Laboratory Operations Board
Review of the DOE Small Laboratories (June 1998)

Note to Readers

During the course of this review, Dr. Paul Gilman, an External Member of the Laboratory Operations Board, recused himself from discussions of the Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education and the suggestion that the National Research Council be used by the Department for independent analysis.


Review of the Department of Energy Small Laboratories

I. Summary

On November 3, 1997, the External Members of the Laboratory Operations Board convened a review of five of the Department of Energy's smallest laboratories. The review was undertaken following Secretary Peña's acceptance of a recommendation made by the Board that such a review be conducted.

The laboratories reviewed included those with annual budgets of less than approximately $50 million. Included were:


The purpose of the review was to evaluate each laboratory's contribution to the Department's missions as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of its operation. Of particular interest to the reviewers was the programmatic relevance of the work being conducted at the laboratories, as well as the synergy with work at other laboratories and universities being supported by the Department's program offices. The quality and amount of the Department's oversight of the smaller laboratories also was an important consideration in the review. In addition, the reviewers were concerned about the professional development opportunities for the staff and whether the size of the laboratories limited the type of professional interactions essential to supporting good science, keeping current with new developments and maintaining the future viability of the laboratories.

The Terms of Reference (see appendix) which guided the review set forth a range of findings options for the reviewers. It was envisioned that the External Members might find a laboratory is supporting the Department's missions and its operations are efficient and effective and recommend no action. Or the reviewers might determine that a laboratory is a candidate for privatization, alternative contracting mechanisms, consolidation or closure.


The recommendations of the External Members are summarized below:

1. That the Secretary direct the Office of Environmental Management to seek clarification and further refinement of the cost estimate for closure of the Environmental Measurement Laboratory and use the new information to perform a cost benefit analysis of moving the laboratory to Brookhaven National Laboratory. The results of this analysis should be provided to the Secretary by November 30, 1998.

2. That the Secretary direct a reevaluation be performed of the need for separate Department of Energy standards for personnel monitoring for exposure to radiation, including the specific benefits. The findings should be reported to the Secretary by November 30, 1998. It is suggested that an outside organization such as the National Research Council be asked to perform this reevaluation.

3. That the Secretary direct an analysis be done of the potential benefits of consolidation of the standardization and evaluation functions performed by the Environmental Measurement Laboratory and the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory with those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Again, it is suggested that an outside organization such as the National Research Council be asked to perform this analysis.

4. That the Ames Laboratory continue to operate under the current contractual arrangement. Furthermore, that the Secretary direct the Department to analyze its relationship with Ames to determine if the more flexible approach used with Ames should be a model for contractual relationships with the management of other DOE research facilities.

5. Given the change in the functions performed at Oak Ridge Institute for Education and Science, the reviewers recommend to the Secretary that the Institute no longer be classified as a Department of Energy laboratory. And that the Secretary encourage the Institute to explore the potential for enhancement of its operations thorough alternative contractual arrangements with the Department.

In addition to the recommendations related to the specific laboratories, the External Members of the Laboratory Operations Board concluded from their review of the five small laboratories that the Department would be best served if it moved toward collocation of small laboratories with larger facilities and if it avoided the establishment of small, isolated organizations to perform limited functions. Specifically, it was noted by the reviewers that professional development at small, isolated laboratories is difficult and that small laboratories may not serve as the optimum environment for research.

The reviewers also offered that if new programs or tasks are identified, consideration should be given to incorporating them into the work of existing Departmental or other Federal laboratories, or, as appropriate, other performers at universities or in industry. The priority should be to optimize how the resources at existing laboratories are used and to avoid the added administrative and management costs associated with small, limited-scope entities.

II. Background

Within the Department's laboratory system there are 9 multiprogram labs, 8 program dedicated labs, and 6 specific mission labs. Twenty of these 23 laboratories are government-owned, contractor managed ("GOCO") institutions which are managed through Management and Operations (M&O) contracts. The remaining three are Federally owned and operated ("GOGO") and have annual budgets under $10 million. These three along with two laboratories with M&O contracts are part of this review.

