December 3, 2021

News

News Network

Nuclear Waste Cleanup: DOE Needs to Better Coordinate and Prioritize Its Research and Development Efforts

17 min read
<div>What GAO Found The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) identifies cleanup-related research and development (R&D) needs across the EM complex—EM headquarters and sites and DOE's national laboratories—in various ways. For example, DOE officials and contractors at EM sites work closely with national laboratories to identify project-specific R&D needs, including those encountered during the course of cleanup activities, such as managing vapors in nuclear waste storage areas. EM headquarters may identify complex-wide needs (e.g., ways to improve worker safety, such as using robotics, see figure) or work with other DOE offices, including the Office of Nuclear Energy, to identify R&D needs that span DOE missions, such as spent nuclear fuel storage. Robotic Technologies Potentially Applicable to Department of Energy Nuclear Cleanup Efforts EM uses both formal and informal mechanisms to coordinate R&D across the EM complex, including the national laboratory network and working groups. EM's coordination of R&D efforts fully aligns with four of GAO's seven leading practices for collaboration, such as clarifying roles and responsibilities and including relevant participants. However, EM does not fully follow other leading practices, which affects its ability to evaluate the effectiveness of R&D efforts. For example, EM officials told GAO that it does not have a formal system to collect information on R&D activities across the complex, which would enable it to monitor and evaluate the activities' outcomes. Collecting such information could help EM determine whether to encourage or discourage investments in certain areas. EM also does not take a comprehensive approach to prioritizing R&D. Individual EM sites and national laboratories have their own decision-making processes for prioritizing R&D, but these may not address long-term or complex-wide needs. GAO has found that risk-informed decision-making can help agencies weigh numerous factors and consider tradeoffs, and that doing so would help EM set cleanup priorities within and across its sites. By developing a comprehensive approach to prioritizing R&D that follows a risk-informed decision-making framework, EM would be better positioned to provide sites with guidance for R&D spending beyond their immediate operational needs and direct its limited R&D resources to its highest priorities. Why GAO Did This Study R&D has played an essential role in EM's efforts to clean up massive amounts of contamination from decades of nuclear weapons production and energy research. Such R&D has led to safer, more efficient, and more effective cleanup approaches. Prior studies have found that investments in R&D could reduce the future costs of EM's cleanup efforts, which have increased by nearly $250 billion in the last 10 years. However, funding designated for nuclear cleanup R&D has declined since 2000. GAO was asked to review EM's R&D efforts. This report examines (1) how EM identifies cleanup-related R&D needs, (2) how and the extent to which EM coordinates R&D across the EM complex, and (3) the extent to which EM prioritizes cleanup-related R&D efforts. GAO reviewed DOE and EM documents and interviewed EM site and headquarters officials and national laboratory representatives. In addition, GAO compared EM's coordination of R&D to leading practices for collaboration and compared EM's efforts to prioritize R&D with GAO's risk-informed decision-making framework.</div>

What GAO Found

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) identifies cleanup-related research and development (R&D) needs across the EM complex—EM headquarters and sites and DOE’s national laboratories—in various ways. For example, DOE officials and contractors at EM sites work closely with national laboratories to identify project-specific R&D needs, including those encountered during the course of cleanup activities, such as managing vapors in nuclear waste storage areas. EM headquarters may identify complex-wide needs (e.g., ways to improve worker safety, such as using robotics, see figure) or work with other DOE offices, including the Office of Nuclear Energy, to identify R&D needs that span DOE missions, such as spent nuclear fuel storage.

Robotic Technologies Potentially Applicable to Department of Energy Nuclear Cleanup Efforts

EM uses both formal and informal mechanisms to coordinate R&D across the EM complex, including the national laboratory network and working groups. EM’s coordination of R&D efforts fully aligns with four of GAO’s seven leading practices for collaboration, such as clarifying roles and responsibilities and including relevant participants. However, EM does not fully follow other leading practices, which affects its ability to evaluate the effectiveness of R&D efforts. For example, EM officials told GAO that it does not have a formal system to collect information on R&D activities across the complex, which would enable it to monitor and evaluate the activities’ outcomes. Collecting such information could help EM determine whether to encourage or discourage investments in certain areas.

