Department of Energy: Management Changes Needed to Expand Use of
Innovative Cleanup Technologies (Letter Report, 08/10/94,
GAO/RCED-94-205).

Although the Energy Department (DOE) has spent a substantial amount of
money to develop waste cleanup technology for the nation's nuclear
weapons complex, little new technology has found its way into use.  Even
where new technology has been successfully demonstrated, agency
officials have been reluctant to try new approaches, tending instead to
choose conventional techniques to clean up their facilities.  As a
result, opportunities for more effective cleanup solutions may be
missed.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-94-205
     TITLE:  Department of Energy: Management Changes Needed to Expand 
             Use of Innovative Cleanup Technologies
      DATE:  08/10/94
   SUBJECT:  Environmental policies
             Technology transfer
             Pollution control
             Environmental research
             Research and development
             Environmental monitoring
             Nuclear waste disposal
             Nuclear waste management
             Cost control
             Interagency relations
IDENTIFIER:  Hanford (WA)
             Savannah River (SC)
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Secretary of Energy

August 1994

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - MANAGEMENT
CHANGES NEEDED TO EXPAND USE OF
INNOVATIVE CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES

GAO/RCED-94-205

DOE Needs to Expand Use of Cleanup Technologies


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DOE - Department of Energy
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  MAWS - Minimum Additive Waste Stabilization Concept
  OTD - Office of Technology Development
  VOC - volatile organic compounds

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-257190

August 10, 1994

The Honorable Hazel R.  O'Leary
The Secretary of Energy

Dear Madam Secretary: 

The Department of Energy (DOE) faces the major challenge of cleaning
up the waste generated by more than four decades of nuclear weapons
production.  The methods currently available to clean up
contamination, however, are often ineffective and extremely
expensive, as reflected by the agency's recent estimates that
environmental cleanup could cost as much as $300 billion over a
30-year period.  Developing less costly and more effective cleanup
technologies may be the only way the nation can afford to clean up
the vast amounts of waste generated by the nation's nuclear weapons
production complex. 

Our objective in this review was to evaluate the internal and
external barriers that are inhibiting the use of new and innovative
technologies in environmental cleanup.  This report is one of a
series of reports that we are issuing as part of our general
management review of DOE. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Although DOE has spent a substantial amount to develop waste cleanup
technology, little new technology finds its way into the agency's
cleanup actions.  Even where new technology has been successfully
demonstrated, agency officials are reluctant to try new approaches,
tending instead to choose conventional techniques to clean up their
facilities.  As a result, opportunities for more effective cleanup
solutions may be missed. 

DOE's technology problems began by not having a well-coordinated and
fully integrated technology development program.  The agency's
technology needs have neither been comprehensively identified to
allow prudent research decisions, nor have various environmental
program offices in headquarters and in the field worked together
effectively to identify and evaluate all of the possible technology
solutions available.  Furthermore, internal decision-making processes
have prevented a full discussion of the opportunities for new and
promising technologies to find their way into cleanup actions. 

DOE recognizes these obstacles to technology acceptance and is taking
several actions.  For example, a plan for restructuring technology
development programs was approved in January 1994.  This plan is
currently being implemented at headquarters and the field.  In
addition, field officials have been instructed to more seriously
consider new and improved technology.  DOE is also working with
regulators to achieve greater acceptance of new and innovative
technology.  While these are welcome changes, it remains to be seen
whether the agency's strategy will ensure that all parties are
involved in decisions affecting whether new technologies are used to
clean up contaminated sites. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

DOE faces an enormous and expensive environmental challenge.  Over
the last 40 years, DOE and its predecessor agencies disposed of more
than 1 billion cubic feet of hazardous and/or radioactive waste at
weapons production facilities around the country.  Since little was
understood about the types of waste generated and their effect on the
environment, the waste was often stored in drums or cribs or poured
directly into the soil--techniques that would not be acceptable by
today's standards.  Over time, many of the original containers have
deteriorated.  At such disposal sites, liquid effluents can seep down
into the soil and ultimately reach the groundwater.  As a result of
earlier disposal practices, soil and groundwater contamination is now
widespread.  Over 5,700 individual contaminated "plumes" have been
identified on DOE lands.\1