In addition, the Department supports other small laboratories using cooperative agreements. The Department has cooperative agreements with the Bates Nuclear Laboratory at MIT, the Notre Dame Radiation Laboratory, the Plant Research Laboratory at Michigan State and the UCLA Laboratory for Structural Biology.

An advantage of an M&O contract over a cooperative agreement is that a laboratory can be assigned multiple tasks under the broad scope of the M&O contract. However, such flexibility tends to invite greater governmental oversight and direction than other funding mechanisms do. In contrast, a cooperative agreement gives institutions greater flexibility in acquiring non-Departmental funds but has the disadvantage that new tasks not specifically defined in the scope of the cooperative agreement must be justified on a case by case basis.

In several cases, the Department has chosen yet a third option -- the privatization of facilities once under M&O contracts. For example, Office of Fossil Energy facilities in Wyoming and Oklahoma were converted from ordinary contractual arrangements to private operations to encourage the development of non-departmental funding. More recently, the M&O contract to run the Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute in New Mexico was terminated and it, too, was privatized.

III. The Process

In order to reach their recommendations, the External Members first reviewed information on the mission, management, budget, staffing and programs of each of the five laboratories. This review was followed by a day of presentations by the laboratory directors, as well as participation by representatives from the relevant Departmental program offices, field and operations offices. The laboratory directors' presentations were followed by questions from the reviewers. There also was a period during which the reviewers, laboratory directors, program office officials, field and operations office representatives discussed the laboratories.

To supplement this effort, further information was requested by the reviewers and provided by staff. The External Members then concluded that site visits to the Ames National Laboratory and the Environmental Measurement Laboratory were necessary. Subsequently, Dr. Paul Gilman visited the Environmental Measurement Laboratory and Dr. John McTague visited Ames National Laboratory and reported their findings to other External Members.

IV. Findings and Recommendations

The following summaries set forth the findings and recommendations of the External Members of the Laboratory Operations Board with regard to the five small laboratories:

Environmental Measurements Laboratory

The work of Environmental Measurements Lab (EML) in testing, analyzing and maintaining standards in the measurement of environmental radiation is in support of the Department=s environmental remediation mission. As part of its Quality Assurance Program, EML prepares low level radioactivity samples for use in measuring the adequacy of environmental clean-up efforts. The samples are prepared in four matrices: water, soil, air filter and vegetation. These samples are distributed to laboratories desiring certification. The laboratories being tested analyzes the EML sample and submit findings back to EML. EML then evaluates the measurements conducted by the laboratories and reports on the laboratories' accuracy.

EML's specialization in the measurement of low-level radionuclides differentiates it from the work done by the Radiological and Environmental Science Laboratory which specializes in the preparation of samples of higher level radioactive mixed waste in organic and inorganic matrices, characteristic of samples found at contaminated sites.

As radiation measurements of the environment have become more routine, the original research focus of EML has shifted dramatically into disseminating measurement techniques, maintaining standards for instrumentation, and evaluating measurement capabilities in field applications. EML's budget has declined and the major source of funding shifted from $10M in 1992, mainly from the Office of Energy Research, to approximately $7M in 1998, of which $5 million was from the Office of Environmental Management.

The Office of Energy Research conducted the last peer review of the research programs it funded at EML in 1992. The findings were generally quite favorable. However, as noted, at present the Office of Environmental Management is the primary source of funds for EML and it has expressed support of a federal capability in the measurement of low level radionuclides and specifically stated that EML is important in assuring the quality of measurement performed at clean-up sites.

The "EML Procedures Manual," now in its 28th edition, serves as a worldwide reference document on radiochemical analysis and environmental radiation measurements. In addition to conducting round-robin measurement analysis programs with over 150 participating laboratories, EML provides specialized measurement services such as those used in the ongoing clean-up work at Fernald. EML also maintains a worldwide monitoring system for the Air Force.

As part of their professional development, EML staff regularly attends scientific and technical meetings and workshops with colleagues in the scientific community. In addition, they work closely with the staff of the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory. The reviewers also noted that the laboratory's cost per scientific FTE is $150K and the average cost per FTE is $100K, with a balanced mix of administrative and technical employees.

