|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 124
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS REVIEWS OF DOE'S
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO
..................................................................................................................
The Department of Energy's (DOE's) Strategic Laboratory Council
(SLC) recently conducted an analysis to determine the adequacy of the
current portfolio of DOE research and development (R&D) activities to
meet the objectives of the Environmental Quality (EQ) business line
(DOE, 2000g). After the SLC's analysis was published, the Technology
Development and Transfer Committee of DOE's Environmental Man-
agement Advisory Board (EMAB) commented on the results of the
analysis, evaluated the process used to develop the analysis, and of-
fered recommendations in a letter report (DOE, 2000h).
The major findings and recommendations from the adequacy analy-
ses are summarized below, followed by a table summarizing the identi-
fied major EQ R&D gaps and opportunities (Table C.1~. The full text of
the EMAB letter report is included at the end of this appendix.
Adequacy Analysis of the Environmental Quality Research and De-
velopment Portfolio (DOE, 2000g)
The SLC panel arrived at the following conclusions:
The EQ R&D Portfolio adequately addressed three of the ten technology
categories:
als.
· manage mixed low-level and TRU wastes;
manage spent nuclear fuel; and
dispose high-level waste, spent nuclear fuel, and nuclear materi-
Three of the ten technology categories were addressed in a moderately
adequate manner:
124
OCR for page 125
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 125
manage high-level waste;
manage nuclear material; and
dispose TRU, low-level, mixed low-level, and hazardous waste.
Four of the ten technology categories were inadequately addressed:
environmental remediation;
deactivate and decommission;
minimize waste generation; and
long-term stewardship.
The panel considered the magnitude of the gaps for each technology
category and how important filling those gaps is to meeting the EQ strat-
egy and objectives. The panel combined these estimates of the signifi-
cance of these gaps with the adequacy assessment to identify four prior-
ity areas for improving the portfolio:
environmental restoration;
manage high-level waste;
deactivate and decommission; and
long-term stewardship.
The SLC panel developed a number of findings and recommenda-
tions on how DOE might improve its EQ R&D portfolio:
Finding 1: The EQ Portfolio has significant gaps and, as a whole, is un-
derinvested.
Recommendation 1: Additional R&D funding is warranted for priority
investments. The highest priority areas are: environmental restoration;
manage high-level waste; deactivation and decommissioning; and long-
term stewardship.
Finding 2: The R&D portfolio does not include a longer-term vision and
"strategic" elements such as alternative technologies and next-
generation solutions.
Recommendation 2: Part of the R&D portfolio needs to focus on the
long-term mission to provide fundamental information that will allow for
better understanding and definition of the larger, more difficult problems
that will not be solved in the next 5 to 10 years. A portion of the R&D
profile should be devoted to strategic R&D, such as "backup" technolo-
OCR for page 126
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 126
gies in high risk/high budget areas to reduce the programmatic risk to the
department.
Finding 3: The funding distribution across the maturity spectrum is un-
balanced.
Recommendation 3: The portfolio needs to be more balanced across
the technical maturity spectrum without sacrificing recent successes in
technology deployment. The maximum benefit from R&D will be obtained
through a balanced portfolio that will foster the development of next gen-
eration solutions from basic R&D through applied research and devel-
opment and ultimately to deployment. Basic research should continue to
be targeted at a broad spectrum of disciplines that are relevant to the
issues facing the EQ business line. Important areas of investment in ap-
plied research include separations, robotics, characterization and sen-
sors, and institutional controls related to stewardship.
Finding 4: Significant life-cycle costs and corresponding R&D hinge on
highly uncertain end states.
Recommendation 4: DOE must continue to emphasize the development
of waste acceptance criteria and definition of end states for both sites
and facilities. This includes the need to gather data and develop funda-
mental knowledge that supports these efforts.
Finding 5: Additional effort is required to identify priorities based on risk.
Recommendation 5a: DOE must develop a better understanding of the
risk associated with hazardous materials and develop tools that credibly
represent those risks in an open and transparent manner in order to in-
crease the ability to balance human health and environmental risk with
other considerations in DOE decision making.
