults

,VO

C re

leas

es d

ue t

o sa

mp

le d

istu

rban

ce,a

nd t

he p

enet

rab

ility

of c

alic

he t

o N

APL

s.

Offi

ce o

f Res

earc

h N

atio

nal E

xpos

ure

Ana

lytic

al M

etho

ds

$1.7

MIn

tra

http

://w

ww

.ep

a.g

ov/c

rdlv

web

/an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Rese

arch

Lab

orat

ory

for G

roun

d W

ater

(R

esea

rch

Tria

ngle

an

d S

oils

Park

,N.C

.)

Rese

arch

in t

he a

pp

licat

ion

of a

dva

nced

inst

rum

enta

tion

to s

oils

and

gro

und

wat

er c

hara

cter

izat

ion

focu

ses

on m

etho

ds

that

will

pro

vid

e hi

gh-

qua

lity

dat

a ra

pid

ly w

ith s

imp

lean

d ru

gg

ed p

roto

cols

.Em

pha

sis

is o

n te

chno

log

ies

that

can

be

used

to

per

form

ana

lysi

s in

the

fiel

d,th

ose

that

can

det

erm

ine

pol

luta

nts

that

are

intr

acta

ble

by

conv

entio

nal

met

hod

s,an

d t

hose

tha

t im

pro

ve r

isk

asse

ssm

ents

by

pro

vid

ing

sp

ecifi

c in

form

atio

n on

the

mos

t ha

zard

ous

form

s of

pol

luta

nts.

Cur

rent

ly,p

ollu

tant

s of

prim

ary

inte

rest

are

pol

y-cy

clic

aro

mat

ic h

ydro

carb

ons,

chlo

rinat

ed o

rgan

ics,

pet

role

um-r

elat

ed c

omp

ound

s,an

d t

oxic

met

als.

Futu

re e

mp

hasi

s w

ill b

e on

inno

vativ

e m

etho

ds

and

tec

hnol

ogie

s to

eva

lu-

ate

and

cha

ract

eriz

e th

e na

tura

l att

enua

tion

of c

onta

min

ants

in g

roun

dw

ater

and

soi

ls.


82

TABL

E 4.

1 Co

ntin

ued

(Not

e:Fu

ndin

g in

form

atio

n is

for f

isca

l yea

r 199

9 un

less

oth

erw

ise

note

d.Th

e fu

ndin

g le

vels

are

for c

omp

aris

on p

urp

oses

onl

y an

d a

re a

pp

roxi

mat

e fig

ures

bas

ed o

n th

e b

est

avai

lab

le d

ata.

In s

ome

case

s re

liab

le d

ata

coul

d n

ot b

e ac

qui

red.

This

list

is n

ot c

omp

rehe

nsiv

e.)

Sect

ion,

Prog

ram

Sub

-pro

gra

mFu

ndin

g L

evel

Intr

a- o

r W

eb S

ite fo

r D

epar

tmen

t,Ex

tram

ural

Sour

ce a

nd

or D

ivis

ion

Mor

e In

form

atio

n



Offi

ce o

f Res

earc

h N

atio

nal C

ente

r for

Su

per

fund

Hea

lth

$2.1

MIn

tra

http

://w

ww

.ep

a.g

ov/n

cea/

and

Dev

elop

men

tEn

viro

nmen

tal

Risk

Ass

essm

ent

Ass

essm

ent

(Was

hing

ton,

D.C

.;Re

sear

ch T

riang

le

Park

,N.C

.;and

C

inci

nnat

i,O

h.)

This

rese

arch

dev

elop

s m

etho

dol

ogie

s,m

odel

s,an

d fa

ctor

s th

at w

ill e

nab

le r

isk

asse

ssor

s to

der

ive

an a

ccur

ate

estim

ate

of t

he a

mou

nt o

f a c

onta

min

ant

foun

d in

the

soi

l tha

t is

bio

log

ical

ly "

avai

lab

le"

to h

uman

s.Fu

ture

em

pha

sis

will

incl

ude

dev

elop

ing

sta

tistic

al d

istr

ibut

ions

for e

xpos

ure

fact

ors

to fa

cilit

ate

pro

bab

ilist

ic a

naly

sis;

furt

her r

efin

ing

and

val

i-d

atin

g t

he b

ioki

netic

mod

el fo

r lea

d;d

evel

opin

g b

ette

r mod

els

and

met

hod

s fo

r the

der

mal

rout

e of

exp

osur

e;an

d e

valu

atin

g t

he b

ioav

aila

bili

ty o

f soi

l-bor

ne c

onta

min

ants

.In

add

ition

,res

earc

h is

con

duc

ted

to

dev

elop

mod

els

and

fact

ors

to p

red

ict

the

rela

tive

toxi

city

of c

omp

lex

mix

ture

s of

gro

und

wat

er c

onta

min

ants

com

par

ed t

o th

eir i

ndiv

idua

lto

xici

ties.

This

rese

arch

att

emp

ts t

o an

swer

the

que

stio

n of

whe

ther

mix

ture

s of

gro

und

wat

er c

onta

min

ants

pro

duc

e a

mor

e to

xic

resp

onse

,a le

ss t

oxic

resp

onse

,or n

o ne

tch

ang

e in

hum

an re

spon

se.

Offi

ce o

f Res

earc

h N

atio

nal C

ente

r for

Su

per

fund

Eco

log

ical

$1

.0M

Intr

aht

tp://

ww

w.e

pa.

gov

/nce

a/an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Envi

ronm

enta

l Ri

sk A

sses

smen

tA

sses

smen

t(W

ashi

ngto

n,D

.C.;

Rese

arch

Tria

ngle

Pa

rk,N

.C.;a

nd

Cin

cinn

ati,

Oh.

)

This

rese

arch

dev

elop

s m

etho

dol

ogie

s an

d fa

ctor

s th

at w

ill e

nab

le e

colo

gic

al r

isk

asse

ssor

s to

est

imat

e th

e am

ount

of s

oil-b

orne

con

tam

inat

ion

that

is b

iolo

gic

ally

"av

aila

ble

" to

wild

life.

The

maj

or a

rea

of e

mp

hasi

s w

ill b

e to

dev

elop

eco

log

ical

soi

l scr

eeni

ng v

alue

s fo

r com

mon

soi

l con

tam

inan

ts.

Offi

ce o

f Res

earc

h N

atio

nal R

isk

Gro

und

Wat

er

$4.2

MIn

tra

Htt

p://

ww

w.e

pa.

gov

/an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Man

agem

ent

Rem

edia

tion

ada/

kerr

cent

er.h

tml

Rese

arch

Lab

orat

ory

(Cin

cinn

ati,

Oh.

)

This

rese

arch

ad

dre

sses

prio

rity

rem

edia

tion

pro

ble

ms

for g

roun

d w

ater

and

maj

or s

ubsu

rfac

e so

urce

s of

gro

und

wat

er c

onta

min

atio

n,su

ch a

s N

APL

s.Re

sear

ch in

clud

es t

reat

-m

ent,

cont

ainm

ent

and

rela

ted

sou

rce

char

acte

rizat

ion,

and

gro

und

wat

er fa

te (i

nclu

din

g n

atur

al a

tten

uatio

n) a

nd t

rans

por

t m

odel

ing.

DN

APL

s ar

e a

maj

or s

ourc

e of

gro

und

wat

er c

onta

min

ate

for w

hich

the

re a

re fe

w e

ffect

ive

com

mer

cial

ized

rem

edia

tion

optio

ns.R

esea

rch

on d

isso

lved

org

anic

con

tam

inan

ts w

ill c

ontin

ue a

nd w

ill in

clud

e st

udie

s of

the

app

licat

ion

and

long

-ter

m p

erfo

rman

ce o

f per

mea

ble

reac

tive

bar

riers

(PRB

s) t

o ch

lorin

ated

org

anic

s.Re

sear

ch o

n im

pro

ved

ind

icat

ors

for m

onito

red

nat

ural

att

enua

tion

(MN

A) o

f org

anic

s w

ill b

e co

ntin

ued.

Rese

arch

will

be

exp

and

ed o

n th

e re

med

iatio

n of

dis

solv

ed in

org

anic

plu

mes

and

rela

ted

sou

rce

area

s.Re

sear

ch o

n M

NA

of d

isso

lved

met

-al

s w

ill s

hift

from

lab

orat

ory

to fi

eld

stu

die

s,as

will

stu

die

s of

the

ap

plic

atio

n of

PRB

s to

ars

enic

.Res

earc

h on

bio

trea

tmen

t of m

etal

con

tam

inan

ts w

ill c

ontin

ue.W

ork

will

be

initi

-at

ed o

n th

e ap

plic

atio

n of

PRB

con

cep

ts t

o m

etal

con

tam

inan

ts in

sou

rce

area

s.

C h a p t e r 4



Offi

ce o

f Res

earc

h N

atio

nal R

isk

Soil

Rem

edia

tion

$5.6

MIn

tra

http

://w

ww

.ep

a.g

ov/

and

Dev

elop

men

tM

anag

emen

tO

RD/N

RMRL

/lrp

cd/

Rese

arch

Lab

orat

ory

(Cin

cinn

ati,

Oh.

)

This

rese

arch

eva

luat

es a

nd d

evel

ops

mor

e co

st-e

ffect

ive

tech

niq

ues

for c

lean

up o

f prio

rity

cont

amin

atio

n p

rob

lem

s in

soi

ls,t

he v

ados

e zo

ne,a

nd s

edim

ents

.The

pro

gra

m w

illex

pan

d re

sear

ch o

n se

dim

ents

con

tam

inat

ed w

ith p

ersi

sten

t or

gan

ics

and

met

als.

Benc

h- a

nd fi

eld

-sca

le s

tud

ies

will

be

cond

ucte

d t

o d

evel

op a

nd re

fine

met

hod

s to

ass

ess

MN

A e

ffect

iven

ess.

Emer

gin

g re

med

iatio

n te

chni

que

s fo

r in

situ

sed

imen

ts w

ill b

e ev

alua

ted,

alon

g w

ith im

pro

ved

met

hod

s fo

r ass

essi

ng t

heir

per

form

ance

.Stu

die

s w

ill b

e co

n-d

ucte

d o

f the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

the

bio

trea

tmen

t of

dre

dg

ed s

edim

ents

to

allo

w t

heir

ben

efic

ial u

se.R

esea

rch

on t

he im

mob

iliza

tion

of m

etal

s in

soi

ls w

ill c

ontin

ue,f

ocus

ing

on

com

ple

ting

lead

stu

die

s an

d c

ontin

uing

cad

miu

m s

tud

ies.

Con

curr

ent

test

ing

will

be

don

e on

cha

nges

in m

etal

bio

avai

lab

ility

as

a re

sult

of im

mob

iliza

tion.

Offi

ce o

f Res

earc

h N

atio

nal R

isk

Con

tain

men

t$1

.9M

Intr

aht

tp://

ww

w.e

pa.

gov

/an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Man

agem

ent

ORD

/NRM

RL/l

rpcd

/Re

sear

ch L

abor

ator

y (C

inci

nnat

i,O

h.)

This

rese

arch

ad

dre

sses

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

cur

rent

con

tain

men

t sy

stem

s an

d d

evel

opin

g n

ew s

yste

ms

usin

g in

nova

tive

mat

eria

ls a

nd m

etho

ds.

The

stud

y in

clud

es c

aps,

cove

rs,

and

ver

tical

bar

riers

for t

he v

ados

e zo

ne,a

s w

ell a

s fix

ed b

arrie

rs a

nd p

ump

ing

met

hod

s fo

r con

tain

ing

con

tam

inat

ed p

lum

es.R

esea

rch

on b

arrie

rs w

ill a

dd

ress

the

long

-ter

mm

aint

enan

ce,e

ffect

iven

ess,

and

mat

eria

ls t

hat

coul

d m

ake

them

mor

e ef

fect

ive.

Offi

ce o

f Res

earc

h N

atio

nal C

ente

r for

H

azar

dou

s Su

bst

ance

$8

.9M

Both

http

://es

.ep

a.g

ov/n

cerq

a/hs

rc.h

tml

and

Dev

elop

men

tEn

viro

nmen

tal

Rese

arch

Cen

ters

/Re

sear

ch a

nd

Min

ority

Cen

ters

http

://es

.ep

a.g

ov/n

cerq

a/m

ibc.

htm

lQ

ualit

y A

ssur

ance

(N

CER

QA

) (W

ashi

ngto

n,D

.C.)

The

mis

sion

of t

he H

azar

dou

s Su

bst

ance

Res

earc

h C

ente

rs P

rog

ram

is t

o co

nduc

t re

sear

ch t

o d

evel

op a

nd d

emon

stra

te n

ew m

etho

ds

that

ass

ess

and

rem

edia

te s

ites

cont

ami-

nate

d w

ith h

azar

dou

s su

bst

ance

s;im

pro

ve e

xist

ing

tre

atm

ent

tech

nolo

gie

s;d

ecre

ase

the

pro

duc

tion

and

use

of h

azar

dou

s su

bst

ance

s;an

d e

duc

ate

haza

rdou

s su

bst

ance

man

-ag

emen

t p

rofe

ssio

nals

and

imp

rove

com

mun

ity p

ublic

aw

aren

ess.

Five

mul

ti-un

iver

sity

cen

ters

,eac

h lo

cate

d in

a p

air o

f EPA

reg

ions

,foc

us o

n d

iffer

ent

asp

ects

of h

azar

dou

ssu

bst

ance

man

agem

ent,

brin

gin

g t

oget

her r

esea

rche

rs fr

om a

var

iety

of d

isci

plin

es t

o co

llab

orat

e on

inte

gra

ted

rese

arch

pro

ject

s.A

dd

ition

ally

,tw

o ta

rget

ed c

ente

rs s

erve

the

par

ticul

ar re

sear

ch n

eed

s of

min

ority

and

dis

adva

ntag

ed c

omm

uniti

es.T

hese

cen

ters

ad

dre

ss s

uch

issu

es a

s en

viro

nmen

tal j

ustic

e,ris

k co

mm

unic

atio

n an

d p

erce

ptio

n of

ris

k,co

rrel

atio

n w

ith s

ocio

econ

omic

sta

tus,

and

exp

osur

e to

env

ironm

enta

l con

tam

inan

ts.h


84

TABL

E 4.

1 Co

ntin

ued

(Not

e:Fu

ndin

g in

form

atio

n is

for f

isca

l yea

r 199

9 un

less

oth

erw

ise

note

d.Th

e fu

ndin

g le

vels

are

for c

omp

aris

on p

urp

oses

onl

y an

d a

re a

pp

roxi

mat

e fig

ures

bas

ed o

n th

e b

est

avai

lab

le d

ata.

In s

ome

case

s re

liab

le d

ata

coul

d n

ot b

e ac

qui

red.

This

list

is n

ot c

omp

rehe

nsiv

e.)

Sect

ion,

Prog

ram

Sub

-pro

gra

mFu

ndin

g L

evel

Intr

a- o

r W

eb S

ite fo

r D

epar

tmen

t,Ex

tram

ural

Sour

ce a

nd

or D

ivis

ion

Mor

e In

form

atio

n



Offi

ce o

f Res

earc

hN

CER

QA

Jo

int

Prog

ram

on

$1.0

MEx

tra

http

://w

ww

.ep

a.g

ov/

and

Dev

elop

men

t(W

ashi

ngto

n,D

.C.)

Bior

emed

iatio

n d

ocs/

ord

ntrn

t/(E

PA is

lead

ag

ency

;O

ER-W

eb/g

rant

s96/

join

t/in

dex

.htm

lD

OE,

EPA

,NSF

,and

O

NR

are

also

invo

lved

)ht

tp://

es.e

pa.

gov

/nce

rqa/

rfa/

bio

.htm

ll

This

pro

gra

m fo

cuse

s on

rese

arch

tha

t ai

ms

to fu

rthe

r fun

dam

enta

l und

erst

and

ing

of t

he c

hem

ical

,phy

sica

l,an

d b

iolo

gic

al p

roce

sses

influ

enci

ng t

he b

ioav

aila

bili

ty a

nd re

leas

eof

che

mic

als

in s

oil,

sed

imen

ts,a

nd g

roun

d w

ater

und

er n

atur

al c

ond

ition

s an

d a

lso

the

role

of c

hem

ical

con

tam

inan

ts t

hat,

whe

n re

leas

ed fr

om t

he m

ediu

m a

nd a

ssim

ilate

d b

yliv

ing

org

anis

ms,

resu

lt in

ad

vers

e ef

fect

s.Th

e re

sear

ch o

bje

ctiv

e sh

ould

be

to u

nder

stan

d t

he c

omm

onal

ity o

f pro

cess

es a

nd/o

r env

ironm

enta

l effe

cts

invo

lved

in c

onta

min

ant

rele

ase,

mov

emen

t,an

d a

ssim

ilatio

n in

ord

er t

o d

eter

min

e b

road

ly a

pp

licab

le t

echn

ique

s fo

r mea

surin

g t

he p

oten

tial i

mp

acts

in c

omp

lex

mat

rices

.Mec

hani

stic

and

kin

etic

stu

d-

ies

are

enco

urag

ed.T

hese

dat

a ca

n th

en b

e us

ed t

o co

nstr

uct

mod

els

that

incr

ease

our

und

erst

and

ing

of b

ioav

aila

bili

ty (

Not

e:Th

ere

are

no n

ew e

ffort

s b

eing

fund

ed u

nder

thi

sg

rant

,but

not

all

activ

ities

and

rep

orts

und

er t

he g

rant

hav

e b

een

com

ple

ted.

)

Offi

ce o

f Res

earc

h N

CER

QA

C

omp

lex

Mix

ture

s$2

.7M

Extr

aht

tp://

es.e

pa.

gov

/an

d D

evel

opm

ent

(Joi

nt P

rog

ram

nc

erq

a/rf

a/ch

em.h

tml

with

NIE

HS)

The

goa

ls a

nd s

cop

e of

thi

s p

rog

ram

are

to

enco

urag

e an

d s

upp

ort

rese

arch

on

chem

ical

mix

ture

s th

at w

ill t

ake

adva

ntag

e of

the

late

st a

dva

nces

in c

omp

utat

iona

l and

info

r-m

atio

n te

chno

log

ies

and

mol

ecul

ar b

iolo

gy

tech

niq

ues.

The

focu

s is

on

the

mec

hani

stic

bas

is fo

r che

mic

al in

tera

ctio

ns in

bio

log

ical

sys

tem

s an

d re

late

d h

ealth

effe

cts

and

dev

elop

men

t of

bet

ter m

athe

mat

ical

too

ls fo

r ris

k as

sess

men

t.Si

nce

ther

e is

a g

ener

al la

ck o

f kno

wle

dg

e co

ncer

ning

the

cha

ract

eriz

atio

n of

real

-life

mix

ture

s b

ased

on

hum

anex

pos

ure

and

bod

y b

urd

en,r

esea

rch

will

be

sup

por

ted

tha

t fo

cuse

s on

exp

osur

e as

sess

men

t,in

clud

ing

env

ironm

enta

l tra

nsp

ort

and

fate

.