To address technology issues, in 1989 DOE established the Office of
Technology Development (OTD) within the Office of Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management.\2 OTD is responsible for managing a
national program to support the technology needs of other
environmental program offices.  OTD accomplishes its mission by
funding a variety of projects to demonstrate the potential of new and
improved approaches to cleanup problems.  OTD's goal is to ensure
that the technology is developed to the stage where it can be
commercialized and, thus, available in the private sector.  OTD is
charged with identifying technologies with DOE-wide potential and has
demonstrations under way using such advanced technologies as
ground-penetrating radar and bioremediation.  (See app.  I for more
details on these and other new techniques.) For fiscal year 1993, OTD
spent $380 million, and the office has spent about $600 million since
its creation in 1989.\3

OTD supports the offices of Waste Management and Environmental
Restoration within the Office of Environmental Management, which in
turn work with DOE field offices, contractors, the states, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to identify and select the most
appropriate technology to apply to a given situation.\4 DOE has
entered into enforceable agreements with EPA and the states, thereby
committing the agency to milestones for completing cleanup work at
each site.\5 In support of the agreements, DOE evaluates a variety of
cleanup technologies and recommends the preferred alternative to the
regulator (EPA and/or the state).  The regulator, in turn, is
responsible for approving the technology that will be used to clean
up the site.  Whether a milestone can be achieved is often dependent
on the technology selected for use at a particular site. 


--------------------
\1 Plumes are mobile columns of contaminants that are dispersed in
soils and groundwater. 

\2 In 1994 this office was renamed the Office of Environmental
Management. 

\3 This figure represents expenditures from 1989 through 1993. 

\4 OTD also supports the Office of Facility Transition and
Management, which was created in 1992.  We concentrated our work on
the offices of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management. 

\5 We are preparing a report on DOE's overall management of its
cleanup program, focusing in particular on the influence of current
agreements on cleanup progress. 


   INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY IS NOT
   BEING USED TO CLEAN UP
   CONTAMINATED SITES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The need for improved technologies to clean up contaminated sites is
widely recognized by DOE and its stakeholders, which include EPA, the
states, and the public.  Although OTD and others have conducted
several demonstration projects to show the effectiveness of
innovative cleanup approaches, new technologies are not being
seriously considered or used to clean up DOE's contaminated sites. 

DOE has received about $23 billion for environmental management since
1989, yet little cleanup has resulted.\6 Experts agree that many
cleanup technologies currently in use are extremely costly and offer
only short-term solutions.  For example, one of the most commonly
used methods for treating contaminant plumes--pump-and-treat--does
not remove the contamination source, thus failing as a permanent
solution.\7 Furthermore, current technologies to treat waste
contaminated by both hazardous and radioactive material--mixed
waste--need significant improvement.  The vast majority of the
agency's waste is mixed waste.\8 DOE recently reported to the
Congress that treatment technologies need to be modified for
two-thirds of these identified mixed wastes.\9

DOE's own technology program summary states the technology challenge
this way: 

     ".  .  .the development of new technology presents the best hope
     for ensuring a substantive reduction in risk to the environment
     and improved worker/public safety within realistic financial
     constraints."

Using cleanup technology that is faster, cheaper, and safer than
conventional approaches is growing in importance.  Over the next few
years, agreements that DOE has signed require accelerated progress in
cleaning up its vast number of contaminated sites.  Given the
leadtime from proposing solutions to applying them at a given site,
DOE is entering a narrow "window" of time in which technical
solutions for cleaning up sites must be evaluated and applied. 


--------------------
\6 Only about 10 percent of DOE's contaminated sites have been
cleaned or closed. 

\7 Pump-and-treat alone is currently used in 22 separate DOE
restoration projects and is expected to cost more than $500 million
over the life of the projects. 

\8 In 1993, DOE estimated that 50 sites in 22 states store about
600,000 cubic meters of such wastes.  Over the next 5 years, the
agency could generate an additional 920,000 cubic meters of mixed
wastes. 

\9 Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (Apr.  1993). 


   MANY BARRIERS LIMIT USE OF NEW
   AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

The process of choosing a technology for cleanup involves many
decisionmakers, requires technical expertise, and is complicated by
many stakeholders' competing interests.  The pressure to meet
agreement milestones also influences the technology evaluation
process at a given location--DOE is under pressure to work quickly
toward solutions. 