Recommendation fib: DOE must develop a better understanding of
programmatic risks and their potential impact on meeting DOE objectives
to improve the long-term management of EQ problems. This supports
recommendation 2 on the need for alternative approaches in high
risk/high cost areas.
Finding 6: Technology Categories are highly interdependent.
Recommendation 6: Both "Long-Term Stewardship" and "Minimize
Waste Generation" categories require additional emphasis and the asso-
ciated R&D should be applied across the other EQ objectives.
OCR for page 127
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 127
Finding 7: Interfaces among business lines are not adequate to estab-
lish fully complementary and synergistic programs.
Recommendation 7a: Interfaces with other DOE business lines and
their portfolios should continue to be recognized, developed, and fos-
tered. Synergism and exchange of information should be sought out and
acknowledged where appropriate.
Recommendation 7b: Continue to improve the portfolio process so that
it will provide a long-term view of the DOE business lines.
OCR for page 128
128
._
C°:
~o
Q
._
a)
-
~n
S
Q
a
. _
~n
._
._
o
Q
o
cn
Q
CD .m
C]
CL
C:
LL
m ~
0
o
n
n
CD
-
.g
s
.
''O Q=, ,
._ o ~ ~
E 0 ~ ,,,
~ o ~ o
O) Q 0) O
O ~~~ C7
== ~ ~'0 0o
o ~ ~ 0 o
E o o o, E
° 0' E ° °
C=0 a~ ~n O
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ °
~ E C ~ E C ' E
o ~ ~ ~ ,' ~ ~ s
E 8 E o E o ° E °
~ E c ~ ~ E ~ E
, _ ~
~0
O'~ ~ ~ °m
- ~ o
m~ ~ ~
S > ~ Q
8 ~ ~ - ~
~ .= ~ .o =,
~7 =5 ~ o5 ~
c' 0 . cn
o_~ ° 3
E ° E:
~ .= _ O Co ,,O
~ '
a) . - o
.m
o a
> E
u
.
~ o.
0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~—
C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~
8 ~ ~ ~i i jli~ ~'
_ _
'
— a.
=.= ~ ~
·C,, ~ Q—Q
o._ S
~n =5
~ a
.' ~ ~ ",~
~ == ~ o
8 ~ N ~—`' ~ E
.> 0 ~ ~ ~ c'
E ~ · io c--
° ~ u, ~ ° ~
g ~ ° 0
.
.
N
a
O ~n s
~n ~ io
~ ~ .
·=
0=
Q~ ~
~ ~ ·-
8 a) o
._ o
q, =5
s
' ' a
s
~n ~
F; ._
~ a,
~n ~ a
co ~n ~
<~~ ~ O3
~ ~o Yo ~ ~0
~ ° E 8 ~ ~
c
co
n,
~ '
~ ._
.° u~
_ ._
~ 0 ~
0d
] ~
u:
a:
c'
o ~ ~
a
o c-~)
·i~
.c ~ c
(0 - o ~
_ C,' N
8.m ~
a) a
~C
_ ~ C}
N C .= ~
' as s a:
o
U)
>,
~ — ·— ~
OSO--
a).— ~ ~
.2 a) R
l FO
tl5 ~ ~ Cl:
~ O ~ ~
O >.
·= O
G) Q
C O
_ ._
c
{15
~ a
8 ~
a) ~
~ o
~ ~ .°
~ ._ ~
°
.°
._ ~ _
8~—~
OCR for page 129
129
o ~ ~
E ~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
a' B m _ ° ~ ~ i o 8 .