Offi

ce o

f Res

earc

h N

CER

QA

Scie

nce

to A

chie

ve

Ap

pro

xim

atel

y Ex

tra

http

://es

.ep

a.g

ov/n

cerq

a/g

rant

s/an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Resu

lts (S

TAR)

$1

00M

ann

ually

ht

tp://

es.e

pa.

gov

/nce

rqa/

rfa/

Prog

ram

/(fu

ndin

g le

vels

var

y)

Envi

ronm

enta

l Re

sear

ch G

rant

s

EPA

's re

sear

ch p

rog

ram

s se

ek t

o re

duc

e ris

ks t

o p

ublic

hea

lth a

nd e

cosy

stem

s an

d t

he u

ncer

tain

ty a

ssoc

iate

d o

f env

ironm

enta

l hea

lth r

isk

asse

ssm

ent

and

man

agem

ent,

acco

rd-

ing

the

hig

hest

prio

rity

to t

hose

are

as w

here

unc

erta

inty

is h

igh

and

tha

t ar

e in

crit

ical

nee

d o

f new

con

cep

ts,m

etho

ds,

and

dat

a.EP

A a

lso

fost

ers

the

dev

elop

men

t an

d e

valu

a-tio

n of

new

ris

k re

duc

tion

tech

nolo

gie

s,in

clud

ing

pol

lutio

n p

reve

ntio

n,en

d-o

f-p

ipe

cont

rols

,rem

edia

tion,

and

mon

itorin

g.EP

A's

ext

ram

ural

rese

arch

gra

nt p

rog

ram

s ar

e ad

min

-is

tere

d b

y th

e N

atio

nal C

ente

r for

Env

ironm

enta

l Res

earc

h an

d Q

ualit

y A

ssur

ance

thr

oug

h th

e Sc

ienc

e to

Ach

ieve

Res

ults

Pro

gra

m,w

hich

has

four

form

al s

olic

itatio

n p

erio

ds

dur

-in

g t

he y

ear—

Janu

ary,

Ap

ril,A

ugus

t,an

d O

ctob

er.R

eque

sts

for A

pp

licat

ions

invi

te re

sear

ch p

rop

osal

s fr

om a

cad

emic

and

non

-pro

fit in

stitu

tions

loca

ted

in t

he U

.S.,a

nd s

tate

and

loca

l gov

ernm

ents

.Re

sear

ch t

opic

s va

ry.T

he 1

999

solic

itatio

ns c

an b

e fo

und

on

http

://es

.ep

a.g

ov/n

cerq

a/g

rant

s/99

gra

nts.

htm

l.

C h a p t e r 4



U.S

.DEP

AR

TMEN

T O

F H

EALT

H A

ND

HU

MA

N S

ERV

ICES

Nat

iona

l Ins

titut

es

Nat

iona

l Ins

titut

e of

Su

per

fund

A

pp

roxi

mat

ely

$37M

Ex

tra

http

://w

ww

.nie

hs.n

ih.g

ov/

of H

ealth

Envi

ronm

enta

l Hea

lth

Haz

ard

ous

in F

Y 20

00 t

o fu

nd

sbrp

/new

web

/sb

rpre

s.ht

mSc

ienc

esSu

bst

ance

s Ba

sic

15 t

o 20

new

gra

nts

Rese

arch

Pro

gra

m

or c

omp

etiti

ve

(thi

s is

a jo

int

cont

inua

tion

gra

nts

pro

gra

m b

etw

een

NIE

HS

and

EPA

)

Rese

arch

effo

rts

are

bei

ng p

ursu

ed t

hat

are

focu

sed

on

(1) u

nder

stan

din

g t

he r

isks

haz

ard

ous

was

te e

xpos

ures

pos

e to

hum

ans,

and

(2) d

evel

opin

g n

ew t

echn

olog

y th

at w

illhe

lp re

med

iate

con

tam

inat

ed s

ites.

This

pro

gra

m w

as e

stab

lishe

d b

y th

e Su

per

fund

Am

end

men

ts a

nd R

eaut

horiz

atio

n A

ct o

f 198

6.It

rece

ives

its

fund

ing

thr

oug

h an

inte

ra-

gen

cy a

gre

emen

t w

ith t

he E

PA u

sing

Sup

erfu

nd T

rust

mon

ies

and

is a

dm

inis

tere

d b

y th

e N

atio

nal I

nstit

ue o

f Env

ironm

enta

l Hea

lth S

cien

ces.

NA

TIO

NA

L SC

IEN

CE

FOU

ND

ATI

ON

Biol

ogic

al

Envi

ronm

enta

l (In

clud

ing

Lon

g

FY 9

8:$7

9.3M

Extr

aht

tp://

ww

w.n

sf.g

ov/

Scie

nces

Biol

ogy

Div

isio

nTe

rm E

colo

gic

al

FY 9

9:$8

5.9M

bfa

/bud

/fy1

999/

star

t.htm

Rese

arch

Site

s Pr

ogra

m)

http

://w

ww

.nsf

.gov

/bfa

/bud

/fy2

000/

http

://lte

rnet

.ed

u/in

dex

.htm

l

The

Div

isio

n of

Env

ironm

enta

l Bio

log

y su

pp

orts

fund

amen

tal r

esea

rch

on t

he o

rigin

s,fu

nctio

ns,r

elat

ions

hip

s,in

tera

ctio

ns,a

nd e

volu

tiona

ry h

isto

ry o

f pop

ulat

ions

,sp

ecie

s,co

m-

mun

ities

,and

eco

syst

ems.

Scie

ntifi

c em

pha

ses

incl

ude

bio

div

ersi

ty,m

olec

ular

evo

lutio

n,m

esos

cale

eco

log

y,co

mp

utat

iona

l bio

log

y (in

clud

ing

mod

elin

g),

cons

erva

tion

bio

log

y,g

lob

al c

hang

e,an

d re

stor

atio

n ec

olog

y.Th

e d

ivis

ion

also

sup

por

ts a

net

wor

k of

long

-ter

m e

colo

gic

al re

sear

ch s

ites;i

doc

tora

l dis

sert

atio

n re

sear

ch;r

esea

rch

conf

eren

ces

and

wor

ksho

ps;

und

erg

rad

uate

men

torin

g in

env

ironm

enta

l bio

log

y;an

d a

var

iety

of f

ound

atio

n-w

ide

activ

ities

.


86

TABL

E 4.

1 Co

ntin

ued

(Not

e:Fu

ndin

g in

form

atio

n is

for f

isca

l yea

r 199

9 un

less

oth

erw

ise

note

d.Th

e fu

ndin

g le

vels

are

for c

omp

aris

on p

urp

oses

onl

y an

d a

re a

pp

roxi

mat

e fig

ures

bas

ed o

n th

e b

est

avai

lab

le d

ata.

In s

ome

case

s re

liab

le d

ata

coul

d n

ot b

e ac

qui

red.

This

list

is n

ot c

omp

rehe

nsiv

e.)

Sect

ion,

Prog

ram

Sub

-pro

gra

mFu

ndin

g L

evel

Intr

a- o

r W

eb S

ite fo

r D

epar

tmen

t,Ex

tram

ural

Sour

ce a

nd

or D

ivis

ion

Mor

e In

form

atio

n



Biol

ogic

al

Plan

t G

enom

e FY

98:

$40M

Extr

aht

tp://

ww

w.n

sf.g

ov/

Scie

nces

Rese

arch

FY 9

9 $5

0Mb

fa/b

ud/f

y199

9/st

art.h

tm

The

pla

nt g

enom

e re

sear

ch s

ubac

tivity

,beg

un in

FY

1998

,sup

por

ts re

sear

ch t

o ad

vanc

e un

der

stan

din

g o

f the

str

uctu

re,o

rgan

izat

ion,

and

func

tion

of p

lant

gen

omes

.Thi

s ef

fort

is b

uilt

on a

n ex

istin

g b

ase

of g

enom

e re

sear

ch s

upp

orte

d t

hrou

gho

ut t

he b

iolo

gic

al s

cien

ces

div

isio

n.En

hanc

ed s

upp

ort

for f

unda

men

tal r

esea

rch

will

acc

eler

ate

the

use

ofne

w k

now

led

ge

and

inno

vativ

e te

chno

log

ies

tow

ard

a m

ore

com

ple

te u

nder

stan

din

g o

f bas

ic b

iolo

gic

al p

roce

sses

in p

lant

s,w

ith e

mph

asis

on

such

eco

nom

ical

ly s

igni

fican

tsp

ecie

s as

cor

n.

Eng

inee

ring

Bioe

ngin

eerin

g a

nd

Envi

ronm

enta

l FY

98:

$28.

8M

Extr

aht

tp://

ww

w.e

ng.n

sf.g

ov/

Envi

ronm

enta

l Sys

tem

sEn

gin

eerin

g

FY 9

9 $3

2.42

M

bes

/Pro

gra

ms/

Envi

ronm

enta

l_Pr

ogra

m(t

his

is fo

r all

of

Eng

inee

ring

_Bas

i/en

viro

nmen

tal_

Bioe

ngin

eerin

g

eng

inee

ring

_bas

i.htm

and

Env

ironm

enta

l Sy

stem

s)

The

Envi

ronm

enta

l Eng

inee

ring

Pro

gra

m s

upp

orts

sus

tain

able

dev

elop

men

t re

sear

ch w

ith t

he g

oal o

f ap

ply

ing

eng

inee

ring

prin

cip

les

to re

duc

e ad

vers

e ef

fect

s of

sol

id,l

iqui

d,an

d g

aseo

us d

isch

arg

es in

to la

nd,f

resh

and

oce

an w

ater

s,an

d a

ir th

at re

sult

from

hum

an a

ctiv

ity a

nd im

pai

r the

val

ue o

f tho

se re

sour

ces.

This

pro

gra

m a

lso

sup

por

ts re

sear

chon

inno

vativ

e b

iolo

gic

al,c

hem

ical

,and

phy

sica

l pro

cess

es u

sed

alo

ne o

r as

com

pon

ents

of e

ngin

eere

d s

yste

ms

to re

stor

e th

e us

eful

ness

of p

ollu

ted

land

,wat

er,a

nd a

irre

sour

ces.

Eng

inee

ring

prin

cip

les

und

erly

ing

pol

lutio

n av

oid

ance

,as

wel

l as

pol

lutio

n tr

eatm

ent

and

rep

arat

ion

are

emp

hasi

zed.

Imp

rove

d s

enso

rs,i

nnov

ativ

e p

rod

uctio

np

roce

sses

,was

te re

duc

tion

and

recy

clin

g,an

d in

dus

tria

l eco

log

y ar

e im

por

tant

to

this

pro

gra

m.R

esea

rch

may

be

dire

cted

tow

ard

imp

rovi

ng t

he c

ost

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

pol

lutio

nav

oid

ance

,as

wel

l as

dev

elop

ing

fres

h p

rinci

ple

s fo

r pol

lutio

n av

oid

ance

tec

hnol

ogie

s.

Eng

inee

ring

Che

mic

al a

nd

Flui

d a

nd P

artic

le

FY 9

8:$3

9.67

M

Extr

aht

tp://

ww

w.e

ng.n

sf.g

ov/

Tran

spor

t Sy

stem

s (C

TS)

Proc

esse

s Pr

ogra

mFY

99:

$42.

14M

ct

s/ht

ml/

fluid

.htm

(for a

ll of

Che

mic

al

and

Tra

nsp

ort

Syst

ems)

This

pro

gra

m s

upp

orts

fund

amen

tal a

nd a

pp

lied

rese

arch

on

mec

hani

sms

and

phe

nom

ena

gov

erni

ng s

ing

le a

nd m

ultip

hase

flui

d fl

ow,p

artic

le fo

rmat

ion

and

tra

nsp

ort,

vario

usm

ultip

hase

pro

cess

es,n

anos

truc

ture

s,an

d fl

uid

-sol

id s

yste

m in

tera

ctio

n.Re

sear

ch is

sou

ght

tha

t co

ntrib

utes

to

imp

rovi

ng b

asic

und

erst

and

ing

and

des

ign,

pre

dic

tab

ility

,effi

cien

-cy

,and

con

trol

of e

xist

ing

sys

tem

s th

at in

volv

e d

ynam

ics

of fl

uid

s an

d p

artic

ulat

es;a

nd t

he in

nova

tive

uses

of f

luid

s an

d p

artic

ulat

es in

mat

eria

ls d

evel

opm

ent,

man

ufac

turin

g,b

iote

chno

log

y,an

d t

he e

nviro

nmen

t.

Eng

inee

ring

Che

mic

al a

nd

Inte

rfac

ial,T

rans

por

t,(s

ee a

bov

e)Ex

tra

http

://w

ww

.eng

.nsf

.gov

/Tr

ansp

ort

Syst

ems

(CTS

)an

d S

epar

atio

n Pr

oces

sct

s/ht

ml/

inte

rfac

ial.h

tm

This

pro

gra

m s

upp

orts

rese

arch

in a

reas

rela

ted

to

inte

rfac

ial p

heno

men

a,m

ass

tran

spor

t p

heno

men

a,se

par

atio

n sc

ienc

e,an

d p

hase

eq

uilib

rium

the

rmod

ynam

ics.

Rese

arch

inth

ese

area

s su

pp

orts

var

ious

asp

ects

of e

ngin

eerin

g t

echn

olog

y w

ith m

ajor

imp

act

on c

hem

ical

and

mat

eria

l pro

cess

ing,

as w

ell a

s b

iop

roce

ss e

ngin

eerin

g.Re

sear

ch in

thi

s p

ro-

gra

m a

lso

cont

ribut

es t

o th

e d

ivis

ion

emp

hasi

s on

bas

ic k

now

led

ge

imp

actin

g o

n p

hysi

coch

emic

al h

azar

dou

s w

aste

tre

atm

ent

and

avo

idan

ce.T

he p

rog

ram

pro

vid

es s

upp

ort

for n

ew t

heor

ies

and

ap

pro

ache

s d

eter

min

ing

the

the

rmod

ynam

ic p

rop

ertie

s of

flui

ds

and

flui

d m

ixtu

res

in b

iolo

gic

al a

nd o

ther

flui

ds

with

com

ple

x m

olec

ules

.Sep

arat

ions

rese

arch

is d

irect

ed a

t m

any

area

s w

ith s

pec

ial e

mp

hasi

s on

bio

pro

cess

ing

and

all

form

s of

chr

omat

ogra

phi

c,m

emb

rane

,and

sp

ecia

l affi

nity

sep

arat

ions

.

C h a p t e r 4



Eng

inee

ring

Civ

il an

d M

echa

nica

l C

onst

ruct

ion/

FY 9

8:$4

4.71

M;

Extr

aht

tp://

ww

w.e

ng.n

sf.g

ov/

Syst

ems

Geo

tech

nolo

gy/

FY 9

9 (r

eque

sted

):$5

9.5M

cms/

CG

S/cg

s.ht

mSt

ruct

ures

(for a

ll of

Civ

il an

d

Mec

hani

cal S

yste

ms)

Rese

arch

is s

upp

orte

d t

hat

incr

ease

s g

eote

chni

cal k

now

led

ge

of fo

und

atio

ns,s

lop

es,e

xcav

atio

ns,a

nd o

ther

geo

stru

ctur

es,i

nclu

din

g so

il an

d ro

ck im

pro

vem

ent

tech

nolo

gie

san

d re

info

rcem

ent

syst

ems;

cons

titut

ive

mod

elin

g a

nd v

erifi

catio

n in

geo

mec

hani

cs;r

emed

iatio

n an

d c

onta

inm

ent

of g

eoen

viro

nmen

tal c

onta

min

atio

n;tr

ansf

erab

ility

of

lab

orat

ory

resu

lts t

o fie

ld s

cale

;and

non

des

truc

tive

and

in s

itu e

valu

atio

n.Re

sear

ch is

als

o su

pp

orte

d t

hat

will

ad

vanc

e th

e kn

owle

dg

e b

ase

on a

dva

nced

pol

ymer

mat

eria

ls;h

igh

per

form

ance

ste

el a

nd c

oncr

ete

mat

eria

ls;d

urab

ility

of c

onst

ruct

ion

mat

eria

ls;s

afet

y an

d re

liab

ility

of b

ridg

es,i

nclu

din

g c

ond

ition

ass

essm

ent;

and

ind

oor e

nviro

nmen

tal

cond

ition

s,su

ch a

s ai

r qua

lity

and

per

sonn

el c

omfo

rt in

bui

ldin

gs.

Als

o of

inte

rest

are

act

iviti

es t

hat

will

incr

ease

the

pre

sent

und

erst

and

ing

of t

he s

cien

ce a

nd t

echn

olog

y us

edto

des

ign,

anal

yze,

dia

gno

se,r

epai

r,re

med

iate

,ret

rofit

,and

enh

ance

the

per

form

ance

of c

onst

ruct

ed fa

cilit

ies

and

inte

ract

ions

bet

wee

n na

tura

l and

con

stru

cted

env

ironm

ents

,an

d t

o us

e kn

owle

dg

e g

aine

d t

o im

pro

ve t

he m

anag

emen

t an

d p

erfo

rman

ce o

f new

and

exi

stin

g in

fras

truc

ture

sys

tem

s an

d fa

cilit

ies.

Mat

hem

atic

al a

nd

Che

mis

try

Inor

gan

ic,

FY 9

8:$1

13M

Ex

tra

http

://w

ww

.nsf

.gov

/Ph

ysic

al S

cien

ces

Bioi

norg

anic

,and

FY

99

req

uest

:$12

5.3M

m

ps/

chem

/prg

min

fo/p

rog

ram

s.ht

mO

rgan

omet

allic

(for a

ll C

hem

istr

y)

This

pro

gra

m s

upp

orts

rese

arch

on

synt

hesi

s,st

ruct

ure,

and

reac

tion

mec

hani

sms

of m

olec

ules

con

tain

ing

met

als,

met

allo

ids,

and

non

met

als

enco

mp

assi

ng t

he e

ntire

per

iod

icta

ble

of t

he e

lem

ents

.Inc

lud

ed a

re s

tud

ies

of s

toic

hiom

etric

and

hom

ogen

eous

cat

alyt

ic c

hem

ical

reac

tion;

bio

inor

gan

ic a

nd o

rgan

omet

allic

reag

ents

and

reac

tion;

and

the

syn

-th

esis

of n

ew in

org

anic

sub

stan

ces

with

pre

dic

tab

le c

hem

ical

,phy

sica

l,an

d b

iolo

gic

al p

rop

ertie

s.Su

ch re

sear

ch p

rovi

des

the

bas

is fo

r und

erst

and

ing

the

func

tion

of m

etal

ions

in b

iolo

gic

al s

yste

ms,

for u

nder

stan

din

g t

he s

ynth

esis

of n

ew in

org

anic

mat

eria

ls a

nd n

ew in

dus

tria

l cat

alys

ts,a

nd fo

r sys

tem

atic

und

erst

and

ing

of c

hem

istr

y of

mos

t of

the

ele

-m

ents

in t

he e

nviro

nmen

t.

Mat

hem

atic

al a

nd

Che

mis

try

Org

anic

Che

mic

al

(see

ab

ove)

Extr

aht

tp://

ww

w.n

sf.g

ov/

Phys

ical

Sci

ence

sD

ynam

ics

mp

s/ch

em/p

rgm

info

/pro

gra

ms.

htm

This

pro

gra

m s

upp

orts

rese

arch

on

the

stru

ctur

es a

nd re

actio

n d

ynam

ics

of c

arb

on-b

ased

mol

ecul

es,m

etal

lo-o

rgan

ic s

yste

ms,

and

org

aniz

ed m

olec

ular

ass

emb

lies.

