Management limitations hurting DOE cleanups, panel told The Department of Energy's (DOE) Environmental Management (EM) Program must assume a more corporate-like management structure to effectively accomplish its program goals, a series of experts recently advised a National Research Council (NRC) subcommittee. "The barriers to the program's success are not rooted in science or technology, but in management," Philip Thullen, program manager for Independent Technical Reviews at Los Alamos National Laboratory, told the panel. The review panel is one of four subcommittees formed as part of a comprehensive evaluation of the entire EM Program. Tom Crumbly, the EM assistant secretary, requested last year that the NRC conduct a rapid study on whether risk assessment can help DOE manage its cleanups, said NRC Executive Officer E. William Colglazier. NRC issued its report last fall saying that risk assessment could improve EM Program management, and Crumbly requested the comprehensive evaluation in January. In his request, Grumbly wrote that "a total reengineering of existing systems and a thorough examination of the scientific, engineering, and institutional barriers" was needed to improve the cost-effectiveness of the cleanup program. The subcommittees looked at regulatory barriers, priority setting, management structure, risk assessment integration, and filling technology gaps. They held public meetings this summer and are preparing a draft report, Colglazier said. The final report, with recommendations to DOE, is due December 1. The final panel, held August 29-30, focused on DOE's management structure. EM contracts with the same companies DOE hired to build nuclear weapons for 40 or 50 years, Thullen said. These contractors operated under a system in which work had no serious cost limits and payment for the work was made for the level of
effort rather than for well-defined outcomes, he said, adding that DOE has retained that mentality. Cleanup liabilities are currently considered assets by DOE because sites are funded based on the cleanup needed, said Richard Marty, an engineer with Jason Associates Corp., who has done remediation work for DOE and the private sector. DOE funding methods also serve as an
incentive for slow, expensive cleanups that focus on characterization and overcompliance, he said. Marty agreed that DOE's problems are not technology based. "There are existing, off-the-shelf technologies that they refuse to touch," he said. One reason is the unrealistic goal of restoration to pristine conditions, he said. —DANIEL SHANNON
Acid rain program report cites successes Preliminary data from a year's worth of emissions reporting show more pronounced reductions of acid rain precursors than had been expected. S0 2 emissions for 1994 were about 25% lower than in 1985, EPA reported in its second program update. "It appears we will get more reductions than we anticipated," said Melanie Dean from EPA's Office of Acid Rain (OAR). No reductions were mandated until 1995. Because S0 2 is "an environmental problem that is cumulative, early reductions have a big impact," said Joe Goffman of the Environmental Defense Fund. Goffman, who led in devising the S0 2 program, touted it as "a model for future programs." The allowance trading pro-
gram is credited for a large part of the success, EPA said in the update. Utilities, the main S0 2 emitters, made reductions early to build up allowances to sell or to cover future releases, EPA said. EPA cannot confirm the amount of selling, but it does track allowance transfers between accounts, said OAR's Eugene Casey, who monitors the allowance program. Under EPA's definition, "transfers" can be sales or transfers between generating stations owned by a utility, he said. Allowances are accumulated by companies according to a formula specified by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Allowances also can be purchased from EPA to cover excess emissions, Dean said. —DANIEL SHANNON
Cumulative allowance transfer activity After one year of tracking transfers, EPA reported that nearly 29 million allowances have been transferred, with significant increases in the latest quarter. About 11 million have been transferred from EPA accounts.
4 5 4 A • VOL. 29, NO. 10, 1995 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