~ ~ Hi, ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B
c, ° ~ ° E °—~ ' ~ i ° ° ~ ~
' ~~ 2 Hi E | C ~ ~ ~ I ~ | ~ ~ ~ ;
.
a)
An
,x
0't
a) ~
05 ~ ,,
ox
>
. ~
I ~
a) _
~ a)
· · —
OCR for page 130
.—
Q
o
Q
~ 3
~ g
UJ s
C~
tr
130
a'
~n
a'
~n
s3
~o
u)
o
C~ ~
~o a'
~o -
s
~ Q
a)
_
a)
a,
I
2
I
=5
a)
~o o
s
0 a
o
' 8
a) ~
~ =L
g ~ ~,
O._
Q o
==
·,- (0 ~
~ ~o V
O ~ C'
~._~
.~
_
C~
V
Q
a)
a)
cl)
o
Y
Z
a,
Q
~n
a
' a'
I ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ·
8, ~ [ I ~ 5, ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ B
:1 ° E ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 o 3 E ~ ~ E
E s ~ ~ E B ' ~ g ° ~
~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
| g s ~ ~ i ~ i ~ E
· ~
0 IL ~ ~ ~
s ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~
.u, ~ ~ a' X ~ E
OCR for page 131
131
G) 0 ~ Q [1]
O
~ N o ~0 au O
·—,~~ ~ O O Q
O ~ Qua O o o)
~ 3 a) ~ <13 ~.~—
o ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ o ~
° E a' ~ 0, ' . <,, ,.
a' s ~ a) ~ 0 ~ a)
to ~ o ~ ~ ~ o
· ~
~ . P ~ 3 ~ , 2 ~ a= ~ e ~ |
D o ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 E ~ a: ° E = , 2 E Q s E
a,_ _ ~ ~ ~ 0, s s ~= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ s ~ z I =° ~ 8
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o
._
Cal
a'
Q
._
S
cn
OCR for page 132
132
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ADVISORY Bow
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSFER COMMITTEE
U.S. Department of Energy
October 10, 2000
Dr. David Bodde, Co-Chair
EM Advisory Board
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20585
Mr. Joe! Bennett, Co-Chair
EM Advisory Board
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20585
SUBJECT: Review of the "Adequacy Analysis of the Environ-
mental Quality Research & Development Portfolio " (September
2000)
Dear Dr. Bodde and Mr. Bennett:
This letter provides the results of a review of the subject document
that was recently conducted by the Technology Development and
Transfer (TD&T) Committee of the Environmental Management
Advisory Board (EMAB). Mr. Gerald Boyd, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Office of Science and Technology, requested the re-
view.
BACKGROUND
The Adequacy Analysis was prepared under the leadership of the
Strategic Laboratory Council (SLC) and was released as a final
report in September 2000. This SLC effort was co-chaired by Dr.
Paul Kearns of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory (INEEL) and Dr. James Helt of Argonne National
Laboratory (ANL). The stated purpose of the document was to
determine the adequacy of DOE's research & development portfo-
lio in providing the science and technology required to achieve the
strategic goals and objectives of DOE's Environmental Quality
(EQ) business line.
OCR for page 133
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 133
October 10, 2000
Page 2.
The document was developed with the participation of people
drawn mostly from national laboratories, large EM sites, and
DOE's Office of Environmental Management, Office of Science,
and Office of Civilian and Radioactive Waste Management. In
addition, one representative each from the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and the Department of Defense participated, as well
as several persons not affiliated with DOE.
CHARGE TO TTIE TD&T COMMITTEE
Mr. Boyd's charge to the TD&T Committee for the review in-
volved three aspects:
I. Does the Committee think the process used in devel-
oping the document was adequate?
2. What is the Committee's opinion about the results of
the analysis?
Finally, does the Committee have any recommenda-
tions with regard to the analysis?
TD&T REVIEW PROCESS
Members of the TD&T Committee met in Washington, D.C. on
October 3-4, 2000. The first day of the review involved a set of
interactive discussions with OST's senior management team, Drs.
Kearns and Helt of the SLC, and senior technical persons repre-
senting various contractors at Hanford, Savannah River, and Idaho,
who had either participated in the analysis or were knowledgeable
about the results. During the meeting, we also received a progress
report from Greg Symmes of the National Research Council
(NRC), who is directing a related effort on EM's R&D Portfolio
that is underway at NRC.