EM also does not take a comprehensive approach to prioritizing R&D. Individual EM sites and national laboratories have their own decision-making processes for prioritizing R&D, but these may not address long-term or complex-wide needs. GAO has found that risk-informed decision-making can help agencies weigh numerous factors and consider tradeoffs, and that doing so would help EM set cleanup priorities within and across its sites. By developing a comprehensive approach to prioritizing R&D that follows a risk-informed decision-making framework, EM would be better positioned to provide sites with guidance for R&D spending beyond their immediate operational needs and direct its limited R&D resources to its highest priorities.

Why GAO Did This Study

R&D has played an essential role in EM’s efforts to clean up massive amounts of contamination from decades of nuclear weapons production and energy research. Such R&D has led to safer, more efficient, and more effective cleanup approaches. Prior studies have found that investments in R&D could reduce the future costs of EM’s cleanup efforts, which have increased by nearly $250 billion in the last 10 years. However, funding designated for nuclear cleanup R&D has declined since 2000.

GAO was asked to review EM’s R&D efforts. This report examines (1) how EM identifies cleanup-related R&D needs, (2) how and the extent to which EM coordinates R&D across the EM complex, and (3) the extent to which EM prioritizes cleanup-related R&D efforts. GAO reviewed DOE and EM documents and interviewed EM site and headquarters officials and national laboratory representatives. In addition, GAO compared EM’s coordination of R&D to leading practices for collaboration and compared EM’s efforts to prioritize R&D with GAO’s risk-informed decision-making framework.

More from:

