156 PART V: INTEGRATION OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND HEALTH requirements by many environmental laws compel the Department to make the information on which its decisions are based available for public scrutiny. In many instances, the Department has failed to communicate the scientific and technical basis of important decisions. An example is a 1991 decision to build an incinerator at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. The public documents initially prepared for the facility used outdated information on waste generation at the site and did not thoroughly discuss issues associated with the incineration of off-site waste. Both those failings attracted public concern and had to be re-addressed by the Department. The reasons for the Department's lack of successful communication are varied. In some instances, the Department did not internally understand the project and so was unable to explain the rationale clearly. In others, the Department had the technical information but lacked the communication channels to work effectively with the public. In other cases, however, the Department has been more successful—often with substantial assistance from skilled, independent facilitators or technical experts. A frequently praised example is the evaluation of land-use options at the Fernald Site in Ohio. Citizens reviewed levels of contamination, remediation alternatives, and other factors and came to agreement with the Department about remediation goals. Another example is the storage of special nuclear materials at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site in Colorado; the Department at first assumed that citizens would object to a new facility but, after describing the technical issues, discovered that citizens were open to the idea. Recommendations: 1. The Department of Energy should improve its own abilities, and those of its contractors, to communicate scientific and technical information. The various community-relations personnel in the Department system, as well as program and project managers, need the tools to communicate effectively with a variety of audiences and their understanding of program wide and complex-wide issues needs to be sufficient to ensure that they can discuss matters beyond their immediate concern or expertise. 2. The Department of Energy should also make better use of outside resources in communicating scientific and technical information. That can include working with independent professionals. Another component of the effort can be providing funds to concerned community groups so that they can develop their own technical understanding and expertise. Indeed, the Department has already provided some such grants. It should, however, further define the selection and performance criteria for the awards. The INTEGRATION OF S&T INTO THE COMMUNITY-RELATIONS PROCESS 157 Issue: It is important to meld public concerns and scientific and technical information into decision-making. Many of the decisions faced by the EM Program cannot be made strictly within a box created by scientific and technical information. Practical factors compel consideration of cost and other resource limitations (including sometimes those of regulatory agencies). Political factors that influence decisions include socioeconomic impacts, cultural demands, such policy issues as nonproliferation, and public concerns. A decision that is not supported by sound scientific and technical understanding might not succeed or might result in unnecessary costs or risks. The challenge for EM managers is to bring together a variety of factors into a well-balanced, implementable decision. That is inherently a dynamic process in which the elements of individual decisions will vary with the nature of the activity (which can range from groundwater remediation to nuclearmaterial stabilization) and with local concerns. Recommendation: The Department of Energy should seek to improve understanding and communication of the role of scientific and technical information relative to other factors in its decision-making. It should identify the role of public participation in the decision-making process. To be useful, public participation should be designed to address well-defined issues, occur early enough to influence outcomes, and have clear mechanisms for considering and responding to public comments. References Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National Laboratories, prepared by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. February 1995. The report, also know as the Galvin Task Force, examines the role of Department of Energy National Laboratories and reviews the Department of Energy Environmental Management Program. Strongly critical of its activities, the report recommends changes in governance, economic role, science and engineering role, and environmental role. One of the most important challenges facing the Department and its laboratories to achieve greater integration of its various applied and fundamental energy R&D programs. Many fields of research and technology development could make up an appropriate energy agenda for the laboratories. Benchmarking for Change: A Workshop Resulting from the RI/FS Benchmarking Study, February 1995. Organized by the Department of Energy Office of Environmental Restoration. The workshop summaries are not yet available, but copies of the presentations have been compiled. The workshop, chaired by Ned Larson (EM-45) focused on the highlights of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RIFS) Benchmarking study. Such issues as partnerships, project management, procurement, and pilot projects were discussed in breakout sessions. Building Consensus Through Risk Assessment and Risk Management in the Department of Energy Environmental Remediation Program, NRC (National Research Council). 1994a. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Cleaning Up the Department of Energy's Nuclear Weapons Complex, Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office, May 1994. The report outlines the Department's environmental goals and its cleanup program, including such policy issues as understanding risks, weighing costs and benefits, setting priorities, and investing in the development of technologies. The report acknowledges that the Department's cleanup program must address a problem that was created and REFERENCES 159 largely ignored over the last 50 years. The department is faced with doing so during an especially tight budget climate. CBO recommends that understanding of risks and costs better would be the best way to determine priorities for allocating the scarce cleanup funds. It also recommends investing more heavily in technology development, delaying technically difficult projects, and cutting overhead costs to improve the efficiency of cleanup efforts. In addition, new management systems might help the Department of Energy and Congress track the performance of cleanup projects. Complex Cleanup: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production, OTA (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment), 1991. OTA-0484. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Environmental Management 1995: Progress and Plans of the Environmental Management Program, February 1995, US Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management. The report identifies 1994 accomplishments in the topics established as goals of the Environmental Management Program: • Eliminate and manage urgent risks in the system. Emphasize health and safety of workers and the public. Establish a system that is managerially and financially in control. • Demonstrate tangible results. • Focus technology development on overcoming obstacles to progress. • Establish a stronger partnership between the Department and its stakeholders. National programs and site summaries provide an overview of the activities in environmental regulation, waste management, environmental restoration, technology development, nuclear-material and -facilities stabilization, safety and health, risk management and priority-setting, and public accountability and outreach. Hanford Integrated Planning Process: 1993 Hanford Site Specific Science and Technology Plan. Pacific Northwest Laboratory. 1993. U.S. Department of Energy Richland Operations Office Report DOE/RL-93-38. Richland, WA. Health and Ecological Risks at the US Department of Energy's Nuclear Weapons Complex: A Qualitative Evaluation. Consortium for Environment Risk Evaluation (A Tulane/Xavier Program for the US Department of Energy). CERE Interim Risk Report. March 1995. Independent Technical Review of the Brookhaven National Laboratory Environmental Restoration Program. June 1995. US Department of Energy, Chicago Operations Office, chartered an Independent technical review team to assess the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) Environmental Restoration Program on the basis of commercial business practices and metrics and to recommend improvements if commercial and BNL practices, processes, or performance differed substantially. The overriding environmental-restoration goal in the commercial realm was defined to protect human health and the environment within the legal framework and within costs and schedules while providing immediate, open communication with interested and affected parties. In industry, protecting the ability to make money was considered paramount, so liability was often reduced quickly by investments in environmental activities. The team provided recommendations for business 160 PART V: INTEGRATION OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND HEALTH Independent Technical Review of Environmental Restoration at Los Alamos National Laboratory, January 1995. Conducted by the Environmental Management Program at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. "To assess the barriers facing the program and develop approaches to ensure restoration success," the independent technical review team developed commercial standards by which to compare the restoration activities at Los Alamos. Benchmarking analysis included costs of operation. Independent Technical Review of the Rocky Flats Program, June 1995. US Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization, requested an independent technical review of the FY 1995 liability reduction and building baseline activities at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. To achieve liability reduction and improve efficiency, it was recommended that the DOE Rocky Flats Field Office senior management translate the strategic plan into a work logic based on budget and contractor performance measures. The change from a manage and operate (M&O) contractor to a performance based integrating contractor (PBIC) was thought to provide a unique opportunity to establish a new working relationship based on commercial business-like conduct and cleanup. Management Changes Needed to Expand Use of Innovative Cleanup Technologies, US General Accounting Office, August 1994. The report identifies internal and external barriers to the use of new environmental technologies. It notes that although the Department has spent much to develop waste-cleanup technologies, little new technology is being implemented in the agency's cleanup actions. Part of the agency's problem, the report notes, is that the Department does not have a well-coordinated and fully integrated technology-development program. The Department's plan to restructure its technology-development programs is a step toward alleviating the problem. Field offices will also consider new and innovative technologies more seriously. Organization and Staffing Review, January 1994. Office of Assistant Secretary for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management. At the request of the Assistant Secretary of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Administration led a review of program-related organizations, their staffing, and the associated environmentalmanagement functions at headquarters and field locations. The review provides a perspective on how environmental-management programs are being administered by federal personnel and what issues attended their performance. Project Performance Metrics Study, November 1993. Prepared by Independent Project Analysis, Inc., Reston, Virginia. The report was commissioned by the Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM) of the US Department of Energy to asses the status of the EM project systems and to provide a baseline for measuring improvements against industry and other organizations. The report compares key measures of the environmental restoration and waste management project systems with the Independent Project Analysis proprietary industry Environmental Remediation and Capital Projects databases. The study establishes a comparison with industry and other organizations with respect to cost, schedule performance, project duration, and management turnover. Conclusions are drawn about the competitiveness of the project systems, and recommendations identify |