OCR for page 134
134
October 10, 2000
Page 3.
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
The Committee appreciated the participation of so many key indi-
viduals in this review and benefited greatly from the discussions
that took place. Based on the information and views exchanged,
Committee members were readily able to address all elements of
the charge. The Committee's findings and recommendations re-
lated to each element are provided below. An agenda and commit-
tee membership list are attached.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Charee 1: Adequacy of the process used to develop the analy-
.
sls.
The impact of future adequacy analyses will be more far-reaching
if conducted earlier in the budgetary cycle, and if more time is
provided to enable a comprehensive understanding of adequacies
and gaps to be developed. All participants in the review agreed
that the adequacy analysis had been conducted over a relatively
short timeframe. Nevertheless, the Committee found that the proc-
ess used to develop the results had many positive elements, yielded
a useful product that can be built upon in the future, and was gen-
erally adequate. We recognized that this was the first time an ade-
quacy analysis of the EQ R&D Portfolio had ever been undertaken
by DOE. This, in itself, represents a major step forward. The SLC
(and especially Drs. Kearns and Helt) should be commended for
taking the leadership on this effort and for arranging the excellent
facilitating support from the INEEL, which allowed the partici-
pants to work quickly and efficiently.
It was further clear to the Committee that the interactions that had
taken place among the various participants during development of
the analysis was a very valuable aspect in arriving at the final re-
sults. The involvement of a cross-section of EM-sawy individuals
OCR for page 135
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 135
October 10, 2000
Page 4.
from different organizations for an EM corporate purpose proved
highly beneficial and yielded additional perspectives that are usu-
ally not attained by a top-down or bottom-up analysis of this type.
The final document provides many useful insights and recommen-
dations that can guide a stronger R&D program for EM. Overall,
the Committee found that the process directed by the SLC pro-
duced a positive document that lends credibility and bolsters the
rationale for many parts of the OST program.
Although the Committee believes that the results of the analysis
are valuable, the Committee also thinks the process would benefit
in the future by including more reviewers not directly responsible
for the work being analyzed. The group of participants could be
considered to lack full objectivity for the adequacy analysis since
many of their organizations conduct the work that was analyzed.
While the commitment of the participants to an EM corporate per-
spective dunng the analysis was evident and should be congratu-
lated, the Committee noted that the vast majority of the partici-
pants are directly linked to DOE, so some could interpret the re-
sults as lacking certain independence.
The Committee recognizes that DOE has artificially confined the
scope of the EQ business line, and therefore, this limits what the
EQ R&D Portfolio can include. Obviously, this was a major con-
straint to conducting a comprehensive adequacy analysis of the
portfolio for the first time. We take this opportunity to reiterate
our previously expressed conclusion that DOE needs to broaden
the definition of the EQ business line and integrate it with relevant
parts of DOE's other business lines.
OCR for page 136
136
October 10, 2000
Page 5.
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
Charge 2: Opinion on results of the adequacy analysis.
The Committee generally agreed with the results of the overall
adequacy analysis, especially the fact that the R&D Portfolio has a
short-term focus and lacks a longer-term strategic vision. We
agree that the area of Environmental Remediation, which includes
the whole myriad of major subsurface issues that remain to be un-
derstood, and the area of Managing High Level Waste are the areas
that contain the most significant gaps that need to be addressed by
the R&D Portfolio. We also agree that the area of Deactiva-
tion/Decommissioning supports the major EM objective of Reme-
diating Sites and Facilities but has not yet received adequate atten-
tion from the portfolio.
The Committee found that the revised framework for the R&D
Portfolio developed by the participants dunng the adequacy analy-
sis was a significant improvement over the original framework and
should be adopted by DOE. The three elements (Cleanup the Leg-
acy, Disposition Wastes and Unneeded Materials, and Manage
Future Risk) and five objectives (linked to individual technical
categories) that were defined to support the revised framework do
a much better job of communicating what the portfolio is all about.