News Network

  • Rare Diseases: Although Limited, Available Evidence Suggests Medical and Other Costs Can Be Substantial
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found According to the literature GAO reviewed, diagnosis of any disease can be complicated, and diagnosis of rare diseases can be particularly difficult because of a variety of factors. (See figure.) Although some rare diseases may be detected quickly, in other cases years may pass between the first appearance of symptoms and a correct diagnosis of a rare disease, and misdiagnoses—and treatments based on them—occur with documented frequency. According to the literature GAO reviewed and GAO's interviews, those with undiagnosed, misdiagnosed, or untreated rare diseases may face various negative outcomes. For example, a person's health can suffer when appropriate, timely interventions are not provided or when interventions based on misdiagnoses cause harm. In addition, multiple diagnostic tests, medical appointments, and ultimately unwarranted interventions can add to the costs of the disease. Examples of Factors That May Interfere with Accurate Diagnosis Research on the costs of rare diseases is limited, in part because of the difficulty of diagnosing them. Nonetheless, the costs can be substantial, as indicated by available research from the U.S. and elsewhere and the experts, researchers, and organization officials GAO interviewed. These costs—to those with rare diseases, health care payers, the U.S. government, or a combination—can include direct medical costs (e.g., costs of outpatient visits or drugs), direct nonmedical costs (e.g., costs to modify one's home to accommodate a wheelchair), or indirect costs (e.g., loss of income or diminished quality of life). Peer-reviewed studies of specific rare diseases estimated costs for people with rare diseases that are multiple times higher than costs for people without those diseases. One recent study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, estimated $966 billion as the total cost (including medical and other nonmedical and indirect costs) in the United States for an estimated 15.5 million people with 379 rare diseases in 2019. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. Why GAO Did This Study By definition, few people have any specific rare disease. But there are many different rare diseases—about 7,000—and as a result, an estimated 30 million people in the United States have one or more of them. About half of those with a rare disease are children. Often genetic, many rare diseases are chronic, progressive (they worsen over time), and life-threatening. Relatively little is known about the costs of rare diseases, either individually or collectively. The Joint Explanatory Statement for the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, includes a provision for GAO to study the costs of rare diseases within the U.S. GAO examined, among other things, the challenges to diagnosing rare diseases and what is known about their costs. GAO reviewed documents from two agencies in HHS—the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and published literature, including studies on the costs of rare diseases in the United States and elsewhere published from 2000 through 2021. GAO also interviewed NIH and FDA officials; selected researchers and experts on rare diseases, health care, and health economics; and officials of organizations representing those with rare diseases. The organizations included two devoted to rare diseases in general and six representing those with a specific rare diseases or sets of related rare diseases. For more information, contact at (202) 512-7114 or dickenj@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Department Press Briefing – March 18, 2021
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Jalina Porter, Principal [Read More…]
  • Department of Justice Issues Annual Report to Congress on its Work to Combat Elder Fraud and Abuse
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice issued its Annual Report to Congress on its Activities to Combat Elder Fraud and Abuse. The report summarizes the department’s extensive elder justice efforts from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Michael R. Pompeo With Greg Kelly of Greg Kelly Reports on Newsmax TV
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken Remarks at Top of Meeting with the Foreign Ministers of the ASEAN Nations
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Telecommunications: FCC Has Implemented the Lifeline National Verifier but Should Improve Consumer Awareness and Experience
    In U.S GAO News
    As of June 2020, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required consumers nationwide to use the Lifeline National Verifier (Verifier), a centralized process and data system, to check their eligibility for Lifeline. Because consumers who participate in certain federal benefits programs qualify for discounted phone and internet service through Lifeline, the Verifier checks state and federal benefits databases to verify consumers' eligibility. The Verifier also includes a manual review process for consumers to submit documents proving their eligibility if they cannot be found in a database. As of November 2020, the Verifier had connections with databases in 20 states and 2 federal agencies. GAO found that although consumers in states without state database connections had the same likelihood of actually meeting eligibility requirements as consumers in states with such connections, they were less likely to be found eligible for Lifeline through the Verifier (see figure). Average Eligibility Determination for New Lifeline Applicants in States with and without State Database Connections to the Lifeline National Verifier, June 2018 through June 2020 FCC coordinated with state and federal stakeholders to implement the Verifier. However, stakeholders told GAO that many eligible consumers are not aware of the Verifier or Lifeline. Consumers may lack this awareness because FCC's consumer education planning did not always align with key practices, such as developing consistent, clear messages and researching target audiences. As a result, eligible consumers may not apply for Lifeline. Moreover, while FCC originally envisioned tribal governments and organizations assisting residents of tribal lands with the Verifier, it