Rese

arch

incl

udes

stu

die

s of

reac

tivity

,rea

ctio

n m

echa

nism

s,re

activ

e in

term

edia

tes,

and

cha

ract

eriz

atio

n an

d in

vest

igat

ion

of n

ew o

rgan

ic m

ater

ials

.Suc

h re

sear

ch p

rovi

des

the

bas

is fo

run

der

stan

din

g a

nd m

odel

ing

bio

log

ical

pro

cess

es a

nd fo

r dev

elop

ing

new

or i

mp

rove

d t

heor

ies

rela

ting

che

mic

al s

truc

ture

s an

d p

rop

ertie

s.


88

TABL

E 4.

1 Co

ntin

ued

(Not

e:Fu

ndin

g in

form

atio

n is

for f

isca

l yea

r 199

9 un

less

oth

erw

ise

note

d.Th

e fu

ndin

g le

vels

are

for c

omp

aris

on p

urp

oses

onl

y an

d a

re a

pp

roxi

mat

e fig

ures

bas

ed o

n th

e b

est

avai

lab

le d

ata.

In s

ome

case

s re

liab

le d

ata

coul

d n

ot b

e ac

qui

red.

This

list

is n

ot c

omp

rehe

nsiv

e.)

Sect

ion,

Prog

ram

Sub

-pro

gra

mFu

ndin

g L

evel

Intr

a- o

r W

eb S

ite fo

r D

epar

tmen

t,Ex

tram

ural

Sour

ce a

nd

or D

ivis

ion

Mor

e In

form

atio

n



Geo

scie

nces

Eart

h Sc

ienc

es

Hyd

rolo

gic

Sci

ence

sFY

98:

$58.

6M

Extr

aht

tp://

ww

w.g

eo.n

sf.g

ov/

FY 9

9 re

que

st:$

65.7

M

ear/

earc

ore.

htm

(for a

ll of

Ear

th S

cien

ces)

The

Hyd

rolo

gic

Sci

ence

s Pr

ogra

m s

upp

orts

bas

ic re

sear

ch d

ealin

g w

ith t

he e

arth

's h

ydro

log

ic c

ycle

and

the

role

of w

ater

on

and

nea

r the

con

tinen

tal s

urfa

ces.

The

Prog

ram

view

s hy

dro

log

ic s

cien

ces

as a

geo

scie

nce

inte

ract

ive

on a

wid

e ra

nge

of s

pac

e an

d t

ime

scal

es w

ith t

he o

cean

,atm

osp

heric

,and

sol

id e

arth

sci

ence

s as

wel

l as

pla

nt a

nd a

nim

alsc

ienc

es.

Sup

por

ted

pro

ject

s m

ay in

volv

e w

ater

in t

he fo

rm o

f pre

cip

itatio

n,la

kes,

stre

ams,

and

gro

und

wat

er,a

nd in

tera

ctio

ns w

ith la

ndfo

rms,

soils

,the

atm

osp

here

,the

bio

s-p

here

,and

the

Ear

th's

cru

st.T

he p

rog

ram

enc

oura

ges

inte

gra

ted

stu

die

s of

wat

er b

alan

ce a

nd fl

uxes

am

ong

the

var

ious

rese

rvoi

rs.

Geo

scie

nces

Eart

h Sc

ienc

esG

eop

hysi

cs(s

ee a

bov

e)Ex

tra

http

://w

ww

.geo

.nsf

.gov

/ea

r/ea

rcor

e.ht

m

The

Geo

phy

sics

Pro

gra

m s

upp

orts

lab

orat

ory,

field

,the

oret

ical

,and

com

put

atio

nal s

tud

ies

rela

ted

to

com

pos

ition

,str

uctu

re,a

nd p

roce

sses

of t

he E

arth

's in

terio

r.To

pic

s in

clud

est

udie

s in

sei

smic

ity a

nd s

eism

ic w

ave

pro

pag

atio

n;th

e na

ture

and

occ

urre

nce

of e

arth

qua

kes;

mag

netic

,gra

vity

,and

ele

ctric

al fi

eld

s;an

d in

tern

al t

emp

erat

ure

dis

trib

utio

n.Su

pp

orte

d re

sear

ch a

lso

incl

udes

geo

phy

sica

l stu

die

s of

act

ive

def

orm

atio

n,in

clud

ing

GPS

-bas

ed g

eod

esy,

and

fund

amen

tal l

abor

ator

y st

udie

s of

pro

per

ties

and

beh

avio

r of

Eart

h m

ater

ials

in s

upp

ort

of g

eop

hysi

cal o

bse

rvat

ion

and

the

ory.

Geo

scie

nces

Eart

h Sc

ienc

esG

eolo

gy

and

(s

ee a

bov

e)Ex

tra

http

://w

ww

.geo

.nsf

.gov

/Pa

leon

tolo

gy

ear/

earc

ore.

htm

The

Geo

log

y an

d P

aleo

ntol

ogy

Prog

ram

sup

por

ts s

tud

ies

of p

hysi

cal,c

hem

ical

,geo

log

ical

,and

bio

log

ical

pro

cess

es a

t or

nea

r Ear

th's

sur

face

and

the

land

form

s,se

dim

ents

,fos

sils

,lo

w-t

emp

erat

ure

fluid

s,an

d s

edim

enta

ry ro

cks

that

the

y p

rod

uce.

Top

ics

rep

rese

nted

in t

he p

rog

ram

incl

ude

pal

eont

olog

y,p

aleo

ecol

ogy,

stra

tigra

phy

,pal

eocl

imat

olog

y,g

eom

or-

pho

log

y,g

laci

al g

eolo

gy,

sed

imen

tolo

gy,

soil

gen

esis

,sed

imen

tary

pet

rolo

gy,

dia

gen

esis

,and

org

anic

geo

chem

istr

y.

Geo

scie

nces

Cro

sscu

ttin

g P

rog

ram

sEn

viro

nmen

tal

Ap

pro

xim

atel

y $4

.8M

Extr

aht

tp://

ww

w.n

sf.g

ov/

Geo

chem

istr

y an

d

hom

e/cr

ssp

rgm

/eg

b/s

tart

.htm

lBi

ogeo

chem

istr

y

The

goa

l of t

he E

nviro

nmen

tal G

eoch

emis

try

and

Bio

geo

chem

istr

y ac

tivity

is t

o en

hanc

e fu

ndam

enta

l int

erd

isci

plin

ary

rese

arch

on

chem

ical

pro

cess

es t

hat

det

erm

ine

the

beh

avio

r and

dis

trib

utio

n of

inor

gan

ic a

nd o

rgan

ic m

ater

ials

in e

nviro

nmen

ts n

ear E

arth

's s

urfa

ce.O

f par

ticul

ar im

por

tanc

e ar

e p

roje

cts

that

cha

ract

eriz

e ch

emic

al p

aram

eter

s in

bot

h p

ertu

rbed

and

unp

ertu

rbed

nat

ural

sys

tem

s,cl

arify

the

che

mic

al a

nd b

iolo

gic

al p

roce

sses

or b

ehav

ior o

bse

rved

,or c

omb

ine

obse

rvat

ions

and

inte

rpre

tatio

ns in

to p

red

ic-

tive

mod

els.

No

new

aw

ard

s ar

e p

lann

ed a

fter

the

end

of F

Y99.

C h a p t e r 4



NU

CLE

AR

REG

ULA

TOR

Y C

OM

MIS

SIO

N

Offi

ce o

f Nuc

lear

Ra

dia

tion

Prot

ectio

n,(F

und

ing

leve

ls a

re

Both

Web

pag

e d

escr

ibin

g a

ll on

-goi

ng

Reg

ulat

ory

Rese

arch

Envi

ronm

enta

l Ris

k,lis

ted

for i

ndiv

idua

l O

ffice

of R

esea

rch

pro

ject

s is

und

er

and

Was

te M

anag

emen

t p

roje

cts

bel

ow a

nd

dev

elop

men

tBr

anch

are

for p

lann

ing

p

urp

oses

onl

y.)

The

rese

arch

con

duc

ted

in t

his

bra

nch

is d

esig

ned

to

mai

ntai

n or

imp

rove

too

ls u

sed

to

eval

uate

the

con

seq

uenc

es o

f dec

isio

ns re

gar

din

g t

he d

isp

ositi

on o

f site

s an

d/o

r fac

ili-

ties

cont

amin

ated

with

rad

ioac

tive

mat

eria

l.Th

is w

ork

is a

com

bin

atio

n of

ap

plie

d a

nd b

asic

rese

arch

.The

bas

ic re

sear

ch is

dire

cted

at

bet

ter u

nder

stan

din

g a

nd m

odel

ing

pro

cess

es,s

yste

ms,

and

eve

nts

that

may

effe

ct s

imul

atio

ns o

f the

evo

lutio

n of

con

tam

inat

ed s

yste

ms

over

tim

e an

d t

he a

ccom

pan

ying

pot

entia

l exp

osur

es o

f the

pub

lic t

o lo

wle

vels

of r

adia

tion.

The

app

lied

rese

arch

is d

irect

ed t

owar

d in

corp

orat

ing

the

se p

roce

ss,s

yste

m,a

nd e

vent

mod

els

into

use

r-fr

iend

ly c

omp

utat

iona

l too

ls.

Offi

ce o

f Nuc

lear

Ra

dia

tion

Prot

ectio

n,En

gin

eere

d B

arrie

r $1

00K

Both

Reg

ulat

ory

Rese

arch

Envi

ronm

enta

l Ris

k,Pe

rfor

man

cean

d W

aste

Man

agem

ent

Bran

ch

This

pro

gra

m is

dev

elop

ing

mod

els

to a

sses

s th

e lo

ng-t

erm

per

form

ance

of e

ngin

eere

d b

arrie

rs.

A c

oncr

ete

mod

el h

as b

een

dev

elop

ed a

nd is

bei

ng v

alid

ated

thr

oug

h th

e co

l-le

ctio

n an

d s

tud

y of

arc

heol

ogic

al s

amp

les.

Futu

re w

ork

is p

lann

ed t

o lo

ok a

t lo

ng-t

erm

deg

rad

atio

n of

non

-con

cret

e en

gin

eere

d b

arrie

r mat

eria

ls.T

he w

ork

is c

ond

ucte

d in

coop

erat

ion

with

the

Nat

iona

l Ins

titut

e of

Sci

ence

and

Tec

hnol

ogy.

Offi

ce o

f Nuc

lear

Ra

dia

tion

Prot

ectio

n,So

urce

Ter

m

$100

KIn

tra

Reg

ulat

ory

Rese

arch

Envi

ronm

enta

l Ris

k,C

hara

cter

izat

ion

and

Was

te M

anag

emen

t Br

anch

This

wor

k is

bei

ng c

ond

ucte

d t

o es

tab

lish

the

mec

hani

sms

of d

egra

dat

ion

and

rele

ase

rate

s fo

r rad

ioac

tive

mat

eria

ls fr

om m

iner

al p

hase

s fo

und

in s

lag

s fr

om o

re p

roce

ssin

g.M

any

of t

he s

ame

rad

ionu

clid

e-b

earin

g m

iner

al p

hase

s w

ill b

e fo

und

in a

rtifi

cial

was

te fo

rms

such

as

bor

osili

cate

gla

ss.

Con

tem

por

ary

and

arc

heol

ogic

al s

lag

s ar

e b

eing

exa

m-

ined

with

sop

hist

icat

ed a

naly

tical

eq

uip

men

t at

The

Joh

ns H

opki

ns U

nive

rsity

to

iden

tify

rad

ionu

clid

e b

earin

g m

iner

al p

hase

s an

d t

hen

esta

blis

h d

egra

dat

ion

rate

s fo

r per

iod

s of

up t

o a

thou

sand

yea

rs.T

his

wor

k w

ill e

nd in

Mar

ch 2

000.


90

TABL

E 4.

1 Co

ntin

ued

(Not

e:Fu

ndin

g in

form

atio

n is

for f

isca

l yea

r 199

9 un

less

oth

erw

ise

note

d.Th

e fu

ndin

g le

vels

are

for c

omp

aris

on p

urp

oses

onl

y an

d a

re a

pp

roxi

mat

e fig

ures

bas

ed o

n th

e b

est

avai

lab

le d

ata.

In s

ome

case

s re

liab

le d

ata

coul

d n

ot b

e ac

qui

red.

This

list

is n

ot c

omp

rehe

nsiv

e.)

Sect

ion,

Prog

ram

Sub

-pro

gra

mFu

ndin

g L

evel

Intr

a- o

r W

eb S

ite fo

r D

epar

tmen

t,Ex

tram

ural

Sour

ce a

nd

or D

ivis

ion

Mor

e In

form

atio

n



Offi

ce o

f Nuc

lear

Ra

dia

tion

Prot

ectio

n,So

rptio

n M

echa

nism

s$5

50K

(in t

wo

Extr

aRe

gul

ator

y Re

sear

chEn

viro

nmen

tal R

isk,

sep

arat

e p

roje

cts)

and

Was

te M

anag

emen

t Br

anch

Sorp

tion

pro

cess

es t

hat

cont

rol t

he re

tard

atio

n of

rad

ioac

tive

mat

eria

ls m

ovin

g in

gro

und

wat

er a

re b

eing

stu

die

d t

o p

rovi

de

bet

ter m

odel

s fo

r thi

s co

mp

lex

pro

cess

.Thi

s w

ork

is b

eing

con

duc

ted

by

Sand

ia N

atio

nal L

abor

ator

ies

(low

to

mid

ato

mic

num

ber

rad

ionu

clid

es) a

nd t

he U

.S.G

eolo

gic

al S

urve

y (u

rani

um a

nd it

s d

ecay

dau

ght

ers)

.

Offi

ce o

f Nuc

lear

Ra

dia

tion

Prot

ectio

n,C

once

ptu

al M

odel

$4

00K

Extr

aRe

gul

ator

y Re

sear

chEn

viro

nmen

tal R

isk,

Unc

erta

inty

and

Was

te M

anag

emen

t Br

anch

Trad

ition

al e

stim

ates

of u

ncer

tain

ty a

nd v

aria

bili

ty fo

cus

on t

he h

eter

ogen

eity

of n

atur

al s

yste

ms

and

the

par

amet

ers

that

des

crib

e th

ose

syst

ems

as w

ell a

s th

e ac

cura

cy o

f mea

-su

rem

ent

tech

niq

ues.

Dat

a us

ed t

o su

pp

ort

mod

els

are

ofte

n su

bje

ct t

o m

ultip

le in

terp

reta

tions

but

the

unc

erta

inty

ass

ocia

ted

with

sel

ectin

g o

ne in

terp

reta

tion

for m

odel

ing

pur

pos

es is

sel

dom

ad

dre

ssed

or q

uant

ified

.Thi

s p

roje

ct is

sys

tem

atic

ally

look

ing

at

the

pro

cess

of d

ata

colle

ctio

n an

d m

odel

sel

ectio

n fo

r hyd

rog

eolo

gic

sys

tem

s an

d w

ill p

ro-

vid

e a

met

hod

olog

y fo

r ad

dre

ssin

g t

he u

ncer

tain

ty a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith a

ltern

ativ

e co

ncep

tual

mod

els.

This

wor

k is

bei

ng c

ond

ucte

d a

t th

e U

nive

rsity

of A

rizon

a an

d w

ill e

xten

din

to F

Y 20

02.

Offi

ce o

f Nuc

lear

Ra

dia

tion

Prot

ectio

n,D

eter

min

istic

Effe

cts

$300

KEx

tra

Reg

ulat

ory

Rese

arch

Envi

ronm

enta

l Ris

k,of

Occ

upat

iona

l an

d W

aste

Man

agem

ent

Dos

esBr

anch

Rad

iatio

n ex

pos

ure

dat

a an

d m

edic

al h

isto

ries

for w

orke

rs a

t th

e M

ayak

Pro

duc

tion

Ass

ocia

tion

in R

ussi

a ar

e b

eing

ana

lyze

d u

nder

a jo

int

pro

ject

with

Rus

sian

sci

entis

ts t

oes

tab

lish

a b

asis

for e

stim

atin

g t

he e

ffect

s of

suc

h ex

pos

ures

on

hum

ans.

The

wor

k is

bei

ng c

ond

ucte

d a

t th

e U

nive

rsity

of P

ittsb

urg

h an

d w

ill e

xten

d t

hrou

gh

FY 2

002.

Offi

ce o

f Nuc

lear

Ra

dia

tion

Prot

ectio

n,Ra

dio

nucl

ide

$150

KEx

tra

Reg

ulat

ory

Rese

arch

Envi

ronm

enta

l Ris

k,So

lub

ilitie

san

d W

aste

Man

agem

ent

Bran

ch

Wor

k b

eing

con

duc

ted

to

exte

nd t

he d

ata

bas

e on

the

sol

ubili

ties

of ra

dio

activ

e sp

ecie

s un

der

diff

eren

t en

viro

nmen

tal c

ond

ition

s su

ch a

s p

H,E

h,an

d io

nic

stre

ngth

.W

ork

isb

eing

con

duc

ted

at

Paci

fic N

orth

wes

t N

atio

nal L

abor

ator

y an

d is

pla

nned

to

cont

inue

thr

oug

h FY

200

0.

C h a p t e r 4



Offi

ce o

f Nuc

lear

Ra

dia

tion

Prot

ectio

n,Pa

ram

eter

$6

00K

Extr

aRe

gul

ator

y Re

sear

chEn

viro

nmen

tal R

isk,

Unc

erta

inty

and

Was

te M

anag

emen

t Br

anch

Thre

e p

roje

cts

are

look

ing

at

def

ault

par

amet

er v

alue

s an

d a

ssum

ptio

ns fo

r per

form

ance

ass

essm

ent

mod

els.

Both

hyd

rog

eolo

gic

par

amet

ers

and

hea

lth e

ffect

s p

aram

eter

s ar

eb

eing

exa

min

ed t

o id

entif

y an

d d

ocum

ent

the

bas

is fo

r cur

rent

par

amet

ers

or re

com

men

d n

ew p

aram

eter

s an

d a

n as

soci

ated

tec

hnic

al b

asis

.Thi

s w

ork

is b

eing

car

ried

out

at

Paci

fic N

orth

wes

t N

atio

nal L

abor

ator

y,A

rgon

ne N

atio

nal L

abor

ator

y,an

d S

and

ia N

atio

nal L

abor

ator

ies

and

will

con

tinue

thr

oug

h FY

200

0.

Offi

ce o

f Nuc

lear

Ra

dia

tion

Prot

ectio

n,Pe

rfor

man

ce$4

50K

Extr

a Re

gul

ator

y Re

sear

chEn

viro

nmen

tal R

isk,

Ass

essm

ent

Cod

e an

d W

aste

Man

agem

ent

Dev

elop

men

t an

d

Bran

chM

aint

enan

ce

A fl

exib

le,i

nteg

rate

d m

odel

cap

able

of a

sses

sing

the

per

form

ance

of a

com

ple

x co

ntam

inat

ed s

ite o

r dis

pos

al fa

cilit

y is

bei

ng d

evel

oped

.The

mod

el is

bei

ng d

evel

oped

with

am

odul

ar s

truc

ture

to

allo

w v

ario

us p

roce

ss m

odel

s to

be

incl

uded

and

with

in a

fully

pro

bab

ilist

ic fr

amew

ork.