The elements also provide an excellent basis for formulating a
more compelling message about the contents of the portfolio, de-
veloping a better rationale for it, and broadening support.
OCR for page 137
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 137
October 10, 2000
Page 6.
The Committee also found that defining two new technical catego-
ries for the Portfolio (Minimize Waste Generation and Long Term
Stewardship) was a very positive outcome. Both of these catego-
ries highlight the evolving EQ responsibilities of DOE, especially
regarding EM sites. With respect to these two categories, how-
ever, the Committee was concerned that the element under which
they are found in the revised framework (i.e., Manage Future Risk)
could be interpreted more like "Manage Risk in the Future." it is
critical that this interpretation not be conveyed because, while both
waste minimization and long-term stewardship are more focused
on the future, R&D efforts on their behalf need to start now. The
message should be that future programmatic risk must be managed
starting now. Unfortunately, the Committee could not agree on a
crisp re-wording of this element so that the wrong message was not
conveyed. This may be worthy of further consideration as the
Portfolio is revisited.
Additionally, the Committee is aware of efforts underway within
EM (as well as within EMAB) to increase the visibility and impact
of efforts involving Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health
(KS OH) in the R&D Portfolio. Nevertheless, we noted that ESOH
issues were still not sufficiently evident in the results of the current
adequacy analysis. Given the current DOE emphasis on this topic,
we believe it would be well for EM to consider how relevant
ESOH issues are being addressed as part of the EQ R&D Portfolio.
The Committee also considered and discussed individually each of
the seven Findings presented in the Adequacy Analysis. The first
four Findings relate to the R&D Portfolio, while the remaining
three relate to operational practices. The Committee spent most of
its time considenug the Findings involving the R&D Portfolio.
Our comments on these four Findings are presented below. For
clarity, each Finding is re-stated from the final report before our
OCR for page 138
138
October 10, 2000
Page 7.
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
comments are presented. For the record, the Committee generally
concurred with the three Findings on operational practices without
significant comment.
"Finding 1: The EN Portfolio has signing cant gaps and, as a
whole, is underin vested. "
Committee comments -- While the Committee generally agreed
with this Finding, we also found ourselves agreeing that a compel-
ling case for greater investment in the Portfolio still has not been
made by EM. Given the scale of the challenge facing EM, we be-
lieve that such a case can be made, even considering the lack of
definition of such factors as the EM baseline, site end-states, risks,
long-term budgets, political support, and appropriate contract in-
centives. These are realities whose existence needs to be
acknowledged but which should not be used as an excuse for fail-
ing to support science and technology in EM with sound rationale
and planning.
The Committee has been encouraged by the progress we have seen
within EM during the past few years regarding science and tech-
nology and the new mechanisms that are being put into place.
These include the development of roadmaps, development of waste
disposition maps, increased use of projectization, and R&D Port-
folio planning and analysis. The Committee believes the support-
ing case for increased R&D investment needs to be made in terms
of real payoff to the country. In this context, participants in the EQ
R&D Portfolio need to clearly move away from a community enti-
tlement mentality as the basis for receiving increased investment.
This means moving from thinking like "We should receive 'X'
percent of the overall budget for R&D purposes. " to a value-added
approach that emphasizes something like "Our R&D efforts wiR
address and resolve these criticalpublic and environmental health,
cost, and schedule risks. "
OCR for page 139
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 139
October 10, 2000
Page 8.
"Finding 2: The R&D portfolio does not include a longer-term
vision and 'strategic' elements such as alternative technologies
and next-generation solutions. "
Committee comments -- The Committee agreed with this Finding
and believes it is not only a manifestation of the under-investment
problem but also of the cultural and financial situation in which
EM finds itself, governed by compliance agreements that were
formulated independently of current budgetary and technical reali-
ties.
Further, the Committee believes that science and technology
(S&T) continues to be under appreciated within EM as the source
of needed long-term solutions. While this situation has clearly im-
proved during the tenure of Undersecretary Moniz, we are con-
cerned that some of the positive recent impacts and advances we
have seen may not become more solidly institutionalized.