We found that new technologies are not being seriously considered or
used to clean up DOE's contaminated sites.  Senior headquarters
environmental officials told us that new technologies have not been
rigorously evaluated, much less employed by DOE.  On the basis of our
discussions with headquarters managers, local officials at two of
DOE's largest contaminated sites (the Hanford Site near Richland,
Washington, and the Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina),
and our analysis of studies, we found that the reluctance to consider
newer technology has several basic causes. 

  Local officials fear that using new technology may lead to missing
     milestones should the technology fail.  DOE is under pressure to
     meet its scheduled milestones.  DOE is already missing some of
     its milestones and anticipates more slippages in the future, as
     the pace of milestones due accelerates over the next few years. 

  Conflicting priorities among stakeholders tend to prevent the
     approval of innovative approaches for site cleanup.  For
     example, local governments may place a high priority on economic
     development and job creation and view faster cleanup as a threat
     to local economies.  The public is primarily concerned about
     risks associated with the cleanup process.  As a result, each
     stakeholder may view the value of an innovative approach
     differently.  Accordingly, DOE must balance the interests of
     these diverse stakeholder groups, a difficult challenge. 

  Field officials, as well as local stakeholders, may not be familiar
     with newer technologies that could apply to their locations, and
     thus may associate the newer technologies with an unacceptable
     level of risk. 

  Field officials also often rely on recommendations from on-site
     contractors who may favor particular technologies on the basis
     of their own experiences and investments.  DOE has long been
     criticized for its extensive reliance on contractors for
     technical decisions. 

DOE's own studies, and those performed by other organizations, cite
similar reasons why innovative technologies are not being applied at
contaminated sites.  For example, a spokesperson for the Western
Governors' Association recently commented that effective and rapid
cleanup of federal sites is hampered by a system that relies on
traditional technologies selected by "risk averse" cleanup managers,
who have no incentive to innovate.  The official explained that there
is a need to reduce the uncertainty surrounding the performance and
cost of innovative technologies.\10

We previously reported similar barriers inhibiting the development
and use of innovative technologies in EPA's technology program. 
Among other factors, we reported that the lack of reliable
information on innovative technologies has led government officials,
private contractors, and investors to avoid the possible risks
associated with innovative technologies.\11

Our discussions with EPA regional staffs and state regulators
indicate some hesitancy to approve innovative technologies. 
Regulators are sometimes reluctant to appear lenient with DOE,
recognizing that their actions are closely watched by the public. 
Public frustration often results when regulators allow DOE to miss
cleanup milestones.  However, regulators also note that their
hesitancy is not as widespread as perceived by DOE field officials
and point to several regulatory options that would allow the agency
to use innovative technologies in combination with conventional
techniques.  For example, EPA published a technology innovation
strategy in January 1994 designed to stimulate the adoption of new
technologies by strengthening the incentives for innovation and
reducing barriers within the regulatory framework.\12


--------------------
\10 Comments by the Executive Director, Western Governors'
Association, for the Industry Commercialization Roundtable (Aug. 
1993). 

\11 Superfund:  EPA Needs to Better Focus Cleanup Technology
Development (GAO/T-RCED-93-94, Apr.  28, 1993). 

\12 Technology Innovation Strategy, EPA-543-K-93-002 (Jan.  1994). 


   PROGRAM OFFICES NOT WORKING
   TOGETHER EFFECTIVELY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

DOE's internal program problems have also prevented the agency from
maximizing its investments in technology development and
implementation.  Individual offices have not worked together as a
well-coordinated and integrated unit to overcome the resistance to
using improved technology, nor have offices worked together to
develop a comprehensive assessment of technology needs. 

Although OTD's mission is to manage a focused technology development
program, other program offices within Environmental Management
conduct their own projects, which often overlap and conflict with
OTD's activities.  For example, in 1993, in addition to the $380
million spent by OTD in 1993, the offices of Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management spent almost $70 million and over
$100 million, respectively, on technology development projects.  When
asked about these expenditures, headquarters managers explained that
OTD develops technologies for problems that are common across the DOE
complex, while program offices develop technologies that address
problems that are specific to individual sites.  However, our
analysis of several hundred technology development activities
throughout the environmental program offices revealed no clear
distinctions between offices in the scope and objectives of projects. 
For example, descriptions of these activities that are funded because
they apply to technology needs at a particular site frequently
contain statements that the technologies being developed could be
applied at other DOE sites.  Thus, it is not at all clear that
program offices are funding activities that OTD would not also fund. 