has not provided them with quality information to effectively do so. Although FCC reported that the Verifier is meeting its goal of improving the consumer experience, GAO found that the manual review process, which FCC used to determine the eligibility of more than half of applicants in many states, is challenging for consumers. However, FCC does not collect complete information on consumers' experience with this process, and thus is limited in its ability to identify and address the challenges consumers face. Such challenges likely contributed to eligible consumers giving up on their applications. For example, we found that more than two-thirds of applicants who underwent manual review between June 2018 and June 2020 did not complete their applications. FCC's Lifeline program discounts phone and internet service for eligible low-income consumers. In 2019, FCC authorized $982 million in support for 6.9 million eligible consumers. FCC created the Verifier with the stated goals of reducing fraud and costs and improving the consumer experience. The Verifier includes an online application, connections to state and federal benefits databases, and a standardized manual review process. GAO was asked to review FCC's implementation of the Verifier. This report examines: (1) the status of the Verifier; (2) FCC's coordination with stakeholders and efforts to educate consumers and facilitate tribal stakeholders' involvement; and (3) the extent to which the Verifier is meeting its goals. GAO reviewed FCC orders and documentation; analyzed Verifier performance and Lifeline subscriber data; interviewed FCC and other agency officials, and selected industry, state, tribal, and consumer stakeholders; and surveyed state officials. Stakeholders were selected to obtain a variety of non-generalizable viewpoints. GAO is making six recommendations, including that FCC develop a consumer education plan, provide quality information to tribal organizations, and collect information on consumers' experience with the manual review process. FCC agreed to take steps to address all of GAO's recommendations. For more information, contact Andrew Von Ah at (202)-512-2834 or vonaha@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Federal Court Bars Florida Tax Preparation Businesses and Their Tax Return Preparers from Preparing Tax Returns
    In Crime News
    A federal court in the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division, has permanently enjoined four Palm Beach-area tax return preparers from preparing federal income tax returns for others and from owning or operating any tax return business in the future.
    [Read More…]
  • 401(k) Retirement Plans: Many Participants Do Not Understand Fee Information, but DOL Could Take Additional Steps to Help Them
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found Almost 40 percent of 401(k) plan participants do not fully understand and have difficulty using the fee information that the Department of Labor (DOL) requires plans to provide to participants in fee disclosures, according to GAO's analysis of its generalizable survey (see figure). GAO assessed participants' understanding of samples from several large plans' fee disclosures and other information about fees, and asked general knowledge questions about fees. For example, GAO found that 45 percent of participants are not able to use the information given in disclosures to determine the cost of their investment fee. Additionally, 41 percent of participants incorrectly believe that they do not pay any 401(k) plan fees. Prior GAO work has shown that even seemingly small fees can significantly reduce participants' retirement savings over time. GAO Estimates of 401(k) Plan Participants' Score Distribution on Survey's Fee-Related Assessment Questions GAO's review of selected countries and the European Union (EU) found they have implemented practices to help retirement plan participants understand and use fee information from plan disclosures. For example, stakeholders in those locations said layering data, a technique where information is presented hierarchically, can help participants understand disclosures by providing them key plan information first. Stakeholders also said other tools can help participants understand fee information. In Italy, for example, the government provides a supplemental online tool so participants can compare and calculate fees across plans and investment options, according to stakeholders. This tool also includes a fee benchmark—which is generally an average fee among comparable funds—that helps participants judge the value of an individual investment option. DOL could take additional steps to help 401(k) plan participants improve their understanding and use of fee information, based on GAO survey responses and analysis. DOL regulations require that disclosures present fee information in a format that helps participants compare investment options. However, disclosures are not required to include certain information, such as fee benchmarks and ticker information (unique identifying symbols used for many popular types of investments), that could be helpful for participants. Fee benchmarks can help participants to assess an investment option's value, not only relative to other in-plan options but to options outside the plan. Ticker information can help participants identify many plan investments online to evaluate and compare them to options outside the plan. By requiring such information in disclosures, DOL could help participants better understand and compare their 401(k) plan fees when making investment choices that affect their retirement security. Why GAO Did This Study DOL regulations require 401(k) plans to provide the more than 87 million plan participants with a comprehensive disclosure of the fees they pay. GAO was asked to examine how well participants can understand and use the fee disclosures. This report (1) assesses the extent to which 401(k) plan participants can understand and use fee information in disclosures; (2) describes disclosure practices used by selected countries to help retirement plan participants; and (3) examines any additional steps that DOL could take to advance participant understanding and use of fee information. GAO conducted a nationally representative survey of 401(k) plan participants to assess their understanding of fee disclosure samples from among 10 large plans and of other fee information. To identify and describe disclosure practices used abroad, GAO interviewed stakeholders and reviewed fee disclosure documents from Australia, Italy, New Zealand, and the European Union, chosen because of their documented practices to improve participants' understanding of fee disclosures. To identify any additional steps DOL could take, GAO also reviewed disclosures from 10 large plans, as well as relevant federal laws and regulations, and interviewed stakeholders in the U.S.