"Finding 3: The funding distribution across the technology ma-
turity spectrum is unbalanced. "
Committee comments -- The bimodal funding distribution, in
which DOE's investments in S&T are focused on basic research
and demonstration/deployment activities, leaves a gap in applied
research and development. The Committee believes that this is
another manifestation of under-investment. However, it also re-
flects EM's reaction to the pressure from Congress to show more
deployments (i.e., more payoff from past investments). Further, it
indicates that EM has still not developed an integrated S&T pro-
gram that links basic and applied research seamiessly with devel-
opment and deployment efforts that address and solve problems in
the field.
OCR for page 140
140
October 10, 2000
Page 9.
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
The Committee is convinced that the imbalance in funding distri-
bution cannot be successfully addressed unless "users" are more
effectively involved in the overall S&T process from the begin-
ning. Users in EM have consistently demonstrated that they are
willing to co-invest with OST in such programs as the Technology
Deployment Initiative (TDT) and Accelerated Site Technology De-
ployment (ASTD). However, these programs have still not be-
come firmly institutionalized. In addition, DOE has not fully sup-
ported adequate funding from Congress for the EM Science Pro-
gram and has seen funding for this program decline steadily. The
current increase in the FY01 budget for OST proposed by Con-
gress is heartening to the Committee. Hopefully, this will provide
EM with a further opportunity to move toward a more coherent,
integrated, seamless, effective S&T program.
"Finding 4: Signif cant life-cycle costs and corresponding R&D
hinge on highly uncertain end-stafes. "
Committee comments -- This Finding appears to be a fact-of-life
in the EM world that must be accepted and continually dealt with.
Rather than dealing with the often-elusive concept of defining
"end-states," which are often decades away, it may be more useful
to focus on defining a series of more limited "intermediate-points"
or "end-points," the sum total of which can eventually lead to an
end-state. We believe that end-points can potentially be better de-
fined, and they lend themselves to better overall management and
measurement of progress. More precise terminology may also
build more credibility with Congress and assist in making a case
for more funding for technology needs.
Charee 3: Recommendations about the adequacy analysis.
The Committee's recommendations regarding the adequacy analy-
sis are presented below.
OCR for page 141
Appendix C Summary of Previous Reviews of DOE's EQ R&D Portfolio 141
October 10, 2000
Page 10.
DOE should institutionalize the process of conducting
an adequacy analysis of the EQ R&D Portfolio. This
effort should become a deliberate and formal process,
and adequate time and resources should be allocated for
it.
2. EM (OST) should accept the results of the first ade-
quacy analysis and use them in a proactive way to im-
prove its R&D Portfolio.
3. EM should perform an adequacy analysis of its R&D
Portfolio at least every two years.
4. The community of participants used to develop an ade-
quacy analysis should be broadened to enhance the
credibility and perspective (objectivity) of the Portfolio
and the results. The participants should include a lim-
ited number of external independent experts.
5. EM still needs to focus on more effective ways to de-
fine and support the expected payoff from the OST
program. The waste disposition roadmaps developed
by the INEEL should be more widely used as the basis
for helping to define where OST should be making its
S&T investments.
This concludes our comments and recommendations. The Com-
mittee very much appreciated the opportunity to conduct this re-
view and offer our views for consideration by EM. We received
excellent cooperation from OST management, as well as from the
SEC and senior individuals from the DOE contractor community.
OCR for page 142
142
October 10, 2000
Page ~ I.
A Strategic Vision for DOE Environmental Quality R&D
We are encouraged by the attention being given to improving the
S&T program and look forward to working with EM on the whole
range of issues represented by the EQ R&D Portfolio.
Sincerely yours
Edgar Berkey, Ph.D.
Chairman
Technology Development & Transfer Committee
cc: James Melillo, DOE-EM, EMAB
TD&T Committee Members
Attachments
knot included in appendix]
Representative terms from entire chapter:
environmental quality
