new cleanup technologies for DOE must focus on stabilizing the waste for timeframes so far into the future that assessing the new technology's effectiveness becomes much more problematic. Long-range commitment of time and money to development of new technologies appears necessary if they are to be brought to the stage at which they can be applied to the problems left behind by weapons production.

2. Cost-Effective “Green” Technologies on the Horizon.

There are many more technologies which have yet to be tried on any significant scale, but which bear close examination. One particularly intriguing new technology, called phytoremediation, uses green plants for removing or degrading pollutants in the environment. Techniques to use bacteria and algae to remediate contaminants have been under development for some time. However, new research into terrestrial plants has demonstrated that some of these plants concentrate chemicals and metals (both heavy and radioactive) in their root systems, in levels far exceeding those in surrounding soils and waters. Various species of plants have varying degrees of effectiveness in selectively removing different types of chemicals, radionuclides, or heavy metals from soils and waters. Plants able to accumulate most heavy metals have been identified. Phytoremediation of metals comprises three technologies (i) phytoextraction, in which metal-accumulating plants are used to transport and concentrate metals from the soil into the harvestable parts of roots and above-ground shoots, (ii) rhizofiltration, in which plant roots absorb, precipitate and concentrate toxic metals from polluted effluents, and (iii) phytostabilization, in which metal tolerant plants are used to immobilize metals in soils, thereby reducing their environmental risk." In some cases, it has even been possible to remediate mixtures of heavy metal and chemical pollutants simultaneously. Time, however, is the tradeoff. Contamination is removed by successive growing and harvesting of terrestrial plants in order to phytoremediate contaminated soils to acceptable levels. The harvested vegetation, rich in accumulated contaminants, is then fairly easily and safely processed by reducing to ash to remove the contaminants - even in the case of radionuclides. The volume of waste is generally a fraction of that of many current, more invasive remediation techniques and the associated costs several magnitudes less.

There are ancillary benefits of this and other “green” technologies. Reclamation of some metals may be made from plant ash resulting from phytoremediation, which reduces generation of new heavy metal waste and generates recycling revenues." More distantly on the horizon, it

Ilya Raskin, 14th Annual Symposium Abstract Book: Current Topics in Plant Biochemistry, Physiology and Molecular Biology: Rhizofiltration - using plants for remediation of heavy metals in water (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri-Columbia, April 1995), p. 61.

"Burt D. Ensley, 14th Annual Symposium Abstract Book: Current Topics in Plant Biochemistry, Physiology and Molecular Biology: Will plants have a role in bioremediation? (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri-Columbia, April 1995), p. 2.

Rufus L. Chaney and J. Scott Angle. “Green Remediation": Potential Use of Hyperaccumulator Plant Species to Phytoremediate Soils Polluted with Zinc and/or Cadmium, The Revival Field Project, (Beltsville, MD: USDAAgricultural Research Service and University of Maryland).

may be possible to combine bioengineering and phytoremediation technologies to develop crops for feed that will prevent the accumulation of pollutants and toxins through the food cycle. This discussion is meant to highlight just one of many types of innovative technologies applicable to Federal facility cleanup that is both cost-effective and in keeping with the strategic vision to encourage environmental technologies for a sustainable future. Adding the USDA to the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) would help elevate the profile of these green technologies and bring a new set of experts into the information sharing process.

3. A Strategic Vision for Federal Facility Cleanup Technology
Development.

It is a widely accepted belief that proper investment in the nation's technological base for nuclear and hazardous waste management will ultimately lead to greater efficiency and cost reduction in the cleanup of Federal facilities." The framework for action developed in the reports, Technology for a Sustainable Future and Bridge to a Sustainable Future, serve as the primary blueprint for defining a more specific strategic vision for Federal facility cleanup. Particularly useful recommendations from these reports, many of which agencies have begun applying to their Federal cleanup programs, are:

Develop a new generation of incentive-based policies and programs stressing performance, flexibility, and accountability;"

Create better frameworks to share and coordinate information among developers;

Promote formation of organizations or consortia that promote collaborative
technology development;

Develop methodology to achieve fast-track regulatory approval for promising technologies;

Help create a positive climate for venture capital funding through encouragement of interstate regulatory reciprocity and streamlined permitting and technology verification; and

Create a "one-stop-shop" to assist firms, especially small innovative technology companies, to confront the maze of complex organizational structures and Federal "information jungle".

Efforts like those taken at DOE in creating a new management system for its technology development program are significant steps in adopting the "Sustainable Future" strategic vision

"OTA, Complex Cleanup, p. 68.

"National Science and Technology Council, Technology for a Sustainable Future: A Framework for Action, pp.

2-28.

to the problems of Federal cleanup. DOE's new system for technology development designates five priorities or "focus areas;" 1) mixed waste characterization, treatment, and disposal, 2) radioactive tank waste remediation. 3) contaminant plume containment and remediation, 4) landfill stabilization, and 5) facility transitioning, decommissioning, and final disposition.

The program also pursues crosscutting and supporting technology areas such as characterization, efficient separations and processing, robotics, and technology transfer. DOE's focus areas provide for stronger ties between technology developers and environmental management users, as well as stakeholders. DOE has identified a site champion for each focus area and provides those sites the resources to implement the program throughout the nuclear weapons complex. The focus area concept enables more effective use of DOE-wide environmental research and technology development, including National Laboratories, to build on successive demonstrations of technologies. This site-lead structure also tries to give sites incentives to pursue technology demonstrations at their site, overcoming typical site and regulator hesitation at being the first to demonstrate a technology, thus taking on the greatest risk for failure.

