Two review panels--an independent panel of peer reviewers and a U.S. Department of Energy's users group--looked at an Office of Science and Technology program with an eye toward making the program better and cheaper. The reviewers evaluated the direction and accomplishments of OST's program to develop already fixed treatment technologies for transuranic (TRU), TRU mixed, and mixed low-level waste. Sponsored by the mixed waste and landfill focus areas, the review was held in Dallas during the week of November 13. The review will help OST identify duplicated efforts, mature technologies not needing further funding, and unfocused efforts without committed customers. The results of the review will contribute to better funding decisions in the focus areas.

The independent peer review panel made recommendations pertinent to R&D program management and to technology research and development needs. They concluded that DOE's program in vitrification is technically sound but can be improved by changing a few operational procedures and redirecting funds. The panel recommended the following high-priority actions to improve R&D program management.

• Prioritize on the basis of risk. TRU and TRU mixed waste should receive highest priority for funding.
• Consider carefully the question of whether or not to privatize, particularly for high-level TRU waste (>100 nCi/gm). Relevant factors include oversight, knowledge, ability to supervise, and radiological hazard.
• Discuss specific issues as often as decisions are required. To address high-priority technology needs, the panel recommended the following.
• Experiment with radioactivity--decipher the chemistry of plutonium in both ambient and thermal environments.
• Continuously monitor the performance of thermal treatment technologies. Concentrate on developing continuous emission monitoring of the gaseous effluent as well as continuous in-situ (melt) monitoring of the system.
• Establish guidelines for waste products, including durability standards based on physical and chemical characteristics of products. These guidelines should then serve as a means of quality control of the glass-making process.
• Continue support of carbon arc melting, a promising treatment for heterogeneous waste. R&D should focus on higher levels of waste loading and volume reduction.
• Develop specific melters for highly radioactive waste (Plutonium-238, Americium, Curium).

The DOE users panel included DOE representatives from the six sites having the majority of the TRU, TRU mixed, and mixed low-level wastes: Richland, Savannah River, Idaho, Rocky Flats, Fernald, and Nevada. Also, representatives from four DOE Environmental Management organizations--the Offices of Waste Management (EM-30), Environmental Restoration (EM-40), Science and Technology (EM-50), and Nuclear Material and Facility Stabilization (EM-60)--attended along with stakeholder representatives from the Western Governor's Association, Southern States Energy Board, and Community Leaders Network.

After describing OST's technology development program as a "mile wide and an inch deep," the DOE users concluded, "The time has come to recommend technologies that will provide the best return of limited DOE dollars." Because more methods are being sponsored than are necessary, the panel reported OST needs to focus on technologies that can address a wide variety of mixed waste types. The panel reported it is uneconomical for DOE to develop a melter for each specific waste stream. They believe the solution is a high-temperature melter that can process a diversity of waste. The panel was supportive of two technologies that meet these specifications--the DC Graphite Arc Melter and the plasma hearth (see related article). The panel also recommended continued funding for the Transportable Vitrification System and development of vitreous ceramics with higher waste loadings.

The users panel also reported the technology development program should be sensitive to when a technology is ready to be transferred to DOE users. Instead of continuous development and testing to improve the process, technologists must recognize when "technologies just might be 'good enough' to do the job."