Consistent with their interest in evaluating the efficiency of the laboratory's operation, the reviewers pursued the question of using contractors to perform the work done by EML. Dr. Mitchell Erickson, Director of EML, contended that the standards and quality control functions of EML must be performed by Federal employees. Supporting his premise, Dr. Erickson noted that often foreign clients were unwilling to work with anyone who was not a government employee. The reviewers concluded that while it was desirable to have oversight of standards and quality control functions be the responsibility of Federal employees, that it was not necessary to have Federal employees actually do the work. The reviewers suggested that a more persuasive argument for the use of Federal employees would be evidence that costs would be higher if outside contractors were used.

An area of concern to the reviewers was the cost effectiveness of EML's current location. Located in Manhattan, the $1.6 million per year cost for laboratory space is high, and could be reduced significantly if EML were to move. One option identified by the reviewers was to relocate EML to the Brookhaven National Laboratory where an initial estimate of the cost for similar laboratory space is $850,000. This move would have the additional advantage of offering close association with the staff at Brookhaven. Two problems associated with such a move would be the potential loss of personnel and the one-time cost of closure of the EML at its current location.

Dr. Erickson speculated that such a move would be welcomed by some employees and not by others who would be unwilling to relocate or commute. While concerned about this potential loss of qualified personnel, the reviewers concluded that this factor alone should not rule out the option.

The cost of closure of the existing facility has been estimated by the General Services Administration to be as high as $7 million. Given the relatively benign nature of the materials handled by EML, this figure seemed unusually high. It is the recommendation of the reviewers that the Secretary direct the Office of Environmental Management to seek clarification and further refinement of this cost estimate and use the new information to perform a cost benefit analysis of moving EML to Brookhaven. The results of this analysis should be provided to the Secretary by November 30, 1998. The bias should be to relocate the laboratory into a larger ongoing facility such as Brookhaven National Laboratory or National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

 

New Brunswick Laboratory

The New Brunswick Laboratory (NBL) supports the national security mission of the Department in the following areas: fissile materials measurement services and measurement development, safeguards measurement evaluation, and safeguards assistance. As such, the development, production, and maintenance of plutonium and uranium reference materials is a major part of the work performed by NBL. Approximately 20 years ago, NIST turned over responsibility for the preparation of fissionable isotopes for use as reference materials to the Department of Energy because of its special needs, and unique capability for production and analysis. The Department in turn has assigned the responsibility for preparation and maintenance to NBL. NBL is the sole source of these materials for use in calibrating measurement techniques. In addition, the laboratory is moving into new areas in forensic science analysis and is developing closer ties with the International Atomic Energy Agency in developing new and upgrading existing international standards for the measurement of fissionable materials.

The Office of Nonproliferation and National Security (NN) is the primary source of funding for NBL, supplying about 80% of its total budget of approximately $5 million. The budget has not varied much for the past five years. Other Departmental offices and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission provide the remainder of the funds. During the course of the review, Dr. Toby Johnson from NN expressed satisfaction with the work performed by the laboratory and indicated if additional funding were available, the Office would use NBL to do more international liaison work. Dr. Johnson rated NBL's technical competence on a par with that of Los Alamos but noted that NBL was far less costly. Dr. Margaret Tolbert, Director of NBL, concurred that though other DOE laboratories, such as Livermore and Los Alamos could develop the capability to perform many of the same functions as NBL, that costs likely would be higher due to higher personnel costs.

NBL is located on the Argonne National Laboratory site and benefits from this collocation both administratively and programmatically. In the area of costs, about one-fifth of the NBL budget goes to Argonne for landlord services such as waste disposal, educational programs, janitorial services, and security. Administrative support is provided by the Chicago Operations Office. These arrangements reduce the need for NBL administrative personnel in these areas.

The staff of NBL also has a significant level of programmatic interaction with Argonne related to Argonne's non-proliferation responsibilities. The exchanges engaged in by the two laboratories play an important role in the professional development of the NBL staff. Scientific excellence also is maintained by frequent collaboration with colleagues at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories and participation in technical meetings and workshops.

In terms of oversight, the Office of Safeguards and Security within NN performs an annual technical review of NBL. The most recent review found NBL to be very good in meeting mission expectations. The Chicago Operations Office performs administrative and inventory reviews, the most recent of which rated NBL as satisfactory.