This

wor

k is

bei

ng c

ond

ucte

d b

y Sa

ndia

Nat

iona

l Lab

orat

orie

s an

dth

e cu

rren

t p

hase

will

con

tinue

thr

oug

h FY

200

2.

a Ab

out

a q

uart

er o

f thi

s is

dire

cted

tow

ard

site

cha

ract

eriz

atio

n an

d fa

te a

nd t

rans

por

t re

sear

ch.

b Coo

per

ativ

e su

pp

ort—

rese

arch

don

e b

y C

ente

r for

Mul

tipha

se R

esea

rch,

Dep

artm

ent

of E

nviro

nmen

tal S

cien

ces

and

Eng

inee

ring,

Uni

vers

ity o

f Nor

th C

arol

ina.

c WES

Fat

e an

d E

ffect

s p

rog

ram

is b

oth

dire

ct-

and

reim

bur

sab

ly-f

und

ed.

Hea

dq

uart

ers,

U.S

.Arm

y C

orp

s of

Eng

inee

rs,p

rovi

des

the

dire

ct fu

nds

and

Arm

y in

stal

latio

ns m

ay o

r may

not

pro

vid

e th

e

reim

bur

sab

le fu

nds.

d This

lab

orat

ory

oper

ates

as

a N

avy

Wor

king

Cap

ital F

und

act

ivity

.As

such

,all

cost

s,in

clud

ing

ove

rhea

d,m

ust

be

reco

vere

d fr

om v

ario

us s

pon

sors

.Fun

din

g c

omes

from

the

Chi

ef o

f Nav

al R

esea

rch,

the

Nav

al S

yste

ms

Com

man

ds,

and

oth

er g

over

nmen

t ag

enci

es,s

uch

as t

he U

.S.A

ir Fo

rce,

the

Ad

vanc

ed R

esea

rch

Proj

ects

Ag

ency

,the

Dep

artm

ent

of E

nerg

y,an

d t

he N

atio

nal A

eron

autic

s an

d S

pac

e

Ad

min

istr

atio

n,as

wel

l as

seve

ral n

ong

over

nmen

t en

titie

s.e In

clud

es fa

cilit

y op

erat

ions

.FY

99 n

umb

ers

are

for r

esea

rch

only

:En

gin

eerin

g:$

17.4

71M

,Geo

scie

nces

:$24

.189

M.

f Thes

e ar

e to

tal p

rog

ram

cos

ts in

clud

ing

faci

lity

oper

atio

ns.

FY98

"sc

ient

ific

rese

arch

" $1

87M

.g Th

e N

atio

nal U

ser F

acili

ties

are

mai

ntai

ned

by

bot

h of

the

se e

ntiti

es.T

hese

use

r fac

ilitie

s ar

e lis

ted

in T

able

4.2

h Th

e H

azar

dou

s Su

bst

ance

s Re

sear

ch C

ente

rs a

re li

sted

in t

he t

ext.

i The

NSF

pro

vid

es p

artia

l sup

por

t fo

r 21

Long

Ter

m E

colo

gic

al R

esea

rch

Site

s.Th

e D

ivis

ion

on B

iolo

gy

pro

vid

es s

upp

ort

for 1

9 of

thes

e 21

.In

FY

99 $

12.7

M o

f bio

log

y fu

ndin

g w

as a

lloca

ted

for t

his

pro

gra

m.


92

TABL

E 4.

1 Co

ntin

ued

(Not

e:Fu

ndin

g in

form

atio

n is

for f

isca

l yea

r 199

9 un

less

oth

erw

ise

note

d.Th

e fu

ndin

g le

vels

are

for c

omp

aris

on p

urp

oses

onl

y an

d a

re a

pp

roxi

mat

e fig

ures

bas

ed o

n th

e b

est

avai

lab

le d

ata.

In s

ome

case

s re

liab

le d

ata

coul

d n

ot b

e ac

qui

red.

This

list

is n

ot c

omp

rehe

nsiv

e.)

Sect

ion,

Prog

ram

Sub

-pro

gra

mFu

ndin

g L

evel

Intr

a- o

r W

eb S

ite fo

r D

epar

tmen

t,Ex

tram

ural

Sour

ce a

nd

or D

ivis

ion

Mor

e In

form

atio

n



5

Knowledge Gaps and Research Needs

The statement of task for this study directed the committee to identifysignificant knowledge gaps relevant to subsurface contamination prob-lems at DOE sites and to provide recommendations for a long-termbasic research program to fill those gaps (see Sidebar 1.1). In thischapter, the committee identifies what it judges to be the significantknowledge gaps that emerged from its review of DOE’s subsurfacecontamination problems in Chapter 2 and, for each identified gap, thecommittee provides a short discussion of basic research needs. Thisinformation will be used to formulate recommendations for a long-termresearch program in Chapter 6.

For purposes of this discussion, the committee defines “knowledgegap” as a deficiency in scientific or engineering understanding that isnow, or likely will be in the future, a significant impediment to DOE’sefforts to complete its mission to clean up, stabilize, or contain subsur-face contamination. Perhaps the most direct manifestation of a DOEknowledge gap is a technology gap, that is, a deficiency in technicalcapabilities to identify and deal with contamination problems. Thecommittee has not focused on technology gaps in this report; that is thetopic of another recent NRC report (NRC, 1999). Rather, the committeehas focused on the identification of the knowledge gaps that underpinthose technology gaps.

The committee has been selective in the identification of subsurfacecontamination knowledge gaps and research needs for the EM ScienceProgram. The identification of knowledge gaps involves an appreciableelement of judgment on the part of the committee, especially in inter-preting the significance of the subsurface contamination problems (seeChapter 2) and the scope and objective of other federal research pro-grams. The committee believes that the gaps it has identified are highly

C h a p t e r 5



significant and that they must be addressed through basic research ifthe DOE cleanup program is to succeed. Further, the committeebelieves that a focus on these knowledge gaps is likely to yield thegreatest payoffs for DOE in terms of enhanced cleanup capabilities atreduced costs and risks at major DOE sites.1 This is especially truegiven the small size of the EM Science Program relative to the scope ofthe DOE cleanup mission. The annual budget for the EM ScienceProgram budget is on the order of $30 million to $50 million and isused to support basic research related to all aspects of the cleanup mis-sion. This is less than 0.1 percent of the total EM annual budget of $5.8billion. Without a significant increase in its budget, the EM Science pro-gram is unlikely to have a significant impact on DOE cleanup effective-ness and costs.

Organiz ing Scheme Used in ThisAnalys is

The committee identified significant knowledge gaps and researchneeds through discussions and analyses of the “snapshot” of DOE’s sub-surface contamination problems presented in Chapter 2. To organizethis analysis and ensure its completeness, the committee developed theorganizing scheme shown in Figure 5.1. This organizing scheme isbased partly on the approach used by the Subsurface ContaminantsFocus Area to organize its technology development programs (seeFigure 3.2), but it also includes the data collection and analysis stepsthat provide the supporting information needed to make appropriatecorrective action decisions.2 The committee’s organizing scheme, here-after referred to as the framework for site remediation, is describedbriefly in the following paragraphs.


94

1As discussed in Chapter 2, the major sites represent DOE’s largest future mort-gages and longest-term commitments.

2The committee uses the term "corrective action" in the following discussion torefer to actions taken by DOE to address its subsurface contamination problems. Acorrective action can range from no action in cases where the subsurface contami-nation is thought to pose minimal hazards to humans or the environment, orwhere remediation is infeasible, to aggressive actions to treat, remove, or containcontamination that poses significant hazards. As noted in Chapter 1, the term issometimes used interchangeably with terms like "cleanup" and "remedial action,"but it really encompasses a broader range of possible options for dealing with con-tamination, because it includes the no action (i.e., no cleanup or no remedialaction) option.



The boxes in Figure 5.1 represent each of the major steps in theremediation process, and the arrows represent decision and assessmentpoints. Boxes 1 through 5 represent the process that could be followedto develop information to make an appropriate corrective action deci-sion. The initial step is focused on locating and characterizing the conta-minants of concern (Box 1). This step involves determining the spatialdistributions, types, amounts, and physical and chemical states of sub-surface contaminants, as well as the subsurface properties that affectcontaminant fate and transport behavior. Locating and characterizing con-tamination in the subsurface may be done using direct (e.g., drilling andsampling) and indirect (e.g., surface and borehole geophysical) tech-niques.

The location and characterization data obtained in the first step arethen used to develop a conceptual model of the site (Box 2), that is, adescription of the subsurface as estimated from knowledge of theknown site geology and hydrology and the physical, chemical, and bio-logical processes that govern contaminant behavior. The conceptualmodel provides a descriptive framework for assessing how the subsur-face system will behave with passing time and in response to potentialcorrective actions. As noted later in this discussion, the conceptualmodel is improved over time as more information on subsurface condi-tions and processes becomes available.

The conceptual model provides a basis for constructing more quan-

95

C h a p t e r 5

Locate &characterize

Developconceptual

model

Predictsystem

behavior Monitor

Assessrisk

Monitor

1.

1.

2.

2. 3. 4. 5. 7.

Validate models

Validate performance of remedial action

6. Corrective

Action

A. Take noremedial action

B. Contain &stabilize

C. In situ treator transform

D. Removehotspots

E. Removecontamination

FIGURE 5.1 Framework for site

remediation.



titative dynamic models that can be used to predict behavior (Box 3) ofthe subsurface system over a specified time period. These predictivemodels are developed from mathematical representations of the con-ceptual model. In current practice, most predictive models are discreterepresentations of the physically continuous subsurface system and aretypically solved with such numerical techniques as finite elements andfinite difference.3 The parameters in these models represent the physi-cal, chemical, and biological characteristics at each point in the subsur-face. Parameters of interest in predictive models quantify the relation-ship between the driving forces (e.g., hydraulic gradient and chemicalconcentration gradient) and the resulting behavior (e.g., flow and trans-port). In the case of discrete models, the parameter values are meant torepresent volume-averaged properties around each modeled point.

The predicted system behavior is then compared to the observedbehavior as measured in the field through monitoring activities (Box 4).A feedback loop (Arrow 1) updates the conceptual and predictive mod-els when the behaviors do not match according to some specified mea-sure(s) of comparison. The process of testing the predictive model todetermine whether it appropriately represents the system behavior ofinterest is usually referred to as model validation.4 Because of uncer-tainties in the model and data any match between predicted andobserved behaviors is only possible in a statistical sense. Consequently,validation is best thought of as a process of confidence buildingthrough increased understanding of fundamental mechanisms in theunderlying system rather than as a process to confirm or prove the cor-rectness of a model.

The predictive model can be used to understand the present behav-ior of the subsurface system and to estimate future contaminant migra-tion to assess risk to human and environmental health (Box 5). A cor-rective action decision (Box 6A-E) that will reduce risk to acceptablelevels is then made using the information developed in the risk assess-ment. The corrective action can range from no action (Box 6A) toremove contamination (Box 6E).

During and following the corrective action, monitoring activities(Box 7) are again employed to assess the efficacy of that action. Long-term monitoring is usually required to confirm the effectiveness of, or togain regulatory approval for, approaches that involve no action or con-


96

3Continuous representations are sometimes used in analytical models forscreening-level assessments.

4In model development protocol, a step referred to as model verificationinvolves evaluating whether the numerical model solves the mathematical equa-tions of the conceptual model with acceptable accuracy. In this discussion, modelverification is included as a step in the validation process.



tainment and stabilization. Inconsistencies between the measured andpredicted performance of the corrective action may indicate that theconceptual model of the system is deficient or that the parameters ofthe model are not sufficiently resolved, and it may be extremely diffi-cult to know which is the case. In these cases, there is a feedback loop(Arrow 2) to the conceptual model (Box 2) through the predictivemodel, which must be updated so that the corrective action decisionprocess can be revisited.

Although the framework for site remediation shown in Figure 5.1 ispresented as a linear process, it is in reality an observational procedurethat follows both parallel and iterative paths. The framework may betraversed many times as new information is acquired and incorporatedinto the conceptual and predictive models and as corrective action per-formance is assessed.

There is some correspondence between the organizing scheme out-lined in Figure 5.1 and the technology development organizing schemeshown in Figure 3.2. For example, the identify function in Figure 3.2 isroughly equivalent to the locate and characterize function in Figure5.1. Similarly, the validate function in Figure 3.2 is roughly equivalentto the validate performance of remedial action function (Arrow 2) inFigure 5.1. The remaining functions in Figure 3.2 have no directlyequivalent functions in Figure 5.1, and there are many functions inFigure 5.1 that are not represented at all in Figure 3.2 (e.g., the developconceptual model and predict system behavior functions). The organiz-ing scheme shown in Figure 5.1 is more complete than that given inFigure 3.2.

Knowledge G apsThe committee identified significant knowledge gaps in the follow-

ing process steps in the framework for site remediation shown in Figure5.1:

• location and characterization of subsurface contaminants andcharacterization of the subsurface (Box 1);

• conceptual modeling (Box 2);• containment and stabilization (Box 6B); and• monitoring and validation (Boxes 4 and 7 and Arrows 1 and 2).

These knowledge gaps do not include those associated with activeremediation of subsurface contamination (Boxes 6C-6E), with theexception of remediation monitoring. This may come as a surprise to

C h a p t e r 5



some readers, given that the current EM Science Program portfolio isheavily focused on this area (see the closing section of Chapter 3). Thecommittee did not highlight knowledge gaps on these process steps,because subsurface contamination is highly distributed at many DOEsites, making cost-effective remediation infeasible, and because EMScience Program resources are limited and there is much work on thesetopics in other federal research programs (see Chapter 4).

Location and Characterization of SubsurfaceContaminants and Characterization of the Subsurface An important conclusion that emerges from the committee’s analysis

of subsurface contamination problems in Chapter 2 is that the capabili-ties to locate and characterize subsurface contaminants at many DOEsites are incomplete. This conclusion is perhaps best supported by thefollowing three examples from Chapter 2:

• subsurface radionuclide contamination in the 200 Area atHanford;

• mixed contaminant plumes at Test Area North at the Idaho Site;and

• contaminant plumes and hot spots in waste burial grounds at theSavannah River Site.

Locating contamination in the subsurface at DOE sites has focusedon three interrelated approaches: (1) information derived from historicaloperations and records; (2) direct observations of contamination on thesurface, in surface water, and in boreholes; and (3) indirect geochemi-cal and geophysical measurements from the surface and in boreholes.These three sources of information have been used at some sites todevelop predictive models of contaminant movement in the subsurface,and the predictive models have been tested by further direct observa-tions and measurements. Frequently, these models have not capturedthe essential behavior of the contaminant, either in direction or speedof movement.

The challenges of locating subsurface contamination are magnifiedby the wide range of contaminant types (e.g., mixtures of organic sol-vents, metals, and radionuclides) in the subsurface at many DOE sites(see Chapter 2); the wide variety of geological and hydrological condi-tions across the DOE complex (see Table 2.2); and the wide range ofspatial resolutions at which this contamination must be located andcharacterized, ranging from widely dispersed contamination in ground-water plumes to small isolated hot spots in waste burial grounds.Moreover, because contaminant migration involves dynamic transport




processes, continuous temporal information on contaminant locationsis required. In effect, location, characterization, and continuing moni-toring efforts must be integrated to assure an adequate database forplanning and implementing appropriate corrective actions.

Fundamental advances in capabilities to locate and characterizesubsurface contamination and important subsurface properties will helpDOE better assess the potential hazards of its contamination problemsand to design and implement appropriate corrective action strategies(e.g., see Sidebar 5.1). Moreover, research on subsurface heterogeneityin geology, geochemistry, hydrology, and microbiology will provide aframework for assessing the fate and transport of contaminants.Examples of significant knowledge gaps include the following:

• Locating contaminants in the subsurface. At many sites, thepoints of entry of contaminants into the subsurface (e.g., througha leaking waste burial ground or injection well) are at leastapproximately known. However, the determination of the spatialdistributions of contaminants (that may or may not change withtime) once they enter the subsurface remains a major knowledgegap. Currently available indirect measurement methods (e.g.,geophysical methods) are inadequate for locating most types ofcontaminants in the subsurface, and direct methods such asdrilling are both expensive and limited in effectiveness, becausethey only provide samples from specific points in the subsurfacealong the borehole. Moreover, boreholes provide potential con-taminant transport pathways through the subsurface.

• Characterizing contaminants in the subsurface. Once contami-nants enter the subsurface, they can act as long-term sources ofpollution to ground or surface water. Understanding how tocharacterize the concentrations, speciations, and release rates ofcontaminants in the subsurface is a significant knowledge gapacross the DOE complex. In general, there are poor records ofcontaminant discharges to the subsurface, so contaminant quan-tities are highly uncertain. Moreover, once contaminants enterthe subsurface they can move long distances, either diffusingthrough the fluid medium or migrating as a distinct plume, lead-ing to contaminant distributions that are variable in size, shape,

C h a p t e r 5

99

5Direct observing technologies allow in situ measurements or samples to beobtained (e.g., by drilling). Indirect observing technologies allow measurements to be made remotely (e.g., through geophysical measurements of the subsurface).The terms "invasive" and "noninvasive" are sometimes used synonymously, but thisusage is not strictly correct. Indirect measurements can be obtained through inva-



and concentration. Currently available direct and indirectobserving technologies5 have limited effectiveness for character-izing site conditions and defining the extent and concentrationsof contaminant bodies.

• Characterizing physical, chemical, and biological properties ofthe subsurface, including improved approaches to understandingthe properties of the geologic system and relating them to conta-minant fate and transport. The subsurface characteristics at a siteplace fundamental controls on contaminant fate and transportbehavior. Subsurface characteristics also govern the selection ofconceptual and predictive models as well as the application andeffectiveness of appropriate corrective actions. The knowledgegaps include understanding which characteristics control fateand transport behavior in the subsurface and also understandinghow those characteristics can be measured at the appropriatescales over large subsurface volumes, using both indirect anddirect techniques. The integration of direct measurements of sub-surface geologic properties with indirect measurements (e.g.,from geophysical methods) has been used very successfully inthe petroleum industry to develop conceptual and quantitativemodels of subsurface transport. Such methods are potentiallyapplicable to DOE sites.

• Characterizing highly heterogeneous systems. This knowledgegap is a special case of the previous knowledge gap and is a sig-nificant problem at many DOE sites, which are very large in spa-tial extent and exhibit intra- and inter-site variations in geologicand hydrologic conditions (see Chapter 2). Heterogeneity arisesfrom the spatial variability in geological, chemical, and biologi-cal properties of the subsurface. A fundamental understanding ofthese properties, and especially the geological framework, is anecessary prerequisite to understanding the fate and transport ofcontaminants. Heterogeneity may occur at several spatial scalesin complex subsurface systems, but they may control contami-nant fate and transport processes only at one or a few scales.The primary knowledge gaps are in understanding the hetero-geneity scales that govern these processes, how to characterizethis heterogeneity without having to perform an exhaustive char-acterization of the subsurface, and how to represent this hetero-geneity in mathematical formulations.

Research Needs


100

sive means, as when borehole geophysical methods are employed to obtain sub-surface measurements.