DOE also does not have a comprehensive needs assessment from which
technology development projects can be ranked and funded in the most
effective way.  Instead, the current technology-needs assessment
process is highly fragmented.  Program units have independently
examined their technology development needs, and their studies are at
various stages of completion.  DOE field locations have also studied
their own specific cleanup needs.  For example: 

  Although the Office of Environmental Restoration completed an
     initial description of its needs in 1991 (and updated it in Jan. 
     1993), OTD reported that these efforts do not provide the
     specificity needed to determine which technology needs are most
     pressing.  We noted that the level of specific information on
     the problems at each site varied significantly.  For example,
     the specific size, migration pattern, and contaminants within
     groundwater would be described in detail at one location, while
     the information provided at other locations would be described
     in very general terms such as "a source, a release mechanism, a
     receptor population, and toxic materials are present"--terms too
     broad to be useful to OTD. 

  The Office of Waste Management has not provided OTD with a
     description of its needs.  Waste Management officials told us
     that the early needs studies were too general to use.  In
     response, Waste Management is currently conducting an in-depth,
     site-by-site examination of its current problems. 

  DOE field locations are also studying their own specific cleanup
     needs at their particular sites.  At both the Hanford and
     Savannah River sites, for example, field staff are using local
     laboratories to identify the kinds of technology that will be
     needed to clean up those sites. 

OTD has also conducted its own needs assessment studies, in the
absence of a comprehensive assessment from other program offices.  As
a result of not having an integrated assessment approach and
strategy, OTD and program offices may not be developing the most
appropriate technologies.  In addition, DOE may be missing
opportunities to maximize its funding choices to the areas of highest
need or to identify problems that exist at several locations. 


   FLAWED DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Despite the crucial role technology plays in meeting the cleanup
milestones specified in agreements, OTD's technical experts are not
part of the decision-making process where technology choices for
particular sites are made.  For example, OTD does not have a role in
negotiating agreements, the critical point in time when cleanup
milestones are first established, although achieving these milestones
is often dependent on the success of the particular technology used. 
In addition, OTD is not involved in decisions on potential technology
options for the feasibility study phase of cleanup.\13 Furthermore,
OTD is not party to the final decision defining the technology that
will be used to clean the site.\14 In the absence of OTD's
involvement at such key decision points, the full range of technology
choices is not likely to be completely discussed or evaluated. 


--------------------
\13 At the beginning of the feasibility study, field officials select
the technologies that will be evaluated as potential cleanup
solutions for the site.  The study documents the strengths of each
technology under consideration and the rationale for the selection of
the technology. 

\14 The final decision occurs during the development of the Record of
Decision, which represents, among other things, EPA's formal approval
of the technology that will be used to clean the site. 


   DOE HAS BEGUN TO ADDRESS ITS
   PROBLEMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

The Office of Environmental Management began restructuring its
technology development program in January 1994.  Several changes
being implemented, as a result of this restructuring, should address
many issues discussed in this report.  For example, the technology
development program activities of the Offices of Waste Management,
Environmental Restoration, and Technology Development would be
centrally managed and coordinated under the direction of OTD.  To
help ensure that technology development activities are focused on the
most pressing needs, five priority "focus" areas for technology
development have been designated.  They are the

  high-level waste tank remediation;

  characterization, treatment, and disposal of mixed waste;

  cleanup of contaminant plumes;

  stabilization of landfills; and

  decommission and final disposition of DOE facilities. 

The Office of Environmental Management has established management
"teams" at headquarters to manage technology development activities. 
The Office of Environmental Management is also in the process of
establishing implementation teams for each of the five areas to
facilitate the use of innovative and improved technologies. 
Management team members include officials from the headquarters
program offices--the users of the technology--as well as selected
regulators, among others. 

The external peer review process for technology development is being
modified around the five focus areas.  DOE is also establishing
performance measures to evaluate the actual use of innovative and
improved technologies at the sites.  At the field level, where
technology decisions are made, site coordination teams have been
established to oversee local technology development activities. 
However, Environmental Management has not clarified how regulators
and other stakeholders will be included in these groups. 