    [Read More…]
  • Vessel Operator and Engineers Sentenced for Oil Waste Discharge Offenses
    In Crime News
    A vessel operating company was sentenced today in Hagatna, Guam, for illegally discharging oil into Apra Harbor, Guam, and for maintaining false and incomplete records relating to the discharges of oily bilge water from the vessel Kota Harum.
    [Read More…]
  • Weapon Systems Cybersecurity: Guidance Would Help DOD Programs Better Communicate Requirements to Contractors
    In U.S GAO News
    Since GAO's 2018 report, the Department of Defense (DOD) has taken action to make its network of high-tech weapon systems less vulnerable to cyberattacks. DOD and military service officials highlighted areas of progress, including increased access to expertise, enhanced cyber testing, and additional guidance. For example, GAO found that selected acquisition programs have conducted, or planned to conduct, more cybersecurity testing during development than past acquisition programs. It is important that DOD sustain its efforts as it works to improve weapon systems cybersecurity. Contracting for cybersecurity requirements is key. DOD guidance states that these requirements should be treated like other types of system requirements and, more simply, “if it is not in the contract, do not expect to get it.” Specifically, cybersecurity requirements should be defined in acquisition program contracts, and criteria should be established for accepting or rejecting the work and for how the government will verify that requirements have been met. However, GAO found examples of program contracts omitting cybersecurity requirements, acceptance criteria, or verification processes. For example, GAO found that contracts for three of the five programs did not include any cybersecurity requirements when they were awarded. A senior DOD official said standardizing cybersecurity requirements is difficult and the department needs to better communicate cybersecurity requirements and systems engineering to the users that will decide whether or not a cybersecurity risk is acceptable. Incorporating Cybersecurity in Contracts DOD and the military services have developed a range of policy and guidance documents to improve weapon systems cybersecurity, but the guidance usually does not specifically address how acquisition programs should include cybersecurity requirements, acceptance criteria, and verification processes in contracts. Among the four military services GAO reviewed, only the Air Force has issued service-wide guidance that details how acquisition programs should define cybersecurity requirements and incorporate those requirements in contracts. The other services could benefit from a similar approach in developing their own guidance that helps ensure that DOD appropriately addresses cybersecurity requirements in contracts. DOD's network of sophisticated, expensive weapon systems must work when needed, without being incapacitated by cyberattacks. However, GAO reported in 2018 that DOD was routinely finding cyber vulnerabilities late in its development process. A Senate report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 included a provision for GAO to review DOD's implementation of cybersecurity for weapon systems in development. GAO's report addresses (1) the extent to which DOD has made progress in implementing cybersecurity for weapon systems during development, and (2) the extent to which DOD and the military services have developed guidance for incorporating weapon systems cybersecurity requirements into contracts. GAO reviewed DOD and service guidance and policies related to cybersecurity for weapon systems in development, interviewed DOD and program officials, and reviewed supporting documentation for five acquisition programs. GAO also interviewed defense contractors about their experiences with weapon systems cybersecurity. GAO is recommending that the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps provide guidance on how programs should incorporate tailored cybersecurity requirements into contracts. DOD concurred with two recommendations, and stated that the third—to the Marine Corps—should be merged with the one to the Navy. DOD's response aligns with the intent of the recommendation. For more information, contact W. William Russell at (202) 512-4841 or russellw@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • South Texas man sentenced for harboring over 200 in inhumane conditions
    In Justice News
    A 35-year-old [Read More…]
  • 2021 International Women of Courage Award Recipients Announced
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Religious Freedom Concerns in Russia
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
  • CEO of Major Defense Contractor Charged with Bribery
    In Crime News
    The chief executive officer (CEO) of Multinational Logistics Services (MLS), a large ship husbanding company that has received over $1 billion in U.S. Navy contracts since 2010, appeared in the United States today to face a criminal charge for his alleged participation in a bribery scheme.
    [Read More…]
  • Opening Remarks at a Civil Society Roundtable
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Israeli Foreign Minister Ashkenazi
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Israeli Alternate Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid 
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Joint Statement on Increasing Violence in Myanmar
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • United States Obtains Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction Against Edward Snowden
    In Crime News
    On Sept. 29, 2020, the [Read More…]
  • Department Press Briefing – November 22, 2021
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]

Crime

Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.