In the committee’s judgment, basic research can support the devel-opment of new and improved capabilities to locate and characterizecontamination in the subsurface, and also to characterize subsurfaceproperties at the scales that control contaminant fate and transportbehavior. Development of the following capabilities is especially needed:

1. Improved capabilities for characterizing the physical, chemical,and biological properties of the subsurface. These approachesshould provide information on the following system propertiesand behaviors at the spatial and temporal scales that controlcontaminant fate and transport behavior:

• contaminant locations and characteristics;• transport pathways;• subsurface properties and boundary conditions that control

contaminant fate and transport behavior; and• physical, chemical, and biological interactions between con-

C h a p t e r 5

101

SIDEBAR 5.1 NEW APPROACHES FOR DIRECT OBSERVING

The major limitations on direct observations by conventional drilling and sampling have been high

costs and concerns that direct approaches may unwittingly exacerbate the spread of contaminants in

the subsurface. The use of reduced diameter drillholes (using 4- to 6-inch diameter drills) as a cost-sav-

ing method has been explored widely in the petroleum industry, but cost reductions have not been

encouraging. However, recent developments in miniaturized drilling and sampling technologies (e.g.,

Albright and Dreesen, 2000) hold promise for significantly reducing drilling costs and reducing the

potential for contaminant spread when these technologies are used at DOE sites.

A new technology, microdrilling, represents the kinds of advanced capabilities made possible by basic

scientific and engineering research. This technology uses coiled tubing, steerable miniature-diameter

(1 3/8 inches to 2 inches [3.5 centimeters to 5.1 centimeters]) down-hole motors, and down-hole micro-

instrumentation to obtain in situ measurements and samples of contaminated subsurface environ-

ments. Additionally, smaller diameter holes reduce contaminant migration potential and promote

more effective sealing.

The depth capabilities thus far demonstrated are adequate for almost all of the major DOE sites (down

to about 300 meters, or about 1,000 feet). Many aspects of this microborehole technology still require

extensive research and development, including work on sampling techniques, down-hole instrumenta-

tion for diverse measurements, and effective plugging; however, enough feasibility demonstrations

have been completed to indicate great promise for use at DOE and other contaminated sites.

Albright and Dreesen (2000) suggest that this technology may cut drilling costs by at least 70 percent

compared to conventional technologies. They also suggest that much greater cost savings are possible

as these techniques are refined.



taminants and earth materials.

Research on indirect observations could involve the develop-ment of new approaches for measuring contaminant and subsur-face properties (e.g., approaches utilizing “unconventional” geo-physical wave attributes such as polarized and nonlinear waveresponses) or new ways of interpreting “conventional” observa-tional data to obtain information on the system properties ofinterest. For direct observations, the research must also addresshow the observing process changes the system being measured.Approaches for making direct and indirect observations in theunsaturated zone are especially needed.

2. Improved capabilities for characterizing physical, chemical, andbiological heterogeneity, especially at the scales that controlcontaminant fate and transport behavior. Approaches that allowmeasurements or estimates of heterogeneity features to beobtained directly (i.e., without having to perform a detailed char-acterization of the subsurface) are especially needed.

3. Improved capabilities for measuring contaminant migration andthe system properties that control contaminant movement.

4. Methods to integrate data collected at different spatial and tem-poral scales to better estimate contaminant and subsurface prop-erties and processes, and also methods to integrate such datainto conceptual models.

Conceptual ModelingAs shown by several examples in Chapter 2, DOE is finding subsur-

face contamination in unexpected places:

• Technetium was discovered in groundwater beneath the SX TankFarm in the 200 Area at the Hanford Site.

• Plutonium was discovered in colloids in groundwater near theBenham Test at the Nevada Test Site.

• Plutonium was discovered in groundwater beneath theRadioactive Waste Management Complex at the Idaho Site.

These discoveries were “unexpected” because models of the subsur-face at these sites did not predict them (e.g., see Sidebar 2.6). Concep-tual and predictive models have been developed for subsurface conta-minant fate and transport for many DOE sites, but in many cases thesemodels have proven ineffective for understanding and predicting conta-minant movement, especially at sites that have thick unsaturated zonesor complex subsurface characteristics.




The conceptual model “problem” has many possible causes. Themodels themselves may be deficient because they were developedusing insufficient data on subsurface characteristics, contaminant distri-butions, or transport processes, or the models may simply have aninappropriate theoretical basis. Good conceptual models must begrounded in sound theory and underpinned with sound and sufficientdata. In the committee’s judgment, at least part of the problem is thatconceptual model development is not viewed as an explicit part ofremediation practice. Consequently, there are few standardized tools oraccepted methodologies for developing such models, which has led toad hoc and inconsistent approaches across DOE sites.

Accurate conceptualizations are essential for understanding thelong-term fate of contaminants in the subsurface and the selection andapplication of appropriate corrective actions. The significant knowledgegaps include the following:

• Contaminant fate and transport. Understanding the factors con-trolling the long-term fate of contaminants in the subsurface isimportant for assessing the potential for human and ecologicalexposure and for selecting appropriate corrective actions.Understanding the dominant contaminant transport processesand pathways through the subsurface remains a significantknowledge gap for building accurate and useful conceptual andpredictive models. The simplest formulation of contaminanttransport uses porous media flow of a dissolved phase, but suchtransport may be the exception at many DOE sites, where trans-port can occur in several distinct manners (e.g., colloidal trans-port) through both porous media and fractures and may involvea variety of chemical and biological reactions. The myriadchemical, biological, and physical processes operating in thesubsurface operate at different time scales and are poorly under-stood, especially for metals and radionuclides.

• Coupling physical, chemical, and biological processes. The phys-ical, chemical, and biological properties and processes that gov-ern contaminant fate and transport do not act independently.Rather, they interact (i.e., they are coupled) in complex and oftenpoorly understood ways. Many coupled processes operate oververy small spatial scales that are defined by a distribution of prop-erties, making it difficult to incorporate representations of theseprocesses into conceptual and mathematical models. For exam-ple, redox potential and pH (chemical properties related to bulkmineralogy, biological activity, and fluid composition) can affecteither or both physisorption and chemisorption of contaminants

C h a p t e r 5



onto solid phases. The heterogeneous distribution of permeability(a physical property related to the geological characteristics of thesubsurface) can result in highly variable rates of fluid flow (aphysical process). These processes combine to effect transport (acoupled process) of certain metals and radionuclides over smallspatial scales. Similarly, the coupling of biomass availability (aproperty with biological, physical, and chemical components)and substrate availability (controlled by processes such as sorp-tion, dissolution, and transport) with the distribution of electronacceptors (also possessing biological, physical, and chemicalcontrols) can result in spatially variable rates of in situ contami-nant biodegradation (a coupled process). The coupling ofprocesses and their control by subsurface properties are onlybeginning to be understood. Moreover, little progress has beenmade on how to represent coupled processes in predictive mod-els.

• Model parameter development. Model parameters are wellunderstood and definable for very simple homogeneous subsur-face systems. However, in highly complex subsurface systems,parameter definition may require unobtainable amounts ofdetailed characterization data. In these cases, it is important tounderstand which processes are actually dominating the behav-ior of the system and to define parameters appropriate to thoseprocesses. Determining how to make the appropriate simplifica-tions and approximations is the main thrust of conceptual mod-eling research that leads to the identification of appropriatemodel parameters.

The definition and estimation of model parameters requires a goodunderstanding of the subsurface system and transport processes beingmodeled, which is not often the case at DOE sites. For example, thetraditional approach for modeling porous media is to choose perme-ability as a model parameter. If the porous medium is highly heteroge-neous (e.g., if it contains a few large and interconnected fractures) thenthe generalized concept of permeability is not well defined, and perme-ability may not be an appropriate characterization of the physical sys-tem. Flow and transport may be dominated by the fracture system, andthe model parameters should represent the properties of these perme-able and connected pathways. Similarly, for fate and transport models,the traditional approach is to assume equilibrium sorption and use theequilibrium partition coefficient as a model parameter. If the sorptionreactions are not at equilibrium, however, then the equilibrium parti-tion coefficient by itself is not an appropriate parameter, and additional




parameters describing mass transfer kinetics must also be included. Thechallenge is to define the right conceptualization of the physical, chem-ical, or biological processes that dominate system behavior, which inturn defines the appropriate model parameters to be used.

The field observations used to develop parameter estimates aremade at many different scales and times and provide information aboutdifferent properties of the subsurface system. Samples from drillholecore, for example, can provide detailed information on the physical,chemical, and biological properties of the subsurface at small (centime-ter) spatial scales. Borehole testing data (e.g., hydraulic pumping testsand tracer tests) and indirect observations (e.g., seismic surveys) provideindirect measurements of subsurface properties averaged over muchlarger (meters to tens of meters) spatial scales. Observations of a givensubsurface region using different measurement techniques can yieldvery different results, and measurements from a single technique canshow significant variations over small spatial scales. One of the primaryknowledge gaps for model conceptualizations is understanding how tointegrate these field observations into the models and parameter esti-mates. The knowledge gaps include understanding the scale effects anddeveloping methods for data integration that take these effects intoaccount.

Research NeedsConceptual model development has not been an explicit topic for

basic research in its own right. Indeed, conceptual model developmentis viewed as an inherently empirical and site-specific process usingobservational approaches that are not easily generalized or tested. Thecommittee believes, however, that basic research that addresses thefundamental approaches and assumptions underlying conceptual modeldevelopment could produce a tool box of methodologies that areapplicable to contaminated sites both inside and outside the DOE com-plex. This research should focus on the following topics:

1. New observational and experimental approaches and tools fordeveloping conceptual models that apply to complex subsurfaceenvironments, including such phenomena as colloidal transportand biologic activity.

2. 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.

3. Development of coupled-process models through experimentalstudies at variable scales and complexities that account for the

C h a p t e r 5



interacting physical, chemical, and biological processes thatgovern contaminant fate and transport behavior.

4. Methods to integrate process knowledge from small-scale testsand observations into model formulations, including methods forincorporating qualitative geological information from surface andnear-surface observations into conceptual model formulations.

5. Methods to measure and predict the scale dependency of para-meter values.

6. Approaches for establishing bounds on the accuracy of parame-ters and conceptual model estimates from field and experimentaldata.

The research needs outlined above call for more hypothesis-drivenexperimental approaches that address the fundamental methods andassumptions underlying the development of conceptual models. Thisresearch will require expertise from a wide range of disciplines andmust be conducted at scales ranging from the laboratory bench top tocontaminated field sites.

Moreover, to have long-term relevance to the DOE cleanup mission,this research must be focused on the kinds of subsurface environmentsand contamination problems commonly encountered at major DOEsites. One way to ensure this focus is to give researchers the opportuni-ty to conduct research at contaminated DOE sites. The committee pro-vides additional comments on this issue in the next chapter.6

Containment and StabilizationAs noted by DOE in Paths to Closure (DOE, 1998a) and as shown in

Chapter 2 of this report, a great deal of subsurface contamination islikely to remain at DOE sites even after DOE’s cleanup program is com-pleted. It will include contaminant plumes in groundwater, contaminat-ed soil, and waste burial grounds—both the historical burial groundsdiscussed in Chapter 2 and new burial grounds developed by DOE todispose of waste from its current and future cleanup operations. DOE isresponsible for the long-term management of this contamination andmust develop methods to contain and stabilize it until it no longerposes a hazard to humans or the environment—or until new methodsto remediate this contamination are developed. DOE’s managementcommitment potentially extends for many thousands of years. DOE’scontainment and stabilization systems are likely to include surfacecaps, subsurface barriers, and other in situ stabilization systems. Once


106

6See the section titled "Field Sites" in Chapter 6.



installed, these systems will have to be monitored to assure that theyperform as expected, and if these systems fail, additional correctiveactions may have to be taken to repair the barriers and remediate resid-ual contamination. There has been an increasing emphasis and accep-tance of waste containment and stabilization in recent years, both inDOE and by regulatory agencies. Decreasing cleanup budgets, evalua-tions that show that containment is a low-risk choice for some prob-lems, and recognition that some contamination cannot be remediatedeither with current technologies or conceivable new technologies areresponsible for this change in philosophy. This shift in emphasis is per-haps first fully acknowledged by DOE in Paths to Closure (DOE,1998a), which lays out DOE’s cleanup objectives, and appears to be adeveloping trend across the DOE complex.7 A more recent DOE report(DOE, 1999) discusses the long-term stewardship challenges.

At some sites, containment and stabilization may be an interimmeasure and has its own set of associated technical problems. Theseinclude particularly the availability of appropriate technologies to bothcontain and stabilize the residual contamination and to monitor andvalidate the long-term performance of containment and stabilizationsystems themselves. There is little understanding of the long-term per-formance of containment and stabilization systems, and there is a gen-eral absence of effective methods to validate that such systems areproperly installed or that they can provide effective long-term perfor-mance. To address this knowledge gap, advances in basic knowledge tosupport the development of new and improved waste containment andstabilization systems will be needed, as noted below.

The development of improved and novel containment and stabiliza-tion approaches will likely have the highest potential for cost savingsand lowered risk of the four knowledge gaps identified by the commit-tee. The committee believes that the significant knowledge gapsinclude the following:

• Development of robust physical, chemical, and biological con-tainment and stabilization systems. Traditional containment sys-

C h a p t e r 5

107

7Another recent example of the shift in emphasis to containment strategies canbe found in a recent report on disposal of DOE low-level waste (DOE, 1998e).This report shows that DOE’s estimates of the volume of its low-level waste requir-ing disposal between 1998 and 2070 has decreased from about 32 million cubicmeters to about 8 million cubic meters, largely because DOE has decided to con-tain much of this low-level waste in place at its sites, rather than removing it fortreatment or disposal elsewhere in the complex. Most of this waste exists in wasteburial grounds at the major DOE sites (see Chapter 2).



tems comprised of surface caps, in situ walls, and bottom barri-ers employ low-permeability materials to reduce water infiltra-tion and provide a barrier to contaminant migration. Whendesigned properly, these systems may provide effective contain-ment for periods of up to a few decades,8 but current designs donot meet DOE’s needs for containment of its long-lived radioac-tive and hazardous waste—both for wastes contained in placeand new waste sites developed from current and future cleanupoperations. Natural low-permeability materials for minimizinginfiltration (e.g., clays) work well in humid environments, butthey may not be effective in arid regions, where dessication canlead to the development of preferred pathways.

To the committee’s knowledge, there has been little or noresearch or development work on longer-term systems for con-tainment of subsurface contamination of the sort encountered atDOE sites, either by DOE or by other organizations.9 Theknowledge gaps include understanding how to design moreeffective and permanent barrier systems for long-term contain-ment, especially in arid environments characteristic of the west-ern DOE sites, including the development and application ofmore durable materials for barrier systems—materials that arecompatible with the surrounding environment and with thewaste that is being contained.

• New containment approaches. Conventional barrier systemsseek to minimize water infiltration into the contained waste andto minimize the spread of waste from containment zones intothe environment. Surface barrier systems (caps) have proven veryeffective for retarding water infiltration into containment zones,but they require ongoing maintenance to ensure their continuedintegrity, and they have short lives relative to the hazard of thecontained waste. Moreover, subsurface infiltration barriers (e.g.,impermeable walls installed around or beneath waste burialgrounds) are extremely difficult to install and maintain, especial-ly barriers emplaced beneath waste containment zones, andtheir performance is also extremely difficult to monitor.

New approaches are needed to address DOE’s needs forlong-term in situ containment and treatment of subsurface conta-


108

8To the committee’s knowledge, this supposition has never been tested at aDOE site, so the actual longevity of such barrier systems is uncertain at best.

9There has been a great deal of research and development work in the UnitedStates and other countries on long-term containment systems for spent fuel andvitrified high-level waste, but this work does not appear to be directly applicableto the contamination problems at DOE sites.



mination. The recent development of reactive barriers (i.e., barri-ers that degrade or immobilize contaminants through geochemi-cally and biochemically mediated reactions, such as ionexchange or redox processes) is an example of the kind of newapproach that holds promise. The continued development ofreactive barriers and the development of other hybrid systems(e.g., barrier systems that incorporate biological materials toreduce maintenance requirements and enhance long-term per-formance, or systems that use controlled water infiltration toenhance waste decomposition or transformation) could improvethe technology for containment and in-situ stabilization of sub-surface contaminants across the DOE complex.

Research NeedsThe construction of stabilization and containment systems is proper-

ly within the province of applied technology development and will bethe responsibility of other DOE programs (e.g., the Subsurface Contami-nants Focus Area). However, basic research focused on the followingtopics will be needed to support this technology development effort:

1. The mechanisms and kinetics of chemically and biologicallymediated reactions that can be applied to new stabilization andcontainment approaches (e.g., reactions that can extend the useof reactive barriers to a greater range of contaminant types foundat DOE sites) or that can be used to understand the long-termreversibility of chemical and biological stabilization methods.

2. The physical, chemical, and biological reactions that occur amongcontaminants (metals, radionuclides, and organics), soils, and barri-er components so that more compatible and durable materials forcontainment and stabilization systems can be developed.

3. The fluid transport behavior in conventional barrier systems, forexample, understanding water infiltration into layered systems,including infiltration under partially saturated conditions andunder the influences of capillary, chemical, electrical, and ther-mal gradients that can be used to support the design of moreeffective infiltration barrier systems.

4. The development of methods for assessing the long-term durabil-ity of containment and stabilization systems.

Monitoring and ValidationThe ability to monitor and validate is essential to the successful

application of any corrective action to a subsurface contaminationproblem, as is regulatory acceptance of that action. However, the

C h a p t e r 5



knowledge and technology bases to support these activities are not fullydeveloped and are receiving little attention in EM’s science and tech-nology programs. The monitor process step does not appear on theSubsurface Contaminants Focus Area’s remedial action flow chart (seeFigure 3.2), and its validate process step applies only to the confirma-tion of the performance of a remedial action. As noted in Chapter 3,very little research relevant to these activities is being supported cur-rently by the EM Science Program.

As illustrated by Figure 5.1, monitoring and validation are importantat both the front and back ends of the site remediation process. At thefront end, monitoring and validation are used to support the develop-ment of conceptual and predictive models of subsurface and contami-nant behavior (Box 4 and Arrow 1). At the back end, monitoring andvalidation are used to gain regulatory acceptance for corrective actionsand to demonstrate the effectiveness of efforts to remove, treat, or espe-cially to contain contamination (Box 7 and Arrow 2). Such monitoringand validation efforts can also improve the understanding of the conta-minant fate and transport processes and can be used to recalibrate andrevise conceptual and predictive models—important elements of themodel building process.

Improvements in capabilities to monitor and validate could greatlyimprove the technical success of DOE’s efforts to contain and stabilizecontamination at its sites. The development of new containment andstabilization approaches could lower the cost, accelerate regulatoryapprovals for, and increase public confidence in efforts to address DOEcontamination problems. In the committee’s judgment, the significantknowledge gaps include the following:

• Design of efficient and effective monitoring systems. There is lit-tle experience with monitoring over the long (decadal to centen-nial) time scales that are required at DOE sites. Consequently, agreat deal of basic knowledge is required to design efficient andeffective monitoring systems. The knowledge gaps includeunderstanding what parameters need to be measured to assesssystem performance (e.g., the performance of a subsurface barri-er); where, when, and how to obtain these measurements; andhow to relate these measurements to system behavior.

• Unsaturated zone monitoring. Monitoring of the unsaturatedzone is a special case of the previous knowledge gap and is aspecial need for DOE, because most of its containment and sta-bilization systems are being constructed above the water table,especially at the western U.S. sites. Unsaturated zone monitoringis an especially difficult problem; the physics and chemistry of




unsaturated zone processes are more complicated than for thesaturated zone, and these processes have received far less atten-tion from researchers. Contaminants may be present in bothliquid and gas phases in unsaturated zone environments andunder both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. The exchange,degree of equilibration of these phases, and the transport ofthese phases may occur by different processes with very differentrates. There is a great disparity between what can currently bemeasured and what needs to be measured to predict the behav-ior of contaminants in many unsaturated settings.