To guide its technology development decisions, DOE now uses a Technology Investment Decision Model to track technology maturation: from basic and applied research, through exploratory, advanced, and engineering development, to demonstration and implementation. DOE has developed decision criteria to guide decisions at each of these stages. The stages include response to user-defined problems, success at solving the problems for which they are being developed, protection of user/public safety and health, commercial market potential, public/stakeholder acceptance, regulatory acceptance, and legal protection of intellectual property rights.

Other agencies are implementing similar programmatic reforms that adapt national environmental strategy to their Federal cleanup challenge. Better allocation of scarce R&D funding should result. Roundtable discussions, similar to the December 1994 White House Conference for all environmental technologies, could be held regularly to guide development of innovative remediation technologies. Led by the National Science Technology Council (NSTC), the progress of groups like the FRTR and RTDF could be both elevated and coordinated to ensure inter-departmental synergy is maximized via a cohesive strategy. Between semi-annual discussions, the efficient sharing of innovative technology information among agencies and other stakeholders through roundtables like the FRTR can maintain the cross-fertilization of ideas and the link between agencies' technology strategies.

4. Fast-track Development of New Technologies.

The process for obtaining regulatory approval can hasten or slow the use of new technologies. The process can require input from regulators, site project managers, local officials, and contractors. These various parties may have varying familiarity with the

technology, distinctly different views on its acceptability, or different attitudes towards risk. The

NPR recommended that EPA develop an action plan for improving the regulatory and statutory climate for innovative technologies.

85

One effort in this area has been undertaken jointly by Federal agencies and States in the Western Governors Association Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) Work Group. This group is developing test and demonstration protocols for interstate acceptance of the results of innovative technologies. This approach would leverage the scarce dollars available for demonstration of innovative technologies by allowing the results to be acceptable to a number of States besides the one hosting the demonstration. A recently signed Memorandum of Understanding among California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New Jersey represents a major step toward interstate cooperation. Agencies working together will move down the learning curve for a given technology much more rapidly. The hoped-for result will be a dramatic reduction of Federal costs for proving and implementing innovative cleanup technologies.

5. Coordination of New Technologies.

Better information sharing and coordination among developers, users, regulators, and other stakeholders will share agency successes between sites and agencies, while also avoiding repetitive learning of non-successes. Putting collaborative technology development on the critical path for particular site cleanups can accelerate technology development and implementation, especially with significant stakeholder involvement in planning and oversight. Recognizing this, DOE has recently asked the National Academy of Science to perform two reviews, to be completed by the end of 1995. The first review focuses just on technology development, and the second more broadly evaluates the science, engineering, and technology bases for DOE's environmental management program. Both of these efforts are intended to identify obstacles to the program's success and make recommendations for the program's next steps.

Several interagency groups have been formed to foster communication among Federal agencies and the public on innovative technologies, including:

Environmental Technology Working Group is the primary interface among Federal agencies. Part of the NSTC, this group is chaired by the OSTP, with cochairs by DOE and the National Science Foundation. Its purpose is to implement the National Environmental Technology Strategy.

Interagency Environmental Technology Office helps implement responsibilities assigned by the Environmental Technology Working Group and facilitates cooperative agency ventures and partnerships.

Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable is comprised of EPA, DOD,
DOI. DOE, and the NRC.

"Op. cit.

Remedial Technologies Development Forum is a consortium of partners from industry. government (DOD, Air Force. Army, DOE, EPA) and academia.

Environmental Security Technology Certification Program exists between
DOD and DOE.

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) consists of EPA, DOD, and DOE representatives.

Demonstration of Onsite Innovative Technology (DOIT) program is a joint initiative among the Western Governors Association, EPA, DOD, DOE and DOI. Their mission is to more cooperatively develop innovative remedial solutions between States, commercial entities, and the Federal government.

Rapid Commercialization Initiative, sponsored by DOC, DOD, DOE, EPA,
Southern States Energy Board, Western Governors Association, and the California
Environmental Protection Agency, attempts to reduce barriers impeding market
entry into technologies of strategic importance.

In addition, individual agencies have created their own formal mechanisms to bring environmental professionals together to share experiences, exchange information and establish cooperative efforts. For example, EPA has created both the National Advisory Committee for Environmental Policy and Technology and the Bioremediation Action Committee. EPA has also developed systems to assemble, maintain, and disseminate data on innovative technologies, such as its GIS/KeyTM Environmental Data Management System and Vendor Information System for Innovative Treatment Technologies. Agencies also coordinate with private industry on mutual cleanup concerns. For example, DOE has partnered with both Dow and DuPont chemical companies in developing bioremediation systems and silicon barriers.

Communication and coordination within agencies is also important. A recent GAO study concluded there is not adequate coordination among DOE's R&D organizations and program and project offices. While GAO recognized that DOE has begun to address this problem by formatting five priority focus areas for technology development based on the environmental cleanup program's most pressing needs, it still concluded that further improvements could be made." Two extant assists are EPA's Cleanup Information Bulletin Board System (CLU-IN) and the Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC), electronic information clearinghouses on innovative treatment technologies, which can foster both intra-agency as well as interagency knowledge sharing.

"GAO Report, "Department of Energy: Management Changes Needed to Expand Use of Innovative Cleanup Technologies." August 1994.

"Ibid. PP. 6-7.