When asked by the reviewers about the possibility of New Brunswick's work being done by contractors, Dr. Tolbert suggested that the national security implications of the work requires the use of Federal employees. Again the reviewers found this justification insufficient to support foreclosure of the possibility of using contractors to perform at least some of the functions currently performed by NBL. They noted that the precedent for contractors doing national security related work exists at Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia Laboratories, among other places.

The reviewers saw the relationship between NBL and Argonne as a model for how smaller laboratories could lower costs and enhance professional development by collocation and close association with larger facilities. The reviewers found that the New Brunswick Laboratory was operating in an efficient and effective manner and offered no recommendations related to changes in its contracting mechanisms.


Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory

The Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL) supports the Department's missions of environmental remediation and environmental health and safety oversight responsibility through its analytical chemistry and radiation measurements and calibrations programs. RESL provides independent quality assurance for the Department's high level environmental clean-up programs for the Office of Environmental Management, and conducts an accreditation program in personnel monitoring for the Department's Office of Environment, Safety and Health. RESL has unique equipment capabilities in its dosimeter irradiation facility for high fields, whole body/lung counting vault, and analytical instrumentation.

RESL is located on the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory site and receives technical and support services from the laboratory. Administrative support is provided by the Idaho Operations Office. Professional development opportunities are consistent with those available to other laboratory and operations office technical personnel on the site.

Civilian laboratory accreditation is generally handled through the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) which is administered by NIST. However, because the Department of Energy has standards for personnel monitoring which exceed those used in the NVLAP program, RESL, supported by the Office of Environment, Safety and Health, conducts a secondary accreditation program under the acronym DOELAP. All Departmental laboratories and facilities are part of the program with a two year recertification cycle. NIST and RESL do cross sample analyses of each other's products, and an oversight board conducts an annual review for the program. The DOELAP program for radiobioassay conducted by RESL is the only such program in the world.

The Idaho Operations Office advised the reviewers that it received technical support from RESL staff in carrying out the Office's Environmental Management mission and valued the contribution made by the laboratory.

Also, as part of the review, Peter Brush, Acting Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, characterized RESL as a "real bargain" for the Department. He indicated that the laboratory serves an important role as a cost effective quality assurance referee and that the Department could not buy similar accreditation services from a contractor at anywhere near the cost. He mentioned that a comparison of the cost of RESL and NIST has been conducted and that no savings were identify if NIST were used.

The Office of Environmental Management funds two-thirds of RESL's $5 million annual budget. The reviewers questioned Dr. Carlson, the Laboratory Director, about a budget change from $6.2 million in FY 95 to $5.0 million FY 96. He replied that the number of FTE's did not change, the difference was the result of changes in the Idaho Operations Office accounting operations.

When questioned about the option of using contractors, Dr. Carlson said RESL functions should be carried by Federal employees in order to provide oversight of the Department's laboratory contractors without any conflict of interest.

In the light of the Department's desire to move toward external regulation of its activities, the reviewers recommend that the Secretary direct the Office of Environment, Safety and Health to reevaluate the need for maintaining distinctive Department of Energy standards, including their specific benefits, and report back to the Secretary on its findings by November 30, 1998.

In addition, the External Members recommend that the Secretary direct the Department to conduct an analysis of the potential benefit of consolidating the standardization and evaluation of the measurement of radiation and radioactivity functions performed by EML and RESL with the work of NIST.

It is suggested that an outside organization, such as the National Research Council, be asked to perform the revaluation of the need for separated standards as well as the analysis of the benefit of consolidating the functions of EML and RESL with the work of NIST.


Ames Laboratory

Ames Laboratory, on the campus of Iowa State University, has been in existence since World War II when chemical research on uranium metal was pioneered there. It has continued to perform materials research ever since and has broadened its research base to include human genome investigations and a technology transfer program. In these efforts, it supports the Department's science and technology mission. At the review, the Office of Energy Research endorsed the quality of the research performed and foresaw the continued operation of Ames Laboratory at approximately the current funding levels. Ames' operating budget for FY97 was $20.6 million, down from a peak of $29.8 million in FY94 due primarily to reductions in environmental technology development and applied mathematics.