• Model validation. A conceptual model is an estimate of the real-world behavior and must be tested to ensure that it appropriatelyrepresents the behaviors of interest. This testing is usually carriedout by comparing predictions made with the model against fieldand experimental observations. This testing also allows themodel to be improved as new information on the subsurface sys-tem is collected. The science of model testing, or validation, hasreceived relatively little attention until recently and is an areawhere significant work is needed. The knowledge gaps includeunderstanding what measurements need to be collected to vali-date a model (it is frequently the case that what can be calculat-ed in a model cannot be measured in the field, and vice versa);how to evaluate the relationships between measured and pre-dicted behaviors; and understanding what diagnostic informationthese differences provide for assessing and improving the accura-cy of the models (e.g., see Sidebar 5.2).

• Performance validation. Performance validation is a necessarystep to document the success, or lack thereof, with every stepshown in Figure 5.1. The issues here are similar to those formodel validation, that is, how to assess whether the process isperforming as designed. The knowledge gaps include under-standing what to measure, how to measure it, how to assess dis-crepancies between designed and measured behavior, and deter-mining what diagnostic information these differences provide forassessing and improving performance.

For example, with regard to locating and characterizing con-taminants, one must determine when enough information for riskcharacterization and remedy selection has been gathered. Thisrequires tools to validate the assessments of contaminantamounts, distributions, and mass release rates. Similar considera-tions arise for validation of predictive models in the face of vari-ability and uncertainty. The difficulty increases when probabilitymodels are introduced to try to deal with uncertainty. With

C h a p t e r 5



regard to corrective action performance, validation is an essen-tial step that is lacking for many innovative technologies, andhas prevented their selection for site remediation because of reg-ulatory and stakeholder concerns. Knowledge gaps in perfor-mance validation include understanding how to develop moni-toring systems and sampling strategies, understanding the criticalsystem variables that need to be used, strategies for data collec-tion in highly heterogeneous systems, and the development ofstatistical methods to be used in performance evaluation.

Research NeedsMany of the research needs for monitoring and validation have

been covered in previous sections; for example, research on locatingcontaminants and characterizing contaminant and subsurface propertiesand research on data integration will provide new knowledge andcapabilities for monitoring and validation. In addition, the committeebelieves that basic research is needed on the following topics:

• Development of methods for designing monitoring systems todetect both the current conditions and changes in system behav-iors. These methods may involve the application of conceptual,mathematical, and statistical models to determine the types andlocations of observation systems and also will involve predictingthe spatial and temporal resolutions at which observations needto be made. For example, such methods may help to determinewhat types of measurements (e.g., core samples from a boreholeversus seismic images of the subsurface) can be used to validatethe model and also suggest where such measurements should bemade in both time and space.

• Development of validation processes. The research questionsinclude (1) understanding what a representation of systembehavior means and how to judge when a model provides anaccurate representation of a system behavior—the model maygive the right answers for the wrong reasons and thus may notbe a good predictive tool; and (2) how to validate the future per-formance of the model or system behavior based on present-daymeasurements. These questions might be addressed throughresearch projects that focus on the development of validationmethodologies using real-world examples at DOE sites.

• Data for model validation. Determining the key measurementsthat are required to validate models and system behaviors, thespatial and temporal resolutions at which such measurementsmust be obtained, and the extent to which surrogate data (e.g.,




data from lab-scale testing facilities) can be used in validationefforts.

• Research to support the development of methods to monitor fluidand gaseous fluxes through the unsaturated zone, and for differ-entiating diurnal and seasonal changes from longer-term secularchanges. These methods may involve both direct (e.g., in situsensors) and indirect (e.g., using plants and animals) measure-ments over long time periods, particularly for harsh chemicalenvironments characteristic of some DOE sites. This researchshould support the development of both the physical instrumen-

C h a p t e r 5

113

SIDEBAR 5.2 MANAGING UNCERTAINTY

Management of uncertainty in model and performance validation is a theme that cuts across many of

the knowledge gaps identified in this chapter. Uncertainties arise in multiple ways. In field data they

can emerge in quality features: random measurement error, systematic errors from imperfectly cali-

brated instruments, and recording and other transmission errors. In mathematical models, uncertain-

ties stem from incorrect specifications and through propagation of errors in the data that are input to

the computational models. In the integration (or combination) of models and data, uncertainties are

affected by the need to link data and models that are on mismatched scales; some data may have to be

aggregated, other data may need to be disaggregated.

Quantifying the uncertainties in, for example, a site characterization problem can involve all the paths

described above. There may be several data sets of varying quality; missing data (measurements on

some contaminants may be found at some monitoring wells but missing at others); auxiliary data sets

(e.g., river flow data) on time scales very different from the frequency of sampled monitoring data; his-

torical records of differing content and quality; and transport models requiring uncertain input para-

meters. How best to combine the variety of information and assess the accuracy of results and predic-

tions is a great challenge.

Similar issues are found in validation and performance assessment. These may be compounded by the

need to perform detailed computer experiments to determine the impacts of uncertainties in data

quality and input specifications. For perfomance assessment and validation, attention has to be given

to design of future data collection: Where and when should collection be done to assure a desired level

of accuracy?

The daunting technical problem is how to respond to complex, though simple sounding, queries (e.g.,

Where is the contaminant plume now? Where will it be next year?) that demand intricate combinations

of computer and statistical models fed by several data sources. Powerful methods such as Bayesian

hierarchical modeling are emerging to break such complicated problems into components and,

through intensive computation, capture the uncertainties; but implementation is limited by the com-

plexity and scale of the problems typically encountered in subsurface contamination.



tation and measurement techniques. The latter includes measure-ment strategies and data analysis (including statistical) approach-es.

Discuss ionAs noted in the introduction to this chapter, the committee has been

selective in the identification of subsurface contamination knowledgegaps and research needs for the EM Science Program. Indeed, the list ofknowledge gaps presented in this chapter is not exhaustive and is per-haps notable for what it does not include, namely, the knowledge gapsassociated with assessment of risk (Box 5 in Figure 5.1)10 and many ofthe corrective actions associated with EM’s cleanup program (Boxes 6Cthrough 6E in Figure 5.1). The committee has been selective because (1) it believes that much of the subsurface at DOE sites cannot be reme-diated cost effectively; (2) the contamination is highly distributed invery large volumes of the subsurface; and (3) the EM Science Programdoes not have the management or financial capital to support a com-prehensive research program to address all of EM’s cleanup problems.Further, the committee recognizes that there is much good research onthese excluded topics being supported by other programs (see Chapter 4).

The committee has selected the four research areas highlighted inthis chapter because, as illustrated by the examples in Chapter 2, thesethemes cut across all DOE cleanup efforts, and the committee believesthat they are key to the long-term success of the DOE’s cleanup pro-gram. Further, the committee believes that a focused, sustained, andadequately funded research program directed at the knowledge gapscould result both in significant improvements to DOE cleanup capabili-ties and the effectiveness of its cleanup actions.

The committee discussed whether it should prioritize these fourresearch areas, but decided against doing so. The selection of thesefour research foci from among a much broader range of potentialresearch areas is in itself a significant prioritization. Further, the com-mittee believes that all four research foci are equally important forDOE’s cleanup mission and will need to be pursued aggressively ifDOE is to improve its capabilities to address its subsurface contamina-tion problems. The new location, characterization, modeling, and mon-itoring capabilities that can result from this research, when applied


114

10Of course, the committee recognizes that the basic research needs outlinedin this chapter will produce new knowledge on contaminant locations and behaviorand thereby affect critical steps in the risk assessment.



6

Recommendations for a Long-Term Research Program

This chapter provides recommendations for a long-term basicresearch program to address subsurface contamination problems atDOE sites, as directed by the statement of task (see Sidebar 1.1). Therecommendations address the following three issues:

1. program vision,2. research agenda, and3. implementation of the research agenda.

These recommendations are based on analyses of the informationprovided in Chapters 2 through 5 of this report and the committee’sinterim report (NRC, 1998), as well as the reports of the previousNational Research Council Committee on the Environmental Manage-ment (EM) Science Program (NRC, 1997b).

Program Vis ionThe 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 Officeof Environmental Management (EM). This conclusion is based on twoobservations made by the committee during the course of this study.First, the EM Science Program does not appear to be an important partof EM’s plan for technology research and development. EM released itsEnvironmental Management Research and Development Plan in 1998(DOE, 1998f). 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



text of this plan is 36 pages in length, but only one section comprisingtwo paragraphs is devoted to a discussion of the EM Science Program.The discussion in this plan focuses primarily on the management of theprogram 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 wascreated in fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $50 million to itfrom EM’s technology development programs.1 In fiscal year 1997, EMrequested $38 million for the program; however, Congress appropriated$50 million, an increase of $12 million over EM’s request. In fiscal year1998, $32 million was requested; Congress again increased its appro-priation to $47 million. For fiscal year 1999, $32 million was requestedand appropriated.2 Congress and EM appear to have different views ofthe importance of this program. In the committee’s view, $50 million isinadequate for a research program that has the scope of the EM ScienceProgram. This is especially true since the program was designed toaddress a wide spectrum of problems, ranging from groundwater conta-mination to high-level waste. Additional discussions of program fundingare provided later in this chapter.

The committee believes that if the program is to remain viable overthe long term and have a significant impact on the DOE cleanup mis-sion, program managers must articulate a vision for the program that issupported both programmatically and financially by upper managementin EM and DOE. In the committee’s view, this vision should include thefollowing four elements:

1. The objective of the EM Science Program should be to generatenew knowledge to support DOE’s mission to clean up its conta-minated sites. This objective is consistent with the intent of thecongressional language that established this program in 1996(see Chapter 1), with the conclusions in this committee’s interimreport (NRC, 1998), and with the conclusions of the previousNRC committee on the EM Science Program (NRC, 1997b). Thisobjective also has been articulated in EM’s strategic plan for itsscience and technology programs (DOE, 1998f). The commit-tee’s analysis of subsurface contamination problems in Chapter 2shows that the environmental remediation and management mis-sion is unlikely to succeed without new knowledge to supportthe development of new and improved technologies to treat,


116

1Specifically, from the Office of Science and Technology.2About $10 million of the appropriation was for research on low-dose ionizing

radiation.



remove, or contain and stabilize subsurface contamination atDOE sites.

2. The EM Science Program should be well connected to DOE’sdifficult cleanup problems. In the past, the program was operat-ed somewhat like a first generation research and developmentprogram, which has been characterized (perhaps with tongue incheek) as “put a few bright people in a dark room, pour inmoney, and hope” (Hamel and Prahalad, 1989; see also Rousseland others, 1991). Clearly, this model is inappropriate for theprogram, which will succeed only if it is well connected, both inperception and fact, to EM’s significant cleanup problems. Theefforts by the program managers to develop science plans repre-sents a positive move in this direction. The committee hopes therecommendations for basic research foci presented in this reportwill aid this effort.

3. A major focus of the EM Science Program should continue to beon research to resolve DOE’s subsurface contamination prob-lems. Based on its review of subsurface contamination problemsin 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 significantlong-term problem. Moreover, previous National ResearchCouncil reports have shown that DOE lacks the technologiesneeded to effectively remediate much of the subsurface contami-nation at its sites (e.g., NRC, 1997a,c, 1999). The committeebelieves, therefore, that new knowledge (and technologies) willbe 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 ScienceProgram.

4. The EM Science Program should have a long-term, multidiscipli-nary, basic-research3 focus. As discussed in Chapter 2, the activephase of DOE’s cleanup efforts is planned to last until at least2050 (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 basicresearch under the auspices of the EM Science Program.

117

C h a p t e r 6

3As noted in Sidebar 1.1, basic research creates new generic knowledge and isfocused on long-term, rather than short-term, problems.



A long-term basic research focus will allow the EM Science Programto sponsor fundamental research on subsurface contamination that canlead to significant knowledge and technology breakthroughs.4 It alsowill insulate the program from the ongoing shifts in emphasis in theDOE cleanup effort. Indeed, a long-term focus will enable the programto provide sustained funding, including renewals in funding for success-ful projects, so that investigators can pursue and build on significantresearch results.

The committee defines “long term” as long enough to set ambitiousgoals for addressing the knowledge gaps identified in Chapter 5 and tohave reasonable expectations that those goals can be attained. In thecommittee’s judgment, a time horizon on the order of a decade will berequired to make cumulative progress on the knowledge gaps, althoughshorter-term results of use to DOE almost certainly will be obtainedover the lifetimes of individual research projects (i.e., over a three-yeartime frame). A decadal time horizon would produce a critical mass ofresearchers and research projects focused on the knowledge gaps; itwould provide for several proposal cycles so that investigators couldpursue important research ideas and develop significant researchresults. With the proper encouragement from program managers, itwould also encourage researchers to develop collaborations that couldlead to novel approaches to addressing the knowledge gaps, many ofwhich are highly interdisciplinary.5

The decadal time horizon would allow investigators to apply forcompetitive renewals to pursue significant research findings. Suchrenewals 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 invest-ment in future generations of researchers knowledgeable of DOE’s prob-lems through support for graduate students and postdoctoral scientists.

Research AgendaThe committee has identified four critical knowledge gaps that it

believes are significant impediments to the successful completion ofDOE’s cleanup mission and that are addressable through a focused,sustained, and adequately funded research program. Although these


118

4A good discussion of the value of long-term research is provided in a previousNRC report (NRC, 1997b), especially in Chapter 2.

5The value of multidiscipinary research is discussed in some detail in a previousNRC report (NRC, 1997b).



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 completedsafely and cost effectively.

The committee recommends that the subsurface component of theEM Science Program should emphasize research on the four knowledgegaps that were identified in Chapter 5 and discussed below. The specif-ic research topics suggested in this section are for illustrative purposesand are not meant to be prescriptive. The committee expects that theresearch supported by this program will be truly basic, imaginative, andinnovative. The committee’s recommendation of four research foci doesnot imply that the subsurface research supported in the current EMScience Program portfolio is inappropriate or misdirected. Rather, thesefour foci represent areas where more research clearly is needed.

Location and Characterization of SubsurfaceContaminants and Characterization of the SubsurfaceThe 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 theDOE complex; and the wide range of spatial resolutions at which thiscontamination must be located and characterized, from widely dis-persed contamination in groundwater plumes to small isolated hotspots in waste burial grounds.

As discussed in Chapter 5, the committee believes that basicresearch is needed to support the development of the following capa-bilities to locate and characterize contamination in the subsurface andto 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, andbiological heterogeneity, especially at the scales that controlcontaminant fate and transport behavior. Approaches that allowthe identification and measurement of the heterogeneity featuresthat control contaminant fate and transport to be obtained direct-ly (i.e., without having to perform a detailed characterization ofthe subsurface) are especially needed.

• Improved capabilities for measuring contaminant migration andsystem properties that control contaminant movement.

• Methods to integrate data collected at different spatial and tem-

C h a p t e r 6



poral scales to better estimate contaminant and subsurface prop-erties and processes.

• Methods to integrate such data into conceptual models.

Conceptual ModelingExisting 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 subsurfacecharacteristics. Accurate conceptualizations are essential for under-standing the long-term fate of contaminants in the subsurface and theselection and application of appropriate corrective actions. The com-mittee believes that basic research explicitly focused on fundamentalapproaches and assumptions underlying conceptual model develop-ment could produce a tool box of methodologies that are applicable tocontaminated sites both inside and outside the DOE complex. Thisresearch should focus on the following topics:

• New observational and experimental approaches and tools fordeveloping conceptual models that apply to complex subsurfaceenvironments, including such phenomena as colloidal transportand 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 experimentalstudies at variable scales and complexities that account for theinteracting physical, chemical, and biological processes thatgovern contaminant fate and transport behavior.

• Methods to integrate process knowledge from small-scale testsand observations into model formulations, including methods forincorporating qualitative geological information from surface andnear-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 experimentaldata.

The research needs outlined above call for more hypothesis-drivenexperimental approaches that address how to integrate the understand-ing of system behavior. This research will require expertise from a widerange of disciplines and must be conducted at scales ranging from thelaboratory bench top to contaminated field sites. Moreover, to have




long-term relevance to the DOE cleanup mission, this research must befocused on the kinds of subsurface environments and contaminationproblems commonly encountered at major DOE sites.

Containment and StabilizationThere 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 showcontainment is a low-risk choice for some problems, and recognitionthat some contamination cannot be remediated either with currenttechnologies or conceivable new technologies are responsible for thischange in philosophy. However, at some sites, containment and stabi-lization may be an interim measure and has its own set of associatedtechnical problems. There is little understanding of the long-term per-formance of containment and stabilization systems, and there is a gen-eral absence of robust and cost-effective methods to validate that suchsystems 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 biologicallymediated reactions that can be applied to new stabilization andcontainment approaches (e.g., reactions that can extend the useof reactive barriers to a greater range of contaminant types foundat DOE sites) or that can be used to understand the long-termreversibility of chemical and biological stabilization methods.

• The physical, chemical, and biological reactions that occuramong contaminants (metals, radionuclides, and organics), soils,and barrier components so that more compatible and durablematerials for containment and stabilization systems can bedeveloped.

• The fluid transport behavior in conventional barrier systems, forexample, understanding water infiltration into layered systems,including infiltration under partially saturated conditions andunder the influences of capillary, chemical, electrical, and ther-mal gradients can be used to support the design of more effec-tive infiltration 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



Monitoring and ValidationMonitoring and validation are necessary at both the front and the

back ends of the site remediation process. At the front end, monitoringand validation are used to support the development of conceptual andpredictive models of subsurface and contaminant behavior. At the backend, monitoring and validation are used to demonstrate the effective-ness of efforts to remove, treat, or especially to contain contaminationand to gain regulatory acceptance for such corrective actions.Moreover, such monitoring and validation efforts can also improve theunderstanding of the contaminant fate and transport processes and canbe used to recalibrate and revise conceptual and predictive models—important elements of the model building process.

The ability to monitor and validate is essential to the successfulapplication of any corrective action to a subsurface contaminationproblem and regulatory acceptance of that action. However, the knowl-edge and technology bases to support these activities are not fullydeveloped and are receiving little attention in EM’s science and tech-nology programs.

Many of the research opportunities for monitoring and validationhave 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 todetect both current conditions and changes in system behaviors.These methods may involve the application of conceptual,mathematical, and statistical models to determine the types andlocations of observation systems and prediction of the spatialand temporal resolutions at which observations need to bemade.

• Development of validation processes. The research questionsinclude (1) understanding what a representation of systembehavior means and how to judge when a model provides anaccurate representation of a system behavior—the model maygive the right answers for the wrong reasons and thus may notbe a good predictive tool; and (2) how to validate the future per-formance of the model or system behavior based on present-daymeasurements.

• Data for model validation. Determining the key measurementsthat are required to validate models and system behaviors, thespatial and temporal resolutions at which such measurementsmust be obtained, and the extent to which surrogate data (e.g.,




data from lab-scale testing facilities) can be used in validationefforts.

• Research to support the development of methods to monitorfluid and gaseous fluxes through the unsaturated zone, and fordifferentiating diurnal and seasonal changes from longer-termsecular changes. These methods may involve both direct (e.g., in situ sensors) and indirect (e.g., using plants and animals) measurements over long time periods, particularly for harshchemical environments characteristic of some DOE sites. Thisresearch should support the development of both the physicalinstrumentation and measurement techniques. The latterincludes measurement strategies and data analysis (including sta-tistical) approaches.

