8.0 Conclusion

Like all recently formed organizations, the Environmental Management program spent its first several years building a foundation: defining its mission, gauging its scope, identifying key issues and priorities, and assembling an infrastructure to support successful planning and management. Since 1989, the program has introduced many planning initiatives focused on gathering programmatic data and providing a basis for strategic planning and program analysis. However, most of these initiatives failed to evaluate the Environmental Management program from a life-cycle perspective.

The program has matured significantly in seven years. The Department has now identified the program's basic scope and where the greatest risks lie. In addition, the baseline process has established a capability for projecting future costs and schedules, analyzing changes in assumptions and potential scenarios, and accounting for the interconnections between its distinct sites and programs. This analytical foundation for sound program management is summarized in the 1996 Baseline Report. Using the foundation that the Baseline Report now provides, program managers and policymakers can make more informed decisions regarding the direction of the Environmental Management program and of the elements that affect the program.

The purpose of the Baseline Report is to articulate clearly two elements of the Department of Energy's Environmental Management program: projected life-cycle costs and schedules. The Baseline Report describes the program, with Base Case results, from a variety of perspectives: for the overall program, by functional element, according to geographical distribution and by functional activity or phase). Because of the many uncertainties inherent in estimating environmental management costs and schedules, the overall results are presented with a cost range rather than a single figure. The program's life-cycle cost range is based on Base Case estimates developed by site personnel for the mid-range estimate, with upper and lower bounds based on high and low confidence levels. This range spans from $189 billion to $265 billion. Also included in the overall results is a second range showing the impact of productivity savings on the Base Case. The productivity savings range, which spans from $195 billion to $241 billion, makes it clear that productivity improvements can have a substantial impact on the program's life-cycle cost.

Included in the Base Case results are two Base Case analyses: pollution prevention and science and technology development. These analyses assess the cost savings derived from pollution prevention and technology development activities over time.

Also included in the Baseline Report are three alternative scenario analyses: land-use, program and project scheduling, and minimal action. These analyses compare the impacts of various cases on the Base Case. They focus on the impacts of each case on several dimensions of the program including estimated life-cycle cost, schedule and end state. The scenario analyses include five land-use cases, three program and project scheduling cases, and one minimal action case. Comparison of these nine cases reveals that, in the absence of current constraints , changes to key program variables (such as land-use decisions) can have a significant effect on the estimated 75-year cost of the program and on the projected program end state.

Significant impacts resulted from two of the nine alternative cases: the Maximum Feasible Green Fields land use case and the Minimal Action case. In both cases, however, current constraints (for example, regulatory requirements) were adjusted or removed. The majority of the cases (seven) resulted in minimal changes to the Base Case. These cases were developed with current constraints intact. Thus, the analysis provided the important finding that projected costs and end states can be affected through policy decisions, but, in many cases, existing constraints make it difficult for significant changes to occur.

The Environmental Management program now has improved information available to analyze policy decisions and set a future course. The program is in a critical transition period; it faces near- and mid-term decisions that will have important long-term ramifications. Some of these decisions can be made now and adjusted later (if new information calls for a different course); others will require long-term commitment to a specific path. For example, the program is still considering which technologies to pursue over the next decade and which facilities to build for the treatment, storage and disposal of waste. These decisions require a long-term commitment and a near-term financial investment.

An important conclusion of the Baseline Report is that, by understanding the impacts of various policy decisions, decisionmakers and stakeholders can direct the program in a manner that minimizes life-cycle costs, reduces program schedules, optimizes program end states, and achieves maximum reduction of risks. However, a great deal remains to be done to ensure that issues highlighted in this Baseline Report are framed effectively; data and methodologies supporting subsequent analyses are continually improved; and interested stakeholders have a voice in the debate. Specific steps include the following:

• Improve Life-Cycle Cost and Schedule Estimates: The 1996 Baseline Report is the program's second attempt to develop a comprehensive life-cycle cost estimate. This report improves upon the estimates and analyses developed last year based on a new methodology (that is, a bottom-up approach that emphasizes field-developed estimates); better information in areas such as program scope and outyear costs; and improved integration across programs and sites. Because the program is constantly changing, however, these estimates will need to be adjusted and improved. In addition, the program must continue to address uncertainties and information gaps, with ongoing data gathering, refined models and updated assumptions.
• Use the Baseline Report to Address Ongoing Issues, Analyze Program Options, Provide Input to Strategic Decisions, and Develop Ties to Program Budgets: Although the results of the analyses included in the 1996 Baseline Report are not definitive, they provide examples of analyses that can be conducted. Many other alternate case and sensitivity analyses would benefit the program (for example, impacts of various regulatory changes, effects of increased privatization, and effects of greater waste minimization). These analyses can be used to help inform strategic planning decisions, better focus the program's near-term planning and budgeting, and support legislative and regulatory reform.
• Promote Informed, Broad-based Citizen Involvement in the Debate on the Program's Future: One of the "next steps" included in the 1995 Baseline Report was to include more stakeholders in the debate and proactively seek citizen's views (in subsequent Baseline Report cost estimates). The 1996 Baseline Report achieved the goal of greater stakeholder participation. However, the task of using the information to cultivate more informed debate on the program's future still lies ahead.

Launching the nuclear-powered submarine Patrick Henry, SSBN, Connecticut, 1960. The Department of Energy is responsible for handling spent nuclear fuel and waste resulting from reprocessing fuel from nuclear-powered warships. The U.S. Navy ensures that the submarine hulls, which contain very low levels of relatively short-lived radioactivity, are safely dismantled, sealed, and transported to the Department of Energy's Hanford site for disposal. This process provides an example of effective life-cycle planning and cost consideration.

Trench 94, Hanford Site, Washington, 1994. Hull sections containing defueled reactor compartments of decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines are put in disposal trenches. The spent nuclear fuel is removed before dismantlement begins. The radioactively-contaminated hull sections are then transported by barge to Hanford, where they are placed in a trench for burial. In 1986, the Patrick Henry's hull section was the first one placed in Trench 94. Accounting for project beginnings and endings in this manner is the main goal of life-cycle analyses.

Chapter -1- / -2- / -3- / -4- / -5- / -6- / -7- / -8-

Appendix -A2- / -B- / -C- / -D- / -E1- / -E2- / -F- / -G- / -H- / Glossary