Recognizing that new and innovative technologies were not being
evaluated, DOE's Office of Environmental Restoration directed its
field staff in a July 1993 policy statement to consider new and
innovative technologies early in the process of deciding what actions
to take at cleanup sites.  The goal of this policy was to provide the
opportunity for new technologies--as well as conventional ones--to be
given equal consideration. 

DOE is also expanding research outreach to help ensure that
technology development activities among agencies are closely
coordinated to maximize benefits and reduce costs.  These activities
include working with EPA, the Departments of Defense and Interior,
and others. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

DOE and technology experts recognize that more advanced technologies
are needed to meet DOE's significant and costly cleanup problems. 
DOE's inability to transfer demonstrated technologies to cleanup
sites underscores the coordination flaws in DOE's cleanup program. 
Barriers restrict the wider use of new and promising technologies to
clean up defense plant wastes. 

Although DOE's new strategy should help correct coordination problems
and eliminate duplication and overlap in its technology development
program, insufficient emphasis is given to ensuring that all
parties--at the level where decisions are made--are knowledgeable
about the strengths of the technological innovations being studied. 
Specifically, DOE has not clarified the roles that stakeholders will
play on site teams, yet these are the groups that must ultimately
approve the technology to be used at a particular location. 
Reconciling the many different priorities among local regulators and
other stakeholders is crucial to gaining agreement on the best
cleanup technology.  DOE's July 1993 policy, while a step forward,
does not ensure that new technology will actually be selected. 
Obtaining agreement on an innovative approach is particularly
difficult when officials are unfamiliar with innovative approaches
and technology experts are not fully involved in the decision-making. 

While DOE's new approach to technology development encourages
cooperation among Environmental Management's program offices, it does
not ensure that field decisionmakers include new technologies in
agreements, preventing promising new techniques from being used to
clean up sites--a stumbling block that places pressure on DOE to work
more skillfully not only with its own staff, but also with federal
and state regulators. 

The strategy also does not directly link technology experts with
field decisionmakers.  OTD's technology staff are not formally
involved in discussions of technological solutions to be used at the
sites.  OTD staff still do not have a role in negotiating/revising
agreement milestones with regulators, although the ability to meet a
milestone often depends on the technology being used. 

Moreover, the strategy does not overcome contractors' resistance to
recommending unfamiliar technology.  DOE's strategy to commercialize
technology results does not guarantee that new technologies are
recognized or evaluated by a particular local staff or its on-site
contractors. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

To ensure that decisionmakers are aware of, and fully evaluate,
innovative technologies to the maximum extent possible, we recommend
that the Secretary of Energy direct the Assistant Secretary for
Environmental Management to (1) fully involve regulators and other
stakeholders in making decisions at the local level about the
technology to be selected and (2) formally include OTD staff in the
evaluation and selection of technologies to be used to clean up DOE
sites.  For example, OTD staff could be included in the feasibility
study and discussions leading to the Record of Decision. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10

We discussed a draft of this report with DOE's Assistant Secretary
for Environmental Management, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Technology Development, and staff from the Office of Environmental
Restoration and the Office of Environment, Safety and Health.  These
officials agreed that the draft report accurately described the
status of the technology development efforts but believed our report
should recognize the progress that DOE has made in restructuring its
technology development program.  The officials provided updated
information to make the report as current as possible; this
information has been incorporated into the report where appropriate. 


--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and subcommittees and to the Director, Office of
Management and Budget.  We will also make copies available to others
upon request. 

If you or your staff have any questions about the information
provided in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841.  Major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours,

Victor S.  Rezendes
Director, Energy and Science Issues


EXAMPLES OF TECHNOLOGIES BEING
DEMONSTRATED
=========================================================== Appendix I

The Office of Technology Development (OTD) is responsible for
developing new technologies and improving existing technologies to
solve environmental management problems.  Recognizing that some
cleanup challenges, as well as regulatory commitments, cannot be
addressed with currently available technologies and that many of
these challenges are national in scope, OTD works with its
customers--users of technologies--to develop those that have DOE-wide
application.  Furthermore, since many problems are not unique to the
Department of Energy (DOE), OTD coordinates closely with industry,
academia, and other agencies.  Technologies are being developed to
address various phases of cleanup--from characterization and
monitoring to treatment and/or remediation--as a unified system. 