Other Recommendations on the Research AgendaWithin 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 wholly “owned” by DOE, especiallytransuranic contaminants. The committee recognizes that DOE also hasmany dense non-aqueous phase liquid contamination problems at itssites, but as discussed in Chapter 4, there are many research programsin other parts of DOE and in other federal agencies that provide fund-ing for research on this contaminant. The committee judges that this isless true for research on metals and radionuclides.

The committee also recommends that there be sufficient flexibilityin future calls for subsurface proposals so that support can be providedfor high-risk but potentially high-payoff research ideas that intersectwith the four research emphases. Such projects could produce majorknowledge breakthroughs leading to significant improvements in DOE’scleanup capabilities and costs.

Implementat ion of the Research AgendaThe EM Science Program is a basic research program focused on

very real DOE problems. The program’s success will be measured bothby its impact on advancing the science and its impact on DOE sitecleanup. To be successful, the program must not only be focused on theright problems but it must also encourage researchers to do the rightwork; 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



committee offers strategic recommendations for achieving the first twoobjectives;6 these recommendations address the following:

• integration, • field sites, and • program funding.

IntegrationThe committee believes that EM Science Program managers must

encourage and support integration activities across the program if it isto advance subsurface science and have a significant impact on DOEcleanup. To this end, the program’s implementation strategy shouldhave the following three integrative elements:

1. The program should continue to reach beyond the usual groupof DOE researchers to pull in new and novel ideas to addressDOE-specific problems. Much of the expertise needed to addressthe knowledge gaps identified in Chapter 5 can be found outsidethe traditional DOE research community. Indeed, the previousNRC committee on the EM Science Program encouraged pro-gram managers to broaden the community of investigatorsinvolved in the program and to expand the core or committedcadre of investigators who are knowledgeable of EM’s problems(NRC, 1997b, p. 4). Judging from the committee’s review of thecurrent program portfolio in Chapter 3, the program appears tobe making progress in meeting this objective. The committeeencourages program managers to continue their efforts to broad-en the community of researchers from government agencies withresearch capabilities, national laboratories, universities, andindustry.

2. The program should continue to encourage multidisciplinaryresearch 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 identifiedin Chapter 5 are technically difficult and inherently interdiscipli-nary. The committee believes that to make significant progress inaddressing them, the program must encourage and support mul-tidisciplinary research teams. There is a good representation ofmultiple-investigator projects in the current program portfolio(see Table 3.1), especially collaborations among university and


124

6The third objective on moving science into application, although extremelyimportant, is beyond the statement of task for the present study.



national laboratory scientists. The committee recommends thatprogram managers continue to encourage such collaborations byproviding support for workshops and seminars to bring scientiststogether with site problem holders to discuss DOE contamina-tion problems and possible research approaches; this was rec-ommended by the previous NRC committee on the EM ScienceProgram (NRC, 1997b). The committee offers an additional rec-ommendation to encourage collaborations in the next section ofthis chapter.

3. The program should integrate existing data and ideas—both fromDOE sites and basic research programs outside DOE—to pro-mote advancements in subsurface science and improvements incapabilities to address DOE’s subsurface contamination prob-lems. The program can also play a lead role in integrating theconsiderable amount of relevant subsurface science research thatis being supported by DOE and other federal agencies. As dis-cussed in Chapter 4, there is a great deal of potentially relevantsubsurface research that is being supported outside the EMScience Program, but the committee found that there is little orno effort being made to coordinate these research investments orto transfer results into the DOE cleanup program.

The program has the potential to provide leadership in theadvancement of subsurface science, primarily because it canprovide access to scientifically interesting and intellectually 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 thatcan be used in research projects to address the knowledge gapsidentified earlier in this chapter. Groundwater monitoring datafrom sites like Hanford, for example, could be used to developforensic methods to estimate contaminant release rates or todevelop and test conceptual models (see Chapter 2). However,to be useful in this regard, researchers must have access to DOEdata, sites, and site-knowledgeable personnel.

Field SitesThe committee recommends that program managers examine the

feasibility of developing field research sites where investigators withprogram awards could work on the knowledge gaps described earlier inthis chapter. These field sites could include contaminated or uncontam-inated areas at the major DOE sites; analog uncontaminated sites thathave subsurface characteristics similar to contaminated DOE sites; andeven virtual sites comprised of data on historical and contemporary

C h a p t e r 6



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 realsubsurface and contaminant properties can be made and where mea-surement methodologies can be compared. Research on conceptualmodel development and testing and on validation and monitoring areinherently field based. Researchers must have hands-on familiarity thatcomes from working in the field to develop and test new methodolo-gies and approaches. Research on containment and stabilization willrequire access to field sites to test ideas developed in the laboratory ormodeling studies, for example, to measure in situ rates of chemicalreactions that could be used to develop new and improved contain-ment and treatment approaches.

The establishment of field research sites could have several tangiblebenefits to the program. First, program managers could encourageresearch 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 byestablishing an unsaturated zone field site at one of the major DOEinstallations in the western United States. Second, such sites couldattract new researchers to the program, especially if the field sites couldprovide research opportunities unavailable through other programs.Third, field sites could encourage both formal and informal multidisci-plinary collaborations among the researchers working at these sites,thereby providing benefits that are greater than the sum of individualprojects. Such collaborations could be enhanced if the program identi-fied a site manager who could coordinate the research activities at thesite and encourage researchers with common interests to work together.Finally, the establishment of field research sites could facilitate thetransfer of research results into application because of site proximity tothe 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 wheredrilling, sample collection, and sample handling would be costly andwhere investigators would be required to follow DOE environmental


126

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 fiscalyear 2000 and may be an appropriate test bed for research sponsored by the EMScience Program.



health and safety procedures.8 Moreover, the program may have to payfor the services of a site manager and may have to develop proceduresand provide funding to ensure that site data are properly archived anddisseminated to researchers and cleanup personnel. Consequently, theestablishment of such sites would require additional budget supportbeyond that required to fund individual research projects, and wellbeyond the amount of funding available to the program for new startsin 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 researchprogram and should not be supported at the expense of projects thatinvolve laboratory and modeling approaches. Consequently, additionalfunding would have to be made available to the program to support thedevelopment of field sites, or funding for the sites would have to comefrom other parts of EM (e.g., the Office of Site Closure or the Office ofProject Completion, which have the primary responsibility for cleanupof contaminated soil and groundwater). The use of such sites wouldhave to be evaluated periodically to determine whether they are addingvalue to the research effort, particularly given the cost of such sites rela-tive to the total size of the program budget.

Program FundingThe issue of funding for the EM Science Program has received a

great deal of attention from a previous NRC committee (NRC, 1997b),which concluded that the “program must be large enough to support asignificant number of ‘new starts’ (i.e., new projects or competitiverenewals) each year if it is to be successful in attracting innovative pro-posals from outstanding researchers ….” The program needs to have asignificant number of new starts each year to keep potential investiga-tors engaged and willing to invest the time and intellectual energy tobecome knowledgeable of DOE problems and develop research ideasto 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 helpwith its most difficult contamination problems. New starts are alsoneeded to maintain continuity in the research effort; the advancementof scientific knowledge is a cumulative effort involving many scientists

C h a p t e r 6

127

8Field research at a contaminated site would need to be carefully reviewed bymanagers familiar with the research activity and the nature of hazards at the site toensure that health and safety requirements are met and that the research activitydoes not exacerbate the spread of contamination.



over long periods of time. This effort is set back significantly each timeprogram funding is interrupted. Researchers may become frustrated andmove on to other projects, and graduate students and postdocs mayseek training in other fields. Even a single year’s interruption in programsupport can have negative effects that last for several years.

Small program budgets can also lead to significant investigator frus-tration, especially when proposal success rates fall below acceptednorms and highly rated proposals are declined. When proposal successrates fall to low levels, talented investigators may view the proposalpreparation and submission process as a bad investment of their timeand may stop submitting proposals. This will 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 ofmany research areas supported by the program. However, the commit-tee has no basis on which to recommend a specific funding level, andsuch a recommendation would be well beyond the committee’s state-ment of task. The committee believes that it is the responsibility of EMScience Program managers to estimate the amount of funding requiredto provide adequate support for a research program focused onaddressing the knowledge gaps presented in Chapter 5. One approachfor estimating the annual research budget is to estimate the number ofprojects needed to attain a critical mass of research on each technicalchallenge area, and then to multiply that number by the average annualgrant size.

The committee believes that such estimates could be used to justifyfuture, and possibly larger, budget requests to upper DOE managementand Congress, especially if the estimates were reviewed and validatedby DOE’s internal advisory committees like the EnvironmentalManagement 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 Obser vat ionsThe basic research supported by the EM Science Program and other

relevant research programs in the federal government will have little ifany impact on DOE cleanup unless research results are transferred intotechnology development programs in EM and to problem holders at




DOE sites. EM Science Program managers have a responsibility toensure that specific procedures are in place to foster the handoff fromresearch 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 EMScience Program up to and including the assistant secretary for environ-mental management, if significant progress on closing the knowledgegaps and applying results effectively to the cleanup effort is to be madein the next decade. The development of such leadership remains a con-tinuing challenge—and a significant opportunity—for the EM ScienceProgram and DOE.

C h a p t e r 6



References

Agnew, S.F., J. Boyer, R.A. Corbin, T.B. Duran, J.R. Fitzpatrick, K.A.Jurgensen, T.P. Ortiz, and B.L. Young. 1997. Hanford Tank Chemicaland Radionuclide Inventories: HDW Model, Rev. 4. Report LA-UR-96-3860. Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico.

Albright, J.N., and D.S. Dreesen. 2000. Microhole technology lowersreservoir exploration, characterization costs. Oil and Gas Journal(January 10):39-41.

DOE (Department of Energy). 1995. Closing the Circle on the Splittingof the Atom: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear WeaponsProduction in the United States and What the Department of EnergyIs Doing About It. DOE/EM-0266. Washington, D.C.: Office ofEnvironmental Management.

DOE. 1996. The 1996 Baseline Environmental Management Report (2volumes). DOE/EM-0290. Washington, D.C.: Office ofEnvironmental Management.

DOE. 1997a. Linking Legacies: Connecting the Cold War NuclearWeapons Production Processes to Their EnvironmentalConsequences. DOE/EM-0319. Washington, D.C.: Office ofEnvironmental Management.

DOE. 1997b. Subsurface Contaminants Focus Area 1997 AnnualReport. DOE/EM-0361. Washington, D.C.: Office of EnvironmentalManagement.

DOE. 1998a. Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure. DOE/EM-0362.Washington, D.C.: Office of Environmental Management.

DOE. 1998b. Groundwater/Vadose Zone Integration ProjectSpecification. DOE/RL-98-48. Draft C. December 17. Richland,Washington: Department of Energy.

DOE. 1998c. Environmental Management Science Program Workshop.CONF-980736. Washington, D.C.: Office of EnvironmentalManagement.

R e f e r e n c e s



DOE. 1998d. Subsurface Contaminants Focus Area 1998 AnnualReport. Washington, D.C.: Office of Environmental Management.

DOE. 1998e. The Current and Planned Low-Level Waste DisposalCapacity Report, Revision 1. Washington, D.C.: Office ofEnvironmental Management.

DOE. 1998f. Environmental Management Research and DevelopmentPlan: Solution-Based Investments in Science and Technology.Washington, D.C.: Office of Environmental Management.

DOE. 1998g. Report to Congress on the U.S. Department of Energy’sEnvironmental Management Science Program: Research Funded andIts Linkages to Environmental Cleanup Problems (3 volumes).DOE/EM-0357. Washington, D.C.: Office of EnvironmentalManagement.

DOE. 1999. From Cleanup to Stewardship. DOE/EM-0466.Washington, D.C.: Office of Environmental Management.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1977. Cleaning Up theNation’s Waste Sites: Markets and Technology Trends. EPA 542-R-96-005. Washington, D.C.: Office of Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse.

Gephart, R.E., and R.E. Lundgren. 1998. Hanford Tank Clean Up: AGuide to Understanding the Technical Issues. Richland,Washington: Battelle Press.

Hamel, G., and C.K. Prahalad. 1989. Strategy and Intent. HarvardBusiness Review (May-June): 63.

Hunt, J.R., N. Sitar, and K.S. Udell. 1986a. Nonaqueous phase liquidtransport and cleanup: I. analysis of mechanisms. Water ResourcesResearch 24(8): 1247-1258.

Hunt, J.R., N. Sitar, and K.S. Udell. 1986b. Nonaqueous phase liquidtransport and cleanup: II. experimental studies. Water ResourcesResearch 24(8): 1259-1269.

Illangasekare, T.H., J.L. Ramsey, K.S. Jensen, and M.B. Butts. 1995.Experimental study of movement and distribution of dense organiccontaminants in heterogenous aquifers. Journal of ContaminantHydrology 20: 1-25.

INEEL (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory).1997. Decision Analysis for Remediation Technologies (DART) DataBase and User’s Manual. INEEL/EXT-97-01052, Idaho Falls, Idaho:INEEL.

Karsting, A. B., D.W. Efurd, D.L. Finnegan, D.J. Rokop, D.K. Smith, andJ.L. Thompson. 1999. Migration of plutonium in ground water at theNevada Test Site. Nature 397: 56-59.

Kueper, B.H., and E.O. Frind. 1991. Two-phase flow in heterogeneousporous media 1. model development. Water Resources Research27(6): 1049-1057.




NRC (National Research Council). 1966. Committee on GeologicalAspects of Radioactive Waste Disposal: Report to the U.S. AtomicEnergy Commission. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

NRC. 1994. Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup. Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press.

NRC. 1995. Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology.Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

NRC. 1996a. Building an Effective Environmental Management ScienceProgram: Initial Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National AcademyPress.

NRC. 1996b. Letter Report on the Environmental Management ScienceProgram Dated October 6. Washington, D.C.: Board on RadioactiveWaste Management, National Research Council.

NRC. 1997a. Innovations in Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: FromConcept to Commercialization. Washington, D.C.: NationalAcademy Press.

NRC. 1997b. Building an Effective Environmental Management ScienceProgram: Final Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National AcademyPress.

NRC. 1997c. Improving the Environment: An Evaluation of DOE’sEnvironmental Management Program. Washington, D.C.: NationalAcademy Press.

NRC. 1998. Letter Report on the Environmental Management ScienceProgram Dated December 10. Washington, D.C.: Board onRadioactive Waste Management, National Research Council.

NRC. 1999. Ground Water and Soil Cleanup: Improving Managementof Persistent Contaminants. Washington, D.C.: National AcademyPress.

Olsen, C.R., I.L. Larsen, P.D. Lowry, C.R. Moriones, C.J. Ford, K.C.Dearstone, R.R. Turner, B.L. Kimmel, and C.C. Brandt. 1992.Transport and accumulation of cesium-137 and mercury in theClinch River and Watts Bar Reservoir System. ORNL/ER-7. OakRidge, Tennessee: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Pfannkuch, H.O. 1984. Determination of the contaminant sourcestrength from mass exchange processes at the petroleum ground-water interface in shallow aquifer systems. In Proceedings of theNWWA Conference on Petroleum Hydrocarbons and OrganicChemicals in Groundwater, pp. 111-129. Dublin, Ohio: NationalWell Water Association.

Pielke, R.A., and R. Byerly. 1998. Beyond basic and applied. PhysicsToday (February): 42-46.

Reidel, S.P., K.A. Lindsey, and K.R. Fecht. 1992. Field Trip Guide to theHanford Site. WHC-MR-0391. Richland, Washington: WestinghouseHanford Co.

R e f e r e n c e s



Riley R.G., and J.M. Zachara. 1992. Chemical Contaminants on DOELands and Selection of Contaminated Mixtures for SubsurfaceScience Research. DOE/ER-0547T. Washington, D.C.: Office ofEnergy Research.

Roussel, P.A., K.N. Saad, and T.J. Erickson. 1991. Third GenerationR&D: Managing the Link to Corporate Strategy. Boston,Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

Sandia National Laboratories. 1996. Performance Evaluation of theTechnical Capabilities of DOE Sites for Disposal of Mixed Low-LevelWaste. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories.

Schwille, F. 1988. Dense Chlorinated Solvents in Porous and FracturedMedia. (Translated by J. F. Pankow). Chelsea, Michigan: LewisPublishers.

Thorpe, R.K., W.F. Isherwood, M.D. Dresen, and C.P. Webster-Sholten(eds.). 1990. CERCLA Remedial Investigations Report for the LLNLLivermore Site. UCAR-10299. Livermore, California: LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory.

Tompson, A.F.B., R.D. Falgout, S.G. Smith, W.J. Bosl, and S.F. Ashby,1998. Analysis of subsurface contaminant migration and remedia-tion using high performance computing. Advances in WaterResources 23(3): 203-221. (This paper can be viewed in electronicform at http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/advwatres, where a number ofanimated sequences are available to more clearly visualize theeffects of heterogeneity.)

Walker, J.B., and P.J. Liebendorfer. 1998. Long-term stewardship at theNevada Test Site. Paper prepared for the State Tribal GovernmentWorking Group Subcommittee on Stewardship.(http://207.12.87.1/nucwaste/nts/steward.htm#contamination)

Westinghouse Savannah River Company. 1995. A/M Area GroundwaterCleanup. Fact Sheet. Aiken, South Carolina: Savannah RiverOperations Office.

Westinghouse Savannah River Company. 1998. Savannah River SiteBurial Ground Complex. Fact Sheet. Aiken, South Carolina:Savannah River Operations Office.




Appendixes

135

13359 Subsurface Appendixes 2/15/02 2:16 PM Page 135



A

Description of the Environmental Management Science Program

The Environmental Management (EM) Science Program was initiatedby the 104th Congress to stimulate basic research and technology devel-opment for cleanup of the DOE complex. The program was created inthe conference report that accompanied the Energy and WaterDevelopment Appropriations Bill (Public Law 104-46, 1995):

The conferees agree with the concern expressed by the Senate thatthe Department [of Energy] is not providing sufficient attentionand resources to longer term basic science research which needsto be done to ultimately reduce cleanup costs. The current tech-nology development program continues to favor near-termapplied research efforts while failing to utilize the existing basicresearch infrastructure within the Department and the Office ofEnergy Research. As a result of this, the conferees direct that atleast $50,000,000 of the technology development funding provid-ed to the environmental management program in fiscal year 1996be managed by the Office of Energy Research and used to devel-op a program that takes advantage of laboratory and universityexpertise. This funding is to be used to stimulate the required basicresearch, development and demonstration efforts to seek new andinnovative cleanup methods to replace current conventionalapproaches which are often costly and ineffective.

The EM Science Program is managed jointly by DOE’s Office ofEnvironmental Management and Office of Science.1 Staff from thesetwo offices work together to develop proposal calls, review proposals,

A p p e n d i x A

137

1Formerly the Office of Energy Research. The office was renamed by Congressin 1998.




and make award recommendations. Staff of these two offices have dif-ferent but complementary roles in the proposal solicitation and reviewprocess, as explained below.

The program is run on an annual cycle that begins each fall with thepublication of a program announcement in the Federal Register invitinginvestigators in academia, national laboratories, and industry to submitproposals to the program. The proposal submission process has twosteps. Initially, investigators are invited to submit short descriptions oftheir research ideas, or pre-proposals, for consideration.2 These pre-pro-posals undergo an in-house screening to determine whether they meetthe criteria laid out in the program announcement, namely, whether theproposed project constitutes basic research (as opposed to technologydevelopment, for example) and addresses one or more of the identifiedpriority areas. Investigators whose pre-proposals are judged to meetthese criteria are then encouraged to submit full proposals.