Within the Department, the Ames Laboratory is widely viewed as performing excellent scientific and technical work. The members of the laboratory=s staff win Departmental awards on a consistent basis. In addition, the quality of the laboratory=s science programs has received outside validation through the success of its principal investigators in competition for R&D 100 and other awards. The very close association with the University (many of the senior researchers have faculty status at the University and many of the staff are pursuing advanced degrees) contributes to its strength as a research institution.

The issues of concern to the reviewers related to the appropriateness of the Department's M&O contractual relationship with Iowa State University for managing Ames Laboratory. Ames is smaller than the other DOE laboratories operating under an M&O contract, and is unique in not having a large user facility as an integral part of the laboratory. The laboratory's practice of using small groups to perform scientific research, not unlike the nature of the work performed at other academic institutions, was seen as a strength. In addition, Iowa State's emphasis on applied science and engineering, its view of the laboratory as a major contributor to the educational process and its interest in the success of the laboratory were also seen as important. Nevertheless, the reviewers questioned whether an alternative funding mechanism which might avoid some of the burdens imposed by M&O contracts would be more effective contractual arrangement for the Ames Laboratory, such as the cooperative agreement arrangement by which MIT manages the Bates Nuclear Laboratory.

The staff of Chicago Operations Office offered strong support for the work being performed at Ames as well as for the appropriateness of the present contractual arrangement. They reported that they had implemented a streamlined, flexible approach to managing the contract properly scaled to a level commensurate with the size of the Ames Laboratory. The office that manages the contract is staffed by a single official who resides at the Chicago headquarters and who is supported in a matrix sense by Chicago personnel, and who is judicious in the transmittal of requests to the laboratory. In addition, the contract to manage the laboratory is simplified by the absence of certain transactional requirements, such as the need to approve routine salary adjustments. The Chicago Office staff further cautioned that rather than achieving the desired affect of reducing bureaucracy, a move to a cooperative agreement could in fact increase the bureaucracy by requiring task by task specification. In addition, representatives from the Chicago Operations Office expressed concern about the ability to define the technical scope of a cooperative agreement in such a way that would offer the Department the full range of flexibility it might need.

The reviewers were in agreement that in starting ab initio a program in materials research such as exists at Ames, an M&O contract would not be the contractual arrangement of choice. However, with the flexibility instituted by the Chicago Operations Office combined with the receptivity and educational interests of Iowa State, the laboratory is productive and working efficiently. Based on these findings, the reviewers recommend that the Ames Laboratory continue to operate under the current contractual arrangement. Furthermore, the Department should analyze its relationship with Ames to determine if the more flexible approach used with Ames should be a model for contractual relationships with the management of other Departmental research facilities.

 

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) receives funds from many different Departmental program offices with the Office of Energy Research, at $14 million for FY 97, the single largest provider. The total programmatic funds received for FY 97 were $43.6 million. An additional $22 million was received from field sites and another $60 million in work for others funds. Departmental funds have held steady in recent years while work for others funds have increased.

The reviewers found that ORISE is in fact not a laboratory. Its activities have changed from focussing on biological and health physics research and training to assisting the Department in carrying out its broader responsibilities in technical education and training, research solicitation, and meeting coordination. There is no longer any laboratory research being conducted at ORISE.

The Institute=s role in providing research and training in workforce health, safety and security, emergency preparedness in the event of radiation accident, and science education and research related support to Department's programs, is widely recognized within the Department as being a valuable function. The Office of Energy Research, the primary source of direct funding for ORISE, endorsed the activities of ORISE and anticipated continued use of its services.

However, given the change in the functions performed at ORISE, the reviewers recommend to the Secretary that ORISE no longer be classified as a Department of Energy laboratory. This is not intended to have any impact on ORISE's operation but is intended to more accurately and appropriately characterize the Institute's actual functions.

In addition, the reviewers recommend that the Secretary encourage ORISE to explore the potential for enhancement of its operations through alternative contractual arrangements with the Department. This could enable ORISE to be free to offer its services to a broader spectrum of potential sponsors and reduce the potential for the appearance of unfair competition with private entities.

[go to: Appendix - Terms of Reference]