      CHARACTERIZATION AND
      MONITORING
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.1

DOE defines characterization as the key first step in environmental
restoration activity and the area for the greatest potential cost
savings to the agency.  Currently, Environmental Management estimates
that it spends between 40 and 50 percent of its budget on
characterization activities.  Characterization provides the basis for
acquiring the necessary technical information to develop, screen,
analyze, and select appropriate cleanup techniques.  For example,
precise knowledge of the geologic and hydrologic properties of the
site must be available to accurately predict how contaminants will
behave underground.  Until recently, characterization often involved
drilling numerous holes in the ground, obtaining samples, and sending
the samples to laboratories for analysis.  Traditional drilling
techniques could introduce additional contamination and expose
workers to significant health risks from handling the contaminated
by-products. 

Recent characterization technologies include ground-penetrating radar
and the cone penetrometer, among others, as shown in figure I.1. 
Ground-penetrating radar is a nonintrusive technology,\15 capable of
locating buried objects, such as drums or waste containers and
generating two- and three-dimensional images of the buried objects. 
The cone penetrometer, is quicker and less expensive than
conventional drilling and boring operations and can deploy many
different state-of-the-art line sampling and instrument devices.  Use
of the penetrometer lessens potential contamination migration by
sealing the hole as the probe is inserted and withdrawn. 

   Figure I.1:  Examples of
   Demonstrated Characterization
   Technologies

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  Based on illustrations
   from DOE's Office of
   Environmental Management.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

OTD is also demonstrating technologies that combine characterization
of the contamination with monitoring of contamination movement. 
Innovative sensors, samplers, and real time analytical measuring
devices provide information for evaluating and monitoring the
effectiveness of ongoing cleanup activities.  Examples of these
technologies include the borehole sampler, SEAMIST membrane liner,
and the mobile laboratory. 

The borehole sampler is designed to determine contaminant
concentrations vertically without installing multiple wells.  The
SEAMIST system is designed to collect information from specified
depths.  Results are used to test the feasibility of various
contamination extraction techniques.  The mobile field screening
laboratory is capable of high-quality, same- day analysis of
environmental samples.  The laboratory can be used to rapidly
determine the optimal location and number of additional samples
needed to describe the contaminants and their migration patterns. 


--------------------
\15 In this context, the term "nonintrusive" refers to a technology
that does not require holes to be drilled or samples to be taken. 


      TREATMENT AND REMEDIATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.2

The technical goal of waste treatment is to process waste into a
stable and safe physical form that can be stored or sent to permanent
disposal.  Conventional means for removal of contaminants include
pumping the groundwater to the surface followed by air stripping with
above-ground equipment; vacuum extraction of volatile subsurface
contamination; or site excavation for physical removal of the
contaminated materials.  Treatment in place (or in situ), however,
remediates subsurface contamination without bringing the contaminated
soil or groundwater to the surface. 

At two of the largest sites within the weapons complex, DOE is
demonstrating several in place treatment techniques.  Volatile
chemical solvents, which are found throughout the complex, have been
specifically addressed through several cleanup systems at the
Savannah River Site.\16 For example, one system involves stripping
the contaminants from the ground by injecting air into a horizontally
drilled well, and then extracting the contaminant-air mixture through
another horizontal well drilled above the injecting well.  A second
treatment technology to augment the system involves heating the
ground from within the horizontal well to vaporize liquid
contaminants, which can then be removed by air stripping.  A third
treatment method, bioremediation, involves adding a small amount of
methane gas to the injected air, which encourages breakdown of the
contaminants by the action of naturally occurring bacteria.  Figure
I.2 shows that at Savannah River these technologies are being applied
to a plume of volatile organic compounds (VOC) that originated from a
leaking sewer line. 

   Figure I.2:  Diagram of
   Technologies to Remediate VOCs
   at Savannah River

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  Based on illustration
   from DOE's Office of
   Environmental Management.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

At the Hanford site, similar in place treatment technologies will be
used to address both soil and groundwater contamination.  DOE also
plans to test techniques to recover americium and plutonium in soil
and uranium and chromium in groundwater.  Figure I.3 shows some of
the technologies being used at the Hanford site to clean up both VOCs
and other contaminants.\17

   Figure I.3:  Diagram of
   Remediation Technologies at
   Hanford

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  GAO illustration based
   on DOE data.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

To halt the flow of contaminated groundwater, Environmental
Management plans to evaluate a number of different containment
technologies, including flow-through or permeable barriers that strip
the contaminants from groundwater, and chemical barriers that
immobilize radioactive and mixed waste contaminants, among others. 
Chemical barriers, for example, are formed by putting chemicals into
the subsurface.  Groundwater passes through the barrier uninhibited,
but dissolved contaminants remain within or near the barrier. 