The review of full proposals is carried out in a two-stage process,the first to assess scientific merit and the second to assess programrelevance. This review process is managed jointly by Office of Scienceand Office of Environmental Management staff. Merit review isobtained through peer review panels, composed of scientists fromindustry, national laboratories, and universities, organized along disci-plinary lines consistent with normal Office of Science practices. Thoseproposals that are highly rated in the merit review are then put forwardfor relevance review, which is performed by a panel of program man-agers from DOE head-quarters and field offices who are knowledgeableof EM’s cleanup needs and priorities.

Following these reviews, Office of Science and Office of Environ-mental Management program staff provide an overall rating for each ofthe proposals and make award recommendations to their management.Final award decisions are made by the director of the Office of Scienceand the deputy assistant secretary for science and technology, Office ofEnvironmental Management. Successful proposals are funded for up tothree years, typically at $100,000 to $300,000 per year.


138

2The preapplication process is voluntary.




B

List of Presentations

September 9, 1998Opening Remarks by DOE, Gerald Boyd, DOE-Office of Environmental

Management (EM); Roland Hirsch, DOE-Office of Energy Research(ER)

Overview of the EM Science Program, Mark Gilbertson, DOE-EM;Roland Hirsch, DOE-ER

Overview of the DOE Complex and Subsurface ContaminationProblems, Tom Hicks, Savannah River Site

Overview of the EM Science Program Portfolio Directed at SubsurfaceContamination Problems, Tom Williams, Idaho Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory

Other R&D Work in EM Focused on Subsurface ContaminationProblems, Tom Hicks, Savannah River Site

November 10, 1998Update on EM Science Program Budget, Mark Gilbertson, DOE-EMSubsurface Contamination Problems at the Savannah River Site, Tom

Temples, DOE-Savannah RiverSubsurface Contamination Problems at the Oak Ridge Site, Gary

Hartman and Paula Kirk, Oak Ridge Site

December 15, 1998Subsurface Contamination Problems at the Nevada Test Site, Robert

Bangerter, DOE-Nevada Operations OfficeSubsurface Contamination Problems at the Idaho Site, Tom Williams,

Tom Wood, Tom Stoops, Bob Smith, Annette Schafer, IdahoEngineering and Environmental Laboratory

Subsurface Contamination Problems at the Hanford Site, Roy Gephart,John Zachara, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

A p p e n d i x B

139




January 28, 1999Update on EM Science Program, Gerald Boyd, DOE-EM; Mark

Gilbertson, DOE-EM; Roland Hirsch, DOE-Office of Science (SC)EM Science Program Opportunities and Challenges in Subsurface

Research: A View from Environmental Management Advisory Board(EMAB), Frank Parker, Vanderbilt University, EMAB ScienceCommittee Chair

Research Programs in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Mary JoBaedecker, USGS

Research Programs in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),Lee Mulkey, EPA

Research Programs in the U.S. Department of Energy, SkipChamberlain, DOE-EM and John Houghton, DOE-SC

Research Programs in the U.S. Department of Defense, Bradley Smith,Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program

May 6, 1999Update on the EM Science Program and Desired Outcomes of the

Committee’s Work, Mark Gilbertson, DOE-EM


140




A p p e n d i x C

141

C

Biographical Sketches of Committee Members

JANE C.S. LONG (Chair) is dean of the Mackay School of Mines atthe University of Nevada, Reno. She is an expert in fracture hydrologyand has worked on several U.S. and international underground nuclearrepository research projects. She serves on the National Research Coun-cil’s Board on Radioactive Waste Management and has served as chairof the Board on Earth Science’s Rock Mechanics Committee. Dr. Longreceived an Sc.B. in engineering from Brown University, an M.S. ingeotechnical engineering and a Ph.D. in materials science and mineralengineering from the University of California, Berkeley.

JAMES K. MITCHELL (Vice-Chair) is university distinguished profes-sor emeritus at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Hehas served on several NRC committees including the Committee onSeeing Into the Earth and as chair of the Geotechnical Board. Dr.Mitchell’s expertise lies in the areas of soil behavior related to geotech-nical problems, soil improvement and ground reinforcement, and insitu measurement of soil properties. He received his B.S. in civil engi-neering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and his M.S. and Sc.D. in civil engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the NationalAcademy of Engineering.

RANDALL J. CHARBENEAU is professor of civil engineering andassociate dean for research in the College of Engineering at the Univer-sity of Texas at Austin. His expertise is in groundwater pollution, fateand transport, and modeling. Dr. Charbeneau is a member of the NRCCommittee on Technologies for Cleanup of Subsurface Contaminants inthe DOE Weapons Complex. He holds civil engineering degrees from




the University of Michigan (B.S.), Oregon State University (M.S.), andStanford University (Ph.D.).

JEFFREY J. DANIELS is an associate professor in the Department ofGeological Sciences at Ohio State University. His expertise is in shal-low geophysics for subsurface characterization, and he focuses hisresearch on the use of ground penetrating radar and shallow seismictechniques for remote characterization of the subsurface. Dr. Daniels isa member of the American Geophysical Union, the Society of Explora-tion Geophysicists, and several other professional societies. He holds aB.S. and an M.S. in geology from Michigan State University and a Ph.D.in geophysical engineering from the Colorado School of Mines.

JOHN N. FISCHER is an environmental consultant. His expertise isin groundwater hydrology. His career includes 22 years with the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) during which time he served as acting asso-ciate director, associate chief of the Water Resources Division and theNational Mapping Division, and as assistant chief hydrologist for pro-gram coordination. In the latter capacity, he was responsible for USGSprograms at civilian and DOE radioactive waste disposal sites and atthe DOE site at Yucca Mountain. He holds degrees from the U.S. NavalAcademy, Michigan State University, and the University of Arizona.

TISSA H. ILLANGASEKARE is the AMAX distinguished chair of envi-ronmental sciences and engineering and a professor of civil engineeringat the Colorado School of Mines. Until August 1998, he served as aprofessor of civil and environmental engineering in the Department ofCivil Environmental and Architectural Engineering at the University ofColorado, Boulder. His expertise is in numerical modeling of flow andtransport in porous and fractured media, multiphase flow modeling,aquifer remediation, and physical modeling of flow and transport inlaboratory test tanks. He holds a Ph.D. in civil engineering fromColorado State University. He is also a registered professional engineerand a professional hydrologist.

AARON L. MILLS is a professor of environmental science at theUniversity of Virginia. He has expertise in microbial transformations oforganic and inorganic pollutants and bacteria in the subsurface envi-ronment. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union, theAmerican Society for Microbiology, and the National Ground WaterAssociation. Dr. Mills holds a B.A. in biology from Ithaca College, andan M.S. in soil science with a minor in microbiology and a Ph.D. insoil science and ecology from Cornell University.


142




A p p e n d i x C

143

DONALD T. REED is group leader of the Actinide Speciation andChemistry Group in the Chemical Technology Division at ArgonneNational Laboratory. He is an expert in radionuclide speciation andmigration in subsurface media. He has undertaken a number of basicand applied projects in the fields of actinide speciation, solubility, andsubsurface interactions. His most recent research is focused on micro-biological-actinide interactions in the subsurface and the application ofsynchrotron-based methods to the analysis of actinide species in envi-ronmental samples. He is a member of the Nuclear Chemistry Divisionof the American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, andthe Material Research Society. He holds a Ph.D. in physical chemistryfrom Ohio State University.

JEROME SACKS is director of the National Institute of StatisticalSciences in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina and a professor atthe Institute of Statistics and Decision Sciences at Duke University. Hisinterests include the use of statistical techniques for characterization ofsubsurface properties. He has served on several National ResearchCouncil committees and boards including membership on the NRCCommittee on Building an Environmental Management Science Pro-gram, which helped the Department of Energy establish its Environ-mental Management Science Program, the topic of the current study.He has held professorships at the California Institute of Technology,Columbia University, Cornell University, Northwestern University,Rutgers University, University of Illinois, and Duke University. Dr. Sackshas served as program director for statistics and probability at theNational Science Foundation. He holds a B.A. and Ph.D. in mathemat-ics from Cornell University.

BRIDGET R. SCANLON is a research scientist in the Bureau ofEconomic Geology and also teaches courses in the geology and civilengineering departments at the University of Texas at Austin. Herexpertise lies in unsaturated zone hydrology, soil physics, environmen-tal tracers, and numerical simulations to quantify subsurface flow inarid regions. She served on the National Research Council Committeeon Ward Valley. She has served as a consultant to the Nuclear WasteTechnical Review Board. Dr. Scanlon received her Ph.D. in geology atthe University of Kentucky.

LEON T. SILVER is a W.M. Keck Foundation professor for resourcegeology, emeritus, Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, at theCalifornia Institute of Technology. He has expertise in geology, petrolo-gy, and geochemistry, with special emphasis on uranium and thorium.




Dr. Silver was a public works officer in the U.S. Naval Civil EngineerCorps from 1945 to 1946, and held several positions at the U.S. Geo-logical Survey before he joined Caltech. He has served on numerousNRC committees, panels and boards, including his past membership onthe committee on Building an Environmental Management ScienceProgram. He earned a B.S. in civil engineering from the University ofColorado, an M.S. in geology from the University of New Mexico, anda Ph.D. in geology and geochemistry from the California Institute ofTechnology. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences anda past president of the Geological Society of America.

CLAIRE WELTY is associate professor of civil and environmentalengineering and associate director and graduate advisor at the Schoolof Environmental Science, Engineering and Policy at Drexel University.She has expertise in groundwater hydrology and contaminant transport.Her current research projects include evaluation of the effects of theinteraction between porous medium heterogeneity and fluid density onfield-scale dispersion, stochastic analysis of virus transport in aquifers,and tracer tests in fractured sedementary rock. She teaches graduatecourses in groundwater hydrology, subsurface contaminant transport,water resources systems analysis, and stochastic subsurface hydrology.Dr. Welty holds a Ph.D. from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


144




D

Additional Resources

The following publications provide additional information on theDOE complex and subsurface contamination research and develop-ment. The DOE and EM web sites (www.doe.gov; www.em.doe.gov)provide additional information and resources.

1. Closing the Circle on the Splitting of the Atom: The Environmen-tal Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production in the United Statesand What the Department of Energy Is Doing About It. Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of EnvironmentalManagement. 1995.

The report describes the environmental legacy from the pro-duction of nuclear weapons and the cleanup underway by DOE.The report gives a detailed explanation of the nuclear productionprocess and includes information on the extent and types of con-taminants produced by each of the steps in the process. Thereport also describes the types of waste, cleanup actions, andprogress made at some DOE sites. The report contains manyphotographs of the sites and past waste management practices. Italso contains a short section on the production of nuclearweapons in other countries, and on environmental contamina-tion in the former Soviet Union.

2. Bioremediation of Metals and Radionuclides: What It Is andHow It Works. LBNL-42595. J. McCullough, T.C. Hazen, S.M.Benson, F.B. Metting, and A.C. Palmisano. Lawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory. 1995.

This report explores the possibilities of using bioremediationtechnology to clean up hazardous metal and radionuclide conta-minants found in the DOE complex. Included in the report is anoverview of contamination problems at DOE facilities, a summa-ry of some of the most commonly used bioremediation technolo-

A p p e n d i x D

145



gies, a discussion of the chemical and physical properties ofmetals and radionuclides found in contaminant mixtures at DOEsites, an overview of the basic microbial processes that occur inbioremediation, specific in situ bioremediation processes thatcan be used on these contaminant mixtures, and a hypotheticalcase study of a composite DOE site with contaminated ground-water.

3. The 1996 Baseline Environmental Management Report.DOE/EM-0290. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy,Office of Environmental Management. 1996.

The report provides an estimate of life-cycle costs and sched-ules for DOE’s environmental cleanup mission. Although the costand schedule estimates in this report have been superseded bythe 1998 Paths to Closure Report, the descriptions of waste andcontamination problems at DOE sites are still among the mostcomprehensive published to date.

4. Linking Legacies: Connecting the Cold War Nuclear WeaponsProduction Processes to Their Environmental Consequences.DOE/EM-0319. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy,Office of Environmental Management. 1997.

The report provides a detailed analysis of the sources ofwaste and the contamination generated by the production ofnuclear weapons, giving specific environmental impacts of par-ticular production activities, in effect “linking” two of DOE’slegacies—nuclear weapons manufacturing and environmentalmanagement. The report quantifies the current environmentalresults of past weapons production activities and also containsinformation on the mission and functions of nuclear weaponsfacilities, the inventories of waste and materials remaining atthese facilities, and the extent and characteristics of contamina-tion in and around these facilities.

5. Accelerating Cleanup: Paths to Closure. DOE/EM-0362.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office ofEnvironmental Management. 1998.

The report outlines DOE’s cleanup plans based on site-devel-oped, project-by-project forecasts of the scope, schedule, andcosts to complete the more than 300 projects in its cleanup pro-gram. The forecasts provide information on technical activities,budgets, worker health and safety, and risk. The report also pro-vides a discussion of the Environmental Management program’sdecision-making process and the relationship of the “Paths toClosure” plan to that process. Included in the report are sum-maries of environmental management activities at specific sites,which provide information on the type and extent of the contam-


146



ination problem, end states, cost and completion dates, remedialactions, and critical closure paths.

6. Groundwater/Vadose Zone Integration Project Specification.DOE/RL-98-48. Draft C. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofEnergy, Office of Environmental Management. 1998.

The report describes the Hanford Site’s Groundwater/VadoseZone Integration Project, a science-based strategy established in1997 to integrate all aspects of the remediation work at Hanfordwith the ultimate goal of protecting the Columbia River, river-dependent life, and users of the river’s resources. Included in thereport is a detailed description of the environmental setting ofthe Hanford Site, its climate and meteorology, geology, hydrolo-gy, water quality, and ecology. Also included is a long-range planfor remediation and closure for each of Hanford’s main areas(100, 200, and 300 areas). The report appendixes includedescriptions of technical elements, the operational history ofwaste disposal at Hanford, federal and state laws and regula-tions, current state of technical knowledge, and an applied sci-ence and technology plan.

7. Environmental Management Research and DevelopmentProgram Plan: Solution-Based Investments in Science andTechnology. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy,Office of Environmental Management. 1998.

This program plan describes the investments that theEnvironmental Management (EM) program will make in scienceand technology to support the DOE cleanup mission. It alsodescribes EM’s approach to planning and managing these invest-ments. The plan incorporates what DOE terms “roadmapping” toidentify the science and technology areas that promise the great-est return on investment by reducing cleanup project cost,schedule, technical risk, and risk to workers, the public, and theenvironment. The program plan describes EM’s major problemareas, including contaminated environmental soil and ground-water, high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, andnuclear materials.

8. Hanford Tank Clean Up: A Guide to Understanding the TechnicalIssues. R.E. Gephart and R.E. Lundgren. Battelle Press. 1998.

The report provides a good summary of the basic issues relat-ed to high-level radioactive waste that is being stored in 177underground tanks at the Hanford Site. It provides backgroundinformation on the history of the site, the production of high-level radioactive waste, the construction of the undergroundtanks and related facilities, and efforts to manage the waste andassociated environmental contamination. The report also details

A p p e n d i x D

147



the critical technical issues that need to be addressed forcleanup of the tanks.

9. National Research Council (NRC). Ground Water and SoilCleanup: Improving Management of Persistent Contaminants.Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 1999.

This report advises DOE on technologies and strategies forcleaning up three types of soil and ground water contaminants:metals, radionuclides, and dense nonaqueous phase liquids. Thereport describes DOE’s program in groundwater and soil remedi-ation, the changing regulatory environment, and technologiesbeing used to remediate each of the contaminant types notedabove. Specific advice to DOE suggests ways to set priorities intechnology development, to improve the overall technologydevelopment program, to overcome barriers to technologydeployment, and to address budget limitations.

10. From Cleanup to Stewardship. DOE/EM-0466. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Energy, Office of EnvironmentalManagement. 1999.

This is a companion report to Accelerating Cleanup: Paths toClosure and provides background information on current andplanned long-term stewardship activities at DOE sites. The reportsummarizes what is currently known about end states at DOEsites, and it also provides information on the number and loca-tions of sites that will require continuing management after DOEcleanup is completed. Additionally, the report identifies severalissues that will need to be addressed to ensure a successful tran-sition from cleanup to stewardship.


148



E

Interim Report

Use original copy. (8 pages; shoot & strip in)

A p p e n d i x E

149



A p p e n d i x E

151




152



A p p e n d i x E

153




154



A p p e n d i x E

155




156



A p p e n d i x E

157




158



F

Acronym List

DNAPL Dense non-aqueous phase liquidDOD U.S. Department of DefenseDOE U.S. Department of Energy

EM Environmental ManagementEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

NAPL Non-aqueous phase liquidNRC National Research CouncilNSF National Science Foundation

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

A p p e n d i x F

159



Color Plates




LEGEND

Facility Boundary

Stream

Estimated extentof aquifer zoneIIB2 saturation

100 pCi/ml tritium

500 pCi/ml tritium

5,000 pCi/ml tritium




1 mile

1.6 kilometers

0

0

Solid W

aste O

perations

MW and LLWManagement Facilities

Old Radioactive Waste

Burial Ground

N

LEGEND

Facility Boundary

Stream

Estimated extentof aquifer zoneIIB2 saturation

5 ug /l trichloroethylene





1 mile

1.6 kilometers

0

0

Solid W

aste

Operations

MW and LLWManagement Facilities

Old Radioactive Waste

Burial Ground

N

PLATE 1A



C o l o r P l a t e s

PLATE 1A Plan view of the

Waste Burial Ground Com-

plex at the Savannah River

Site and associated tritium

(top) and trichloroethylene

(bottom) groundwater

plumes.

PLATE1B Schematic cross-

section of the surface barri-

er, or geosynthetic cap, and

photo of a cap that is being

constructed over the old

waste burial ground.

SOURCE: Savannah River

Site.

PLATE1B




PLATE 2 Plan view of Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site showing areas of plutonium soil contamination.

SOURCE: Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site.



C o l o r P l a t e sCopyright © 2003 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF File provided by the National Academies Press (www.nap.edu) for researchpurposes are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution, posting, or copying is strictly prohibited withoutwritten permission of the NAP.Generated for [email protected] on Tue Aug 26 04:58:04 2003



PLATE 3A

PLATE 3 Plan view of Hanford Site showing locations of features in the 100 and 200 Areas and boundaries of major ground-

water plumes. The 100 Area is located along the Columbia River and contains the site’s production reactors. The 200 Area,

which is located in the central part of the site, contains waste management facilities. A. Radionuclide contaminant plumes.

B. Hazardous chemical and nitrate plumes. (DWS = drinking water standards.) SOURCE: Richland Operations Office.



C o l o r P l a t e s

PLATE 3B




PLATE 4 Oblique view (looking from below the tanks toward the surface) showing cesium-137 contamination beneath

the SX tank farm in 200 East Area at Hanford. Elevation is shown in feet above mean sea level, and the visible tanks are

numbered with the prefix SX-. SOURCE: Richland Operations Office.

PLATE 5 Photo of mercury

found in soils at the Y-12

Plant at the Oak Ridge Site.

SOURCE: Oak Ridge

National Laboratory.



research needs in subsurface science · mary lou zoback, u.s. geological survey, menlo park,...

Documents