Two methods for constructing chemical barriers--trench-and-fill and
injection--are shown in figure I.4. 

   Figure I.4:  Examples of
   chemical barriers

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  Adapted by GAO from
   DOE illustration.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The trench-and-fill method involves digging a trench that intercepts
the aquifer and then filling the trench with the appropriate chemical
barrier material.  The injection method pumps chemical barrier
material through injection wells into the subsurface. 

Treatment technologies are also being demonstrated that minimize the
amount of waste created during the cleanup process or reduce the
toxicity of the waste.  An example of the former is the Minimum
Additive Waste Stabilization (MAWS) system.  OTD officials explain
the MAWS technology provides an example of the potential savings from
new and improved technologies.  This approach combines contaminant
waste streams, through vitrification technology, into a final,
stabilized waste form.  Vitrification uses high
temperatures--typically between 1,100 and 1,600 degrees
Centigrade--to chemically combine wastes and additives into glass. 
As shown in figure I.5, under the MAWS concept, existing contaminated
soils are used as additives to create the glass mixture, thus
reducing the overall waste volume and final disposal costs. 

   Figure I.5:  Minimum Additive
   Waste Stabilization Concept

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  Based on illustration
   from DOE's Office of
   Environmental Management.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Cost reductions from this technology will be significant, according
to DOE estimates.  For example, applying the conventional, baseline
technology, cementation to 1 cubic yard of waste would result in 3.75
cubic yards of stabilized waste for disposal.  In contrast, applying
MAWS would reduce the resulting waste volume to 0.75 cubic yards for
disposal and save about $1,300 per cubic yard in total costs.  At one
site alone, DOE estimates this would equate to a savings of more than
$100 million. 


--------------------
\16 At Savannah River, degreasing solvents--volatile organic
compounds--were used from the early 1950s through 1980.  Over 3
million pounds of solvents were released into the subsurface at
various outfalls, seepage basins, leaking sewer lines and tanks, and
at various waste disposal sites.  These VOC releases created both
soil and groundwater contamination. 

\17 The location of the demonstration project at Hanford contains
VOCs and other contaminants in both soils and groundwater.  More than
580 metric tons of VOCs were disposed at the site between 1955 and
1973, resulting in extensive soil contamination and a plume that
extends over 8 square miles. 


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================== Appendix II

Our objective in this review was to assess the effectiveness of DOE's
technology development program for cleanup of hazardous and
radioactive waste at DOE's weapons production sites.  Because
technology is critical to the success of environmental cleanup, we
focused on the internal and external barriers to use of newly
developed technologies. 

To identify the internal and external barriers to the use of new
technologies and to determine the frequency with which new
technologies are being applied, we interviewed responsible DOE
headquarters, field, and contractor officials, as well as EPA and
state program representatives, and attended meetings of parties
interested in cleanup technologies.  We also obtained and reviewed
pertinent documents, including DOE's Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management Five-year Plans; Office of Technology Development's
Operation's Manual and Strategic Investment Plan; the needs
assessments prepared by DOE's offices of Environmental Restoration,
and Waste Management; and studies on facilitating the use of improved
technologies. 

To gain a better understanding of OTD's demonstration projects, we
visited the location of the project designed to clean up VOCs in
nonarid soils, at DOE's Savannah River Site in South Carolina and the
corresponding project for arid soil cleanup at DOE's Hanford Site in
Washington State. 

We performed our review between January 1993 and June 1994 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Jim Wells, Associate Director
Gary R.  Boss, Assistant Director
Diane B.  Raynes, Assignment Manager
Duane G.  Fitzgerald, Technical Advisor

SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL OFFICE

Ruth-Ann Hijazi, Evaluator-in-Charge
Mary K.  Colgrove-Stone, Evaluator
Karen D.  Wright, Evaluator

